Citation???? Proof???? Only fascism is totalitarian. Communism is nothing of the sort and arose as opposition to the centralization of the means of production with industrialization. The goal of the communists was not to concentrate power in the hands of the state, as in fascism, but to distribute it amongst the workers. In an idealized communist society the workers were everyone.
Soviet Union. Thought crimes, gulags, Holodomor...
How did you get your poli sci degree without knowing about the horrors of communistic gov'ts? Did they not require a quick overview of 20th century history? Do you think people escape Communist Cuba over the ocean in tiny boats because they're free to live how they want?
You bloviate on "ideal" communism and ignore the reality of communism was actually implemented. (the failures of which are completely predictable given human nature; Ideal communism isn't going to happen because of how us people function) If you're the example of how "smart" people are supposed to think, I'll stick to being an "idiot".
Communism will likely never be successfully implemented in our lifetime and possibly never. It seems it's destined to fail and devolve into a form of authoritarianism.
So I'm an idiot for talking about communism as a totalitarian system of gov't even as you acknowledge that is the destirny of Every. Single. Communist. State.
Today I learned from a poli sci major that making an accurate observation about reality makes one an idiot.
But not ALL socialists support such initiatives. So they are not part of the concept of socialism. Many socialists do - but that's because they believe the over-all gain to society from free education and healthcare , and the increase in everybodies profits out of having them are far higher than what it costs. This is not technically socialism however, since there are even anarco-capitalist systems that include similar arrangements.
But they are still socialists; you do not disqualify them as socialists for these policies. As you describe, their motivation behind these policies is an overall benefit to society, even at the cost to an individual's right to his own labor.
So a socialist may think the individual has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor; but he can also think society's claim to those fruits outweighs the individual's claim. That is socialism as I have defined it, but it is not compatible with your definition of socialism, since the core principle you described was trumped by a different principle.
Do you consider those socialists to be socialists according to your definition?
I also do not see how an anarcho capitalist society can enforce a thing such as mandatory "free" healthcare/education. Who is collecting the dues, and how are they not a form of gov't?
Terms of art again. Socialism IS a purely economic philosophy. It is often COMBINED with various political philosophies to form a particular platform but it can exist independently of them.
The economic philosophy you describe as socialism is not exclusive with capitalism. The laborer can work for a capitalist, gather his wages as capital, and start a business using his preferred "socialist" management style. As long as the society treats men equally under the law, there is nothing preventing said laborer from enjoying the fruits of his labor as he sees fit.
The philosophy of socialism that I have described is incompatible with capitalism (free markets), because it desires fairness in outcomes; in order to create this fairness, it must take the power of the state and use unfair laws to create "fair" outcomes. So by the definition I have been using, socialism MUST have an element of political coercion. (if it were entirely voluntary, it could accomplish the entirety of its goals under capitalistic free markets).
To put it simply - the American Libertarian Party's members have a choice. The democratic party supports their political ideals EXACTLY, that is the party that wants to maximize civil liberty and equality, that thinks it's no business of government who you fuck. But the democrats ECONOMIC platform is radically out of line with their ideas of economic freedom.
The Republican economic platform fits their ideas - but their socio-political platform is a direct contradiction to libertarian ideals. It's one of censorship and discrimination (this same GOP paper talks of how evil "homosexuality" is).
This is another area where we'll disagree. The government stepping in and declaring gay marriage is a right is anti-libertarian. Those who do not support gay marriage are forced by the state to recognize it. (Their liberty is infringed for the sake of gays to marry).
The libertarian position is to get gov't out of the marriage business so that both pro and anti gay marriage advocates can choose to use their own definition in their social circles. That yields maximum liberty, as far as that single issue is concerned.
A more practical compromise is to let each individual state choose how they will define marriage; again both pro and anti gay marriage advocates will have the choice to live as they see fit, though they may have to migrate to a different locale.
But the scenario where the gov't actively imposes the "correct" prejudices upon its citizens is anti-libertarian. Which is exactly how the American Democrat party likes to operate; some peoples are more "eq
Again, no. And you're missing the point - you claimed Fascism 'competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism' which is incorrect. Fascism arose as the honeymoon period with communism with coming to an end. The fascists primary beef with communism was that social ownership translated into a very poorly run state. The remedy, as they saw it, was for the state to take the control back. In that sense it was very much the opposite of communism.
Fascism is not simply the opposite of communism. It was an attempt to improve on the available forms of gov't. Liberal democracy was seen as inept and too partisan, incapable of getting things done. The free market were seen as too volatile and in need of gov't control. Fascism "fixed" this by centralizing power and decision making in a dictator who would ideally micromanage the economy away from depression type situations.
The distinction you try to draw between state control and social control doesn't mean much to me. Both communism and fascism ended up involving a centralized gov't wielding power over individuals. What does social control look like in a communist state? It's the people with political power making economic decisions. In the fascist state, it's the political elite making the same decisions for nationalized industry. Both are authoritarian gov'ts which try to manage the economy for the greater good of society.
There are important differences between the systems, but fascism and communism look similar because they share the same root ideal; elites are considered the most qualified to make all decisions for everyone.
No, and perhaps you're unclear on what socialism actually is - it's intended to be social control, not state control.
As I note earlier, I find the distinction between social and state control to mean little Both involve the people with political power making the important economic decisions. They're centralized command and control economies. (reactions to economic upheavel that occured under free markets)
That socialism cannot be implemented without being "co-opted" is because it does not account for human nature. Human nature is selfish and greedy. There will always be a tyrant or dictator who wants to take the reigns. If socialism hasn't managed to account for that reality in the past 100 years, it deserves to be tossed in the trashbin of history.
Good engineering designs a solution for the problem that exists, not the simplified problem that we wish to exist.
I was being a bit flippant, and the hour was late. But yes, critical thinking is in direct contrast to an indoctrinated person's "fixed beliefs".
