The Blissful Ignoramus

9 Responses to “Irrationality of Socialists?”

1. 1 hippieprof August 25, 2009 at 7:11 am

   Actually, in the US it was 19th century capitalists who first embraced Darwinian thought. They viewed “survival of the fittest” as a moral justification for their actions. That is what social Darwinism is all about, after all.

   – hippieprof

   Reply
   • 2 The Blissful Ignoramus August 25, 2009 at 8:22 am

     Thanks, an interesting observation. Can you refer me to evidences of this?

     FWIW, my post is not about origins of the philosophies. It is simply addressing the irrationality of someone holding two logically opposed philosophies at the same time (“cognitive dissonance”?).

     That this paradoxical phenomenon is evident everywhere we look, IMO is indicative of just how successful the actual “minitrue” (referred to in your comments on “A Truth Revolution” post) has been.

     May I suggest, that you might gain many interesting insights simply by beginning to ponder (and study) more deeply the “phenomenon” of “opposed” ideologies…. whether they be in science, politics, economics, religion, or anywhere else.

     Reply
2. 3 hippieprof August 25, 2009 at 8:40 am

   Here is a good recent source on the connection between evolutionary theory and 19th century robber barons:

   http://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm?book_number=2211

   I am not sure that I buy your premise that socialism and evolution are really opposed ideologies. Many evolutionary theorists have in fact discussed the evolution of altruistic (socialistic) societies. Wilson’s Sociobiology is a good starting point for that line of thinking.

   Reply
   • 4 The Blissful Ignoramus August 25, 2009 at 10:27 am

     Thanks for the link… it does look an interesting read, in context of the USA. May I politely suggest though, that it’s best to dig well beyond the shores, and well prior to the “creation” of the USA, in order to backtrack the trail of both evolutionary theory and “democratic” political/economic theory. Could I suggest starting with the French Revolution and research backwards from there?

     May I ask, “why” are you not sure that you buy the basic premise of the post? I’m sincerely interested in your personal thoughts here though… not what “many evolutionary theorists have in fact discussed”. To repeat others’ views is merely to parrot, right?

     BTW, I like your hippieprof pseudonym… from this and a scan of your blog bio, I’m guessing you’d like my ’73 Kombi campervan, and identify with my propensity for spending lots of time pondering alone in “the bush”, as we say Down Under.

     Reply
3. 5 hippieprof August 25, 2009 at 1:17 pm

   Again, I apologize for not realizing you were down under. It is ironic and slightly embarrassing that I have recently blogged about the “ugly American” tendency to be insensitive to cultural differences – only to be guilty of it myself in almost the same breath.

   My citation of “evolutionary theorists” is an occupational hazard – in my business you are required to provide citations for almost everything.

   In fact, I was expressing my personal thoughts on evolution – I think about evolution a lot, and it is in fact related to my area of academic specialty. So – to rephrase: I do not believe that there is any contradiction between socialism and evolution. For a start, both are commonly (though perhaps not necessarily) atheistic systems.

   Further, there are conditions under which evolutionary forces will create socialistic societies. In simplest terms (and this is a very simplified version) a relatively socialistic society will evolve when the benefit to the individual of being in the society exceeds the cost the individual pays in order to be in the society.

   I love thinking about this stuff….

   – hippieprof

   Reply
   • 6 The Blissful Ignoramus August 25, 2009 at 2:31 pm

     Thanks for expanding… I appreciate “meeting” you and having this discussion. Very stimulating.

     With respect, may I say that I don’t think your answer addresses the basic premise of the post.

     You’ve cited “atheistic” commonalities between socialism and evolution. However, the basic premise of the post is not concerned with “theism” in any way.

     Shall we consider that the basic premise of the post is entirely focussed on concepts of… shall we say, “expansion” vs “reduction”? Or to put it another way, “improvement” of the whole vs a “downwards levelling” of the whole?

     In simple and very broad terms, evolution proposes the idea (to me) that an “increase” (ie) diversity, and improvement of the whole (nature), is a fact/reality of the natural realm due to evolutionary processes.

     Again in simple and very broad terms, by contrast socialism proposes the idea (to me, in practical real-world historical terms) that the great diversity (of the human experience) would be improved by “levelling” the playing field.

     At its heart, socialism entails a practical reality of reducing all to one level (except those in charge, of course). The “stronger” must be encouraged (though in reality, always coerced) to “give”… by fair means or foul… to the “weaker”. It’s the most basic of marxist principles, I’m sure you know. The principle of “redistribution”.

     If we consider actual events & real history (USSR a classic example) rather than merely theory, it seems self-evident to me that socialism does not increase diversity. Quite the reverse, in fact. Nor does it result in an overall “improvement” of the human experience. Quite the reverse, again.

     FWIW, I have travelled in the former USSR on numerous occasions, have good friends there. There is no question in my mind that we have before us a great example of how the “utopian” socialist ideals of “Liberty”, “Equality”, “Fraternity” (ergo, French Revolution, thence Russian Revolution), do not improve diversity, or quality.

