Communism

here

The article from "MSNBC" is about how the American public has historically been opposed to those labeled 'socialist'. However, that relationship seems to be changing. A Seattle council women recently got elected despite the fact that she is a self proclaimed socialist.

In the article, she makes the point that the best way to describe socialism in a condensed medium is to contrast it with Capitalism. I agree. I also think that the best way to promote socialism is to show the negative results of Capitalism, the greatest of which is extreme wealth inequality.

I think it is taken for granted within our society that Marx was wrong. He wasn't. Most critics point to Russia, China, or Eastern Europe to show that the effects of communism are bad, therefore communism doesn't work. The reason why this is not proof indicating that Marx was wrong is because the governments in all 'communist' societies hitherto in history have actually not been Communist, at least in the original Marxist sense of the word.

Essentially, the idea of Communism is to use the riches resulting from both the Capitalist society before the proletarian uprising, and from the scientifically planned Socialist system occurring after, to provide for everyone equally. If everyone is equal, then there will not be any reason to need a police force, a military, any substantial amounts of government, organized education, or any other institutional organization. Essentially, pure-Communism is actually anarchy, that is complete lack of government.

The way in which Communism intends to make everyone equal is through abolition of all private property. Everyone's needs, including recreational needs, will be provided for. They will not be provided by the state, because in pure-Communism there is no state. Essentially, everything will be commonly possessed.

In anarchy what is preventing the criminals from committing crimes and the murderers from murdering? Basically, the lack of overall incentive is the reason an anarchy wherein everyone is equal isn't total chaos. The vast innumerable amount of the world’s problems have their synthesis in jealousy originating from a tangible, materialistic cause. The elimination of ownership will therefore truncate the coalescence of new jealousies. The rapaciousness of humanity ends with the eradication of jealousy. Ergo, the very fact Communism repudiates the concept of materialistic ownership, also leads Communism to be a vastly more safe than any other system thus far in history.

There is a school of neo-Marxists called the Frankfurt school if anyone is interested in contemporary Marxism.

Probably the biggest reason to be pro-socialism is the inherent flaws in pure Capitalism. The reason Capitalism, in the Smithsonian sense, is inherently flawed is it relies on the assumption that humanity is by-enlarge moral and incorruptible. Adam Smith after all was first-and-foremost a moral philosopher. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't take into account the tendencies of wealth to corrupt, or the fact that some people will act contrary to the interests of society. In laissez-faire capitalism (or rather the closest thing that there has been so far in history) the concentration of wealth will consolidate into fewer hands over time inevitably.

Capitalism, in a laissez-faire sense, is characterized by the wealthy lording over the non-wealthy. It is a system which becomes unfair, immoral, and is overall detrimental towards society. It suppresses the arts and freethinking, it is anti-reform, anti-regulation, and anti-involvement. It is a system designed to get the rich richer and poor poorer. Capitalism is a system in which the proletarians continually become more greatly in debt; in which the workers only further strengthen their own chains by conforming to the system by working under it; in which the hardest of workers, predetermined to live their lives in the slum from which they were born, only work there way deeper into that odious, rat-infested, repugnant death trap; in which the government is a mere puppet more than happy to follow every command, fulfill every whimsy, that the Capitalist asks of it; in which the ultimate destination for the system, the ultimate consequence of the practices aforementioned, is the complete and total divergence from anything resembling fair and balanced. The ultimate destination of Capitalism is a plutocratic, tyrannical, Social-Darwinian, pseudo-Democracy, where the injustices of the system are disguised behind a thin veil of false elections and false freedom. (mic drop)

Relating back to the original thesis, economic inequality is the underlying cause of a majority of our countries problems. Emancipation of humanity, of which economic equality is the largest part, is the goal of socialists. So, socialists seek to ameliorate the world's problems. Problems such as crime rates, health issues, drug addiction, poor education, decreased productivity, political corruption, and unfair treatment of other nations all have their synthesis primarily in economic inequality. Hence, a socialist seeks to relieve these problems.

It's Good Not to Vote.

here

I am in an especially socialistic mood today, so I thought I would also write about Russel Brand's (relatively)recent interview on "NewsNight." Essentially, Brand calls for a egalitarian, socialist revolution by means of income redistribution, heavy corporate taxes, and a staunch defense of the environment. He also abhors the concept of profit.

For the most part, I agree will Brand. But, as his ideas are relatively extreme, I will take the role of apologist for a while.

A point was made in the interview regarding Brand's right to critique the government considering he hasn't ever voted. I want to focus on this point. I think under certain circumstances no one has more right to ridicule, criticizes, or complain about the government than those who do not vote. Voting is a activity within a democratic society to choose between a set of candidates. Voters vote for the candidate they see as acceptable, or rather most acceptable. Hence, unless everyone is acceptable for office, there is an arbitrary minimum threshold which a voter will vote for a specific candidate; at a certain point a candidate becomes unacceptable. Generally, if one candidate is unacceptable for office in a voter's eyes, they will vote for the other candidate(s). However, at a certain point the voter, or the candidates, will become so ideologically distanced between themselves that no candidate is acceptable.

So, the very fact that all candidates partake in the Capitalistic institutions of our society, for Brand, is enough to make all the candidates unacceptable. Hence, though he may want to vote, he doesn't vote because no choice is acceptable in his eyes. Since he is so far removed from the government (or the government is so far removed from him), the path the government is taking is extremely divergent from the path Brand would like to see it take. The fact that what Brand promotes and what the government promotes is of such a great difference ensures that Brand will be severely dissatisfied. His dissatisfaction allows him to critique, complain, and ridicule.

However, if the reason that the voter doesn't vote is they are apathetic towards politics, then not voting is a practice (or rather lack thereof) that is at the stem of problems in most democratic countries. It exacerbates the oligarchic tendencies of the government ruling over them. The apathy associated with not voting extends to not learning about the issues and candidates, not assembling when the desire is there, and not participating in the national dialectic that is present within all free democracies. Hence, though Brand may not vote, that doesn't necessarily mean that he is apathetic towards politics as a whole; the very fact that he is in an interview about politics shows otherwise.

I think that was the most contentious point specific to his interview that I don't cover in another post.

Progressive Taxes

here

The article talks about how some may consider the nominee for the Federal Reserve chair to be 'progressive'. Progressive as in more Keynesian.

Like many Keynes economists, she sees economic inequality as probably the largest single concern.

I think one of the most important things that needs to be done for the benefit of everyone is redistribution of wealth via highly progressive taxation. Redistributing the wealth will (obviously)decrease economic inequality.

Many people have problems with progressive tax structures. I will do my best to explain why there really isn't any moral or ethical dilemma with taxing certain people higher percentages.

One, the lump-sum tax structure. In my eyes, the tax policy which should theoretically be the most just is a lump-sum tax on every human or every household. Everyone pays a set amount; everyone pays the same set amount. The reason this at first seems the most just is that you are taxing the people themselves, regardless of there wealth or income. Everyone is treated equally.

Two, the flat tax. Everyone in this taxing code is taxed an equal percentage. This time you are taxing there income, not the actual person. The reason this structure is superior to the lump-sum tax is it takes into account the well-being of the individual it is taxing. It takes into account the well-being of the populace indirectly, as well-being is relational to income. It doesn't indenture the populace as much as the lump-sum tax. Therefore, upon further analysis this tax structure actually is more just than the lump-sum method.

Three, the progressive tax structure. Fundamentally, this taxing method is identical to the flat tax. The progressive tax structure taxes well-being just like the flat tax. However, this tax structure identifies the fact that well-being isn't linearly proportional to income; it's not an arithmetic relationship. It is a geometric (exponential) relationship. Thus, since the relationship between income and well-being (which I will define better in a sec) is geometric; and since the desired tax is on well-being; the way you go about taxing income is therefore geometric - a progressive (sometimes called graduated) tax.