You beg the question.
You believe the students come into school indoctrinated by their parents with unchallenged "fixed beliefs" that the school must un-indoctrinate. One can have fixed beliefs post critical thinking that have stood up to all intellectual challenges and proven their worth. (Consider that "It is a good thing for schools to teach critical thinking" is a fixed belief)
From the parent's point of view, you're just trying to indoctrinate their kids with a belief system/worldview that you like. Great if that coincides with their own; but infuriating if it's the direct opposite; while they're forced by law (the threat of state violence) to pay for it.
If the parents are paying for the education, and for feeding/housing the child, have they not earned the right to control how their kids are raised? The question of liberty and gov't limits is an important one.
The first part of your question is to have a proper framework of questions to ascertain the ability to think critically,
If your example of "why blue" is any indication, this part is a lot harder than you seem to think it is.
Do you happen to have proof that the controversial curriculum in question has a good track record for developing critical thinking in students? Or did you just accept the premise that the protesting parents are stupid and backwards uncritically?
The best way to define socialism is to look at what these things have in common and there is only one single attribute they all share: the belief that the profit of productive labour must be owned by the performers of that labour.
If that definition were actually true, socialists wouldn't be in such love with things like free education and healthcare. In order for any such services to be provided for free, they must be paid for by someone; and the system of free benefits guarantee that the people who benefit have not put in equal effort; yet benefits are to be equal regardless.
Unequal efforts yielding equal outcomes means that someone's profit from their labor is being forcibly taken to benefit another.
If your definition is true, then it is anti-socialist to have free healthcare or free education. Would you agree with that conclusion?
People tend to think of free education and healthcare as the markers of a proper socialist society. Do you disagree with them?
The definition of socialism I've been using is, "good of many outweigh the rights of the few". So free (or universal) healthcare/education that takes away from some individuals is justified in socialism on the basis that it benefits society in general despite the inequity of who pays for it. Socialist society is ordered around serving the good of everyone, for some arbitrary definition of "everyone".
As should be obvious, the people who decide who "everyone" is wield much power in a socialist society.
Utterly false. The economic philosophies of various brands of socialism are unrelated to and can exist independently of political or ideological positions such as racism. Removing the Jews was based on outright racism, of a very specific variety: create a common enemy and blame them for all the ills in your country. This gets you popular with your population, then turn them on that "enemy". The Nazis just ended up taking a very old strategy a bit further than most. The best modern-day equivalent would be how the republican party entertains the religious right's fear of gay-rights and promises to help fight the "great pink conspiracy".
You're treating socialism as a purely economic philosophy. I disagree; it influences the political system as well, as it suggests what gov't is supposed to be doing.
Yes, the Holocaust was racist, and socialism does not require racism or genocide. But the philosophy behind the genocide is that the Jews were detrimental to the welfare of Germany. Their right to exist was trumped by Germany's prosperity (which was supposedly hamstrung by the Jewish presence).
The good of the many trumping the rights of the few is socialist (as I have defined it). (Not that the actions actually served the good of Germany; but that was the intent of the actions)
If you'd like to continue the discussion using your definition of socialism, please elaborate on how your idea of socialism should be implemented in society and gov't, as it apparently contradicts socialism as implemented in various Western nations.
From the wiki page on Nazism, under "Anti-Communism", Hitler said in 1931:
"I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."
The society trumps the individual. They're certainly no communists, but they're socialists in that they think the "good" of the many shall take precedence over rights of the few.
That's a socialist view of the relationship between man and his gov't, in the 1930s, and I didn't dig very hard. So much for socialism being completely purged by then, eh?
But go ahead and take pride in your right-thinking. Double plus good on you, Comrade.
I'd say that economically, Fascism is as close to Communism as it is to Capitalism. The the middle between the two ideas.
Socially, yes, they both were totalitarian.
But Capitalism doesn't require a totalitarian gov't to continue operation. It's not as if Fascism is less totalitarian than Communism; both make all individuals serve the state.
A free market republic can be capitalist, while the individuals pursue their own happiness within the constraint of the law. A capitalist system does not require coercion to the same degree communism does; the coercion used by fascism is not simply the average between communistic/capitalistic systems.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Not Democratic. See how a name is irrelevant?
North Korea is an example of a country that deliberately mislabels its own political system. It is not proof that all countries have mislabeled political systems. It does not prove that Nazis misused the label socialist.
Socialism = "social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy". Nazis were fascist corporatists, not socialists. They controlled the means of production and heavily managed the economy.
1. Nazis were the governing party and claimed to represent society.
2. Nazis controlled the means of production and heavily managed the economy.
3. Socialist gov'ts are distinguished by social ownership/control of the economy.
4. Nazi's economic policies fulfill the definition of socialism that you yourself provided. Calling them socialists is indeed accurate.
National socialists as opposed to international socialists? Huh?
Why do you think Nazis marketed themselves to Germany as National Socialists?
They were appealing to the people by offering socialist policies that would supposedly serve the people instead of the "fatcats" (evil banker Jews; Jews disproportionately being bankers and capitalist types in Germany at the time).
The Nazis were distinguishing themselves from those *other* socialists who wanted to create a new caste-less society; Nazis weren't going to dissolve Germany, they were going to create a socialism that would serve Germany but not those icky foreign (ex: Russian) socialists. If you like your German heritage, you can keep your German heritage, as long as it matches with the Fuhrer's idea of German heritage.
When the Republicans of the 90s are "Socialist" (Obamacare/Romneycare), the word has become noise.
