Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Geeks Stereotypes and Their Origins
Deepak Saxena asks: "It seems that there is an inherent assumption that a lot of people make about geeks: They are liberal, they are open minded about meeting new people and trying new things, and they do not believe in God. Look around the web, and you will see that many geeks do fit this description, yet there are definetely those that don't. I know many computer geeks who are very religious, abhor violent displays of any form (games, movies, etc), and don't fit into this mold that seems to have been created for us. I also know geeks who are absolute rednecks. So the question that I have is where did this image of the leftis geek come from and why has it become the stereotype for geeks? Is this a result of so many geeks living in California, which is considered very liberal by mainstream culture? Or is it because in many people's eyes education == liberal? I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this." My answer: the mainstream media. I don't think
I've seen any other geek image portrayed to the bulk of the American public by Hollywood, so I bet this would go a long way into creating, and enforcing, this stereotype. What do you all think?
Don't you just love the world today?
The entire idea that we can place every person with a common interest, common belief, or common background into nice little square boxes with extreme generalizations is one of the many quirks of human behavior.
A lot of it has become taboo in our culture as well. Someone who is part of the majority can never ever generalize something who is part of the minority because you would be called racist, sexist, or one of a hundred other 'ists' out there.
The truth is, generalizations almost never work. Not every geek is antisocial, not every nerd wears glasses, not every hacker is malicious, not every male is aggressive, and not every female is passive.
However, before you start making generalizations about so-called geeks. Maybe you should ask the people you include in your geek-class if they think they are a geek.
So, said that, the only generalization I can make about geeks is that they are non-conformists. They do something that is not in step with popular society which makes them geeks.
Given that today it is now popular to use computers and use the internet... guess what? Chances are, if you were a geek because you played with machines, you probably aren't now.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
I believe that's the basis of authoritarian socialism. Fascism is somewhat similar, depending on what level of government control "fix[ing] it" entails.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Reagan's policies are why we have a $4.6 trillion deficit. The deficit grew by over 150% during his tenure in office. I don't see how that's benefitted me, except for leaving me a big bill to repay.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Capitalism is beside the point. If that's what you want to call organic economics, so be it. Libertarianism is quite obviously opposed to any form of coercion by government fiat. Any type of socialism is 100% in opposition to libertarian philosophy.
Ayn Rand, for your information, was never a libertarian, and was quite opposed to libertarianism. Her objectivist followers are harsh critics of libertarian philosophy to this day.
Having read quite a bit about the years leading up to WWI, and the (tragic) march towards statism and the 20th century, I am quite aware of "anarchist socialism" in the late 1800s/early 1900s. It may have been associated with the term "libertarian" at some point, but that was not, nor espcially is it now, a mainstream usage.
No, sir; it is you that have some reading to do.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I can tell you that in twenty years of reading about libertarianism, discussing the philosophy with others (worldwide) via FidoNet, Usenet, etc., that the mainstream usage of "libertarian" is indeed that of someone opposed to using coercion to achieve political goals. Certainly, the meaning differs around the world; outside the U.S., libertarians are less purist. The main difference I've seen is that "Euro-libertarians" don't care much for firearms, as most Europeans seem to be hoplophobic.
Socialism, by definition, involves the use of coercion. If it didn't, it wouldn't be socialism; it'd be charity. So, I maintain that a definition of libertarianism that includes any type of socialism is an oxymoron. Capitalism, or more accurately, the free market, *may* involve coercion, in the form of force or fraud. That is why libertarians are not anarchists; we believe that government must exist for the sole purpose of policing force or fraud.
Once you decide that the free market is the problem, and that some sort of governmental body must step in to achieve goals that the free market is not achieving, and use coercion towards those ends, you cease being a libertarian, and begin being a statist.
Y'know, "liberalism" doesn't mean what it once did either.
But I'm an American, so I'm obviously a dim-witted hick who doesn't possess your superior intellect. So, fine, I give up. "Believe what you wish," indeed.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
There are purely philosphical works like Narveson's, and lots of hybrid material like Hospers' and Machan's (all highly recommended reading for those who would like to *really* know what libertarianism is about). None advocate any degree of socialist control, under the guise of "anarchism."
