The REAL Thanksgiving Story

[Havet]

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony (http://www.plimoth.org/Library/pc28-92.htm) in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html) the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.


This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

Now before you get all jumpy, we all know that Mises is always biased against socialism, and I don't really want to jump into any conclusions before hearing both sides, so here's my question:

- Why, in your opinion, did the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" societies failed at that time? Is there historical evidence of otherwise?

[IcarusAngel]

Misean historical research is to be taken even less seriously than Misean axioms. There are numerous errors in this article.

The pilgrams were not 'following the principles of communism' in the least. In communism people get according to need, they are not allowed to take as much as they want, as that would prevent other people from getting their needs. It sounds more of a problem of not restricting the capitalist elements of human nature than it does communism.

Some cooperatives based on socialist principles (which had not yet been implemented in the 1600s) were very successful.

Cooperatives have been more successful and made the people more happy, such as in Cochabamba where privatization plans were a disaster and the people unhappy.

We do not have a 'free-market,' nor is a free-market anything that is possible. All markets are based on artificially constructed rules like a game of monopoly, and can only be analyzed as such.

The government has 'outcompeted' the market numerous times.

The third world has gotten WORSE with the implementation of free-markets, with more starving people than ever. This will probably go down as capitalism's biggest crimes - implementing the free-markets for the poor people of the third world while the first-worlders benefit from an all powerful state.

Slavery was implemented back then (was slavery better than markets? I actually think slavery should be reintroduced as giving people the option to have homes as long as there are markets, because millions of people are now living without homes).

[Havet]

The pilgrams were not 'following the principles of communism' in the least. In communism people get according to need, they are not allowed to take as much as they want, as that would prevent other people from getting their needs.

I agree that thats were the error of the article seems to lie. I have a question, though:

Are human needs objectively verifiable?


Some cooperatives based on socialist principles (which had not yet been implemented in the 1600s) were very successful.

Not that I don't believe you on this, but some resources to back this up would be pretty sweet.


Cooperatives have been more successful and made the people more happy, such as in Cochabamba where privatization plans were a disaster and the people unhappy.

True (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_protests_of_2000)


The third world has gotten WORSE with the implementation of free-markets, with more starving people than ever. This will probably go down as capitalism's biggest crimes - implementing the free-markets for the poor people of the third world while the first-worlders benefit from an all powerful state.

I don't understand. You say free markets then an all powerful state. Do you use the term free-market to describe corporatist economies? If so, why?


Slavery was implemented back then (was slavery better than markets? I actually think slavery should be reintroduced as giving people the option to have homes as long as there are markets, because millions of people are now living without homes).

So you support slavery? Care to go into some detail here?

[Skooma Addict]

Misean historical research is to be taken even less seriously than Misean axioms. There are numerous errors in this article.

There is no such thing as Misean historical research. There is not a Misesean way of studying history.


The pilgrams were not 'following the principles of communism' in the least. In communism people get according to need, they are not allowed to take as much as they want, as that would prevent other people from getting their needs. It sounds more of a problem of not restricting the capitalist elements of human nature than it does communism.

What a person needs cannot be determined by third person data. It can only be determined subjectively by every individual. So unless we make serious advancements in neuroscience, and we then attach some device to peoples brains, you will never be able be able to determine every individuals needs.

This is all assuming we have an objective definition of what constitutes a need. Also, who determines who gets what? The whole idea is terrible.


We do not have a 'free-market,' nor is a free-market anything that is possible. All markets are based on artificially constructed rules like a game of monopoly, and can only be analyzed as such.


Nobody ever said a free market does not have rules. Your objection that a free market cannot exist makes no sense. A market cannot exist without rules.


The third world has gotten WORSE with the implementation of free-markets, with more starving people than ever. This will probably go down as capitalism's biggest crimes - implementing the free-markets for the poor people of the third world while the first-worlders benefit from an all powerful state.


You just said a free market was impossible.



Slavery was implemented back then (was slavery better than markets? I actually think slavery should be reintroduced as giving people the option to have homes as long as there are markets, because millions of people are now living without homes).

So we should enslave homeless people?

[IcarusAngel]

There is no such thing as Misean historical research. There is not a Misesean way of studying history.

There are standards employed by academic historians and then there are "Misean standards" - where Miseans write in their own academic journals and review journals since they cannot get published in mainstream journals.