Romney was governor of a liberal state and is a moderate relative to the rest of the Republican party. It is quite possible for Republicans to support socialist policies. I don't care if we label him a socialist or not, but socialist is a good label to put on both Obamacare and Romneycare. (And every aspect of the modern welfare state)
You'll note that no one is touting MA as an example of US healthcare done right. That's because the socialist principles behind it have doomed it to failure. No matter how good the intentions, if the program borrows from the future to "sustain" itself, it is a failure. Socialist programs unfortunately treat the future as an unending stream of resources to finance every single "good" deed under the sun.
No, in theory communism is not totalitarian. In fact it's the opposite - the workers, rather than the state, have control. In Marx's view, the state would wither away after a transition period. Of course that's the utopian view, the ideology has been hijacked enough times to say with some certainty that the ideal of communism is near impossible to achieve.
In theory, communism doesn't have to be totalitarian, if you have a group of perfect human beings who are selfless and love to give their all for someone else's benefit.
Practically, communism is totalitarian because those perfectly angelic humans don't exist, and real human beings will freeload or slack off if they don't get to benefit from their own labor. Then the communist gov't realizes it has to use fear and violence to make the system work.
What's also important is that the Nazis railed against the notion of the workers, or people, having control. They bemoaned the bureaucracy and ineffectiveness, and posited that a strong, central fascist state was the answer. At that point they weren't even fighting against what communism was to become, they were actually opposed to the ideal.
"Practical" communism doesn't care for the workers/people having control, either. Every historical example established a dictatorship to "transition" to the ideal communist utopia.
Both end up becoming totalitarian gov'ts where the individual is oppressed for the "good" of "all".
Both are socialistic - individuals exists to serve the state, or shall be destroyed as enemies of the state.
Well, does your kid come home and ask why the sky's blue, or does he say "because God made it blue?"
Are you trying to contrast curiosity with dogma? (You framed it as, "Why blue?" vs. "God made it that way")
Neither of those perspectives are exclusive of or unique to critical thinking. Not a very good indicator.
Also note that I'm not asking how to measure if a person is a critical thinker; I'm asking how we measure a school's contribution to a student's development of critical thinking. It's a second derivative of an already hard to quantify quality. (Rate of change of the rate of change in capability to think critically)
So how well do schools teach critical thinking, anyways?
How do you measure how well a schoolkid has been taught critical thinking?
Do schools really teach critical thinking? I personally didn't develop mine in school activities. (I developed mine in the process of trying to "win" Internet arguments about video games while in college. Go figure.)
It competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism, while promising to save the national ethnic identities that communism wished to erase.
Fascism and communism are both totalitarian ideologies that still have much in common despite their differences.
Think of the difference between the Catholicism and Protestantism. Similar theologies, yet still different enough that they waged many a war with each other.
Socialism is the political ideology that wants to manage everything for the "good" of society.
Such as removing Jews and other undesirables from society, for its own "good". Businesses were to do what the Nazi state wanted, or face nationalization - which really means all businesses exist at the pleasure of gov't. Nationalized businesses sound like unfettered capitalism to you?
Look up the wiki page on Nazi-ism, and you'll note that they had "anti-Capitalist" tendencies - that's because they were a socialist ideology.
They also opposed Communism, but that's because they were National socialists, as opposed to international socialists.
We don't yet know if the Universe is understandable to us or our cybernetic decedents. We'll know when we completely understand the Universe.
That we have science at all and are having this debate is reasonable proof that we can understand parts of the universe. This is not a conclusion arrived at by the scientific method, but one by logic.
A correct philosophy is far more important to knowledge than a dogmatic belief that the scientific method will reveal all.
Science can still work if the laws of physics change. Science could identify and quantify the change. For example, the laws of physics work totally differently at the sub-atomic level, yet we are making progress in understanding them.
The laws of physics are not working totally differently at the sub-atomic level. At the sub-atomic level, we can observe physical laws at work whose effects are drowned out when interacting with larger objects. Those physical laws do not toggle themselves on or off; they are always in effect.
You don't seem to grasp what I mean of changing natural laws; in such a system, the exact same experiment can yield completely different results. If effect does not reliably follow cause, the scientific method becomes worthless. ex: The experiment that demonstrates conservation of momentum will no longer do so tomorrow.
The scientific method is incapable of proving that this is a world with unchanging physical laws such that the results of the scientific method can be considered valid. Understand the limitations of your tool, or your understanding will be wrong.
"the world is understandable"
If the world is wasn't understandable, we would run out of theories to test and that would be it for science. So far, so good.
So the world is understandable so that humans can understand it? How did you determine that fact through the scientific method?
"a consistent world"
Science would be able to identify an inconsistency. Quantum physics has a random element to it, but science has been able to handle that.
I'm not talking about probability. I'm talking about the existence of constants. Our scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that the laws of physics of don't change. Why should the laws of physics be unchanging?
By the way, who's Science? Funny how you treat scientific knowledge like some omniscient deity that all must defer to.
Language and math are both human inventions that can be used to describe the Universe or something imaginary. pi is a mathematical description of an element of the Universe. You could still do math if you redefined pi, but you wouldn't be describing the Universe any more.
Mathematical language is a human invention. There's no particular reason why 0 has to mean zero or 5 has to mean five. But the abstract concept of mathematics, which we describe with mathematical language, is most definitely not a human invention. If it were, you could define 1+1 = 3. What humans invent, humans can change.
I think there is strong evidence that the scientific method has been the most successful at determining how the universe works, compared to Aristotlism.
But to even take the first step of using the scientific method, one must first accept by belief that the world is understandable. One also assumes that this is a consistent world, so that we can investigate the world, find something to be true now, and find it to be true at some later point in time.
Logic and philosophy are the first steps we take when trying to gain knowledge. The scientific method is a tool that builds on those premises and is useful for observing constant characteristics of the world we live in.
To say that we know how anything works requires logic and belief, because the scientific method really only tells us how things *don't* work. We can make reasoned conclusions about how things work based on what does not work; but that is using logic.
