/sci/ - Science & Math

Why should a nuclear engineer or AIDS researcher get the same as a construction worker?

Why should the work of a man fade into Anonymity? (hurdur tripfag)

>hurr durr no beaurocrats in communism
sage

>>1618710
Well an AIDS researcher does probably get nearly as much as construction worker under this capitalist system anyways

>>1618710
>I have no idea what communism entails

>>1618727

Heh.

>>1618732
You're right there is a hell of a lot more bullshit than just that.

>>1618732

>I'm a teenager who thinks communism works

>>1618710

Communism doesn't mean everybody gets the same wage.
A better explaination would be that instead of a factory being owned by a single person who takes the profits for themselves the factory is instead owned by the workers who share the profit, or the city, or the country or whatever.

If you don't think that communism is the ultimate solution to society you don't know much about it.

There are 2 problems however, most people are too greedy to finction under an all equal system and two the world, especially the west has bad experience with communism.

So it's not happening any time soon. In the end we will need some sort of hybrid between pure capitalism and communism

>>1618742
I am a retard that doesn't understand the concept of communism

>>1618723
Well atleast we would have a bigger pool of money to work with and we wouldn't have to go around sucking dicks for grants
Also despite the USSR being an oppresive dictatorship (which wouldn't nesessarly have to be the case if it were DEMOCRATIC communism) they did conduct a lot of useful research which the US borrowed like nobody's business

>>1618751
If you think communism works you don't know squat about human nature or social Darwinism.

>>1618748
So long freedom of enterprise.

>>1618762
If it were a democratic communist government, all of the money would be given to the government and people would decide via representatives how to spend it, instead of a dictator.
It would be a lot like it is nowadays but with a 100% tax.

>>1618762
Social darwinism is bullshit, we created society to move on from nature, natural selection doesn't work anymore faggot, survival of the fittest doesn't work in groups you work as a group you survive as a group and you die as a group, thats what communism stands for and its what capitalism is distancing man from.

We are forgetting the very thing that brought us to this point: teamwork or rather society and now we're just shitting on that concept with individualistic pursuits of generating weath that means nothing when we are dead?

>>1618779

>>1618762
As if capitalism doesn't have the same problems, you will still have people with power abusing it in a capitalist system.

>>1618785
Abusing power? Maybe I should turn the microwave off.

What about individualistic politics like in ancient greece, everyone is a politician and everyone votes on everything. So you say its too much people have better things to do, ect.

But in the future when machines take on 99% of the workload?

>>1618779
Stalin was a real team player.

>>1618784
I like the fact that you didn't reply because it proves you know I'm right

>>1618796
Or that you're so brainwashed by old USSR propaganda that your parents spout to you that its pointless to argue with you.

>>1618773
>people would decide via representatives how to spend it

And then secret societies and corruption were born. Followed by a dictatorship.

People are weak.

>>1618794
Can we please stop reffering to the USSR

Communism is not the soviet union, communism is a economic and sometimes political system of operating a country. It is also an idea. An idea the people who implemented communism abused for power. Stalin was a dictator not a communist. Communism is all about the people.

Capthca:FBI islasher

>>1618804
This man has a point sadly
>>1618791
interesting view...

>>1618805
Ok so let the majority do whatever they want. Enjoy your liberties when they are voted out by a communist regime.

>>1618809
>Imypling liberties exist today in capitalism

>>1618805
All about people is where the issue lies. Its all about what they want not what an individual deserves.

>>1618814
More so than they ever did in communist regimes.

>>1618804
You could avoid dictatorships and such with a well written constitution.
Besides the pool of money should always remain the same. I mean how can you make more money if nobody is selling or spending?

>>1618805

Agreed, the only people who should dislike communism would be the upper classes, the aristocracy, the people who own all the land and means of production. The vast majority, as in the people who own nothing but maybe their house and rely purely on someone giving them a job to survive, these should be the ones who relish communism. However sadly, some bad people have forever tarnised the image for everyone and as soon as communism is mentioned all the old propoganda come popping back up.

>>1618814
At least I have freedom of enterprise and property, two things that you commies wanna steal from me and claim its everyone's. But fuck you, I bought the parts for this puter - its mine.

ITT: Delusional teenagers who think Communism works because herpderp corporations = evilness people will fight row row fight dah powah! hurrdurr.

And CCM. Who I think was trolling.

>>1618825
What about people who want the opportunity to own land or an enterprise? You shit on those people who want to prove themselves in the real world and create a nation of stagnant bums.

>>1618827
Well your freedom of enterprize is a waste of time.
There are a lot of people who could be doing science and benefiting mankind but are instead stuck in the endless and pointless cat and mouse game of capitalism.

>>1618827
In capitalism it's just a matter of time until you are the lower class, and in capitalism you don't have anything if you don't have money, including your rights

>>1618823

Wealth != money. Money is only what we use to ease the transfer of wealth. Doubling or halfing the amount of money without changing a countries wealth doesn't affect a persons or countries wealth, it only means you need twice as much or half as much money to trade for something.

Technological advancement makes socialism inevitable.

I wonder if a society can work without money.
Communists said "we need no money, everything is free"

>>1618694
>20% research and 80% dealing with beaurocrats
Enjoy your communist life, where you'll spend 100% of your time developing weapons while worrying about the fact that they'll kill your family and everyone else you love unless you deliver on time.