The meaning of libertarian is pretty clear, and has been since at least the 1960s.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Good observation. I'm a Christian, but I have to force myself to go to church. All these people around, and none of them want to talk about Linux, compilers, or automata theory. :-(
Another thing is education. The more a person knows, the more they tend to rely on their own understanding of the world, and dismiss things they don't understand and/or can't explain. This leads to pride, which just makes the situation worse. That's why there are so many flamewars on /.; everyone thinks they are right. Except for me; I know that I'm right! =)
Okay, chill, that was a joke...
TedC
I was raised Lutheran. By my teens I realized that something about regular church Christianity didn't feel right to me, as I extended that geekish desire to know everything into my intuition and sense of what "felt right." Plus, the community my age at my church all went to high school with me, and weren't really socially compatible with me. Not to mention the fact that I didn't get much out of praying to a God who was so unpingable. :-)
Nowadays, my geekish intolerance for mediocrity leads me to a disdain for attending Christian church services, where the priests tend, even when performing the Communion liturgy, to sound and feel like they're just reading the lines off the page, not performing the most fundamental and moving sacrement of a religion that's supposed to be a fundamental and inspiring part of their life. And if they can't get a guy who (after years of training!) looks like he means it during the important part, they can't get stuff that looks like money out of my wallet. Christians in the audience, I hope I just had bad luck and that your priests can make you feel the power of the sacrement before they even finish saying "On the night in which he was betrayed".
However, the sense of the Divine I have found makes me once again a "Jesus freak", in the literal sense though not the idiomatic sense. It's just not organized-church Jesus, nor is it "Yahweh brand" Jesus. Still the same emphasis on compassion and sacrifice, though. Still loving us enough to die for us, that death to be celebrated annually. Bread and wine (or "wine", as desired) at every ritual, even. And of course, a deep certainty that He is there for me when I need Him, that he is as real and vital to me as, say, lunch. If only I didn't start my equivalent of Good Friday in August...
First, most Open Source geeks are, IMHO, "spiritual" in the 12-step sense. 12-step programs advocate the belief in something greater than the individual, and allow each individual to choose what they care to define as that "higher power". but that's exactly the point of Open Source - the collective minds and talents of geeks and coders IS greater than that of the individual! If they weren't, there'd be no advantage to opening the source. What would you gain? It is an article of faith, with those geeks and coders, myself included, that Opening the source IS worth it, and that those thousands of minds ARE greater than my own, or that of any individual.
Spiritual does NOT require a god. As in the above case, you have a "higher power" (the Open Source community), but no "God" figure. One does not require the other.
I =DON'T= see geeks or coders being into toxic religion. The two are contrary in nature. There are plenty of =constructive= faiths and belief systems, and I can see geeks being into those, but toxic, shaming, abusive religions (of which there are plenty) are an anathema to the nature of programming.
Left-wing? Right-wing? I don't think it's relevent. Geeks have been around, long before politics was invented.
Pro-guns? Anti-guns? I've known geeks in both fields, each willing to defend their views to the hilt. Personally, I am utterly anti-guns, and I have what I believe to be sound, logical, rational arguments for that stance. I've nothing against others who are pro-guns, who no doubt have equally sound, logical, rational arguments.
Personally, whatever stance a geek takes, I think you'll find it's better thought-out than Joe or Jane Average's. It won't be "cos this piece of paper/book/newspaper/party clown told me to".
Are geeks obedient? IMHO, it depends on the geek. There are plenty of dysfunctional geeks. Being into technology doesn't make a person immune to the effects of their environment, and abusive or toxic environments will screw up a geek like anyone else.
Are geeks "healthier"? Nope. I don't think that healthiness is a function of geekiness. They're utterly unrelated.
Are geeks "libertarian"? Nope. They can't. Libertarianism may be based on geekiness, but geeks came first, the label second. And labels can never be anything more than pale reflections of the reality.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think that the other poster who pointed out that geeks are sensitive to and abhor hypocrisy, combined with the near moral irrelevance of many of the modern churches, is right on the money. Very few geeks have been personally offensive to me about my belief in Jesus; the few that have were only trying to be offensive to Christians in general and probably didn't yet know that I am a Christian...
I lay a good bit of the burden for the stereotype on geeks themselves. Geeks are no different from other people in needing attention, and folks tend to exagerate their differences from others in order to garner attention. I've met many geeks who are nearly completely unwilling to admit to being relatively normal, despite the fact that they are right in the middle of most bell curves describing their peer groups, the nation, and probably the world.