     In essence, at the basic level, evolution purports to do the opposite.

     Can you see this basic principle?

     Now, you’ve also said that..

     In simplest terms (and this is a very simplified version) a relatively socialistic society will evolve when the benefit to the individual of being in the society exceeds the cost the individual pays in order to be in the society.

     This is a hypothetical. Can you point me to an example of this in practical reality?

     I’d put it to you that this is only a theoretical point. The reality of historical experience is that evolution purports to promote increased diversity and overall species improvement… whereas socialism (in real experience) promotes reduced diversity, and has proven to reduce overall “quality”, not “improve” it.

     Thanks again for stimulating my mind today, hippieprof.

     Reply
     • 7 The Blissful Ignoramus August 25, 2009 at 2:50 pm

       You might find this article interesting, hippieprof… for a Russian perspective on the USA, capitalism, and other issues relevant to our discussion.

       Remember… the poor, proud Russians & East Europeans have seen first hand what 70 years of “Liberty”, “Equality”, and “Fraternity” really means, in practical terms. Have you ever been to the former USSR?

       Reply
4. 8 hippieprof August 27, 2009 at 11:48 pm

   I think I now understand your point about socialism and evolution – but I think it is based on a misunderstanding of what evolution does. You say that:

   “evolution proposes the idea (to me) that an “increase” (ie) diversity, and improvement of the whole (nature), is a fact/reality of the natural realm due to evolutionary processes.”

   Evolutionary theory does not posit an improvement of the whole – and in fact the concept “improvement” is almost undefined. Instead, evolutionary theory posits that an organism will evolve to become optimally suited to its niche. That may even involve a “devolution” or stepping backwards – in cases where a previously evolved trait is no longer adaptive. The loss of eyes in deep sea fish is an example. Vision is obviously an important adaptation – but when your ecological niche contains no light, maintaining a visual system becomes a needless expense of energy – and evolution weeds eyes out of that gene pool. So, what is an “improvement” in one environment is actually a liability in another.

   You asked of a practical example of evolution of a socialistic society. I can’t do that with humans because so much of society is based on cultural rather than biological factors (and that is another can of worms completely).

   I can give a good examples in the animal kingdom, though. The best examples are the social insects – bees and ants. They have truly socialistic societies (actually, communistic is probably the better term).

   I agree that socialism did not work well in the former Soviet Union – and I think there are good reasons for its failure. This is not to say, however, that socialism cannot work – it is just say that it didn’t work well in Russia.

   – hippieprof

   Reply
   • 9 The Blissful Ignoramus August 28, 2009 at 5:20 pm

     Thanks for coming back to this. I do appreciate your elaboration on individual evolutionary processes. But I fear you’ve still missed the point, hippieprof. Let us not lose sight of what my post actually stated:

     …reducing all to one level is opposed to nature if all expanded from one level.

     This is very simple.

     Would you agree that evolution broadly posits, that nature has “expanded” (evolved) from 1 level? Perhaps the “level” of the first living, reproduction-capable cell? Or for cosmological / Big Bang proponents, perhaps from the “level” of the “Singularity”?

     Would you agree that socialism (ie, Marxism) broadly posits, that existing diversity in human society (ie, “distinctions” in class, wealth, etc) should be reduced towards a (“utopian”) single level?

     (I can’t imagine anyone would argue that Karl Marx et al advocated that social engineers should aim to increase diversity, and/or to raise the “conditions” / quality of life of the proletariat upwards, to match that of the bourgeoisie?!?)

     Furthermore, would you not agree that socialism in practice has manifestly effected a reduction downwards, from the multiple towards a single level?

     It really is as simple as that.

     I fear that perhaps our discussion has begun to flirt with wandering away from the necessarily broad, simple premise of the original post.

     If one accepts evolutionary theory as true, then quite clearly the combination and interactions of all the various posited evolutionary mechanisms (including “devolution” etc) has indeed resulted in “an improvement of the whole (nature)”. Nature as a whole has improved.

     Surely you would agree? The result we see today is greater diversity. And nature is more “advanced” than whence it came… again, an overall improvement from a “lower” level. The natural realm as we know it is no longer at the level of 1 example of a living cell. So there has quite manifestly been an “improvement of the whole”. No, not of “all” individual examples But rather, an improvement of the whole.

     By stark contrast… socialism has demonstrably failed on both of those fronts. It has always sought the exact opposite.

     Hippieprof, I do think that if you will take the time to ponder, and openly consider my post as both stated and intended… then you will see that the post is indeed a valid comment. Controversial. But valid, nonetheless.

     Evolution posits (holistic) improvement from a single level. Socialism both posits, and has proven in practice, to reduce diversity and quality towards a single level.

     Hence, (political) socialism is diametrically opposed to nature. Considered in that light, it is irrational to believe in both socialism and evolution at the same time.

     Thank you again for discussing (and challenging) this post with me. I really appreciate it.

     Reply