>>1618842

Oh for the fuck of all fuck's sake.

Socialism != Communism

(Disregard the above if you weren't implying that Socialism = Communism and then I misread)

Also, Nanosocialism anybody?

>>1618840
That is just baseless and you know it. There are plenty of examples of people that started in the middle class and worked their way up the ladder and never slipped.
Hard work - a concept that commies will never understand.

>>1618847
Enjoy your capitalist life working away until your employer decides he wants to make more money so fires you ass and then the back comes along and reposses all your stuff because you have no means to support yourself, unless of course you end up on welfare which is probably more like communism than capitalism.

>>1618829
Cry more, if you weren't so butthurt you woulnd't be posting in this thread.

The fact of the matter is: Pro capitalists think communism is evil USSR, Stalin, bla bla bla
and Pro communists think that capitalists are brainwashed by the corporate media and that the worker is a slave of the wealth aristocracy bla bla bla

However pro communists aren't insulting the opposition the pro capitalists seem to be doing that quite a lot on the other hand

Post arguments gentlemen!

>>1618862
It's called getting another job, something you can't do in communism because everything is owned by one group. At least with capitalism I can choose where I work.

>>1618847
In a globalised communism weapons aren't neccesary.

And again you are reffering to communism as a dictatorship - which it should not be.

>>1618834
The elite want you to think that you can become one of them. But go ahead and try. Work hard, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, use your intelligence to create and plan, and watch what happens...you'll be sucked dry, locked out, and laughed at by those who control it all.

Of course you'll never actually do this, so you'll always be able to hold onto the fantasy. One day...one day, you'll be there.

>>1618864
They both stoop to the same low level, this is politics.

>>1618864

>However pro communists aren't insulting the opposition the pro capitalists seem to be doing that quite a lot on the other hand

Keep the masks up. You know you animals would kill us all if you could.

>>1618873
Not everyone can become elite, that is why its called elite. There are no guarantees, but at least the opportunity in capitalism. This opportunity doesn't exist in communism.

It’s all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there’s been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people

>>1618870
Who said you wouldn't choose

When most of us mention communism we mean a fair system where an owner isn't allowed to abuse his employees for profit, thas kind of the point.
>>1618851
Tell me moar about this nanosocialism

Number one: In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent.
It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time.

>>1618885
The opportunity is an illusion and you know it.

>>1618851

I wasn't implying that they were the same.

I was answering the op with what I thought was going to happen rather than what ought to happen.

>>1618873

This.

And anyway. How about I post a few of the ideas that Marx had originally. Now, you have to remember that this was quite a long time ago so many of his points are already moot, mostly about the child labout thing and the fact that children and women got paid less money for the same job just because it was more profitable.

Communism calls for free health care and education. A working person should not have to pay for his health or education, it should be provided for the state. A lot of capitalist countries have already taken this up, however some have not.

Like I already said the end of child labour or any other form of unfair wage exploitation based solely on a person age, sex or race. Again this has already happened to a degree however is it truly balance yet or do some companies still pay certain people less for no valid reason?

Maybe communism wouldn't be viable in every country, much like capitalism might not be viable everywhere either. But you have to agree that it does have some good points whose only aim is to improve the situation of the working class and society as a whole.

>>1618891
Look at what obama is doing and what the response is...

>>1618892
Not at all. You're just blind to it.

Basically the capitalism vs. communism debates can be condensed into a simple argument of survival of society vs. survival of an individual. It can be argued that capitalism is more "evolutionary" than communism. But communism is a system that hopes to provide long term sustenance for all of society. Here is where you must draw your lines, would you rather preserve the small fraction of humanity or would you rather work to benefit society as a whole.

Some folks debate over the sustenance-retaining ability of a communist state without another capitalist state to allow economic trade with; this is a misconception. Communism very simply states that it will do its best to provide for all of its subordinates, essentially it is an angle of attack for a self-sustainable nation.

Sadly despots have grown from communism, slaughtering millions in the name of the brilliant system and sullying it. The cold war worsened matters by spieling anti-communist propaganda to the millions, most of them ignorant of what communism genuinely stood for.

>>1618898

As well, when communism was first discussed it was probably closer to the 1900 or so. When there was no minimum wage, no labour court, no company pension. Where an employer could fire you or reduce your wages or take advantage of you in numberous other ways. The rights of an employee has been greatly improved recently, even in capitalist society so a full transition to communism might not be needed however at least some kind of power shift back towards the lower class is necessary in my opinion. Too much of the wealth and power is in too few peoples control and that is what leads to corruption and all the other nasty things, both in communism and capitalism.

>>1618923

You can not ignore colonialism. It was a very early form of capitalism. Where a powerful country invade and colonised another country and effectively siezed all of its wealth, in a lot of cases shipping everything en masse back to its home country, and also exploiting the colony and its peoples to drain as much profit as possible from it. Just look at what Britain did in places like India and what a lot of the european powers did to the Americas. Capitalism has come a long way since colonialism and is nowhere near as abusive so perhaps we need something else that has moved on from communism.

>>1618923 cont'd

Pertaining to the first paragraph; a single human life is one unit in 6.8 billion. Don't forget this number is ever-expanding, so the significance of a man is lessening every moment, but the significance of society and the progression of technology is growing more and more significant every step we take.