The claim by Miseans that academia is a conspiracy theory to keep them out of the history and logic departments is equivalent to the Randian claim that there is a conspiracy in philosophy to keep Ayn Rand out of their departments. This is akin to creationists, who also have their own journals and publications.

That's why I say "creationist standards" or "Misean standards" versus academic standards.



What a person needs cannot be determined by third person data. It can only be determined subjectively by every individual.

This is ridiculous and is not verifiable. Obviously a doctor knows my needs better than myself in regards to my health.

So, I would put DOCTORS, not dock workers, and certainly not pharmaceutical companies, in charge of medicine. They would determine what worked best for the most people. Furthermore, a civil engineer knows better than me what kind of streets, bridges, etc. should be designed than I do, so they would be in charge of that, and so on and so forth.

Remember the first part of the Marxian claim: "From each ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY..."

The reason I support UHC, for example, is because most doctors WANT IT, because they are not practicing medicine in the way they want to be (taking care of people) and thus are prevented from following the hippocratic oath.

They see that the insurance industry fails not only their own patients, but themselves as well, which is why they don't like it and why many of them even overcharge the insurance industries, which is a huge problem in the US we don't hear about. Malpractice, which occurs often, probably happens because many doctors just give up in this system.

Furthermore, philosophers for centuries have taught that there is a huge difference between choices we make and actually being happy and being free. It's possible to think you're happy while not actually being happy, it's possible to think you're doing your body good while you're actually causing it harm (like the satisfaction that comes from cigarettes), and it's possible to think you're sick when you are not actually sick, etc. The idea that happiness = consumption and merely a feeling is hedonistic and Randian and one I think most people don't agree with.

In reality, since humans are social creatures, and have the ability of language, we talk these things over with one another in order to get not only our own opinion of what might be right, but other people's opinions as well. This is a huge triumph in evolution and no other creature has this ability of language. We seek other people's opinions because they indeed might know better what to do in a given situation than we do.

If we left all of our decisions up to ourselves the human species wouldn't last for five minutes.


So unless we make serious advancements in neuroscience, and we then attach some device to peoples brains, you will never be able be able to determine every individuals needs.

We have objective standards as to what people need from science: Food, water, etc.

What people NEED for their work is indeed subjective but it would be assumed people are smart enough to figure this out and were smart enough to do so even pre-civilization.


This is all assuming we have an objective definition of what constitutes a need. Also, who determines who gets what? The whole idea is terrible.

It would be a lot better than capitalism in my opinion where corporations come to power arbitrarily and through the power of the state.

We have huge problems of land not being used property and resources being used inefficiently because of markets, not because of governments or people.


Nobody ever said a free market does not have rules. Your objection that a free market cannot exist makes no sense. A market cannot exist without rules.

So a market is not really 'free' because it requires regulation and not everybody agrees with those regulations.

We know this to be an objective fact because people tell us they disagree with market capitalism, and want other implementations to be in place.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't understand. You say free markets then an all powerful state. Do you use the term free-market to describe corporatist economies? If so, why?

Free-markets = one form of statism

American corporatism = another form of statism.



So you support slavery? Care to go into some detail here?

It's often a choice between bad and worse. Saddam Hussein was bad, but many Iraqis preferred Saddam Hussein over the US imperialism and corporate exploitation, even many of the Westernized Iraqis think that Saddam was better. Indonesia had a brutal dictator but once he was gone the people started working to improve the country. Although it is still third world it is better than pre-Suharto and got better AFTER the United States stopped intervening.

We know for a fact that certain countries have been able to give people better standards of living from a combination of factors, such as slavery, corporatism, imperialism, war, and so on, and this has allowed certain people in the world to live better than others. America grew exponentially from WWII, for example, and was even growing Pre-WWII thanks to the New Deal and continued to grow after that.

Some countries have not been so lucky and seem to have followed a certain pattern, namely, market forces without state protection for the workers or to increase productivity. It has less to do with culture and more to do with political decisions; for example, Russia is back into the third world due to corrupt market implementations when prior to that they were an advanced industrial economy with good health care for most systems, good science programs, and good education and housing programs. They should have built a social democracy on top of that instead of slipping into market capitalism.

As long as these people are suffering hardships, you might as well have them suffering under hardships that will allow their countries to grow.