I'll also disagree that math is just an invented tool. Constants like pi and e and i are not arbitrary. They are not human inventions, or we'd have the ability to redefine them as we wished.
Language can be said to be a human invention; but the concepts and ideas we discuss using language cannot. They are beyond human ability to change.
Studying history can tell out a lot about how humans work, but not very much about how the universe works.
When you cite the experimental results and conclusions of a long dead scientist, is that not in the past? That is history. No individual has the time or capability to re-do all past experiments to verify the results still hold true. We all stand on the accumulated work of previous generations.
All we think we know about the universe is the product of human work, much of it done in the past. If not yet in the past, it will be, and future generations will build upon it.
What we have learned from applying scientific method is the foundation of all knowledge.
Can you prove this claim with the scientific method?
Because that's a philosophical statement, in the realm of philosophy. That undermines the statement - the scientific method is supposed to be the foundation of all knowledge; but you rely on philosophy to even take the first step towards knowledge.
On top of that is what we can deduce by applying logic to what we have learned from applying the scientific method, but those thoeries remain provisional until tested by the scientific method.
Many of the things we think we know, like economics and religion, has little to no basis in the scientific method. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, but they aren't really knowledge.
There is truth in your claim, in that all things that are claimed to be true must be able to withstand scrutiny and be consistent with all the evidence. But you're using the wrong tool as the ultimate arbiter of knowledge.
One does not use the scientific method on mathematics/logic, yet there is much knowledge in those disciplines.
One cannot use the scientific method on one's own personal memory; yet can you not truthfully describe where you grew up, how you learned all you know, and who taught you the skills you possess?
Science isn't about proving things true or not true. It's about finding the theory that is best supported by the evidence.
True, though we'd also have to define whether we're talking about science as all human knowledge, or science as what we've learned through use of the scientific method.
If we're talking about science as knowledge, then the basis for thinking something is true is much broader than if we limit it to what's (not yet dis)proven by the scientific method.
I guess I shouldn't say there is no evidence, but the evidence is weak for a long list of reasons and no rational person would be justified in believing it.
That was the only point I wished to press. I'll disagree that the evidence is so weak that no rational person ought to believe it - I consider myself rational, I believe one of those accounts is true based on my personal study of history, and I hope our conversation shows that I am dedicated to the proper understanding of concepts and ideas.
Would you like to explain how the first 3 links to a description of vacuum forces show how matter can spontaneously come into existence? Have I missed the news that scientists can create matter (and energy) at will now?
The wiki explains it. Perhaps this article about virtual particles will help.
It helped me understand what you were talking about, but it's not really "something from nothing" as I was asking. Virtual particles are observed from our manipulation of "real" matter. In addition, these particles are described as virtual precisely because their existence is temporary.
The virtual particles existed because matter was manipulated in a certain way; that is a cause. If the virtual particles persisted, then it would be an example of "something from nothing". It would also violate our current understanding of entropy, since matter is energy and the creation of new matter is equivalent to introducing new energy.
It's evidence that supports the universe has a beginning. The common definition of the universe implies that its beginning has no cause.
I am confused why you felt a need to link that evidence, since our positions both agree that the universe has a beginning. Our disagreement is whether the universe's beginning had a cause or not.
The wiki page you link has no common definition. However, there is a "broadest definition" which states:
"The broadest definition of the universe can be found in De divisione naturae by the medieval philosopher and theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who defined it as simply everything: everything that is created and everything that is not created."
Accepting that the definition you stated used to be on that wiki page, the implication needs further explanation on why it is justified and how it qualifies as evidence for a universe that has a beginning but no cause.
The point is that we evaluate historical claims by historical evidence. You seem to think that only scientific evidence counts as evidence.
How do we know that the Romans actually existed, for example? We examine documents, we examine artifacts, and we can look at all of that evidence and conclude that they support the historical claim that the Romans existed, and played a certain part in human history.
When it comes to the historical claim of a divine creator, one is evaluating documents, not laboratory experiments. Those documents are the evidence. The claim that god exists and created humanity is not a recent invention, but has been prevalent since humanity was literate. They're the accounts of people who claim to have interacted with god. If god actually exists and interacted with his creation, then one would reasonably expect humanity to write about it.
Perhaps they're lying or mistaken, but those claims are the evidence. Until you've debunked every single one, your claim that "there is no evidence" is not true. You can say that it is disputed evidence, or that is untrustworthy evidence (if you believe everyone who lived more than 100 years ago was an idiot). The one thing you are not (yet) justified in saying is that there is no evidence.
TLDR: Stick to what you've actually proven. You have a grand (but incomplete) theory that the universe existed without a creator. It has not yet disproven the opposing claim the universe does have a creator. Perhaps it will in the future, but right now it has not.
Some historical claims are supported scientific evidence (or are at least consistent with how we now understand the Universe). This claim is not.
How the universe was created is a historical claim. Our current scientific knowledge can point in certain directions, but controlled experiments in a lab do not tell us what happpened a really long time ago. At best, they tell us what is likely; but they really only say what is possible given human constraints. A divine creator would not be subject to things like the laws of physics, by definition.
As such, one cannot use science to debunk the historical claims of a divine creator starting everything off and then leaving us to our own devices (to varying degrees, depending on who you ask).
Would you like to explain how the first 3 links to a description of vacuum forces show how matter can spontaneously come into existence? Have I missed the news that scientists can create matter (and energy) at will now?
As for the 2nd 3 links, none of those suggest that the universe pops itself into existence. The universe expanding is proof towards a "Big Bang" that starts off the universe. It's evidence that supports the claim the universe has a beginning, but does not tell you if the beginning was "self-started" or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation???? Proof???? Only fascism is totalitarian. Communism is nothing of the sort and arose as opposition to the centralization of the means of production with industrialization. The goal of the communists was not to concentrate power in the hands of the state, as in fascism, but to distribute it amongst the workers. In an idealized communist society the workers were everyone.