Also, are geeks really different from the rest of the world in that their stereotypes often do not fit? Aren't stereotypes prototypically, well, stereotypical? :-)
-- "Ever wonder why the SAME PEOPLE make up ALL the conspiracy theories?"
Does anyone even know what it means anymore?
/. readership.
In my experience, geeks tend to have these traits:
1. Highly rational, though not necessarily intelligent.
2. Technology-oriented.
3. Enjoy being social but generally have low self-esteem.
4. Tend to be highly competent in multiple areas, less so in the hyper-rational dysfunctional type.
5. Have a real distrust of anyone who tells them what to do.
6. Believe very firmly that they should be allowed to make their own decisions.
7. Usually aren't interested in telling other people what to do either, as long as they're not being bothered. Live and let live.
8. Are very, very self-reliant.
9. Love to teach/expound.
There's no way that these observations will hold true for everyone who thinks of him or herself as a geek, but I'll bet each one would apply to a broad cross-section of
Note that these traits don't exclude religion, conservatism, or (other?) stupidity, though I think in general they do tend to select against all three.
One thought that's coming to mind is that I have seen Bible geeks in my life. Maybe 'geekitude' has more to do with being obsessive about something? And perhaps these traits arise from the kind of thinking that is required to be obsessive about computers?
Just a thought.
When I read the topic, I thought it'd be about the classic anti-social, bad hygene, online constantly, t-shirt wearing, long-haired, Star Trek loving kind of stereotypes. But these I've never heard of.
/. back around. Where are you hearing this stereotype from? Wherever you heard it from, that's probably where it comes from.
For one, I thought the stereotype was that geeks were socially inept, not 'likely to make new friends'.
I've never heard of a stereotypical geek religious belief, aetheism or otherwise. I've also never heard of a stereotypical geek political alignment.
Okay, so geeks do tend to get religious about their software/hardware (or so the stereotype I am familiar with goes). So where did you hear that they are willing to try new things? I thought the opposite would be the story. Isn't that what the kde/gnome linux/bsd yadda yadda flamewars are about?
So I guess I'm turning this Ask
The enemies of Democracy are
I know this isn't much of an answer, but it's the only one that works - you just know you're a geek. There is no single definition of a geek that's going to cut it. It's like trying to explain Tao, or how Microsoft products seemingly fail randomly. The culture has grown to a sufficient size now that the word "geek" has become more general, and stereotyped.
There's also plenty of posers / wannabe's now, apparently due to the incredible amount of money you can earn by "knowing computers". This has contributed so something akin to a cultural identity crisis.
I can't offer a single answer... all I can say, is that you just know if you're a geek. Don't try to become a geek, it's utterly doomed to failure.
Those who are searching for a definition of geekyness are encouraged to look up the definition of Hacker in the Jargon file. It's the best, and most authoritative, definition to date. I would also recommend Appendix B, portrait of J Random Hacker. It's also the only text I have found that gets anywhere close to the Right Thing(tm) on this topic.
--
A certain group of people displaying eccentric traits gets labeled as "geeks". Then, other people that share some, but not even most, of those traits falls under the same umbrella name. At present, many do fit the stereotype, some fit it perfectly, and many not at all.
Stereotypes work in this way.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
My excuse was simple, I was using a signed 8 bit integer to hold my array of victims. I stopped when I hit a buffer overflow. I told the jury that they were members of Future Farmers of America - it was ruled a mercy killing.
BTW - "John Katz told me to do it." is my excuse when I get arested taking 12 year olds to XXX movies.
--Shoeboy
Young male, computer obsessed, problems with authority, ateist, anarchist, slacker, tendency to take expensive things apart and scatter them around my apartment, avid reader, fan of thai cuisine, pale, nocturnal, extremely odd musical tastes, likes to build things, once killed 128 (2^7) people at my middle school - that's me. Maybe I'm to blame for the stereotype. If so, I'm sorry.
--Shoeboy
ateist Oops, should have added bad speller while I was at it.
--Shoeboy
( I know, I know... but there are amazingly few women I know of who fit this description honestly).
What you _mean_ is that you've met very few women who actively seek out confrontations with authority and get all vocal about their attitude. There's a big difference between thinking for yourself and acting out.
--Shoeboy
The Jargon File, aka "The New Hacker's Dictionary" currently written/edited by Eric S. Raymond, paints just the picture you mention. Hardly the "liberal media" that you mention.