By attempting to preserve the individual rather than the group is essentially restricting technological growth and allowing excessive, and worthless consumerist based spending which leads to further degradation of society. Now if everyone had their budgets managed by a larger power it could easily be redistributed to fuel the progression of infrastructure, computing technology, new fuels, essentially we could dump all of the excess money that a nation, or even the globe creates on new technology. This would allow for rapid progression in every science, every art, while still maintaining cultural and geographical differences.

>>1618940
It just switched over to imperialism with american corporations leading the way

>>1618948

I agree, however every single person who disagrees with this point will no doubt come up with the extremely selfish --
"Why should I get paid the same as so-and-so who does a different job than me."

OK; see, communism sounds great on paper - that's why so many countries have tried it - but it's ultimately self-destructive because of human nature.
If we were perfect beings, communism would be the perfect governmental system. Alas, we are NOT perfect, thus, communism doesn't work for humans.

>>1618948
On a globalized level communism would allow for incredible jumps. Resources free for the taking by the researchers who require them in whatever amount they require. Funding would be irrelevant, so many things would become feasible that the possibilities are literally impossible to calculate. All of the scientists of the world could easily collaborate their works, all of the artists, teachers, everyone in the world would be provided with infrastructure to share data and experiences free of costs. Third world countries could blossom, resources untapped could be reaped and held in all of society's hands.

>>1618958
bravo

>>1618888

(Anotherpersonfag)

Nanosocialism is basically when molecular nanotechnology changes society.

Everyone has a desktop-sized molecular assembler that can make anything provided with base materials, power and blueprints, so people live in post scarcity, where money is only valuable to buy said base materials and blueprints.

Resources and energy are readily available from space (Resources brought down, energy beamed through masers), because you can now make spacecraft out of dirt and rock. Carbon can do pretty much anything.

I'm pretty sure it would still retain some sort of capitalist economy, and there would still be competition, because even though you have access to the amazing amount of resources and energy of space, you have to actually get it. Plus the blueprints for the assemblers that not anybody can write.

***
Communism might work in theory, but the greed of a single man is enough to bring everything down.

So, um... Genetically-engineering people not to be greedy?

Eh sounds a bit infeasible since competition for limited resources is such a basic instinct-sort of thing, but whatever.

>>1618958

Communism and capitalism are not as different as people point out. The bad parts of humanity is evident in just as many capitalist countries. All those crazy african dictatorships, they are not communist, they are capitalist. Capitalism isn't immune to corruption. A big problem however is that the majority of countries are capitalist and are biased against communism. Perhaps if the majority of the world was communist then capitalism would be having similar problems such as being embargoed by countries or just having bad relations.

Cheers to all of you who find communism appealing, but understand that humanity as a whole simply doesn't have the capacity to harness the power it could provide for societal preservation.

>>1618960

Then someone wants more resources and said resources are limited, so the amount e wants conflicts with the amount someone else wants.

How do you plan do prevent this? The good faith of people?

>>1618921

I doubt he's the one who's blind.

Statistically, one is more likely to be attacked by a shark while swimming in the ocean than to move from the lower class to the upper class. And in case you're an idiot, shark attacks are incredibly uncommon.

Inb4 bad analogy because one controls their individual economic situation.

Naive catallaxians.

To whichever anon is pro-communism in this thread: mind telling me (1) how industry and abuse of labor in the 1850s has anything to do with modern industrialism, (2) how you plan to transition from society with a state to a society without a state, (3) how you plan to maintain a stateless society when doing so requires the destruction of any human notion of power structure and hierarchy?

Also, we have two different arguments going on in here. It would be good to separate them. For one, Communism (communal anarchy) versus "Capitalism" (individualistic statism). This is not at all the same debate as public ownership of industry ("Socialism") versus private ownership of industry ("Free Market"-ism).

>>1618968

People are not naturally greedy. They are merely acting in their own interest, and with non-infinite supply goods it would make sense to always want more, regardless of if you needed it. However, water is free in my country, you turn on the tab and water comes out, not a problem. However you never see anyone with buckets or water being stockpiled in their house. If bread was likewise free and as easily acceptable I doubt people would stockpile it either. The transition would be tough as something goes from having a monetaty value and therefore limited to free, until people realised that they could get bread whenever they wanted for free and so therefore didn't bother having any more than they needed.
In effect this so-called 'greed' is a side-effect of our society in my opinion.

>>1618974
You understand that if globalized communism was initiated the funding and resources of the world would easily allow for culpable space travel and mining, correct? Although it may take some time, it's very feasible once the world becomes a single entity rather than separate, selfish economies. And lets not forget the untapped resources of the third world countries that lack proper funding to extract what they have.

Now assuming the resources did ever encounter a severe shortage it wouldn't be hard to initiate a recycling campaign for whatever the resource may be. Of course this is faith-based, and it could fail, but once again we're talking on paper here, not actually an applied system since all of it is based on speculation.

i don't wether communism is the answer. but it sure as hell isnt this bipolar economy we have now

>>1618984

I think I already state that a full change might not be necessary, there no need to go to a stateless society. Also I bring up the previous forms of labour and industry because from what I can summise society as far back as I know of has always had some people in the upper class with more power, this was originally just the biggest who was some warlord of a tribe or village and gradually changed to monarchs, or aristocracy, or dictators, or the owners of plantations or whatever. There has always been a class of people in power who controlled in some way the lower classes, either through pure military might or even just owning all the land so people had no choice but to work for them or starve to death. Even now there is little choice. Few people can just choose not to work, the enterprise owning class controls how you life simply by being the only ones who can give you the means to feed yourself and your family.