There is a negative connotation of people working for a master and living on a plantation because it is reminiscent of slavery, but it could be productive, and was practiced even before they were introduced to the "new world." And I think if people want to voluntary enter into that they should be able to do so as long as market capitalism is around, which is really just another form of slavery that allows the west to exploit them. Certainly they shouldn't be 'invaded' by a country like the US for having such a system, with the US supposedly having better standards. Every country the US has invaded or interfered with since WWII has actually gotten worse with few exceptions. Certianly most of the Latin American countries are a lot worse off.

They could also have social democracy but it's bit elitist to think they can just transform themselves out of third world standards into social democracy without some form of hardship.

The Asian tigers all came out of brutal systems. Japan from fascism; Hong Kong from left over British oligarchs and government regulation projects (like 60% of people living in government housing); Taiwan from fascism, etc., whereas in India, after the British left they left the country destroyed and did not resolve any issue such as along the Indian/Pakistani border etc. and India and Pakistan are both third world countries that show the failure of dogmatic capitalism and religion.

Basically I'm in favor of letting the third world grow any way they deem necessary since 'Western intervention' has not helped and many 'foreign aid' programs have actually probably made their failed system worse while increasing their longevity. And so in the third world slavery might actually be a more humane choice than capitalism.

[Havet]

Free-markets = one form of statism

American corporatism = another form of statism.

How do you define free-markets so as to believe they constitute a form of statism?


Basically I'm in favor of letting the third world grow any way they deem necessary since 'Western intervention' has not helped and many 'foreign aid' programs have actually probably made their failed system worse while increasing their longevity. And so in the third world slavery might actually be a more humane choice than capitalism.

Ok I see where you're coming from (the "lesser evil argument"), but don't you think that the "first world" should help the third world WITHOUT MILITARY INTERVENTION by voluntary actions such as voluntary aid, charity, creation of organizations to help support local towns, etc, so long as the first world respects the third world demands whenever the population decides they don't want/need that kind of voluntary action anymore?

[IcarusAngel]

I agree that thats were the error of the article seems to lie. I have a question, though:

Are human needs objectively verifiable?


Misean economics.

Misean economics seems to be about 55% ideology. 40% made up "axioms." and 5% actual statistics and data.

Supposedly, Miseans teach that there are Axioms such as the law of identity, that a definition of a thing is the same thing as itself (which, correct me if I'm wrong, would be a tautology in logical positivism), and so on.

And from these axioms we can build 'human' axioms such as self-ownership and human action, which are both proven by the claim if we deny them we prove them through our actions and our self-ownership.

Through these axioms, then, we must understand empirical data and if the empirical data condtradicts the axioms, which it does, the empirical data itself must be wrong.

It sounds to me that the axioms themselves are wrong. Prove to me where Misean axioms have ever shown empirical data to be wrong, using only the axioms, or admit the entire system is false and nonsense.

It's funny that Miseans claim economics is not a science (which is true) but at the same time claim that economics is actually grounded in realities that are even more real than scientific data. WTF????

[Havet]

Misean economics.

Misean economics seems to be about 55% ideology. 40% made up "axioms." and 5% actual statistics and data.

Supposedly, Miseans teach that there are Axioms such as the law of identity, that a definition of a thing is the same thing as itself (which, correct me if I'm wrong, would be a tautology in logical positivism), and so on.

And from these axioms we can build 'human' axioms such as self-ownership and human action, which are both proven by the claim if we deny them we prove them through our actions and our self-ownership.

Through these axioms, then, we must understand empirical data and if the empirical data condtradicts the axioms, which it does, the empirical data itself must be wrong.

It sounds to me that the axioms themselves are wrong. Prove to me where Misean axioms have ever shown empirical data to be wrong, using only the axioms, or admit the entire system is false and nonsense.

It's funny that Miseans claim economics is not a science (which is true) but at the same time claim that economics is actually grounded in realities that are even more real than scientific data. WTF????

So...

Are human needs objectively verifiable according to you?

[Skooma Addict]

There are standards employed by academic historians and then there are "Misean standards" - where Miseans write in their own academic journals and review journals since they cannot get published in mainstream journals.Certain Austrians do publish in mainstream journals. There is nothing wrong with having your own journals.



The claim by Miseans that academia is a conspiracy theory to keep them out of the history and logic departments is equivalent to the Randian claim that there is a conspiracy in philosophy to keep Ayn Rand out of their departments. This is akin to creationists, who also have their own journals and publications.