My journal has hot
Please elaborate on your philosophy. You describe yourself as a Christian/Geek, yet your philosophy is incompatible with both. As far as Christianity goes, it was my understanding that the core beliefs were centered around having faith. You cannot rationally know about the validity of the nature and sacrifices of Christ. Futhermore, you cannot even know that the Christian worldview of sin and redemption correlates with the true nature of the universe. On all points, your salvation is a matter of faith. If there was sufficient evidence to prove Christianity, then fulfilling the tenents of the religion would become trivial. Saying that you don't think, but rather know it to be true must be interpreted as an ironic misunderstanding, or a hyperbole about the strenghth of your faith. However, if you do have a strong faith in the saving work of Christ, I hope that you have taken some time to think about the evidence. Without thought and examination, your strong faith can be discounted as blind acceptance, or swayed by other persuasive arguments. You may not be able to prove anything at all, but you can have a well thought out position and know why you believe what you do.
You also described yourself as a geek. However your philosophy discounts the role of objectivity that is so important in technological pursuits. At its core, geekdom somewhat resembles the scientific method. You have to recognize what you don't know, figure out how to learn what you need to know, and have a grasp on the significance of what you have learned. By proclaiming that you know, you reject this methodology. Geeks tend to have the ability and drive to teach themselves about challenging and technical topics. Its a thirst for knowledge, and the ability to independently acquire that knowledge that is the true spirit of geekdom. Its not simply a matter of 'knowing' something, its about continually learning something new. Granted, this is a rather broad definition of geek, but I think it expands a bit beyond the stereotypes.
-BW
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" does not fit the open source community either.
"You know about block devices, therefore you are assigned to Hurd development. However, you don't need a GUI, so you don't get Gnome."
Turn it on it's head, and you get a closer representation. "From each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities". Think about it. I've got an "itch" so I create something and contribute it to the community. The greater my abilities are, the more I get out of the community. For example, the more I know about the command line, bash, vi, etc., the more I get out of Unix/Linux/BSD.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yes, I'm a Jesus Freak. I've thought about why geeks are typically irreligious. I think it has to do with the fact that geeks are rarely social creatures, and church is a very social atmosphere. Of course, this has very little to do with actual faith or belief, but rather with church attendance. Most geeks and hackers operate in a digital realm of absolutes and accuracy, and they easily see through the facade of the modern pharisees.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Not at all! Think of a graph with economic freedom along the left and personal freedom along the bottom. You end up with:
:-)
Conservative Libertarian
Centrist
Authortarian Liberal
Of course, this model is as inaccurate as the traditional left/right one
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I couldn't agree more. I couched it in US terms though, since that's my social context. But that's okay, I need a score card to tell the European parties apart, and I'll never understand Israeli politics :-)
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Infrastructure? No local state, city, county governments pay for the infrastructure. Such money comes from state and local taxes such as sales tax, income taxes, gasoline taxes, toll roads, and the various taxes that local govenments add to things. The federal income tax goes to federal programs, some of which goes back to the state to help the local infrastructure. But generally these programs exist simply because the people cannot afford to pay so much local tax after their federal taxes. If the federal tax went down and the local taxes went up we would be removing an entire level or beuracracy and save alot of money. The federal government obviously needs money though, but the money they use except for the military and state help ^^mentioned earler^^ is simply for social programs. Not all these social programs are bad, and many may be helping to fuel our economy. But, in my own opinion as long as the military is being funded, our local states could easily operate and run this country on their own.
Whoa, I am definatly not a grammersist (can't even spell it), but that statement made absolutly no sense to me. I believe what your trying to say is that we should decentralize the government, and at the same time tax eveyone so that this uncentralized government can evenly distribute funds. First I want to know how a decentralized government can have an effective social finance system. Either all the money goes into one large central government, which would give that government more power, oviously not decentralized. Or each individual section of the country tax its citizen heavily so and spread out the wealth section by section. Hmm so that means the poor sections of the country would remain poor, while the rich sections of the country pool thier money together to help them become more wealthy, while trying to remove the poor populus from their regions. That would be a great country to live in. I'm sorry but the only way to run a socialist country is with centralization, and the centralized government ends up with too much money, and too much power.
I think that's the exact opposite of many Slashdotters.