Well-being is how well someone lives. It is the quality of life someone has. Quality of life is essentially how happy someone is. Happiness in economics is measured in utils(that is utility). Something which has more utils than another thing causes more happiness.

Not everything is weighted equal in utils. Not even the same things are weighted equal in utils. Certain things for some people cause differing levels of happiness than they do for other people. At different times the utility of an object can also change. Hence, utils are an inherently relative term.

Now to show that income and quality of life aren't directly proportional.

For one, if someone buys two of something, say two IPods, then the utility of the second IPod will be less than the utility of the first. This is because the use that the user finds for the first one is greater, and hence the happiness that is derivative from it is greater, than the second one.

Within economics, especially basic economics, there is a general assumption that people are rational. When it comes to buying things, they buy what they want/need the most. Hence, people will try to maximize there utils. They do this by buying what gives them the most utility first.

Since the amount of utils derived from buying something diminishes as the amount of things bought increases, spending twice as much money doesn't grant twice as many utils. Therefore someone who has an income of 10 million dollars doesn't live twice as well as someone who has an income of 5 million dollars. This creates a logarithmic regression relationship with income on the X axis and well-being on the Y axis.

Therefore, if the intent is to tax well-being, as it is in both flat-taxes and progressive taxes, then the only logical way to do that would be through an exponential relation like the way progressive taxes work. So, in reality, proponents of a flat-tax actually want the same thing as a progressive tax, they just don't know it.

I couldn't find an article explicitly on progressive taxes but I wanted to write about so this is the closest I got.

Up in Smoke

This is in response to Noah's article found here.

Noah claims that weed is indeed a gateway drug. This implies one of two things: cannabis is the cause of further drug use, at least to some degree; or cannabis is the first (nationally illegal) drug people tend to take.

Though true in some cases, the first of the two implications is by-enlarge false. Granted, there will definitely be some circumstances in which one is encouraged to move on towards harder drugs because of marijuana. However, on the scale of the whole population of drug users, the vast majority of them were not caused to use harder drugs because of prior cannabis use.

As detailed here (towards the bottom of the study) and here,  the largest foreign cause - that is a cause not related to the finances, biology, or traumatic experiences of the drug user - towards increased use of harder drugs is the culture associated with using drugs. Meaning, the very fact that cannabis is illegal causes more hard drug use. The very fact that cannabis users have to go to a dealer who may also sell hard drugs causes the pot-smokers to have a higher rate of hard drug use. If cannabis wasn't illegal, then the pot-smokers wouldn't have to participate in the underground to smoke cannabis, they then wouldn't associate with those who use and sell harder drugs, and hence they wouldn't be exposed to hard drugs any more than the general population. Without the influence of the hard drug culture, the cannabis user is far less likely to move on towards other hard drugs.

Of the dichotomy aforementioned, the second option is almost entirely true.

Cannabis is the first 'drug' people tend to take. In reality, cannabis is actually only the first nationally illegal drug people tend to take. Of those who have used cannabis, the average age people first used the drug is 17. The average age cigarette smokers first smoked cigarettes is 14. Since most of those who smoke marijuana have also smoked cigarettes, tobacco is actually the first drug in this gateway drug theory. So, ideally the crusade should be aimed at tobacco; which is far more addictive, far more deadly, and overall more detrimental to society as a whole.

Another key statistic is the fact that those who used cigarettes but didn't use marijuana when they were youth have a similar percentage of usage of harder drugs as those who used both marijuana and tobacco. Taking the 'marijuana step' out of the gateway drug theory has little to no effect on usage of harder drugs. This is not suggesting that cigarette usage does; when the same thing is done but with tobacco, the results are the same: Those who used marijuana but not tobacco have a similar percentage of harder drug use when compared to those who used both tobacco and marijuana. Hence, neither tobacco nor marijuana (nor alcohol for that matter) have the effect of increasing ones likelihood to use harder drugs. In logic this fallacy is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The case could also be made that caffeine, high amounts of sugar, or fatty foods are really the 'first' gateway drug, as all three of those substances have a similar effect and are used in similar circumstances as 'regular' drugs. All three are unhealthy; all three are often used to alleviate stress; all three cause some amount of pleasure; and all three are to some extant addictive. For the same reasons listed above, none of these three vices have the effect of causing further usage of other substances.

