Best form of government?

[northcity4]

The power would still sit with the rich I think...this I believe is the biggest issue with capitalism. They would still own everything...or would we tax on that as well.

Like, when you say tax bill gates 99%, are we taxing his income or all his wealth combined?

[kimham8a]

Whatever way he got his money (with some differences based on how he got the money). So it's income, but that would directly affect net worth.

Btw, get back in chat!

[northcity4]

I am back now =)

Wait, so let's say we implemented you taxation right now in America. Would Bill gates and the all the super rich lose 90-99% all of a sudden of their total wealth or would they begin losing it from the next check they receive?

[cometbah]

@northcity4:

It sounds like you are not arguing for is Trotskyism, but the desirability of its goal (i.e. the establishement of (global?) communism).

Trotskyism and Leninism are theories on how to propel a feudal society (like Russia) directly into communism, skipping and/or controlling the capitalist revolution that would have 'naturally' occured without the intervention of the proletariat. They are very specific about their initial conditions, and cannot be applied to a developed nations today. Where would one find, for instance, the barely educated peasant class, or an oppressive monarchy against which said peasantry can be rallied?

True communism as I put it is very similar to this. To be honest, other societies, like foraging societies are very much like this...the reason: no wealth. I earnestly believe wealth is the biggest cause of inequality...which @ Kim, capitalism will never 'bend or twist' to help those in need.

I think both of you (hazard and kim) are saying we need to cap/eliminate wealth in a society for true equality to come and function much better. Is this true or not? I am curious to know.

By wealth, I assume you mean reified value (e.g. currency), and not simply material wealth?

capitalism will never 'bend or twist' to help those in need

A different perspective for your consideration:

When you choose to help another person, you are fulfilling your own desire to help that person.

Arguably, then, all actions, including so-called 'selfless' ones, are really self-serving in nature.

The only thing that distinguishes the act of, say, stealing corns from a poor farmer from the act of helping the poor farmer plant his corns, is what the actor chooses to see as 'valuable':

The robber sees value in the possession of corns, and so he acts to gain value by taking the corns.

The helper sees value in kindness, or perhaps he sees that, by helping poor farmer plant corns, he is benefitting his own community and, by extension, himself. So he acts to gain value by planting corns.

A society that promotes 'selfishness' can, therefore, take care of those in need, but only if the population sees value in doing so.

[northcity4]

Even if a society helps those in need, capitalism comes with many other problems, the biggest being corrupted leaders.

Also, let me please clarify that Trotskyism and Leninism are the same the thing. The extreme end going to feudalism was actually Stalin's idea. Also, according to Marx, it is possible still for these theories to be applied today. In Marx's view, Capitalism will eventually get out of hand to the point where the working class will unite and over throw the rich. Happened in all over the world during WW1 and WW2, why not today? ( I am not going to debate Stalin vs Trotsky in here, but just know both had same goal, but both had different outcomes in theory and different processes).

Also, arguing for trotskyism is the same as arguing for it's goal. Trotsky not only tells us what he wants to achieve, he actually tells us what to do to make it happen.

For selflessness: Yes, there is some inherent nature to it, but you usually only see this around poor people, Examples include Women's rights before the Industrial revolution, foraging communities, and poor communities today.
If you really want to eliminate selflessness, you basically need to be brought up in a selfless community.

[OldTrees]

@Trees:Quit trying to say I am arguing fiction. The only support for your claim that it is genetic is your word. If we take Wiki to be correct, then evolution will not support your claim. It must be a trait. Biology cannot show that evolutionary psychology or the evolutionary physicality is passed down other than by showing all humans possess the same trait expressed differently. Not an evolutionary force.

I think our disagreement right now is purely with inclusive fitness being a trait that is changed and passed down, like mice skin color, versus a trait that all humans possess and is expressed differently, like height. Inclusive fitness in my view is something we all have, but cannot be evolutionarily changed by genetics. Only culture can express it differently.

3) Please explain that difference because that sounds exactly the same.

Also trees, will you please explain why your ONE argument of inclusive fitness means to 'best form of government?' Also, instead of calling what I argue fiction, try understanding your posts leave out a lot of unnecessary information that must be included.

Example: when I talked about selfishness being culturally developed, you thought I misinterpreted your quote. The reality was, inclusive fitness is not an evolutionary force in my argument.

BTW, you called inclusive fitness 'genetic' and 'an evolutionary force.'

Strawman 1: I am claiming you are arguing a fiction
Yet again I need to repeat that I said you are arguing against a fiction rather than understanding my argument. Reread this sentence until you parse it correctly. By misinterpreting my position you continue to create strawmen to attack.