That's why I say "creationist standards" or "Misean standards" versus academic standards.None of this has to do with what you said earlier. There is no Misean way of studying history.


This is ridiculous and is not verifiable. Obviously a doctor knows my needs better than myself in regards to my health. While true, that is not what I am talking about. A doctor cannot tap into your mind and discover your own desires. In fact, the only way to define a need in a meaningful way is to say that a need is something required for your survival. For example, say I am in a desert. I will die if I don't drink _____ ounces of water, so I need ____ ounces of water. If we are using that definition, then yes, we can know objectively what another persons needs are. But then from each according to his ability to each according to his needs doesn't sound so good now does it?

If you are defining needs in any other way, then it is meaningless because there is no way to objectively measure a persons desires.


So, I would put DOCTORS, not dock workers, and certainly not pharmaceutical companies, in charge of medicine. They would determine what worked best for the most people. Furthermore, a civil engineer knows better than me what kind of streets, bridges, etc. should be designed than I do, so they would be in charge of that, and so on and so forth.

Remember the first part of the Marxian claim: "From each ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY..."

The reason I support UHC, for example, is because most doctors WANT IT, because they are not practicing medicine in the way they want to be (taking care of people) and thus are prevented from following the hippocratic oath.

They see that the insurance industry fails not only their own patients, but themselves as well, which is why they don't like it and why many of them even overcharge the insurance industries, which is a huge problem in the US we don't hear about. Malpractice, which occurs often, probably happens because many doctors just give up in this system.

Furthermore, philosophers for centuries have taught that there is a huge difference between choices we make and actually being happy and being free. It's possible to think you're happy while not actually being happy, it's possible to think you're doing your body good while you're actually causing it harm (like the satisfaction that comes from cigarettes), and it's possible to think you're sick when you are not actually sick, etc. The idea that happiness = consumption and merely a feeling is hedonistic and Randian and one I think most people don't agree with.

In reality, since humans are social creatures, and have the ability of language, we talk these things over with one another in order to get not only our own opinion of what might be right, but other people's opinions as well. This is a huge triumph in evolution and no other creature has this ability of language. We seek other people's opinions because they indeed might know better what to do in a given situation than we do.

If we left all of our decisions up to ourselves the human species wouldn't last for five minutes.
Even though I disagree with most of this, I think it misses the point entirely.


We have objective standards as to what people need from science: Food, water, etc.Right, so if that is how we are defining needs, then your little slogan makes no sense. Are we all supposed to live on the brink of starvation?


So a market is not really 'free' because it requires regulation and not everybody agrees with those regulations.
Right, for example, some people want to go around killing people. Markets require rules to be enforced in order to function properly. It is not free in the sense that you are saying,where people can go and do whatever they want, but that is never what anyone meant.

[Skooma Addict]

Misean economics seems to be about 55% ideology. 40% made up "axioms." and 5% actual statistics and data.Economics is a value free science. Mises said so himself. So...


Supposedly, Miseans teach that there are Axioms such as the law of identity, that a definition of a thing is the same thing as itself (which, correct me if I'm wrong, would be a tautology in logical positivism), and so on.Logical positivism is a joke. It should not be taken seriously.


And from these axioms we can build 'human' axioms such as self-ownership and human action, which are both proven by the claim if we deny them we prove them through our actions and our self-ownership.Not self-ownership.


It sounds to me that the axioms themselves are wrong. Prove to me where Misean axioms have ever shown empirical data to be wrong, using only the axioms, or admit the entire system is false and nonsense.I will let you guess at what fallacy you just committed.

[IcarusAngel]

Ok I see where you're coming from (the "lesser evil argument"), but don't you think that the "first world" should help the third world WITHOUT MILITARY INTERVENTION by voluntary actions such as voluntary aid, charity, creation of organizations to help support local towns, etc, so long as the first world respects the third world demands whenever the population decides they don't want/need that kind of voluntary action anymore?

We've tried that way for over five decades and it has not worked. The problem is that corrupt land owners and politicians get all of the money. The only thing that will work is allowing the people to figure it out or allowing the governments to implement systems that promote real growth.