Soviet Union. Thought crimes, gulags, Holodomor ...
How did you get your poli sci degree without knowing about the horrors of communistic gov'ts? Did they not require a quick overview of 20th century history? Do you think people escape Communist Cuba over the ocean in tiny boats because they're free to live how they want?
You bloviate on "ideal" communism and ignore the reality of communism was actually implemented. (the failures of which are completely predictable given human nature; Ideal communism isn't going to happen because of how us people function) If you're the example of how "smart" people are supposed to think, I'll stick to being an "idiot".
Communism will likely never be successfully implemented in our lifetime and possibly never. It seems it's destined to fail and devolve into a form of authoritarianism.
So I'm an idiot for talking about communism as a totalitarian system of gov't even as you acknowledge that is the destirny of Every. Single. Communist. State.
Today I learned from a poli sci major that making an accurate observation about reality makes one an idiot.
But not ALL socialists support such initiatives. So they are not part of the concept of socialism. Many socialists do - but that's because they believe the over-all gain to society from free education and healthcare , and the increase in everybodies profits out of having them are far higher than what it costs. This is not technically socialism however, since there are even anarco-capitalist systems that include similar arrangements.
But they are still socialists; you do not disqualify them as socialists for these policies. As you describe, their motivation behind these policies is an overall benefit to society, even at the cost to an individual's right to his own labor.
So a socialist may think the individual has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor; but he can also think society's claim to those fruits outweighs the individual's claim. That is socialism as I have defined it, but it is not compatible with your definition of socialism, since the core principle you described was trumped by a different principle.
Do you consider those socialists to be socialists according to your definition?
I also do not see how an anarcho capitalist society can enforce a thing such as mandatory "free" healthcare/education. Who is collecting the dues, and how are they not a form of gov't?
Terms of art again. Socialism IS a purely economic philosophy. It is often COMBINED with various political philosophies to form a particular platform but it can exist independently of them.
The economic philosophy you describe as socialism is not exclusive with capitalism. The laborer can work for a capitalist, gather his wages as capital, and start a business using his preferred "socialist" management style. As long as the society treats men equally under the law, there is nothing preventing said laborer from enjoying the fruits of his labor as he sees fit.
The philosophy of socialism that I have described is incompatible with capitalism (free markets), because it desires fairness in outcomes; in order to create this fairness, it must take the power of the state and use unfair laws to create "fair" outcomes. So by the definition I have been using, socialism MUST have an element of political coercion. (if it were entirely voluntary, it could accomplish the entirety of its goals under capitalistic free markets).
To put it simply - the American Libertarian Party's members have a choice. The democratic party supports their political ideals EXACTLY, that is the party that wants to maximize civil liberty and equality, that thinks it's no business of government who you fuck. But the democrats ECONOMIC platform is radically out of line with their ideas of economic freedom. The Republican economic platform fits their ideas - but their socio-political platform is a direct contradiction to libertarian ideals. It's one of censorship and discrimination (this same GOP paper talks of how evil "homosexuality" is).
This is another area where we'll disagree. The government stepping in and declaring gay marriage is a right is anti-libertarian. Those who do not support gay marriage are forced by the state to recognize it. (Their liberty is infringed for the sake of gays to marry).
The libertarian position is to get gov't out of the marriage business so that both pro and anti gay marriage advocates can choose to use their own definition in their social circles. That yields maximum liberty, as far as that single issue is concerned.
A more practical compromise is to let each individual state choose how they will define marriage; again both pro and anti gay marriage advocates will have the choice to live as they see fit, though they may have to migrate to a different locale.
But the scenario where the gov't actively imposes the "correct" prejudices upon its citizens is anti-libertarian. Which is exactly how the American Democrat party likes to operate; some peoples are more "eq
Again, no. And you're missing the point - you claimed Fascism 'competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism' which is incorrect. Fascism arose as the honeymoon period with communism with coming to an end. The fascists primary beef with communism was that social ownership translated into a very poorly run state. The remedy, as they saw it, was for the state to take the control back. In that sense it was very much the opposite of communism.
Fascism is not simply the opposite of communism. It was an attempt to improve on the available forms of gov't. Liberal democracy was seen as inept and too partisan, incapable of getting things done. The free market were seen as too volatile and in need of gov't control. Fascism "fixed" this by centralizing power and decision making in a dictator who would ideally micromanage the economy away from depression type situations.
The distinction you try to draw between state control and social control doesn't mean much to me. Both communism and fascism ended up involving a centralized gov't wielding power over individuals. What does social control look like in a communist state? It's the people with political power making economic decisions. In the fascist state, it's the political elite making the same decisions for nationalized industry. Both are authoritarian gov'ts which try to manage the economy for the greater good of society.
There are important differences between the systems, but fascism and communism look similar because they share the same root ideal; elites are considered the most qualified to make all decisions for everyone.
No, and perhaps you're unclear on what socialism actually is - it's intended to be social control, not state control.
As I note earlier, I find the distinction between social and state control to mean little Both involve the people with political power making the important economic decisions. They're centralized command and control economies. (reactions to economic upheavel that occured under free markets)
That socialism cannot be implemented without being "co-opted" is because it does not account for human nature. Human nature is selfish and greedy. There will always be a tyrant or dictator who wants to take the reigns. If socialism hasn't managed to account for that reality in the past 100 years, it deserves to be tossed in the trashbin of history.
Good engineering designs a solution for the problem that exists, not the simplified problem that we wish to exist.
I was being a bit flippant, and the hour was late. But yes, critical thinking is in direct contrast to an indoctrinated person's "fixed beliefs".
You beg the question.