>>1619022

>I think I already state that a full change might not be necessary, there no need to go to a stateless society.

So, then, what would your "communist" state look like?

>the enterprise owning class controls how you life simply by being the only ones who can give you the means to feed yourself and your family.

You make it sound like everybody's forced to shop at big box supermarkets. How about local produce? How about buying from the butcher down the street, who is probably in a similar socioeconomic bracket as you?

>>1619120

For the most part I do shop in the smaller shops, but I do not live in a big city in america or anything so I am definitly not forced to buy produce from a bit company or anything. I wasn't trying to say that they are the ones who control the food production. I was mostly pointing out that the control your income which affects your ability to acquire food.

I live in a light socialist country. Thanks to politicians actually doing shit we're currently ranked #1 when it comes to living standards. Everyone gets proper treatment for everything, the schools, communities and hospitals are given the cash they need and we still have enough money to buy whatever we need for ourselves.
The people thinking socialism = evil need to get their fingers out of their asses and stop listening to the propaganda that is Fox news or whatever. When it works, it is an absolute utopia.

>>1619346

Agreed, everyone immediately thinks of USSR as what would inevitably happen to all cummunist and/or socialist countries and ignore the possibilities, instead shooting down any point with a list of the bad things that happened there. Well, as a response every time I am explaining to someone about capitalism I guess I will use Niger as my example, a fantastic capitalist country at its finest.

>>1618978
Thank you for proving my point that there does exist the opportunity to become rich in capitalism and that it is excruciatingly difficult. But that is what makes it so wonderful that not everyone is capable but everyone has a a shot at it.

There will never be a communist government that doesn't spiral into corruption.

>>1618838
>Well your freedom of enterprize is a waste of time.
There are a lot of people who could be doing science and benefiting mankind but are instead stuck in the endless and pointless cat and mouse game of capitalism.

You don''t know how much your post resonates with me. I'd rather do science but am stuck trying to survive in a capitalistic society. Mankind could be traveling the stars now if it weren't for the selfish system we are subjected to.

>>1619437

That wasn't the point.

The point of the analogy was to satirize the luck implicit in moving social classes under capitalism.

How is luck based social mobility in any way ethical?

And the last part of my post was intended to counterpoint your inevitable clame that social mobility is not luck based.

>>1619465

Idealism sucks, doesn't it?

ITT: People that have been reading too much Ian M. Banks

>>1618838
>>1619465
No, you would be doing what your comrades want you to do. Now take this hammer and this sickle and go farm. It is the freedom of enterprise that has helped fund a great deal of research. And if you want to do "science" get a doctorate and find a worthwhile topic to get a a grant. Keep in mind its easier to get grants when there are markets of people with money, not when there is one government who controls all funding.

>>1619469
And that failed miserably.

What about Utopic Communism? Is it the best way of government by concept?

>>1619437

you think it is ok to have lower classes as long as at least some of them have a chance to be more?
Would that be similar to having a system where there is only enough housing for 90% of the population but everybody gets a chance to get it. Would it be ok to have the 10% that didn't get a house because they had the opportunity to swap places with someone else to be in that house? I am sorry but giving a % of a people a chance at something can not justify it for me. But it is clear to me that you are not one of the people at the bottom, most likely you are middle class with dreams of either stayting there or maybe even moving up, but unfortunately the entire system is designed to move the wealth majoritively in one direction and that is from the lower classes to the upper classes.

>>1619509
But that's got nothing to do with capitalism nor communism, you are referring to a society that isn't able to provide a minimum standard of living. Changing the topic won't help your commie cause.

>>1619507
Utopia, implies its make-believe.

>>1619489

Inductive or deductive support or GTFO.

>>1619540
If you can't tell which is which, I feel bad for you man.

>>1619528
It was an example, probably a bad one I admit. But the point is still valid, a small % of lower class may possibly move up is not a justification for how awesome it is. Nobody has ever said that it is impossible to change class, just that there should not be a class distinction in the first place. And again remember that now is different than when communism was first thought of. Back then you had to be upper class to even get an education, or to own propertly you need a title, peasents or serfs did not have a right to own properly, only to life on the land that the owner had them working on.

>>1619549
>just that there should not be a class distinction in the first place.
Just no. So a garbageman should be in the same class as a doctor or scientist?

>>1619540
>inductive support
Some people become rich by working hard.
Therefore everyone can potentially become rich by working hard.

>>1619556
Why not?

>>1619563

>>1619563
Being a doctor is a greater responsibility and requires more training and natural talent.

>>1618710
You're exactly the reason why it wouldn't work you greedy bastard.

If you're happy doing that job why does it matter than everyone has the same wage as you? Nothing, you just can't stand knowing you're not getting more than someone you self important asshat.

>>1619558
Flawed
Some people become reach != All people can become rich.

Some people fly planes != All people can fly planes.

Some people become president of America != All people can become president of America.

I wish it was that simple but unfortunately there are a miriad of factors that prevent everyone from being rich. The poorest of the rich would still stay as the lower class, the only difference would be that the upper classes would be richer and that stuff would be more expensive because there is more money.