I can understand where you're coming from on this. However, I'm a Christian and I certainly consider myself geek as well, so here's my viewpoint...
/.'ers there when the world was formed. Any belief in the origin of the universe/life/man requires some degree of faith, no matter which way you slice it.
Even though the theory of evolution is laid out in nearly every scientific textbook you'll come across, it, like Creationism, takes some degree of faith to accept. I'm pretty sure none of us
As a geek and a Christian, I can tell you that yes, I also think too much. I've questioned my faith to the point I thought I was an atheist--for nearly 10 years. Geeks do, indeed, attempt to think through everything, rationalize it.
At any rate, I do now know why I believe what I do. IMO, there are some things that even geeks may never fully grasp. But hey, geeks are also the type that keep trying.
Perhaps geekdom could be characterized by a desire for mental control of concepts, and some degree of obsessiveness in acheiving that end.
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
Lots of people have suggested ideas for a standardized definition of "geek." Since there is no ISO standard on what constitutes geekdom and what does not, one must conclude that the definition is mostly subjective, and open to personal interpretation. Well, let me try.
So whaddya think?
If we are to define "geek" by taking all of the things that Slashdot readers have in common, then what we end up with is a very diverse group of people with a common interest: technology and how it affects us. Geeks are excited by new data storage technologies. The general public is not. Geeks are excited by new, high-speed physical layers for computer networking. The general public could care less. Geeks are excited by revolutionary new algorithms. The general public: "What the fuck is an algorithm?"
Look, I know lots of people that get excited by things that the general public could care less about. These people constitute a dizzying range of ideologies. I know fundamentalist religious geeks and atheist geeks. I know Democratic geeks and Republican geeks. I know heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual geeks. I know conservative geeks and liberal geeks. And "geek" is the common thread here. Please
So here's the bottom line:
We've got too much in common to be torn apart by the things we disagree on.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
When you gunned down those 128 students and were brought in front of the judge, what did you give as a reason for your actions? I only gunned down 64 students, since I had a bit less (ha! ha!) ammunition than you did. I told the judge that Jon Katz made me do it.
The result? Four hours of community service.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
(I'm slicing this up into bite sized chucks.)
As far as Christianity goes, it was my understanding that the core beliefs were centered around having faith.
This is an interesting issue. While that is certainly what Christians say, and usually believe, the fact that they point to the Bible as 'proof', or that Jesus 'proved' that he was in fact the Son of God (the resurrection, etc) implies that it may not be so simple. I'll address this fom another angle below.
You cannot rationally know about the validity of the nature and sacrifices of Christ. Futhermore, you cannot even know that the Christian worldview of sin and redemption correlates with the true nature of the universe.
This is a central problem of epistemology. You cannot rationally know that anything correlates with reality. Science, for example, has serious metaphysical problems that bring into doubt whether it reflects reality, or is simply a very successful interpretaion. Descartes pointed out what is likely to only truth we can positively know: that we exist.
Saying that you don't think, but rather know it to be true must be interpreted as an ironic misunderstanding, or a hyperbole about the strenghth of your faith.
Semantics. To 'know' something is 'true', is to have a strong belief that it is true. Having faith in something also leads to a strong belief. In either case, 'knowledge' is simply an extremely strong belief, and thus both routes lead to an equivelent 'truth' (though these 'truths' may not actually be true, of course).
Without thought and examination, your strong faith can be discounted as blind acceptance, or swayed by other persuasive arguments.
The latter contradicts the very idea of 'strong faith'. The former, though, I partially agree with. There are large parts of religion--for example, the actually works of Jesus--for which there is no evidence, and which are in doubt from any reasonable perspective. However, there is another element to religion which cannot be disproven and which requires no examination: religious experience, in its purest sense.
Unfortunately, people tend to rationalize these experiences and make them fit into their world-view or prior religious beliefs. Those additions and interpretations are open to attack. However, if I experience 'God', whatever that experience may be, it can not be called into doubt. Something has happened which can not be refuted. (Assuming that experiencing 'God' is possibly without interpretation. Even if it is not, there seems to be a common type of experience, protect under my argument, which people believe is 'God'.)
However your philosophy discounts the role of objectivity that is so important in technological pursuits.