You believe the students come into school indoctrinated by their parents with unchallenged "fixed beliefs" that the school must un-indoctrinate. One can have fixed beliefs post critical thinking that have stood up to all intellectual challenges and proven their worth. (Consider that "It is a good thing for schools to teach critical thinking" is a fixed belief)
From the parent's point of view, you're just trying to indoctrinate their kids with a belief system/worldview that you like. Great if that coincides with their own; but infuriating if it's the direct opposite; while they're forced by law (the threat of state violence) to pay for it.
If the parents are paying for the education, and for feeding/housing the child, have they not earned the right to control how their kids are raised? The question of liberty and gov't limits is an important one.
The first part of your question is to have a proper framework of questions to ascertain the ability to think critically,
If your example of "why blue" is any indication, this part is a lot harder than you seem to think it is.
Do you happen to have proof that the controversial curriculum in question has a good track record for developing critical thinking in students? Or did you just accept the premise that the protesting parents are stupid and backwards uncritically?
I don't think nationalized industries are halfway between hands off and hands on.
If the gov't is your boss (pays your salary, can fire you), that seems pretty hands on to me.
The best way to define socialism is to look at what these things have in common and there is only one single attribute they all share: the belief that the profit of productive labour must be owned by the performers of that labour.
If that definition were actually true, socialists wouldn't be in such love with things like free education and healthcare. In order for any such services to be provided for free, they must be paid for by someone; and the system of free benefits guarantee that the people who benefit have not put in equal effort; yet benefits are to be equal regardless.
Unequal efforts yielding equal outcomes means that someone's profit from their labor is being forcibly taken to benefit another.
If your definition is true, then it is anti-socialist to have free healthcare or free education. Would you agree with that conclusion?
People tend to think of free education and healthcare as the markers of a proper socialist society. Do you disagree with them?
The definition of socialism I've been using is, "good of many outweigh the rights of the few". So free (or universal) healthcare/education that takes away from some individuals is justified in socialism on the basis that it benefits society in general despite the inequity of who pays for it. Socialist society is ordered around serving the good of everyone, for some arbitrary definition of "everyone".
As should be obvious, the people who decide who "everyone" is wield much power in a socialist society.
Utterly false. The economic philosophies of various brands of socialism are unrelated to and can exist independently of political or ideological positions such as racism. Removing the Jews was based on outright racism, of a very specific variety: create a common enemy and blame them for all the ills in your country. This gets you popular with your population, then turn them on that "enemy". The Nazis just ended up taking a very old strategy a bit further than most. The best modern-day equivalent would be how the republican party entertains the religious right's fear of gay-rights and promises to help fight the "great pink conspiracy".
You're treating socialism as a purely economic philosophy. I disagree; it influences the political system as well, as it suggests what gov't is supposed to be doing.
Yes, the Holocaust was racist, and socialism does not require racism or genocide. But the philosophy behind the genocide is that the Jews were detrimental to the welfare of Germany. Their right to exist was trumped by Germany's prosperity (which was supposedly hamstrung by the Jewish presence).
The good of the many trumping the rights of the few is socialist (as I have defined it). (Not that the actions actually served the good of Germany; but that was the intent of the actions)
If you'd like to continue the discussion using your definition of socialism, please elaborate on how your idea of socialism should be implemented in society and gov't, as it apparently contradicts socialism as implemented in various Western nations.
From the wiki page on Nazism, under "Anti-Communism", Hitler said in 1931:
"I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."
The society trumps the individual. They're certainly no communists, but they're socialists in that they think the "good" of the many shall take precedence over rights of the few.
That's a socialist view of the relationship between man and his gov't, in the 1930s, and I didn't dig very hard. So much for socialism being completely purged by then, eh?
But go ahead and take pride in your right-thinking. Double plus good on you, Comrade.
I'd say that economically, Fascism is as close to Communism as it is to Capitalism. The the middle between the two ideas. Socially, yes, they both were totalitarian.
But Capitalism doesn't require a totalitarian gov't to continue operation. It's not as if Fascism is less totalitarian than Communism; both make all individuals serve the state.
A free market republic can be capitalist, while the individuals pursue their own happiness within the constraint of the law. A capitalist system does not require coercion to the same degree communism does; the coercion used by fascism is not simply the average between communistic/capitalistic systems.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Not Democratic. See how a name is irrelevant?
North Korea is an example of a country that deliberately mislabels its own political system. It is not proof that all countries have mislabeled political systems. It does not prove that Nazis misused the label socialist.
Socialism = "social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy". Nazis were fascist corporatists, not socialists. They controlled the means of production and heavily managed the economy.
1. Nazis were the governing party and claimed to represent society.
2. Nazis controlled the means of production and heavily managed the economy.
3. Socialist gov'ts are distinguished by social ownership/control of the economy.
4. Nazi's economic policies fulfill the definition of socialism that you yourself provided. Calling them socialists is indeed accurate.
National socialists as opposed to international socialists? Huh?
Why do you think Nazis marketed themselves to Germany as National Socialists?
They were appealing to the people by offering socialist policies that would supposedly serve the people instead of the "fatcats" (evil banker Jews; Jews disproportionately being bankers and capitalist types in Germany at the time).
The Nazis were distinguishing themselves from those *other* socialists who wanted to create a new caste-less society; Nazis weren't going to dissolve Germany, they were going to create a socialism that would serve Germany but not those icky foreign (ex: Russian) socialists. If you like your German heritage, you can keep your German heritage, as long as it matches with the Fuhrer's idea of German heritage.
When the Republicans of the 90s are "Socialist" (Obamacare/Romneycare), the word has become noise.
Romney was governor of a liberal state and is a moderate relative to the rest of the Republican party. It is quite possible for Republicans to support socialist policies. I don't care if we label him a socialist or not, but socialist is a good label to put on both Obamacare and Romneycare. (And every aspect of the modern welfare state)
You'll note that no one is touting MA as an example of US healthcare done right. That's because the socialist principles behind it have doomed it to failure. No matter how good the intentions, if the program borrows from the future to "sustain" itself, it is a failure. Socialist programs unfortunately treat the future as an unending stream of resources to finance every single "good" deed under the sun.