ITT: People babbling about how Communism is a system
sullied by the works of the people promoting it, and not
realizing that people are still the same now as they were then.
A democratic socialism system, like one in Sweden, is really the best
case scenario. It takes a population who is involved and
educated about the workings of society, and strong regional
governments working with a relatively weak central government.
Will it work, guaranteed, here in America? Probably not
anytime soon, with large amounts of uneducated people who have knee-jerk reactions to the word
"socialist". But sure, we can argue while we wait.

On an unrelated note, if someone would be so kind as
to tell me how to reply to a post, that would help me
out bunches, thank you.

>>1619534
Sorry for not making myself clear; but what I really want to know is if, for example, an Utopic Capitalism would work. Or idk Utopic feudalism. Does it has to be communism?

>>1619572

Subjective.
Are you suggesting a person should be treated differently because they are more educated?

Also a garbagemans job is very important. Countries can spend just as much wealth dealing with garbage disposal as healthcare. And sometimes garbage disposal can be a larger problem than a coutries health service.

>>1619576
Please look up what "inductive reasoning" is before you hurt yourself.

>>1619589
If the garbage man fails at his job, someone else has to clean up his mess.

If a doctor fails at his job, irreparable damage is caused and occasionally people die.

This is not subjective. Doctors have greater responsibilities, require more training, and require more talent than a garbage collector. Therefore they should be paid more.

>>1619589
Yes. Well I am.

Are you forgetting that doctors save lives and garbagemen pick up and drop of garbage. Hell an automaton can pick up and drop off things why do we even need garbagemen anymore?

>>1619604
that's just a normative argument, at best. i mean, the doctor could simply not demand as much, although by the workings of a self organized economy, such an assignment of incentives will lead to less doctors than is desirable.

anyways, point is, there is no logical --> between reward and production, there are however practical concerns.

>>1619604
I am not arguing that they get paid the same, I never have been. I was just pointing out that the need not be in the same class. There is law stating that class has to be based on wealth or money. Anyway. I am bored now. Every time I made a point someone just took one vague little part of it and attacked it while ignore the rest of it completely. I leave you to think however you want, in the end nothing has changed.
My parting point, capitalism introduced child labour and ineguality in wages across genders. Communism suggested an abolition to child labour and those wage inequalities as well as free healthcare and education.

>>1619617
So what would you want to happen to the garbagemen when the automotons take over their jobs?

>>1619620
You clearly know squat about economics. I'll point you in the right direction it is called a cost-benefit analysis. So your point is invalid.
And fuck fascism - even communism is better than that bullshit.

>>1619620
You assume humans are 100% logical. Without rewards there would be no motivation and hence less desire to work hard.

>>1619626
Are you retarded? Being paid more is being treated differently. Being paid more makes you upper class. What kind of non-argument were you trying to make?

>>1619548
>>1619591

OH GOD IT BURNS.

Seriously, you honestly have to be the stupidest fucker on the planet.

Look up the definition for inductive reasoning before you tell people to look up the definition for inductive reasoning.

>>1619634
Personally I wouldn't care if they died off, they are just surplus population anyways. Let social Darwinism take its course.

>>1619645
Resorted to namecalling eh? Because of course that makes all your observations and notions seem so much better now.

>>1619648
Not the same person, dumbshit.

>>1619648
Fucker I have the definition for inductive reasoning tattooed to my penis so I can fantasize about it while I masturbate, and I know that in order to disregard inductive reasoning you need to propose a fucking counterexample to the claim being made.

>>1619657
Doesn't tarnish them, his points are still more valid than yours will ever be.

>>1619648
Inductive reasoning allows for exceptions. So in a capitalist economy, you'll generally be better off if you work hard and intelligently.

>>1619652
Ah, I get it now, the reason most capitalists aren't interested in communism is because they don't care about the lower class. From what I gather from that statement you would rather see them all dead because they are, what? surplus population?

Nice, long live capitalism /sarcasm

>>1619657
oh boo-hoo, someone called you retarded on 4chan. I notice that you don't have anything productive to say, so that makes you a whiner too.

Isn't there some kind of law that says this will happen, that eventually any argument will resort to namecalling and then something about nazis or something?

>>1619642
i'm not. i said the incentives are not lined up properly. it's still a practical concern though, not one of ideal theory. i'm not defending any side here, just refining the discussion.

>>1619639
what the fuck are you even talking about.

>>1619690
What about: Doctors are paid more, get more respect (including moral high ground), spiritual satisfaction, and hotter wives. How's that for incentives lining up properly?

>>1619676
I would but that doesn't mean that every capitalist would too. You are forgetting how many philanthropists also happen to be capitalists that give a great deal of their funding to help poverty stricken individuals.

>>1619694
Thus proving you know squat about economics.

>>1619702
Hmm? Seems like you are misunderstanding me. I am saying that in ideal theory, someone foregoing socially desirable job (i.e. doctoring) for lack of economic reward is not treated as structure, but as choice. This is to say, if we are thinking of an ideal society, such behavior would not be cool, we'd WISH that people don't do this.

however, in the design of actual policy and the study of existing society with limited methods of organization, we simply accept that people behave by incentives selfishly, and under these practical assumptions doctors getting paid more is socially desirable.

THUS, the argument of wehther doctors should be paid more depends on whether you are talking about ideal theory or practical policy.

read your rawls, g.a. cohen, etc.