Would you discount the scientific work of every theologian, or every believer? Newton is a common example; he wrote more extensively on matters of faith than physics, yet few people question the objectivity of his work
If you argue that one only must be objective within the scope of science and technology then the only concern is that he remain objective in that context, and his belief in God may be irrelevent. However, if you believe that objectivity must be absolute then you have to consider the the entire concept of objectivity and how it relates to the 'geek world-view'.
For example, most science is founded on the belief that the world is fundamentally material, or at any rate can be explained as such. However, beyond the success of physics, there is no objective reason to believe this. In fact, there are some very good reasons to doubt it. (From a philosophical standpoint, materialism was never terribly coherent. The modern mind-body problem, qualia, and the reappearance of metaphysics have resurrected discussion of its faults.)
For a long time, I didn't think the profile you described was the "typical" hacker. Then a couple years ago, I came across this part of the Jargon file:
:). You can also say the world of mathematics is much the same, a controlled place, where the controller has the feeling of total control over the universe in which they inhabit.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/j argon/html/Appendix-B.html
and I've noticed that quite a few of the people I know and work with, fit the profile (not to mention that I fit the profile pretty well too).
I bet there's a logical reason where the typical liberal/atheist/open minded stereotype got started. It probably has something to do with the ultra-intelligent folks at MIT and Caltech in the late 60's/early 70's.
My knee-jerk explanation is that it's just the nature of working with computers. Computers are controlled environments, I can start it up, shut it down, make it do anything I want. In a simplified way, I'm the "god" of my system and I can do anything I want, I have no limits, my imagination is the only thing holding me back (there's also some memory/CPU upgrades holding me back, but I won't get into it here
If I had to pick a common theme running among things like religion, conservativism, and closed-mindedness, I'd have to say the first word that comes to mind is "limits." Religion limits what you can do; it does so for good reasons, but they're limits nonetheless, and I should be able to decide what is right and what is wrong. Conservativism also makes me think of limits to what my freedoms are, especially after growing up in the Reagan/Bush years. Closed-mindedness seems to be the antithesis of someone who works almost exclusively with computers. Computers have taught me that it doesn't matter what your background, sex, race, upbringing, sexual orientation, or disability is, the only thing that matters is how well you can code or produce great things from your computer. I've been surprised on several occasions to learn upon meeting someone that someone I've been exchanging email with, they happen to be completely deaf, or grossly overweight, or 18 years of age when their writing suggests 35.
A quick straw poll of where I work (small computer group at a large american university) shows that 14 out of 16 fit the typical profile pretty well, there's just a couple of right-wing types in my computer group.
What types of computer people seem typical to you?
I can only assume you lived a very privaliged and innocent life when you lived in the USSR.
General Comments:
a) The US is not simply a capitalist country. It is at least 15% socialist. In my oppinion, most of America's problems come from that 15%. Logical analysis supports the opinion.
b) The USSR was not a communist state by any stretch of the imagination. Firstly, the capitalist black market accounted for 50% of the economy. Secondly, Russia never really had a bourgoise class to revolt against, a precondition for communism. Thirdly, the Soviet state was really just a totalitarian state. The "teachers" taught little more than that the state should be feared. (For those who are unfamiliar with the Russian language and Soviet history: Soviet means "teacher," and the Soviet governmet was only intended to exist untill the people were properly educated in what communism demanded of them.)
c) If you wish to have a real discussion on either of the following two separate topics I'd be glad to. Just don't mix them.
i. USA vs. USSR
ii. Capitalism vs. Communism, or more properly: right-Libertarianism vs. Communism.
Let me address one paragraph at a time. The following discussion mixes topics one and two above rather badly.
0) The only thing I have to say to this is that I disagree.
1) In a competitive marketplace, people need to know about the products that are available. This is the good and wholly necessary side of advertising. The advertising increases the profit from the product, a big plus for the corporation. And the consumer has more information to make a more optimal purchasing decision. This information increases the effeciency of spending of the consumer and is thus good for him too. You may see the manipulation involved in advertising as a negative, but in reality the marketers are here adding great value to the product. They are saying "This product will make you feel important." (or some variation on that) And it does. This is a product that every human wants, and will pay for (happiness.)
I really don't think you can say the Russian economy "worked fine." The single brand of TV set available in Moscow was so poorly made that they were the single greatest cause of accidental fires in that city. Many people died because Soviet electronics were so piss poor. A market economy won't allow that condition for long.