They need to reform, they don't need to continue their current system of severe exploitation. Many third world countries in Latin America begged the US to allow them to have even an FDR style social democracy. Even the world bank said that the growth they experienced for their population was 'encouraging.' The US prevented them from growing using either the military of the countries or outright interventions. Some were invaded merely for 'allowing' a communist party to exist (the US allows a communist party to exist).

The real 'leftists' in that situation were the people working with the third worlders like some elements of the catholic church, nuns, and bishops and so on that were assassinated by US goons. And the four US nuns were killed as well etc...

The US cannot be trusted to run a country or invade another country for benevolent purposes. This has been proven time and time again.

This the 2000s and the countries should work with the UN etc. to build themselves up in pretty much anyway possible. There can never be a world wide change until there is more equality between 'first' and 'third world' countries.

[IcarusAngel]

Economics is a value free science. Mises said so himself. So...

lol. "Mises said so..."


Logical positivism is a joke.


Why? It was invented by mathematicians and there has been an explosion in logical research because of analytic philosophy.


It should not be takes seriously.

I'm not a philosopher, but if I was, I'd pick one of the existing competing analytic philosophies such as logical positivism.

Their distinction between sense and reference seems to make a lot of sense. The 'denotation' of a name is the object whereas the 'sense' of the name is the contrabution it makes to the meaning. This makes sense in light of grammar because words are defined according to how they are used.

It is Tom.

'Who's Tom?'

'Tom is so and so's brother.' or 'He is the person who invented such and such'

So you are given a sense of who he is and are able to identify him.

It prevents something from having the name and the definition being the same thing.


I will let you guess at what fallacy you just committed.

There is no fallacy. It is the axioms themselves that are flawed. If they weren't flawed there would be no difficulty in showing them to lead to logical conclusions.

[IcarusAngel]

So...

Are human needs objectively verifiable according to you?

First show that Misean economics and logical reasoning is even meant to be taken seriously by providing some evidence before I will enter into a discussion on these word games and intellectual/philosophical mumbo jumbo.

I like analytic philosophy which says we must have some evidence for our beliefs before we believe them, and in social science this is an area where we need evidence, not philosophical mumbo jumbo.

[Skooma Addict]

lol. "Mises said so..."


So saying that Austrian Economics is 55% ideology doesn't make much any sense now does it?


Why? It was invented by mathematicians and there has been an explosion in logical research because of analytic philosophy.

It is a joke because it is self refuting. It is a predictive statement that statements cannot be predictive.


I'm not a philosopher, but if I was, I'd pick one of the existing competing analytic philosophies such as logical positivism.


Again, logical positivism is self refuting, which is why nobody is a logical positivist these days.

[IcarusAngel]

It's ideas have found themselves into mathematics and linguistics without being properly credited, ideas of which clearly contradict Misean teaching.

The point is that 'Mises' is no where to be found in the intellectual discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logicians

[Havet]

First show that Misean economics and logical reasoning is even meant to be taken seriously by providing some evidence before I will enter into a discussion on these word games and intellectual/philosophical mumbo jumbo.

I like analytic philosophy which says we must have some evidence for our beliefs before we believe them, and in social science this is an area where we need evidence, not philosophical mumbo jumbo.

I think you are mistaking me with Olaf. I never made an argument in favor of Mises in this thread.

So, are human needs objectively verifiable?

BTW, answer this too:

How do you define free-markets so as to believe they constitute a form of statism?

[gorillafuck]

Slavery was implemented back then (was slavery better than markets? I actually think slavery should be reintroduced as giving people the option to have homes as long as there are markets, because millions of people are now living without homes).
Hoh jeez.

[Dimentio]

Now before you get all jumpy, we all know that Mises is always biased against socialism, and I don't really want to jump into any conclusions before hearing both sides, so here's my question:

- Why, in your opinion, did the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" societies failed at that time? Is there historical evidence of otherwise?

I don't know about the status of the Plymouth pilgrims, but I know that a lot of the English colonists were either prisoners or people which had been kidnapped to be brought to the New World. Maybe the reason why they were there made them dissatisfied?

[Havet]

I don't know about the status of the Plymouth pilgrims, but I know that a lot of the English colonists were either prisoners or people which had been kidnapped to be brought to the New World. Maybe the reason why they were there made them dissatisfied?

That's a good theory. But do you think "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" societes can only work if people are satisfied a priori?

[IcarusAngel]

Hoh jeez.