Strawman 2: Inclusive Fitness is a psychological trait
As a student of genetics and evolution, I know enough on the topic to talk accurately. However since you want sources and prefer wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms also known as evolutionary forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

If you read these links you will see that the Inclusive Fitness of an animal is the measurement of the impact Natural Selection(including Sexual selection) is having of that individual's genes.

So no Inclusive Fitness is not a heritable trait, it is not a trait, it is one side of Natural Selection (an evolutionary force).
*What is the importance of this? Inclusive Fitness selects for self interest it selects for the actual meaning of selfishness (rather than the loaded definition). Since there is selection promoting a heritable trait and variation can generate this trait, this trait will tend to increase in frequency. So even if you eliminate selfishness from one generation it will eventually come back.


3)What is the difference between "quality of life is based on self interest" and "quality of life is based on the interests of the self".
The first says: The best quality of life is the selfish life
The second says: The best quality of life is the life the person living the life liked best
Was this a sufficient clarification?

4)How is my comments about Inclusive Fitness a critique of Trotskey's plan to eliminate selfishness?
Go back up to the *
So since 7 generations of propaganda would not eliminate selfishness, you would need use propaganda on each new generation forever. Since the system cannot deal with selfishness other than by using propaganda on each generation, the system is dependent on propaganda. This desire to eliminate the self is abhorrent to me because it is the interests of the self by which quality of life is measured.
(I also have an instinct to run away from mind control. This instinct is biasing my view)

PS) I know my writing style seems to leave out information. However a majority of the "left out" information is there when read carefully with the intent to understand rather than quickly with the intent to attack. The rest (Inclusive fitness, evolutionary forces) were terms that google could have linked you to definitions.

[cometbah]

Also, let me please clarify that Trotskyism and Leninism are the same the thing. The extreme end going to feudalism was actually Stalin's idea. Also, according to Marx, it is possible still for these theories to be applied today. In Marx's view, Capitalism will eventually get out of hand to the point where the working class will unite and over throw the rich. Happened in all over the world during WW1 and WW2, why not today? ( I am not going to debate Stalin vs Trotsky in here, but just know both had same goal, but both had different outcomes in theory and different processes).

Russia was already a feudal state before the revolution; neither Trotsky nor Stalin (nor Lenin) suggested 'going to feudalism'.

According to Marx, communism is the natural 'next step' for capitalism, just as capitalism was the natural 'next step' for feudalism. If Marx were to look at Russia at the end of Czarist reign, he would argue for a capitalist revolution, not a communist one.

For Marx, it goes like this:
Feudalism (led by lords) -----capitalist-revolution-----> Capitalism (led by the Bourgeois) -----communist-revolution-----> dictatorship of the proletariat (led by the proletariat) -----> communism

Lenin and Trotsky purport to build upon Marxism by illustrating how it could be possible to go directly from Feudalism to communism, like this:
Feudalism -----(capitalist revolution, but controlled and led by the proletariat)-----> dictatorship of the proletariat, while simultaneously developing what should have been achieved in capitalism -----> communism

Leninism and Trotskyism are not applicable to, say, the U.S. or England, because they are already capitalist societies, not feudal ones. The capitalist revolution has already happened, and therefore cannot be led by the proletariat.

Even if a society helps those in need, capitalism comes with many other problems, the biggest being corrupted leaders.

Have you considered the individualist versions of both 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' economics?

To the right, we have libertarianism, which affirms the desirability of a capitalist economy, but does not support the existence of the state.

To the left, we have (classical) anarchism, which affirms the desirability of a non-capitalist economy, but also does not support the existence of the state (not even one led by the proletariat).

[northcity4]

I am not sure if individual versions of the 'wings' would work. Although maybe more ideal, I doubt it could be effective without tons of issues. How would someone also function as the individual?

Also, I disagree with the feudalism part. I am not sure where you are getting your info from, but mine came straight from an expert. Trotsky's theory never talked about feudalism. It can stem from any revolution of capitalist economies. Feudalism is a style of capitalist economies, let me remind you, so I am not sure if this is what you meant.