>>1619664

This isn't about how to falsify inductive evidence, it's about you not providing any valid evidence in the first place.

You attempted a proof by simple innumeration, which is, at best, a deductive attempt. The guy who countered you recognized the deductive attempt and countered it with valid logic.

You fail at life. I insist you chop off your cock right now as punishment for intellectual dishonesty.

>>1619708
says the undergrad with fuck all knowledge of history of economics and political philosophy.

All dumbfuckery aside, true communism which is what the USSR claimed it was working towards when it started off, would be something that has no government. The USSR pretty much became a socialist dictatorship that wasn't even completely socialist. In reality, the only people who have managed to live in a communistic type of life are hippies, and they didn't do shit.

However, this shouldn't deter people from seeing its advantages. A communist system based on the cultivation of scientific ideas would probably prove very useful to all who take part in it. It would basically work as a ton of loosely connected communes who share research and trade resources with each other to get the right materials to the proper projects, so everyone could benefit from the discoveries and advancements.

Though, it'll never happen, but I can dream. I imagine communes running all their energy off of solar and wind farms, which the lay people help construct, along with other infrastructure such as systems to gather and purify water, and farmers having land set aside so they can provide the entire community.

>>1619729
Granted, never bothered with those courses. The concepts are too easy and a waste of time to dedicate a semester to, especially if your major is chem.

>>1619725
Ideal theory sounds pretty stupid bro. Why would smart people decide to become doctors just out of the goodness of their hearts? Yeah I can see what you mean by it not having any practical application.

>>1619726
uggggh what is your problem

Just because used the word "therefore" doesn't make it deductive reasoning. I generalized a conclusion based on a few sample cases using inductive reasoning. To disprove it all you need to do is provide a counterexample, but it still counts as evidence.

Maybe we should try decentralized socialism, because globalized capitalism and state capitalism doesn't work for enough people.

inb4 rage

>>1619747
it's still pretty important in terms of orienting social goals and stuff. also, good way of writing papers and books, becuz this is how people always thought about politics through ideals.

>>1619746
That's probably also why you shouldn't be so strident about your grasp of economics or its role in social thought, silly.

>>1619764
Or maybe you should learn what a cost-benefit analysis is before making a mockery of yourself.

>>1618762
You DO realize that "social darwinism" is a pejorative term invented by socialists to mock people like you, right?
No one says "I'm a social darwinist", it would be like saying "i'm a retard".

>>1619676
I wish we were lying, but I
m afraid that's basically it. I've just jumped into the conversation, and I'm going to have to agree with him =\ sorry. I will say this though, STOP BITCHING ABOUT OBAMA CARE AND LETS FOCUS ON FUCKING GETTING THE SMAREST KIDS IN COLLEGE FOR FREE WHO WILL ACTUALLY DO SHIT! NOT NIGGERS and people who don't belong there.

Screw these outdated forms of government.
Technocracy FTW

>>1619778
look retard, the issue is not whether doctors or garbage collectors create more social benefit, it's about whether that greater production leads to greater individual reward and the reasons for such rewards.

Tell me, what does this have to do with science or math?

>>1619779
why would a social darwinist consider social darwinism to be pejorative? That's stupid. You're stupid.

To each according to their from.

>>1619790
Look retard, two can play this game. The cost-benefit analysis can be used to determine that.

>>1619757

Generalizing a conclusion based on a few sample cases is necessary for induction but nowhere near sufficient.

One needn't falsify evidence if the "evidence" in question wasn't produced under appropriate inductive criteria.

Therefore, his deductive analogies are valid counterarguments to your fallacious statement.

>>1619798
There are no social darwinists. Or they don't call themselves that way. the term social darwinism is only used to make fun of some right wing social ideas.

>>1619790
nb4 lrn2economics instead of pulling statements out from your fat, smelly ass

>>1619804

...actually, nobody decides that. it's a self organized system of career choices coupled with individual incentives.

look, economists don't bother with this capitalist vs socialist bullshit debate because NOBODY can control it. the best we can do is tinker with taxes and stuff.

>>1619808
What the fuck is "appropriate inductive criteria"? His analogies are not valid counterarguments because they have known counterexamples, whereas there are no readily apparent counterexamples to my claim.

>>1619779
Get your definitions straight, even if they are from Wikipedia. The first sentence doesn't always sum everything up.

In sociology it has been defined as a theory of social evolution which asserts that "There are underlying, and largely irresistible, forces acting in societies which are like the natural forces that operate in animal and plant communities. One can therefore formulate social laws similar to natural ones. These social forces are of such a kind as to produce evolutionary progress through the natural conflicts between social groups. The best-adapted and most successful social groups survive these conflicts, raising the evolutionary level of society generally (the 'survival of the fittest')."

>>1619809
Clearly there are people who call themselves social darwinists and they approve of what you call social darwinism.

>>1619832
Only in 4chan someone would call himself a social darwininst. It would be like someone against racial discrimination calling himself a "nigger lover".

>>1619847
Dude, seriously, learn your definitions before you soil yourself again.

>>1619810
the economics is pretty clear. doctors would and should earn more. but you don't exactly use cost benefit analysis to study that unless you are in a command economy and you can assign wage levels to jobs and observe the effect thereof.

this is just a political theory discussion. political theories are, contrary to what you may believe, not very important in terms of making political decisions. they are interesting on the ideological and maybe moral level. it's at that level that i'm discussing this stuff.