About the homeless situation, this is indeed a failure of the system in the US. I can only say that I don't think this would happen if this were truely a capitalist state. Most Americans do nothing for the homeless because they don't feel that it is their responsibility. Indeed, they are justified in this belief. The government has taken that responsibility upon itself. This is an effect of the socialism in the US.
If no one was homeless in Russia (not entirely true), the obvious question is "How good were the homes?"
2) And how many good inventions did the Soviets come up with? Even in the military, the vast majority of Soviet "inovations" were curiously similar to American inovations and, even more curiously, almost always came out just under a year after their American counterparts.
Technology can only hope to crawl along in a world that provides little to no incentive for it.
3) When using phrases like "'everyone for himself,'" it is important to understand the concept of enlightened self-interest. This could be a really long discussion, so let's just avoid it. The curious thing is that when everyone acts to maximize their personal utility, they not only achieve their goal, but they also also end up maximizing global utility. This is another very, very long discussion with lots of economic theory, so let's avoid this too.
I feel like such a cop out for avoiding those arguements. They are really central to the discussion, but are very long. In short, just look at the US and USSR. Which had the highest standard of living. (Yes, note the word "standard.")
You can not always get ahead by screwing others. Have you ever played Prisoner's Delima or heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? It certainly seems that the USSR was more in the grips of this. No one could loose their job for slacking, and each person thought to himself "If I'm the only one who slacks off, I win big time." Predictably, there were quite a few slackers, and consequently the economy could barely produce enough toilet paper to wipe the butts of the masses.
Damn, you wrote a lot in this paragraph.
"The common good was always the first consideration" is such a bold untruth that I don't even know where to begin. The rest of this paragraph is just as bad. No crime? Come on! The mafia-like black market (a criminal market) made up half the economy. It was the only way to actually get anything. And don't even get me started on the Goulags (just try to imagine a prison the size of a US state with living conditions horribly similar to a Nazi death camp.) No poverty? The whole damn country was poor! No unemployment? Yeah, well that's true.
Sure Russia is floundering under capitalism. How do you expect things to be under the world's most currupt government. As an example of this corruption: the US teams working in Chernobyl (spelling varies) actually have to get Western Union to deliver US currency to the work site so that the Americans can personally distribute it to the Russian workers. They tryed to give the money to the appropriate government agency, but they found that as the money was handed down the chain of command it mysteriously disappeared.
4) I already addressed this when I talked about advertising.
5) The stock market is interesting. Those slips of paper that people are buying actually do have significant worth. They represent partial ownership of the company. Most investors are not day traders. That is, they buy the stock in the belief that that fraction of the company they hold will increase in value over time. They are getting a return on their money (of value to the buyer) in return for the use of their money (of value to the company.) Overall, this makes it easier for companies to raise money and thus stimulates both prosperity (for everyone as the standard of living increases) and competition within the market.
Those who speculate (day traders) are just gambling with their money. It makes them happy, so I guess it's worth the money they will loose. People are free to risk their money. They are also free to loose it.
6) Oh, give it a rest. Take one solid look at the differences in the quality of life (as represented in the standard of living) between the USSR and the US of that time. Think about this as you sit in your quality easy chair, watching the television that isn't exploding or typing on the computer made from microelectronics of capitalist invention.
If you have to split the world into two, then libertarians would have to fall on the side of conservatism (less government). However, libertarians are very rarely accused of promoting limits.
Just to start an argument, I'd say it's the liberals who are all in favor of limits. Who advocates warning labels for rap music. Who proposed the clipper chip and v-chip? Which adminstration militarily intervened the most into foreign affairs? In a more general note, which side wants to limits guns, politically incorrect speech, ban tobacco, etc?
In fact, what was there that Reagan wanted to limit, that liberals don't also want to limit? Pornography? Talk to the N.O.W. about that. Drugs? Talk to Clinton about that. Speech? Talk to Tipper Gore about that.
To sum it up, the left/right and liberal/conservative polarities don't exist. Politics is much more complicated than a one dimensional spectrum, and as intelligent geeks, we ought to recognize that.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
...their strange, weird and quirky sense of humor.
For example:
Richard M. Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Donald E. Knuth engage in a discussion on who was the best programmer.
Stallman: "God told me I have programmed the best editor in the world!"
Torvalds: "Well, God told *me* that I have programmed the best kernel in the world!"
Knuth: "Wait, wait - I never said that."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned