I also say that the state-controlled means of production is a bad idea, but nonetheless: socialism is also a form of distributivism. Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor (“proletariat”, “precariat”). It is a fact which we can also call “distribution”,more precisely “distribution after theft”, or just “redistribution”. One should not deny this fact, although state-controlled means of production is a bad idea. But how can the means of production really be controlled by all people without any help of a powerful institution like state or church?
In Sight of SAM.
SAM is pure distributivism. All authority is in the form of very small SAM cooperatives. SAM doesn’t require that property or production be in the hands of such coops or corps, but any and all decisions related to such concerns are made only by them. If many SAM coops decided it best that all of their property and production is to be united under one authority, such would be immediately done. But a SAM coop cannot so relegate its own decision making authority. So if at any time in the future the coops decided to not unite, such would immediately be the case. Politics in SAM coops is relatively instantaneous, no activist campaigns or rebellions required.
All authority must be in the form of very small groups / cooperatives. That is important. Otherwise the authority would become corrupt, all economic and political relations and situations would again become the same old (although called “modern”) corrupted relations and situations.
Yeah, you're still doing that thing where because it has the word 'distribute' as a root, you're claiming any method of distributing something to somebody is distributivism. That's not how our language works. Facebook isn't a form of socialism because it helps people socialize, for example.
No. I meant the distribution of money. As I said: Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor (“proletariat”, “precariat”). That has nothing to do with Facebook!
And you did not answer my questions:
But how can the means of production really be controlled by all people without any help of a powerful institution like state or church?
Yeah that’s not distributivism. Again, you seem to think that because socialists distribute things they are distributivists. It’s an actual economic idea with an actual definition. It’s not merely ‘the act of distributing stuff’. That would be like saying socialsm is a form of capialism because in socialism the workers earn capital.
Not for very long. You’d need legal backing, like an expansion of anti-trust laws,
I dunno, maybe? I’m not really following it, like a lot of what James writes. I think the backbone of the economy should be capitalist, with a few distributivist reforms. I’m not advocating a wholesale shift to a distributivist nation, so I don’t know what you’re asking me for a ‘solution’ to. I’m just pointing out that this captalist/socialist dichotomy thing isn’t real.
The NHS buys its drug and equipment in the same way that private hospitals do, so I can’t see how this is an issue. Although the NHS does have research hospitals and sponsor some (world leading) research programs into patient care, the bulk of research is still done by private companies, who sell the products of the research to the NHS (drugs, equipment, training courses), for no small price tag.
The only big difference in this respect would be that Americans use a lot more drugs than the brits do, so in that way, the companies make more profit from them. Also, it’s a much larger market, which explains why the bulk of new medical research occurs in America.
That makes sense too. I mostly hear this brought up in connection with Canada- drugs legally cannot be sold there for over a certain amount, so manufacturer’s have to sell them for more in the U.S. to pay for the R&D. In effect, Canada hasn’t ‘made healthcare cheaper’, they’ve just pushed the costs off onto a wealthier nation. Or so it is said.
I’m pretty certain that Arminius understands that socialism is about the “redistribution of wealth” in terms of merely a “welfare program” and “government grants” involving money with strings attached. Socialism does nothing without “strings attached”. The whole point in socialism is to force all people to bow to the supreme leader(s) (polyarchy). Money (specifically) is the primary means (the strings), even though media and medical pressures are also a serious part of the game.
SAM is a game changer, independent of prior schemes but its inherent structure (not requiring the whole nation to convert) is one of “distributivism of authority” (more commonly known as “distributed intelligence”).
That’s ridiculous. Drug companies own patents and do not have to sell to Canada. Canada simply employs common business sense and uses its larger buying power to negotiate cheaper contracts, which is what the NHS should do more too (and has started to, finally).
In America, on the other handMedicare and Medicade are forbidden from negotiating drug prices, a classic example of over-regulation interfering with the natural markets. So the drug companies charge them more, because somehow they managed to write a law and then get it through which says they can charge whatever they like.You can’t blame Canada for that absolute shambles of a policy. Sure - maybe it produces a bit more research money, but it also undoubtably creates larger shareholder dividends, bigger advertising budgets, and fatter executive paycheques too. It’s an absolute fantasy to think that a private company would invest all additional revenue into R&D, just because you have agreed to pay them more than the market value for their goods.
Yep, that all sounds reasonable. I’m just airing hearsay here- economics is not my strong suit. If Medicade and Medicare could negotiate for lower drug prices, I wonder how much money it would save, since it’s these programs with SS that are bankrupting the country.
SAM is anentropic, the very essence of defense against entropy or corruption. People normally try to hope that their scheme for doing other things will not suffer corruption, but the “people of SAM” do nothing BUT defend themselves against corruption.
You eat so as to restore your health and spirit, diverting entropy/corruption. You work so as to gain the resources for eating. You sleep so as to rid your body of inadvertent corruption. You clean your body and house so as to dispense with corruption. In the long run, literally everything people do is actually merely the result of an attempt to maintain themselves, including sex, watching TV, eating too much, drugs, scheming, political activism,… everything. The problem is merely that that get confused and don’t maintain very well.
The notion recently promoted in the last 400 years or so that the goal and purpose of life is “power” (WtP), is false and merely a social/psychological trick. And that is the real reason that so very many people are not Nietzschian nor Faustian. Life has never actually been about gaining power. The truth is rather that gaining power is for ensuring maintenance. But it is too easy for Man to confuse anti-entropy (the effort to grow) with an-entropy (the effort to maintain).
The focus must be maintained upon the actual goal/purpose. A degree of power must be sought, just as a degree of sex is required for reproduction. But that doesn’t mean that anyone has to become manic about either. Power and sex (just as examples) serve only the purpose of ensuring the future maintenance.
Acquisition is not the goal. SAM maintains focus on Maintaining = Anentropy (anti-corruption). It does that through its decision making process which involves IJOT, an ongoing calculation of the eternal maintaining of joy throughout its populous.
Well, when you said ‘socialism is a form of distributivism’ did you mean that socialism is a form of distributivism? If so, I understood it perfectly well which is why I called you wrong.
If you think that socialism has nothing to do with “distribution”, especially “redistribution”, then you are wrong. Please don’t tell me again that the word “distribution” does not mean distribution because “that’s not how” your “language works”.
You mean a specific distributi(vi)sm:
Distributi(vi)sm has to do with distribution. Nobody can change this. And socialism has also to do with distribution, especially redistribution, regardless whether socialists use these words mostly rhetorically or not. We know that socialists distribute or, more precisely said, redistribute wealth, and according to this fact we can say that socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm. Nevertheless it is not the same distributi(vi)sm as the distributi(vi)sm of the Cathoilc social teaching. Did you just notice the word “social” in the term “Cathoilc social teaching”?
Didn't say anything like that. You're really being dense about this. "Distribution" merely means "giving things to people". Socialism, Distributivism, and Capitalism all involve giving things to people. That doesn't make them all distributivism. Distributivism is a specific economic philosophy different from capitalism and socialism. Socialism is not a form of Distributivism any more than it is a form of Capitalism.
Yes, and capitalism has to do with capital. So does socialism. Does that make socialism a form of capitalism?
No. You’re really being dense about this (and about the whole topic).
Not all but some of them. We - you and I - have two different definitions. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
That is your definition and the definition of the Catholic social teaching. I can merely partly accept that definition - as I already said in almost all my posts of this thread.
Partly yes and partly no. Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Socialism can also be a form of distributi(vi)sm, although the distributi(vi)sts say that distributi(vi)sm has nothing to do with both capitalism and socialism.
The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word “distributi(vi)sm”. Would you say that merely the members of the party “X” should be allowed to define the word “socialism”? I do not accept this, and - above all - I do not accept it in a thread of a webforum called “I Love Philosophy”!
The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
I am right: Distributi(vi)sm is not only what the Catholic social teaching wants it to be.
Are merely the leaders of capitalism allowed to say what capitalism is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of socialism allowed to say what socialism is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of distributi(vi)sm allowed to say what distributi(vi)sm is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?
