Reddit reviews Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
We found 13 Reddit comments about Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Liberty Classics
Let's let the market determine the correct amount of block space to produce, and the cost for using it. Segwit's 75% fee discount is economic central planing on full display and the price is guaranteed to be wrong. If you are interested in understanding why central planning isn't just a bad idea, but is actually impossible to work, read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630
I actually like your definition, but I'm going to add just a bit:
In The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx talks about Alienation of Labor. Marx's Alienation of Labor is a lot like an existential crisis. What basically happens is that a guy is working, say in a factory, and one day this guy realizes that everything he is doing is not for himself, but rather for the wealth of others. He's disconnected from everything that he creates. This is a shitty definition of Marx's Theory of Alienation, and I'd highly suggest you read The Communist Manifesto and Ludwig von Mises' excellent book Socialism for a better understanding.
So, Marx's worker who is alienated from his labor has a similar experience to what Camus is talking about in Myth of Sisyphus, where he discusses Sisyphus (from Greek Mythology). Sisyphus is forever rolling a boulder to the top of a hill, only to have that boulder roll back down the hill every time he gets it to the top. Sisyphus has an Hour of Consciousness (capitalized because it is important) where he realizes the meaninglessness of his own existence. It's something similar to what happens to the worker in The Communist Manifesto.
Here's why Marx is not an existentialist, and this is an important aspect of existentialism: Marx's working man looks to fixing society to fix his problem, whereas an existentialist would look at what is wrong with themselves. Marx looks at the group, and an existentialist looks at the individual. This leaves a huge amount of responsibility on the individual, and as Sartre would say, it makes the individual absolutely responsible for everything in their own lives (Sartre also believed heavily in absolute free will).
Note #1: Existentialism is a very difficult subject to wrap up. What you've been given here is a very basic understanding. A lot of continental philosophers don't even fully agree on what existentialism is.
Note #2: Kierkegaard is considered the father of existentialism, and Sartre is considered the authority. However, The Book of Job in the Bible has definite existential themes. As well, Hamlet has an existential crisis, and really the entire play is an existential work.
Note #3: Sartre is very difficult to understand. I'd highly suggest getting this book and reading it before you read Being and Nothingness.
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630
If you want it for free: https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis
Economics:
Human Action
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-Ludwig-Von-Mises/dp/1614273545/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1543352715&sr=8-2&keywords=human+action
Socialism
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543352737&sr=8-1&keywords=Mises+Socialism
The Theory of Money and Credit
https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Money-Credit-Ludwig-Mises/dp/1620871610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543352752&sr=8-1&keywords=the+theory+of+money+and+credit+ludwig+von+mises
The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method
https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Foundation-Economic-Science-Liberty-ebook/dp/B008FXCZGQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543352794&sr=8-1&keywords=ludwig+von+mises+foundations+of+economic+science
And, for even more,
Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard.
https://www.amazon.com/Economy-State-Power-Market-Scholars/dp/1933550996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543352842&sr=8-1&keywords=Rothbard
Who here knows about this book and didn't inform the rest of us?
I discovered it a few days ago and, I gotta say, I feel like "inspectional reading" is one of the best ways to approach a book...say, like Marx's Capital, without being bored to tears or intimidated by its size. (In fact, the author repeatedly mentions Marx's works as a means of testing his ideas)
Currently, I'm trying the approach with Ludwig von Mises' "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis", and I'm finding it very, very useful. It's a book I've been wanting to read since I became a socialist as a means to understand some of the basic contentions against socialism, but reading page to page, each and every word is remarkably difficult.
Please, you cant just throw the names of movements out and say "this" pick 1 and tell me why it's different from what I said. It's like when Nazis tell me "FiNd ThE GaS ChAmbeRs DoOrs." Or "ThE rEcOrDs OnLy ShOw 100k DiEd" its toxic and it's not an arguement for Nazism.
As an example.
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis https://www.amazon.com/dp/0913966630/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_9d11CbKBMASRK
ThIs Is wHy I'm rIgHt.
Throw me a weeks of research, jackass...
Your right, welfare states are not socialism, which is the point I was attempting to make, I fell short and I apologize. Also, I'm am going to have to make a point to read Anarchy in Action to understand the totality of "social justice" as I currently agree with the narrative that minority groups are being marginalized, but not by active measures or willful action, more so by taking shitty actions on good data. There is exception in area where the white supremacist movement has managed to gain power in regions by questionable tactics purposefully take shitty actions that installs the institutional racism. I disagree entirely with "social justice" on a pure economic class interpretation as in a democratic society I elect the rich with my money except in cases of "plunder" or "fraud" which we are dealing with currently. Fuels both sides of the anarchy spectrum. Now I understand that we are not Techno-primitivist so certain markets I have no choice in if i want to economically important but that choice is always there.
Would love to have a homestead and a tiny house... the market allows me to have both.
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, by Mises
Human Actiom, by Mises
The Theory of Money and Credit, by Mises
The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, by Mises
The Road to Serfdom, by F.A Hayek
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, by F.A Hayek
Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, by Lysander Spooner
If anything, you should read this because it is on topic with transportation.
cap·i·tal·ism
Yeah sounds like what I want. People voluntarily and spontaneously trading labor or capital for goods and services, unhindered by a coercive authority. A free market whose prices are reflected by consumers and production costs, uninterrupted by government protectionist policies, and so forth. It's obviously more complex.
Here are some good books for ya. Read up.
>I find it very funny when Americans talk about socialism
Here's an Austrian fellow who wrote a book on socialism, if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-An-Economic-Sociological-Analysis/dp/0913966630
The PDF is online for free, as well.
>I'll just say that total deregulation, total free market, will lead to catastrophe
I don't really see any evidence that's the case.
Okay again.... community owned centralized control of the means of production is a widely accepted definition of socialism. If you want to add on equal representation then go for it, but equal representation =/= community owned. There are several forms of community ownership that have nothing to democracy or representation. You are arguing semantics and saying the only real socialism is democratic socialism. You are making socialism, facisism, plutocracy, etc. a binary definition when all of our social contracts and thoeries are a matter of scale. Some people in America hate socialism/communism and think their government is the farthest thing from socialism the world has ever seen. Yet they have socialized education, socialized roads, socialized retirement, all sorts of socialism. They are somewhat socialist, just like Canada or EU socialism are a little more socialist.
I have only claimed that china has a socialist form of government as well and your responses is China is fascist. There is a such thing as social fascism, even if you do not want to think so.
Do you think the majority of chinese citizens hate their government? If China had a democratic vote today, do you think they would throw Winnie the pooh out of office? What if the democratic socialist Canadan voted to implement the same regulations, governmental power, social credit score, etc. as the chinese have now? Would Canadian no longer be socialist? You're view is so limited. You telling me you know how to define words doesnt me shit. Your argument is literally those governments are not socialist because there is no equal representation of the citizens for decision making, which is a requirement you have added. Your idea of western democratic socialism is more neo-capitalist than all of the governments you who say are just claiming to be socialist but arent really......
Honestly help yourself to a fucking political science book.
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Utopian-Scientific-Frederick-Engels/dp/1406878200
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Democracy-Perennial-Thought/dp/0061561614
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630
https://www.amazon.com/Communist-Manifesto-Karl-Marx/dp/0717802418
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Citizens-Guide-Economy/dp/0465081452
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
Other option, If you don't like this horrible situation you can move to Venezuela, there people are equally poor in misery. I have a good idea I can move to United States and you come to live In Brazil :p.
Socialism doesn't work, read Socialism by ludwig von Mises and you are going to understand.
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630
> we have as much scientific basis as you do; that is, very little.
I'm including economics as a science. If you are going to claim that socialism has as much scientific basis as capitalism then you might as well claim that intelligent design has as much scientific basis as Darwinian Evolution.
> Science is a tool, it isn't used to determine ideals - that's what our reason is for.
Science can, and does, determine the consequence of ideals. An ideal or goal is just an immaterial abstract. Science (economics) demonstrates with facts and evidence whether or not an ideal is "worthy" or attainable. If an ideal is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad ideal. Public ownership of the means of production has been demonstrated scientifically (and empirically, and historically) to fail in achieving its ideal, if that ideal is maximum human prosperity for the maximum number of people, therefore it is a bad ideal. Private ownership of the means of production, on the other hand, has been proven scientifically (and empirically, and historically) to be FAR superior at generating wealth, and boosting living standards for ALL, and this has been demonstrated with, above all, DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (which is something collectivists only use when it suits them). No one who is rational could possibly dispute this.
It seems that you're implying that you would be very happy to dismiss particular scientific evidence if it conflicted with your religion (socialism), using the errouneous excuse of "Ah well, science is only a flawed man-made tool to be used as a basic guideline, it's not always right." That's what devout theists do. "Who cares if science demonstrates how and why humans cannot fly, I'm going to try anyway because I think flying is a worthy ideal!"
> You... err, don't fancy enlightening us to these reasons, by any chance?
Read Ludwig von Mises' Socialism
If you are a rational person, Mises will cleanse you of your ignorance, just like Dawkins or Hitchens cleansed religious nut-jobs of their irrational, faith based stupor a few years ago.
> Hell, you immediately follow this with mentioning an axiom that your put your "faith", so to speak, in.
Excuse me? The non initiation of force is a "faith" based principle? Are you implying that the NAP is not an objective moral truth?? That it's up for discussion? That morality is subjective?
I hope not.
> yes, it is. So? So is capitalism, unless you're going to make the claim that the political philosophy of capitalism is scientific
Like I said, if the ideal is maximum human prosperity for the maximum number of people, then capitalism has been scientifically proven to be be vastly superior to socialism. I would instantly reject capitalsim if the evidence demonstrated that their was a superior way of improving the prosperity of mankind (as long another system didn't encroach on mans rights to his own person and property - a full defense of why these things are objective, inalienable, nature given rights would take some time. I suggest you read the first few chapters of Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty)..but there isn't.
Socialism is a philosophy that concocts subjective values like "every man is born equal" and "every man is entitled to an equal share of the product he helps to produce" and then doggidly sticks to those principles in spite of the disarstorous, DEMONSTRABLE consequences.
In what direction? For the socialism inner contradictions, look no further to the dismantling of money as an distributed information system of resource and labour availability and need. See Mises's Socialism for an excellent explanation. Mises posterior works aren't as good, especially the pseudo science called praxeology, but as an analyst he was right on.
For the historical basis to Russia's empire, look into Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930 and especially into Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals, which is much more 'russian' in viewpoint - and sadly, in style, being more academic, stilted and rambling than the quick read of the first book.
For the demonization part, just read the dreck that passes for 'analysis' in the western media. People are paid to write that? It's either absolute ignorance or just propaganda trying to raise back the cold war fears.