No, in theory communism is not totalitarian. In fact it's the opposite - the workers, rather than the state, have control. In Marx's view, the state would wither away after a transition period. Of course that's the utopian view, the ideology has been hijacked enough times to say with some certainty that the ideal of communism is near impossible to achieve.
In theory, communism doesn't have to be totalitarian, if you have a group of perfect human beings who are selfless and love to give their all for someone else's benefit.
Practically, communism is totalitarian because those perfectly angelic humans don't exist, and real human beings will freeload or slack off if they don't get to benefit from their own labor. Then the communist gov't realizes it has to use fear and violence to make the system work.
What's also important is that the Nazis railed against the notion of the workers, or people, having control. They bemoaned the bureaucracy and ineffectiveness, and posited that a strong, central fascist state was the answer. At that point they weren't even fighting against what communism was to become, they were actually opposed to the ideal.
"Practical" communism doesn't care for the workers/people having control, either. Every historical example established a dictatorship to "transition" to the ideal communist utopia.
Both end up becoming totalitarian gov'ts where the individual is oppressed for the "good" of "all".
Both are socialistic - individuals exists to serve the state, or shall be destroyed as enemies of the state.
Well, does your kid come home and ask why the sky's blue, or does he say "because God made it blue?"
Are you trying to contrast curiosity with dogma? (You framed it as, "Why blue?" vs. "God made it that way")
Neither of those perspectives are exclusive of or unique to critical thinking. Not a very good indicator.
Also note that I'm not asking how to measure if a person is a critical thinker; I'm asking how we measure a school's contribution to a student's development of critical thinking. It's a second derivative of an already hard to quantify quality. (Rate of change of the rate of change in capability to think critically)
So how well do schools teach critical thinking, anyways?
How do you measure how well a schoolkid has been taught critical thinking?
Do schools really teach critical thinking? I personally didn't develop mine in school activities. (I developed mine in the process of trying to "win" Internet arguments about video games while in college. Go figure.)
Fascism arose as
competition
to communism.
It competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism, while promising to save the national ethnic identities that communism wished to erase.
Fascism and communism are both totalitarian ideologies that still have much in common despite their differences.
Think of the difference between the Catholicism and Protestantism. Similar theologies, yet still different enough that they waged many a war with each other.
Nazi - National Socialist.
Socialism is the political ideology that wants to manage everything for the "good" of society.
Such as removing Jews and other undesirables from society, for its own "good". Businesses were to do what the Nazi state wanted, or face nationalization - which really means all businesses exist at the pleasure of gov't. Nationalized businesses sound like unfettered capitalism to you?
Look up the wiki page on Nazi-ism, and you'll note that they had "anti-Capitalist" tendencies - that's because they were a socialist ideology.
They also opposed Communism, but that's because they were National socialists, as opposed to international socialists.
If you replace every instance of "LIBERAL" with "Socialist", a good half of your parody becomes sadly accurate.
Greatest monsters indeed.
We don't yet know if the Universe is understandable to us or our cybernetic decedents. We'll know when we completely understand the Universe.
That we have science at all and are having this debate is reasonable proof that we can understand parts of the universe. This is not a conclusion arrived at by the scientific method, but one by logic.
A correct philosophy is far more important to knowledge than a dogmatic belief that the scientific method will reveal all.
Science can still work if the laws of physics change. Science could identify and quantify the change. For example, the laws of physics work totally differently at the sub-atomic level, yet we are making progress in understanding them.
The laws of physics are not working totally differently at the sub-atomic level. At the sub-atomic level, we can observe physical laws at work whose effects are drowned out when interacting with larger objects. Those physical laws do not toggle themselves on or off; they are always in effect.
You don't seem to grasp what I mean of changing natural laws; in such a system, the exact same experiment can yield completely different results. If effect does not reliably follow cause, the scientific method becomes worthless. ex: The experiment that demonstrates conservation of momentum will no longer do so tomorrow.
The scientific method is incapable of proving that this is a world with unchanging physical laws such that the results of the scientific method can be considered valid. Understand the limitations of your tool, or your understanding will be wrong.
"the world is understandable" If the world is wasn't understandable, we would run out of theories to test and that would be it for science. So far, so good.
So the world is understandable so that humans can understand it? How did you determine that fact through the scientific method?
"a consistent world" Science would be able to identify an inconsistency. Quantum physics has a random element to it, but science has been able to handle that.
I'm not talking about probability. I'm talking about the existence of constants. Our scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that the laws of physics of don't change. Why should the laws of physics be unchanging?
By the way, who's Science? Funny how you treat scientific knowledge like some omniscient deity that all must defer to.
Language and math are both human inventions that can be used to describe the Universe or something imaginary. pi is a mathematical description of an element of the Universe. You could still do math if you redefined pi, but you wouldn't be describing the Universe any more.
Mathematical language is a human invention. There's no particular reason why 0 has to mean zero or 5 has to mean five. But the abstract concept of mathematics, which we describe with mathematical language, is most definitely not a human invention. If it were, you could define 1+1 = 3. What humans invent, humans can change.
I think there is strong evidence that the scientific method has been the most successful at determining how the universe works, compared to Aristotlism.
But to even take the first step of using the scientific method, one must first accept by belief that the world is understandable. One also assumes that this is a consistent world, so that we can investigate the world, find something to be true now, and find it to be true at some later point in time.
Logic and philosophy are the first steps we take when trying to gain knowledge. The scientific method is a tool that builds on those premises and is useful for observing constant characteristics of the world we live in.