This means that those who eventually go on to use hard drugs do so for the following reasons: One, they were exposed to the hard, illegal drug culture in some way or experienced creative 'marketing techniques' administered by the dealer. Two, they experienced traumatic events in childhood such as abuse, thus predisposing them to search for substances to dull the pain. Three, they in some way for whatever reason identify with drugs and/or the state of highness associated with them. In all three reasons, the usage of marijuana neither causes nor by-enlarge further exacerbates drug usage.

Another conclusion of the study above is that criminalization of cannabis doesn't decrease use of said cannabis. Neither criminalization nor decriminalization of cannabis decreases or increases the use of cannabis, respectively. By-enlarge, the legal status of cannabis, at least in modern times, is divergent of the willingness of people to use the drug. I think this was also the conclusion of the "Reuters" article Noah critiqued. This has to do with the way our culture views cannabis specifically. The fact that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and less addictive than cigarettes has led our society to appropriately view cannabis as less harmful than those substances. Hence, our relatively widespread use of cannabis.

On to Noah's second point.

The assertion, "the idea that you will be able to regulate a drug that you have legalized that is already extremely difficult to regulate when illegal is fallacious," is itself fallacious. Legalizing by definition makes those who were once secretive about their usage more open to their usage, less secretive. The more open society is about what it does, the easier it is to address, and regulate, whatever 'it' is. Also, if someone has an option between two products, the only difference of which is the status of their legality, the person will most often choose the legal one. Therefore, if a person in say Colorado wants to buy weed, they will buy it from the state sponsored stores, rather than from the person down the street who is selling it illegally. Hence, legalization makes something easier to regulate rather than harder.

The proposition to put the tax money from marijuana into education is probably one of the smartest I've heard from government in a long while. The reason that will decrease marijuana usage in the long run is simple: people with higher levels, or a better quality of education also have a lower rate of all drug usage.

On to Noah's third point.

Overall this argument is a slippery slope. Noah didn't use one piece of evidence indicating that the next direction of the pro-legalization forces is legalization of hard drugs. It was pure speculation.

The reason the pro-legalization forces won't by-enlarge move on to legalize hard drugs is because there isn't an argument to be made for legalizing hard drugs. With marijuana, along with other soft drugs, the argument integral to legalization is the fact that the detriments associated with cannabis usage are few. The same cannot be said of hard drugs. That is what differentiates them from each other. Hence, those looking to legalize hard drugs won't have the same battle as those looking to legalize cannabis.

Noah's fourth point is entirely dependent on his third one. Hence, its falsity.

However, ad hoc, I will refute some of the argument.

An economic argument first proposed by Milton Friedman for legalizing all drugs refutes your assertions well. The argument is geared towards harder, addictive drugs; rather than softer, less-addictive drugs. I will break the argument into premises.

(1)The current demand of drugs, disregarding natural fluctuations or general trends, is inelastic. Addictive drugs create a (seeming) necessity of those drugs to the users.

(2)The supply of drugs once legalized will increase.

(3)The demand, however, will not increase; due to inelasticity.

(4)Therefore prices of drugs will decrease.

(5)Lower prices reduce profits for drug dealers

(6)Lower profits decrease the amount of freedom the dealer has to pursue aggressive marketing techniques, such as free samples.

(7)Less aggressive marketing techniques lower the rate of first time drug users.

(8)Therefore legalizing drugs decreases usage over time.

Also, it isn't an ad hominem argument; it's a slippery slope argument, an ad consequentiam, or an ad passiones argument, or all three depending on how you meant it.

I know this wasn't a conventional article, but to be honest, Noah is a better writer than most newspaper writers.