Political Algorithms - The Capitalist Versus The Socialist

[petrushkagoogol]

The Capitalist is of the opinion that capitalism gives the maximum benefit to the minimum number of people (based on merit).

B(max) ∝ P(min)

 

The Socialist is of the opinion that socialism gives the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people. (egalitarian and equitable).

B(max) ∝ P(max)

 

Which is the better algorithm ? 

[exchemist]

 

The Capitalist is of the opinion that capitalism gives the maximum benefit to the minimum number of people (based on merit).

B(max) ∝ P(min)

 

The Socialist is of the opinion that socialism gives the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people. (egalitarian and equitable).

B(max) ∝ P(max)

 

Which is the better algorithm ? 

 

The capitalist one is wrong. 

[Super Polymath]

The Capitalist is of the opinion that capitalism gives the maximum benefit to the minimum number of people (based on merit).

B(min) ∝ P(max)

 

The Socialist is of the opinion that socialism gives the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people. (egalitarian and equitable).

B(max) ∝ P(max)

 

Which is the better algorithm ?

What is merit?? Lol.

 

Of course the second one it better. If you think about, if everyone has equal means social capitalism reemerges regardless. An example is that even hunter-gatherers had social class. A leader is adopted based on his utility to the well-being of the entire hive, considering all individual life as apart of one organic hive. The leader must sacrifice the most, while those underneath must each sacrifice less in return, which works because there's more them. The shortlived ants will eat their long-lived king piece by piece & move on to the next one that carries his genetic marker. We are social (insect & hive-like) creatures, a leader must have a higher sensitivity to the condition of his ants, sympathy pain, a leader's job is to take away their pain at his own expense not cause more by abusing authority.

 

This is what plagues modern civilization, this is a failure of the leaders in power to maximize their utility - & it's highly caused by applying value to pieces of paper. Authority in the modern world has proven to be completely incapable of true empathy. They are removed from the pain, & are therefore not fit to lead. Empathy is a euphemisms for love. True love is not some feel-good chemical, unless that good feeling only comes from liberating others from their suffering.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Super Polymath

[sanctus]

But Petrush, a capitalist believes that everyone should be able to get the maximum and if he/she fails it is due to their slackness.

[petrushkagoogol]

But Petrush, a capitalist believes that everyone should be able to get the maximum and if he/she fails it is due to their slackness.

 

Relegating someone to the fringes of society, when of sound mind and morals, is NOT social justice imo. 

[sanctus]

I just tried to state how a cpitalist sees capitalism ;-). If you thought it was my opinion then you were wrong. I see the capitalism of nowadyas which lacks ethics as a big problem.

[exchemist]

But Petrush, a capitalist believes that everyone should be able to get the maximum and if he/she fails it is due to their slackness.

I don't think that is right either. It's too naive a view of human nature.

 

To my understanding, most supporters of capitalism believe some version of the idea that "a rising tide floats all boats", in other words some form of trickle-down economics. The people providing the capital for enterprise (i.e. the investors, who are the real capitalists in the narrowest sense) get richer but their wealth results in greater wealth for others, too, due to employment opportunities, enhancement of the range of goods and services available, and the competition which reduces the cost of them. 

 

In my personal view this has in fact been largely true over most of the history of industrial society. However it seems to have ceased to work, some time over the last 2 or 3 decades. We have had a flatlining of real wages, while dividends have still been paid to investors and board level remuneration has grown astronomically. We have also had an asset bubble, due to low interest rates in the wake of the 2008 crash, which has led owners of assets (e.g. houses) seeing their wealth on paper grow with zero input, and putting these assets out of reach of more and more of the people who depend on those flatlining wages. 

 

It is that, I think, that is behind a lot of the political upheavals we are seeing and the recrudescence of socialist ideas.   

Edited March 18, 2018 by exchemist

[sanctus]

Exchemist, that is why I am not an anti-capitalist just against its current implementation without any ingrained ethics.

[exchemist]

Exchemist, that is why I am not an anti-capitalist just against its current implementation without any ingrained ethics.

I very much agree. I have always maintained that capitalism is a bit like nuclear fission: it generates wealth and progress in a way that no other economic system can, but needs to be carefully contained and controlled by a system of law, to prevent it going out of control and causing damage. That is why we have anti-trust law etc. Sometimes the law does not keep up.  

 

My real point is that I do not think it is helpful to describe capitalism by a pejorative caricature, especially as nowadays anybody with a pension plan is an investor and thus a capitalist, and that is true of most of the working population of any industrialised country! 

[Super Polymath]

Exchemist, everything you just wrote reads like "If you're not at the top you're subject to being owned by those who are".

 

That's no different from how Ramses viewed the Jewish population in a far more primitive culture than this.

[Super Polymath]

If we can't determine the worth of one another based on good will because of some written value forced on our given names from birth, than yes social class in a capitalist society becomes problematic. Think of all of the assholes, alcoholics, & broken families materialistic values have produced in this country.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Sweden knows best. If I'd had a choice on which nationality to be born into it would have been somewhere in the Netherlands. It's a little late to adjust now

[exchemist]

Mad as a box of frogs.  :sad:

[Maine farmer]

Capitalism is just an extension of human nature.  Socialism is an attempt to control human nature.  Come to think of it, most religions are also an attempt to control human nature.  I have seen some opinionated socialists who seem to have a bit of religious fervor  to them.

[sanctus]

But Farming guy, even if your statement is correct (have to ponder it a bit more) it is not wrong to critcise human nature.

[exchemist]

Capitalism is just an extension of human nature.  Socialism is an attempt to control human nature.  Come to think of it, most religions are also an attempt to control human nature.  I have seen some opinionated socialists who seem to have a bit of religious fervor  to them.

True, in that is is based on harnessing self-interest. But then we all recognise the need to control human nature, in order to have a functioning society. We need to control the behaviour that results from capitalism, for the same reason.  And we do, through a complex and evolving system of commercial law.  

[Maine farmer]

But Farming guy, even if your statement is correct (have to ponder it a bit more) it is not wrong to critcise human nature.

Well, I wouldn't ever say it's wrong to be critical of anything.  As for control, it all depends upon who is doing the controlling, and for what purpose.  What we see a lot of in all systems of organization in the world today is a consolidation and concentration of power, both economic and political.  Either through capitalism or socialism, this can result in harm.