@ trees: from your sources, the green beard effect/natural selection

--->It is still debated trees if there is a) a selfish gene (so there is a possibility, so please don't just disapprove), and b) if that gene is 'different' from other genes (some are more extreme than others or c) same gene, but culturally expressed. (from your sources)

Now, let's finally take this last thing you said (thank you for a proper definition):
{{{If you read these links you will see that the Inclusive Fitness of an animal is the measurement of the impact Natural Selection(including Sexual selection) is having of that individual's genes.}}}

I get it: you are saying it is not a trait, but natural selection determines if it (the meaning of selfishness) will come about. For the sake of philosophy: natural selection can be = to cultural influence.
---> true, selfishness can always come back, but the reality is if you are brought up in a selfless society (take the philosophical definition please), like the society that Trotsky wanted, you will grow up to be selfless.---> this is proven. In the new society, natural selection will show you that being selfish or thinking about yourself will lead to worse things and that thinking for the good of others will lead to the best things. Does that make sense?

Secondly, you are getting very carried away from this one issue of inclusive fitness. It is your only critique you have made and seems your are soley dependent upon it. Please consider other critiques, as right now, scientists cannot yet determine your biological statements yet. This is a variable undetermined and so I will ask for new critiques.

[OldTrees]

@north
Thank you. A few of the misconceptions are gone. However a few remain.
1) I am sorry but I did not mean to give the impression I relied on a specific "selfish gene" existing. The Green-Beard effect works as long as our behavior is inherited (either genetically or culturally from parents). The behavior of those that behaved in a manner that did maximize their inclusive fitness would tend to be passed on. Thus there is an evolutionary force that would push a population towards being saturated with individuals that behaved in a manner that did maximize their inclusive fitness. These selfish individuals are indistinguishable from rational people that are trying to be selfish. As such this system would be required to continuously use propaganda to prevent this saturation or deal with the consequences it brings.

2) Cultural influences can be a part of natural selection (ex: sexual selection) however it is important to understand that the traits passed on are the traits of the individuals with the highest inclusive fitness. You can change the game but you cannot change the fact that the winners are those that win. Nor can you change the game so selfishness is not rewarded, you merely change which actions it promotes.*
*Would you please tell me what you think I mean by the distinction between the meaning of selfish and the loaded meaning?

3) My comments about the inclusive fitness are the background to prove that the proposed system would be dependent on continuous propaganda. My critique of the system is that it uses continuous propaganda.

PS: Do not claim something is debated when you don't know what is being debated. Green-beard alleles have been found.

The concept remained a merely theoretical possibility under Dawkins' selfish gene model until 1998, when a green-beard allele was first found in nature, in the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta).[4][5] Polygyne colony queens are heterozygous (Bb) at the Gp-9 gene locus. Their worker offspring can have both heterozygous (Bb) and homozygous (BB) genotypes. The investigators discovered that homozygous dominant (BB) queens, which in the wild form produce monogyne rather than polygyne colonies, are specifically killed when introduced into polygyne colonies, most often by heterozygous (Bb) and not homozygous (BB) workers. They concluded that the allele Gp-9b is linked to a greenbeard allele which induces workers bearing this allele to kill all queens that do not have it. A final conclusion notes that the workers are able to distinguish BB queens from Bb queens based on an odor cue.

[cometbah]

I am not sure where you are getting your info from, but mine came straight from an expert. Trotsky's theory never talked about feudalism. It can stem from any revolution of capitalist economies. Feudalism is a style of capitalist economies, let me remind you, so I am not sure if this is what you meant.

I rarely reject ideas completely and absolutely, but in this case:

Your 'expert' is clearly incorrect on a very fundamental level, and has provided you with very, very bad information.

Feudalism is not a style of capitalist economy. It is the stage coming before capitalism.

The bourgeoisie is the revolutionary class that overthrew feudalism and established capitalism.

Trotsky's revolution does not begin in a capitalist society.

Engels:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/decline/

Marx:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Trotsky:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch01.htm

Those are just some examples off the top of a Google search. There are plenty more, as almost every piece of communist literature that talks about revolutionary / economic history at all would talk about how capitalism arose from a revolution against feudalism.

Edit:
I strongly suggest (not in contempt or mockery, but in the sincere wish to be constructive) that you read primary-source material thoroughly before confining yourself with ideological boundaries and 'isms'.

If you were to have read only the first paragraph of the Communist Manifesto (which, arguably, is amongst the bare minimum of required readings for anyone talking about communism, and, unlike Das Kapital, is not a million pages long...), you would have learnt of the errors of your 'expert' from just the first few pages (which were almost devoted entirely to describing how the capitalists overcame the oppression of feudal lords):

'The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society...'

'The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.'

'We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility...'

'The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade.'

'We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society.'

And so on and so on and so on.

'

[northcity4]

I am not sure where you are getting your info from, but mine came straight from an expert. Trotsky's theory never talked about feudalism. It can stem from any revolution of capitalist economies. Feudalism is a style of capitalist economies, let me remind you, so I am not sure if this is what you meant.