>>1619824
Just after your quote ends
The term has very rarely been used as a self description.
The term first appeared in Europe in 1877, and around this time it was used by sociologists opposed to the concept.
The term was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter who used it in the ideological war effort against fascism to denote a reactionary creed which promoted competitive strife, racism and nationalism.
The term "social darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents.

tl;dr you are a retard and should feel like a retard

>>1619863
So you deny it's claims? You sound just as retarded as any creationist.

>>1619863
But the problem is that advocates of the ideologies described by "social darwinism" have no reason to consider "social darwinism" to be a pejorative term. Just because you want to be able to use it as a weapon doesn't mean you can. Admitting that the ideologies are undesirable enough to be considered pejorative would be admitting defeat.

I have that on a shirt. And apparently I can't wear it into the US.

Without those evil businessmen having an interest in your research you fags would be out of a job. You can contribute practical things to society for money and fuck around with stupid pointless shit like that particle collider in your free time.

>>1619874
I'm begging to think you are trying to troll me
meh, it's pointless to continue arguing with you
I don't even know what you were talking about, I just passed by and saw someone claiming to be a social darwinist and found it funny.

>>1619822

Holy fuck. There can't be counter-examples to his counter-arguments, they're deductive for fuck's sake. Just like your weak-ass fallacious argument doesn't need a counter-example because it isn't appropriately structured to be inductive.

For legitimate inductive criteria see: http://www.dummies.com/store/Education/Science.html

>>1619906
>There can't be counter-examples to his counter-arguments
What?

>Some people fly planes != All people can fly planes.
Clearly, only trained pilots can fly planes.

>Some people become president of America != All people can become president of America.
Clearly, only US born citizens can become president.

Neither of these is analogous to
>Some people can become rich by working hard = all people can become rich by working hard
because there is no obvious counterexample

>>1619878
Inever saw someone outside 4chan calling himself a social darwinist.
>Admitting that the ideologies are undesirable enough to be considered pejorative would be admitting defeat
I don't think it's even an ideology, it's just a way to mock someone by his social ideas and tell him "hurr are trying to apply darwinism to sociology?".
It's not like there ever was a social darwinist movement and others started using it as an insult later.

>>1619901
You can't even read, I never claimed to be social Darwinist. But please enlighten me, what explains a species genetic progress in social circumstances? Are you telling me that there is no natural selection? Then why can't you seem to get laid? Simple, traits like retardation aren't sought after by anyone, and no one wants to risk their offspring having downs.

>>1619936

Repetition won't make you correct.

>>1619937
So why doesn't anyone want your baby? There is a selection process, so fuck off.

>>1619937
No. The term, when used mockingly, is mocking a person who holds particular ideologies. There's no reason for that person to consider it to be an insult.

It doesn't matter how the term was created. It's not an insult unless you disagree with those ideologies.

>>1619952
>I never claimed to be social Darwinist
OK my bad, I thought I was replying to other guy.
As I already said:
>I just passed by and saw someone claiming to be a social darwinist and found it funny
>But please enlighten me, what explains a species genetic progress in social circumstances? Are you telling me that there is no natural selection?
Never said that. Never said there's no natural selection in social life.

>>1619963
I'm just indicating the obvious counterexamples. The counterexample to "all people can fly planes" is "people who are not trained to fly planes cannot fly planes". The counterexample to "all people can become president" is "Austrian-born people cannot become president".

So what is the counterexample to "all people who work hard can become rich"?

>>1619968
the guy being insulted may know that the term is being used as an insult, or the term paints his position as unpopular or out of norm. lots of ways to convey insult without delving into the actual meaning of the term, see, u r gay.

>>1619937
>>1619901
Listen numbskulls, when you select a mate, it is based on traits. Where do you think those traits originate from? Hmm lets deny all of embryonic/developmental biology up to this point by saying that our genes don't code for shit - is literally what you morons are claiming.

>>1619981
that's just an ideology. you hypnotize yourself into believing you are in control to a greater degree than you actually are, but in teh process this belief also leads you to be more productive. still, look at the distribution of wealth, ie outcome. clearly, that's not a distribution explained solely or even mainly by effort expended.

>>1619982
But gay people refer to themselves as gay and don't consider it an insult.

Likewise, social darwinists may refer to themselves as social darwinists and don't consider it an insult.

>>1619986
Really there are such things as hox genes that code for people's morphology? Oh so that is why that girl has big boobs and that girl doesn't. Fuck I thought it was the work of god.

>>1619998
So there is no counterexample.

>>1619986
Stop with the straw man.
Nobody denies that. No one is denying evolution.
When someone says "poor people deserve to be poor, so welfare is wrong" someone else calls him "social darwinist".

>>1620000
And you my friend are a creationist. Denying the importance of genetics.

>>1620000
i've already covered that. if the word is perceived to be USED AS an insult, the appropriate insult will be felt. if social darwinists understand that s.d. is in the position of say naziism or racism, then they would be offended by someone using the term insultingly.

i mean racists have changed their official name repeatedly due to negative assocation and social prestige of the terms.

>>1620005
And that is insulting? Hell we need poor people, where will all our cheap labor come from?

>>1620002
of course there are. find a hardworking mexican near you.