Let me guess, another first worlder who thinks he knows more about what the people need in the third world than the people themselves, just as GW Bush and the Republicans know what's best for the Iraqis (and knew what's best for Indonesians, Nicaraguans, Chileans, El Salvadorans,etc. etc. etc.).

Better that they build than move capital around in circles.

The left has refused to stand up to neo-liberalism; let the people of the third world stand up to it.

[IcarusAngel]

I think you are mistaking me with Olaf. I never made an argument in favor of Mises in this thread.

Yet you keep bringing up Mises and linking to the Mises website, a website that rivals stormfront in ignorance, hatred, racism, and false statements.


So, are human needs objectively verifiable?

BTW, answer this too:

How do you define free-markets so as to believe they constitute a form of statism?


Who cares? What are the consequences of if human needs are objective or sujbective?

To me this is another question like 'does the table in front of you really exist, man' because you can poke philosophical holes in human sight and recognition. And it is equivalent to Olaf claiming that, because such and such is subjective, that science and creationism are on the same level logically speaking. This is nonsense.

The question is 'What is the best way to distribute resources, and who should have the social power over their distribution' and by now you know my answer to the question.

Will people make mistakes? Absolutely. Humans are not perfect. But they would be more the mistakes of human beings, not the mistakes of an obviously corrupt and flawed system (empirically speaking) such as capitalism that rewards greed and corrupt, and then destroys itself.

I believe worker control of the means of productive to be total freedom, and more natural. There would be plenty of room for individualism and perhaps even a more individualistic system is possible. But I'm for maximizing the individuals choices.

Freedom is the ability of individuals to make many choices which is not apparent in capitalism.

[Skooma Addict]

It's ideas have found themselves into mathematics and linguistics without being properly credited, ideas of which clearly contradict Misean teaching.
Well logical positivism is false, and that's all that matters when your deciding whether or not to adopt logical positivism. What specifically contradicts Austrian teachings?



The point is that 'Mises' is no where to be found in the intellectual discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logiciansSo if someone is not on that list, they are no where to be found in the intellectual discussion?



And it is equivalent to Olaf claiming that, because such and such is subjective, that science and creationism are on the same level logically speaking. This is nonsense.what?

[Havet]

Yet you keep bringing up Mises and linking to the Mises website, a website that rivals stormfront in ignorance, hatred, racism, and false statements.

Because I am interested in seeing a socialist rebuttal before I take any side. It's right there on the first post:


...and I don't really want to jump into any conclusions before hearing both sides, :


Who cares? What are the consequences of if human needs are objective or sujbective?

Well, if human needs are subjective then "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" societies will always fail. I was hoping the contrary, but you don't seem too eager in defending that argument yourself.


Will people make mistakes? Absolutely. Humans are not perfect. But they would be more the mistakes of human beings, not the mistakes of an obviously corrupt and flawed system (empirically speaking) such as capitalism that rewards greed and corrupt, and then destroys itself.

I wasn't talking about mistakes. I was talking about objective needs. Sure a doctor can get it wrong (if there really are objective needs) but that surely wouldn't harm the eutopia on a larger scale.

You made the claim that " In communism people get according to need, they are not allowed to take as much as they want, as that would prevent other people from getting their needs. ", so I'm asking you to defend it and prove that needs are objectively verifiable so that there are objective ways of telling if someone is taking more than they need or not.


I believe worker control of the means of productive to be total freedom, and more natural. There would be plenty of room for individualism and perhaps even a more individualistic system is possible. But I'm for maximizing the individuals choices.

Freedom is the ability of individuals to make many choices which is not apparent in capitalism.

I agree and I hope so.

[IcarusAngel]

If human needs were subjective it would indicate that there is no 'right way' to distribute resources in an economy. It would not show that from each according to his need is a failure. Many things in society are 'objective' but we look at the evidence and the data to try and come to the best conclusion. History is very subjective especially when it comes to trying to interpret theory. So that means there are some theories better than others.

No one has ever claimed from each according to his need is perfect, but it is better than the capitalist mode of production imo.

Furthermore, since human needs are 'subjective' you can't say that the current corporate model is providing people their needs. What if another corporation run by different people is better at providing the needs of people? Shouldn't they take it over? In market theory they would, but in reality that doesn't happen.

