tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1347942977387227607.post7822972060467127037..comments2023-09-30T07:49:24.246-07:00Comments on The World Socialist: Darwin and the Intelligent Design BrigadeWorld Socialist Party (US)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10171509473869548906noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1347942977387227607.post-64192109499394765682009-02-16T03:39:00.000-08:002009-02-16T03:39:00.000-08:00BevI simply knew you would start mentioning von Mi...Bev<BR/><BR/>I simply knew you would start mentioning von Mises. It illustrates quite nicely what you are up to. You want to misuse a field of science to defend/apologise for the capitalist system, as viewed and supported by the Austrian school of political economy and the Libertarian Alliance folk of the world, such as David Ramsay Steele. You neglected to mention that from the outset, preferring the disgraceful argument that science has proven socialism impossible.<BR/><BR/>Re. the science of socialism. Marx and Engels didn't regard human societies as haphazard, accidental, a whim of a god. They tried to identify, find an explanation, of why societal events/things happened and the way they did. Their thinking resulted in "historical materialism", and that famous of statements that the history of (property) society is one of class struggle.<BR/><BR/>If you want to dismiss the marxist analysis, why not be honest and dismiss all social sciences as unscientific.<BR/><BR/>BTW, Socialism isn't about establishing an all powerful central state. The state, which grew out of class ownership and rule, will be abolished in socialism.grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826263127028112194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1347942977387227607.post-41871507891423449192009-02-14T20:53:00.000-08:002009-02-14T20:53:00.000-08:00OK, "gray" (why are we putting our names in quotes...OK, "gray" (why are we putting our names in quotes?), I'll play (for a bit, anyway).<BR/> [gray said]<BR/>"The reason it was scoffed at is because you make the utterly unwarrented assumption that complex systems analysis is fully applicable to political economy."<BR/><BR/>Well, the only assumption that I'm making is that complex system analysis applies to complex systems. There's certainly no doubt that economic systems are complex. Are you saying that economic systems aren't systems? Or that economic systems aren't complex?<BR/><BR/>[gray said]<BR/>"It really falls into the same category as those who would use Darwinian Evolution to describe political economy."<BR/><BR/>What category is that? Are you specifying 'Darwinian' Evolution because you think political economy can be described by some other kind of evolutionary theory? Or are you saying that economic systems don't evolve?<BR/><BR/>[gray said]<BR/>"I doubt "Bev" if class ownership of the means of production and the use of the State to protect that class position are even considered as boundary conditions in your analysis."<BR/><BR/>You're correct, they aren't boundary conditions. They are central to the analysis of why Socialism could never actually work. Specifically, the problem with Socialism is twofold: first the kind and degree of control needed to maintain a complex system in a 'healthy' state must always be 'bottom-up' and specific to the requirements of each element. This is where "Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety" comes from. Socialist systems, i.e. state controlled, are have top-down control systems and so lack the ubiquity and specificity needed to maintain a complex systems in a healthy state. <BR/> This was known for a long time before it was understood rigorously (mathematically) as is demonstrated by Von Mises' analysis in his work "Socialism".<BR/>The second, and probably more fundamental, problem is that of communication networks within a complex system. All complex systems (of the sort we're discussing) have many networks that transmit state information between elements in the system causing on-going regulation. In an economic system one of these network systems are prices, which transmit state information throughout the larger system. There are many others, of course. By having the state set prices, there is no meaningful state information transmitted in the best case, and so the system can't dynamically regulate itself.<BR/><BR/>If you want to learn how to think about complex systems, think about the human body or the environment. Try to apply socialist principles to either one and you'll see what I'm talking about.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and yes, we all still are seeing that no one has yet offered a single "Scientific Principle" upon which Socialism is based. This is especially relevant because "gray" says that complex system theory, the theory that 'science' has come up with to deal with things like economic systems, is not applicable to it. If you guys want to pretend that 'science' is somehow involved in your religion, then you shouldn't get angry when 'science' tells you something you don't like.bevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00226613757075282451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1347942977387227607.post-90551037039547019562009-02-11T23:48:00.000-08:002009-02-11T23:48:00.000-08:00The reason it was scoffed at is because you make t...The reason it was scoffed at is because you make the utterly unwarrented assumption that complex systems analysis is fully applicable to political economy.<BR/><BR/>It really falls into the same category as those who would use Darwinian Evolution to describe political economy.<BR/><BR/>I doubt "Bev" if class ownership of the means of production and the use of the State to protect that class position are even considered as boundary conditions in your analysis.grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826263127028112194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1347942977387227607.post-75653827730430417492009-02-11T12:43:00.000-08:002009-02-11T12:43:00.000-08:00Actually, the last time I said it, a few years ago...Actually, the last time I said it, a few years ago, I offered 'proof' (not the correct term in this context), and it was, of course, ignored with scorn, as it will be again, of course, if I do so this time.<BR/> I have to admit, tho, no one knows more about creating working class poverty and misery than socialists do, so you have some credibility there.<BR/> Also, of course, no one is missing the fact that you are ignoring the main thrust of my post, which is that socialism's claim of being based on 'scientific principles' is risible. I would ask you to back that statement up, but we both know that you would find some way to avoid doing so, so I won't bother. We'll just leave it that my claim has not been refuted.bevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00226613757075282451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1347942977387227607.post-7408268970079504742009-02-09T20:45:00.000-08:002009-02-09T20:45:00.000-08:00What utter balderdash!We have heard this math argu...What utter balderdash!<BR/><BR/>We have heard this math argument before and are still awaiting the proof rather than the woeful assumption! Perhaps somebody got their sums wrong about capitalism given that there is a credit crunch and impending recession, leading to an increase in working class poverty and misery (something not at all surprising to those who have read the "unscientific" theories of Karl Marx in Das Kapital, where Capital's booms and slumps are analysed).<BR/><BR/>The complex systems analysis argument is, we feel, a rather pathetic attempt to justify the continued riches of the capitalists and their exploitation of the working class.grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826263127028112194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1347942977387227607.post-7430775188358870662009-02-06T17:18:00.000-08:002009-02-06T17:18:00.000-08:00I'm not a Christian, but I am a scientist. There a...I'm not a Christian, but I am a scientist. There are no scientific principles involved in the origin or implementation of Socialism. Quite the contrary, modern mathematics, specifically complex system theory, shows quite clearly why any system based on socialist principles is impossible. Socialism is a primitive, pre-scientific theory that, for any person knowledgeable in 21st century science, can't be taken seriously.bevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00226613757075282451noreply@blogger.com