I rarely reject ideas completely and absolutely, but in this case:

Your 'expert' is clearly incorrect on a very fundamental level, and has provided you with very, very bad information.

Feudalism is not a style of capitalist economy. It is the stage coming before capitalism.

The bourgeoisie is the revolutionary class that overthrew feudalism and established capitalism.

Trotsky's revolution does not begin in a capitalist society.

Engels:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/decline/

Marx:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Trotsky:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch01.htm

Those are just some examples off the top of a Google search. There are plenty more, as almost every piece of communist literature that talks about revolutionary / economic history at all would talk about how capitalism arose from a revolution against feudalism.

Edit:
I strongly suggest (not in contempt or mockery, but in the sincere wish to be constructive) that you read first-hand material thoroughly before confining yourself with ideological boundaries and 'isms'.

If you were to have read only the first paragraph of the Communist Manifesto (which, arguably, is amongst the bare minimum of required readings for anyone talking about communism, and, unlike Das Kapital, is not a million pages long...), you would have learnt of the errors of your 'expert' from just the first few pages (which were almost devoted entirely to describing how the capitalists overcame the oppression of feudal lords):

'The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society...'

'The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.'

'We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility...'

'The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade.'

'We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society.'

And so on and so on and so on.

'

I am not quite sure if Trotsky took on Marxist theory as you proposed, but it seems we had a few misconceptions. After reading your links, it seems we do agree on one thing: the working class pushed for changes did it not? I think I may have mis used the term 'capitalism,' so, revolution can happen in any society where there is a distinction of classes correct? As in feudalism, we are given the aristocrats and the peasantry at first (straight off from you link) into a society of the bourgeoisie and in capitalism, although there are 'three classes,' there is a huge distinction between the rich and the middle class.

This is in short what you mean correct?

[northcity4]

@north
Thank you. A few of the misconceptions are gone. However a few remain.
1) I am sorry but I did not mean to give the impression I relied on a specific "selfish gene" existing. The Green-Beard effect works as long as our behavior is inherited (either genetically or culturally from parents). The behavior of those that behaved in a manner that did maximize their inclusive fitness would tend to be passed on. Thus there is an evolutionary force that would push a population towards being saturated with individuals that behaved in a manner that did maximize their inclusive fitness. These selfish individuals are indistinguishable from rational people that are trying to be selfish. As such this system would be required to continuously use propaganda to prevent this saturation or deal with the consequences it brings.

2) Cultural influences can be a part of natural selection (ex: sexual selection) however it is important to understand that the traits passed on are the traits of the individuals with the highest inclusive fitness. You can change the game but you cannot change the fact that the winners are those that win. Nor can you change the game so selfishness is not rewarded, you merely change which actions it promotes.*
*Would you please tell me what you think I mean by the distinction between the meaning of selfish and the loaded meaning?

3) My comments about the inclusive fitness are the background to prove that the proposed system would be dependent on continuous propaganda. My critique of the system is that it uses continuous propaganda.

PS: Do not claim something is debated when you don't know what is being debated. Green-beard alleles have been found.

The concept remained a merely theoretical possibility under Dawkins' selfish gene model until 1998, when a green-beard allele was first found in nature, in the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta).[4][5] Polygyne colony queens are heterozygous (Bb) at the Gp-9 gene locus. Their worker offspring can have both heterozygous (Bb) and homozygous (BB) genotypes. The investigators discovered that homozygous dominant (BB) queens, which in the wild form produce monogyne rather than polygyne colonies, are specifically killed when introduced into polygyne colonies, most often by heterozygous (Bb) and not homozygous (BB) workers. They concluded that the allele Gp-9b is linked to a greenbeard allele which induces workers bearing this allele to kill all queens that do not have it. A final conclusion notes that the workers are able to distinguish BB queens from Bb queens based on an odor cue.

Okay, so let me ask this, going back to your buoyancy example: it seems the constant in your post is that selfishness is like gravity in humans and propaganda is like the opposing force in your view. Correct? Are you saying humans will naturally tend to go back to selfishness if outside influence stops?

If so, what about the example of pushing a rock up a triangle hill. It's an older theory, but makes sense. Think of a triangle where one side on the bottom is selfishness and the other is selflessness. Now, if I push the rock half way up the selfishness side and give up, it will roll back down, but if I try hard enough, eventually I can get it to the other side. Now, as long as there is no influence of selfish nature, that rock will stay in place.

Also, to be honest, you 'loaded meaning' question is still not clear with me. I know what you mean, but as far as specifics, I have no idea.