>mfw sciducks think they are really logical but waste time on irrelevant arguments

>>1620009
OK, but what precludes a social darwinist from using the term to describe himself if he does not consider it to be an insult?

>>1620008
And you defy logic. Calling someone a social darwinist doesn't mean you don't believe in evolution.

>>1620017
"Working hard" includes not having six kids and spending all of your money on booze and drugs.

>>1620020
absolutely nothing, but such a situation demonstrates his or her ignorance because of the implicit unawareness of the term's negative association and history.

>>1620024
And you can't read. Social Darwinist must believe in evolution for it is the very foundation of what there ideology is about.

>>1620031
that's really scientific of you.
what a tard.

>>1620034
By that logic, when gay people refer to themselves as gays (or even fags), it demonstrates their ignorance and unawareness of the term's negative association.

>>1620037
OK, what side are you on?

Of course social darwinists believe in evolution.
But that doesn't mean that people who are not social darwinists don't believe in evolution.

All nazis are German, that doesn't mean all Germans are nazis.

>>1620037
>there
>implying social darwinism isn't a horrible mangling of the very naturalistic point of evolution

stoopid detected

>>1620038
Look, what I'm saying is that if you really were working hard, you'd have a nice college degree which will land you a nice job with a nice paycheck. If you work hard, there is no reason not to have these things.

>>1620045
well, they may be aware of the negativity but still use the term to fight the negativity. however, this is not really the case with social darwinists, because they are mostly oblivious to life outside of the internets.

>>1620050
I never argued that, I just stated that we are under the influence of natural selection even in social circumstances. People do choose who to procreate with if they are fit enough to be eligible to procreate in the first place. It seems that someone that denies social Darwinism also denies evolution to some degree, if we are merely looking at the definition itself and not the claims of some past social Darwinists.

>>1620055
live a day in chicago's south side.

>>1620060
That's not true. I'm a social darwinist and I am aware that some people use the term negatively. I think they're retarded and more than a little upset that their cheap wordplay isn't working.

>>1620066
well, you are just retarded and infantile. we could have arrived at this conclusion much quicker if you didn't engage in this pointless detour.

>>1620064
What? People can't get educated at the University of Chicago? Then they should move.

>>1620070
It's OK, at least I got to prove you wrong about social darwinism.

>>1620075
the campus police is around 24/7, buildings locked after 5 pm

it's like a castle in the wilderness

>>1620061
>I just stated that we are under the influence of natural selection even in social circumstances
Great, we think alike then.

Communism is the best form of government. /thread

>>1620081
you didn't prove anyone wrong. social darwinism is still loony.

>>1620081
I wasn't the one you were talking with before, btw.
Anonymity is killing me.

>>1620088
What better explains the phenomena?

>>1620088
I proved him wrong about how the term is used.

The ideologies are a whole other discussion.

>>1620092
social darwinism is a statement of what should happen, not what is happening.

>>1620087
Still worse than Juggalocracy

fascist goldfish is wrong and he should go back to sucking his mother's tits /thread

>>1620094
well, you just didn't accept the negative connotation, in a very very passive aggressive way. the way society views the word won't be changed by this particular argument though.

>>1620098
Actually it can be used to explain both. But what do you think is going on, really? Do you think that natural selection doesn't exist within society?

Communism/Socialism works in a society with no egos, equal effort, and absolute teamwork... Issue is, that some are just more equal than others

>>1620105
I thought I was being openly aggressive when I called him retarded but I suppose that the use of third person is a little too subtle for some tripfags.

>>1620106
sigh, let me state it another way.

the brute fact of genetic trends in populations does not have necessary political implications. social darwinism derives political beliefs from the facts.

still, it's a mangling of what evolution is by infusing it with teleology/prejudices.

anywayyy, go read a book or something, fucking sciducks

>>1620127
Still didn't answer the question what role do you think natural selection plays in society?

Cornell University (2005, October 23). Natural Selection Has Strongly Influenced Recent Human Evolution, Study Finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2005/10/051023115936.htm

Stanford University (2008, February 20). Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Study Shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/02/080216175953.htm

>>1620173
Goddammit. get over it. No one ever denied evolution in this thread. You are fighting a straw man.

>>1618694
>what if we made it democratic instead of a dictatorship
Most western countries already have democracies. There may not be outright communist parties in many countries, but if people want communism, such parties will be formed, and if the general population supports if, they will be elected into government.

If a dictator wants his country to be communist, he can MAKE it so. If you have a democracy, if will become communist all by itself. You don't MAKE a democratic country communist.

The reason we don't have communism is not that the rich and wealthy are somehow holding it back. We don't have democracy because the people don't want it.

>>1620196
They did deny its role in society.

National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) (2009, October 20). Are Humans Still Evolving? Absolutely, Says A New Analysis Of A Long-term Survey Of Human Health. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/10/091019162933.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100111102538.htm

What communists actually think they see in natural history museums.

Who is "we"?

Considering I am white, middle class and intelligent with a strong likelihood of making ~70-80k after I graduate I have no economic reason to support communism or believe I would be better off under it.

From the ideological standpoint communism is diametrically opposed to what I believe in, which is National Socialism.

I don't consider nonwhite races equal in worth or equal in ability so why would I support an ideology which is based off the principle of equality?

I certainly wouldn't be better off under communism.

Communism is aimed at the lowest common denominator. The people who have nothing to lose if they are averaged with the rest of the worlds population.