The difference between capitalist collectivism and communist collectivism is that people are truly allowed to continually VOTE, and TELL you what their needs are, instead of just putting it all out to market forces in a first come, first serve basis, where people with money and power do most of their voting.

In fact, you're only arguing against yourself because as I said it's our ability to communicate that makes us use the right decisions and speaking is a better form of communication than voting with your dollars which is a lot of nonsense.

Check out the book "The Tyranny of the Market" to see how markets cater to group think and collectivist ends at the expense of the individual.

In my opinion we should just have something like syndicalism where the workers are directly in charge instead of 'collectives' that attempt to distribute the resources (although I think the 'collectives' would be a step above the current system of collectivism).

[Skooma Addict]

If human needs were subjective it would indicate that there is no 'right way' to distribute resources in an economy.

There are ways that are more efficient and effective than others.


It would not show that from each according to his need is a failure.

Yes it would because you cannot objectively determine a persons needs unless you are defining needs as literally the bare necessities of life. So to each according to his need makes no sense.


No one has ever claimed from each according to his need is perfect, but it is better than the capitalist mode of production imo.

A dumb little slogan that makes about as much sense as the overused line "Love wins" is not better than a highly complex and efficient method of resource allocation with a natural currency which evolved over hundreds of years. Not to mention that the central planners calculation problem wipes out your entire argument.



Furthermore, since human needs are 'subjective' you can't say that the current corporate model is providing people their needs. What if another corporation run by different people is better at providing the needs of people? Shouldn't they take it over? In market theory they would, but in reality that doesn't happen.

The market can satisfy human wants more efficiently than any other organization because it allocates scarce resources in the most effective manner. But human desires can never be completely satisfied.


In my opinion we should just have something like syndicalism where the workers are directly in charge instead of 'collectives' that attempt to distribute the resources (although I think the 'collectives' would be a step above the current system of collectivism).

Central planners calculation problem applies here.

[Havet]

If human needs were subjective

... bla bla bla...

So in short you [the commune] have NO WAY of preventing people from taking as much as they want.

[IcarusAngel]

As usual, you are not able to combat the facts and result to mindless sloganeering and switching the issue, like Olaf. You are only making markets look bad.

As I said, the commune would be better able to provide the needs to the community because they would have input directly from the community, and then the resources would be divided based on expertise. This is contrast to capitalism which is basically garbage in, garbage out.

Capitalism is a horrible mode of production that has created vast areas of unused land, inefficient resources, in computers, automotive industry, etc., and massive waste.

This is why it doesn't make sense for conservatives to oppose communism and more efficient modes of production because we have more problems than we deserve and more solutions than are applied. It is the market, a PROVEN failure, which is the cause of this.

[Havet]

As usual, you are not able to combat the facts and result to mindless sloganeering and switching the issue, like Olaf. You are only making markets look bad.

As I said, the commune would be better able to provide the needs to the community because they would have input directly from the community, and then the resources would be divided based on expertise. This is contrast to capitalism which is basically garbage in, garbage out.

Capitalism is a horrible mode of production that has created vast areas of unused land, inefficient resources, in computers, automotive industry, etc., and massive waste.

This is why it doesn't make sense for conservatives to oppose communism and more efficient modes of production because we have more problems than we deserve and more solutions than are applied. It is the market, a PROVEN failure, which is the cause of this.

As usual you avoided my question :rolleyes:

[IcarusAngel]

Your question has been directly answered and you are only able to retort with nonsense about people taking more resources than they deserve when in fact this only happens in capitalism, in communism people get what they need (as explained by them and determined by experts) and then carry out their true tasks. It is obviously more free than capitalism.

And capitalism is the one with the problem of the tragedy of the commons, as has been explained (since the motive is profit people have a vested interest in being inefficient and cheap, which hurts the common in the long term).

Experiments from the real world to game theory to modern economics shows this. You advocate failure, not progress.

[Skooma Addict]

Your question has been directly answered and you are only able to retort with nonsense about people taking more resources than they deserve when in fact this only happens in capitalism, in communism people get what they need (as explained by them and determined by experts) and then carry out their true tasks. It is obviously more free than capitalism.

So I go up to the experts and tell them what I need, and then the "experts" decide what I get and what I don't. This still doesn't avoid the calculation problem. What method do the experts use to rationally allocate resources? What exactly is the incentive to work by the way?

So it isn't to each according to his need. It is "to each according to what the experts decide."