To say that we know how anything works requires logic and belief, because the scientific method really only tells us how things *don't* work. We can make reasoned conclusions about how things work based on what does not work; but that is using logic.
I'll also disagree that math is just an invented tool. Constants like pi and e and i are not arbitrary. They are not human inventions, or we'd have the ability to redefine them as we wished.
Language can be said to be a human invention; but the concepts and ideas we discuss using language cannot. They are beyond human ability to change.
Studying history can tell out a lot about how humans work, but not very much about how the universe works.
When you cite the experimental results and conclusions of a long dead scientist, is that not in the past? That is history. No individual has the time or capability to re-do all past experiments to verify the results still hold true. We all stand on the accumulated work of previous generations.
All we think we know about the universe is the product of human work, much of it done in the past. If not yet in the past, it will be, and future generations will build upon it.
What we have learned from applying scientific method is the foundation of all knowledge.
Can you prove this claim with the scientific method?
Because that's a philosophical statement, in the realm of philosophy. That undermines the statement - the scientific method is supposed to be the foundation of all knowledge; but you rely on philosophy to even take the first step towards knowledge.
On top of that is what we can deduce by applying logic to what we have learned from applying the scientific method, but those thoeries remain provisional until tested by the scientific method. Many of the things we think we know, like economics and religion, has little to no basis in the scientific method. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, but they aren't really knowledge.
There is truth in your claim, in that all things that are claimed to be true must be able to withstand scrutiny and be consistent with all the evidence. But you're using the wrong tool as the ultimate arbiter of knowledge.
One does not use the scientific method on mathematics/logic, yet there is much knowledge in those disciplines.
One cannot use the scientific method on one's own personal memory; yet can you not truthfully describe where you grew up, how you learned all you know, and who taught you the skills you possess?
Science isn't about proving things true or not true. It's about finding the theory that is best supported by the evidence.
True, though we'd also have to define whether we're talking about science as all human knowledge, or science as what we've learned through use of the scientific method.
If we're talking about science as knowledge, then the basis for thinking something is true is much broader than if we limit it to what's (not yet dis)proven by the scientific method.
I guess I shouldn't say there is no evidence, but the evidence is weak for a long list of reasons and no rational person would be justified in believing it.
That was the only point I wished to press. I'll disagree that the evidence is so weak that no rational person ought to believe it - I consider myself rational, I believe one of those accounts is true based on my personal study of history, and I hope our conversation shows that I am dedicated to the proper understanding of concepts and ideas.
Thanks for the discussion.
Would you like to explain how the first 3 links to a description of vacuum forces show how matter can spontaneously come into existence? Have I missed the news that scientists can create matter (and energy) at will now?
The wiki explains it. Perhaps this article about virtual particles will help.
It helped me understand what you were talking about, but it's not really "something from nothing" as I was asking. Virtual particles are observed from our manipulation of "real" matter. In addition, these particles are described as virtual precisely because their existence is temporary.
The virtual particles existed because matter was manipulated in a certain way; that is a cause. If the virtual particles persisted, then it would be an example of "something from nothing". It would also violate our current understanding of entropy, since matter is energy and the creation of new matter is equivalent to introducing new energy.
It's evidence that supports the universe has a beginning. The common definition of the universe implies that its beginning has no cause.
I am confused why you felt a need to link that evidence, since our positions both agree that the universe has a beginning. Our disagreement is whether the universe's beginning had a cause or not.
The wiki page you link has no common definition. However, there is a "broadest definition" which states:
"The broadest definition of the universe can be found in De divisione naturae by the medieval philosopher and theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who defined it as simply everything: everything that is created and everything that is not created."
Accepting that the definition you stated used to be on that wiki page, the implication needs further explanation on why it is justified and how it qualifies as evidence for a universe that has a beginning but no cause.
The point is that we evaluate historical claims by historical evidence. You seem to think that only scientific evidence counts as evidence.
How do we know that the Romans actually existed, for example? We examine documents, we examine artifacts, and we can look at all of that evidence and conclude that they support the historical claim that the Romans existed, and played a certain part in human history.
When it comes to the historical claim of a divine creator, one is evaluating documents, not laboratory experiments. Those documents are the evidence. The claim that god exists and created humanity is not a recent invention, but has been prevalent since humanity was literate. They're the accounts of people who claim to have interacted with god. If god actually exists and interacted with his creation, then one would reasonably expect humanity to write about it.
Perhaps they're lying or mistaken, but those claims are the evidence. Until you've debunked every single one, your claim that "there is no evidence" is not true. You can say that it is disputed evidence, or that is untrustworthy evidence (if you believe everyone who lived more than 100 years ago was an idiot). The one thing you are not (yet) justified in saying is that there is no evidence.
TLDR: Stick to what you've actually proven. You have a grand (but incomplete) theory that the universe existed without a creator. It has not yet disproven the opposing claim the universe does have a creator. Perhaps it will in the future, but right now it has not.
Some historical claims are supported scientific evidence (or are at least consistent with how we now understand the Universe). This claim is not.
How the universe was created is a historical claim. Our current scientific knowledge can point in certain directions, but controlled experiments in a lab do not tell us what happpened a really long time ago. At best, they tell us what is likely; but they really only say what is possible given human constraints. A divine creator would not be subject to things like the laws of physics, by definition.
As such, one cannot use science to debunk the historical claims of a divine creator starting everything off and then leaving us to our own devices (to varying degrees, depending on who you ask).
Yes it has; Yes we do
Would you like to explain how the first 3 links to a description of vacuum forces show how matter can spontaneously come into existence? Have I missed the news that scientists can create matter (and energy) at will now?
As for the 2nd 3 links, none of those suggest that the universe pops itself into existence. The universe expanding is proof towards a "Big Bang" that starts off the universe. It's evidence that supports the claim the universe has a beginning, but does not tell you if the beginning was "self-started" or otherwise.