Needs capitalism? I was asking if it was a form of capitalism. I’d like an answer!
Is socialism a form of capitalism merely because it ‘deals with capital’? Because that’s the argument you made for socialism being a form of distributivism, and I’d like to see if you’re being consistent.
Ah, I see. So you were using your own made up definition of distributivism when you told me that socialism was a form of distributivism, and resisted being corrected for three days. Kind of odd, considering I'm the one who brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it's a third way.
Yes, according to whatever definition of 'distributivism' lurks in your mind, socialism may well be form of it. So might line-dancing and deep sea diving for all I know.
Yes, and at least we arrive at the point. Socialism is a form of distributivism IF we just let you make up some wierd definition of one or the other of these terms that nobody is familiar with but you. Just as cats might be a sort of turtle if you choose to define the words as such. After all, why should it only be biologists who get to define ‘cat’? If you need to say cats are turtles or socialism is distributivism in order to avoid looking foolish, then by all means butcher the language until you get what you need from it.
Nevertheless, the distributivism I was talking about, which is an economic system, and I clearly stated it was an economic system, and you clearly know the one I mean because you cited the wikipedia entry at me....socialism is not a form of [i]that.[/i]
Yes, anything that distributes something is distributivism, and any teaching that uses the word ‘social’ is socialism. Still not clear on if everything that concerns capital is capitalism because you won’t tell me, but I think I see a bit more clearly how you are pretending your mind works.
What I told you days ago, is what you’re telling me now; Yes, you are using ‘distributivism’ as a general term for ‘any time you distribute things’. Yes, yes, I know. I told YOU that. You’re using distributivism in a very loose and generic way, and I’m actually talking about the economic system that goes by that name.
Right, words mean whatever you need them to mean to win arguments on the internet. I see that now.
Meanwhile, socialism is not a type of the economic system that the rest of the world referrs to by the word 'distributivism'. They are two completely different things, as economic systems go.
Yes, he doesn’t know what communism, socialism, capitalism and libertarianism are. No need to remind me.
You did not notice that I gave you the answer - several times: in my last post and also in other posts.
You did not notice that I gave you the answer - several times: in my last post and also in other posts.
And “resisted being corrected for three days”? It seem that you are using rhetoric instead of logic.
No. It is absolutely not odd. But it is odd that you believe it could be important for this topic just only because you “brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it’s a third way”. That’s really odd.
Why are you not talking about the possibilities of this “third way” (b.t.w.: not the first third way) to overcome the “faked coin” I was talking about?
It lurks in logic as well in the definitions and meanings of the words. And I did not use the word “well”. Stop using rhetoric instead of logic. I did not say that socialism is a good thing. Read my posts, please. Otherwise we go around in circles.
Then welcome to the socialistic dictatorship of the US.
My definition has to do with logic not with rhetoric like your definition. You do not know anything about the realisation of your odd kind of distributivism, because the statements of the Catholic social teaching are not more than theoretical statements - means: that there is no practical example. The only practical examples we have are those of the history where I referred to. The rest must be defined, preferably by logic.
That’s merely rhetorical cynism, thus nonsense. Everyone - except you and some other people who are dense about this topic - know what the word “distribution” means, what the morpheme “ism” of the word “distribution” means, and what the word “distributioni(vi)sm” means. A philosopher does not have to follow the definition of the Catholic social teaching (I - myself - am a Catholic, but that does not mean that I obey everything what the Catholic church said, says and will say). But on ILP it seems to be forbidden to be a philosopher.
Yes, and I never said that I would have a problem with it, if you tried to explain how this kind of distributivism can be realised in the future. But you did not try to explain it but started a kind of war by using cynical nonsense.
That is again cynisms and rhetoric. Your first response to my first post of this thread (cf. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=188134#p2547293) was probably the only honest one, because after it you became more and more cynical - I guess it was because of the lack of arguments.
Yes. Where is the problem? There is no problem at all. Why should it not be allwoed to use the word “distributivism in a very loose and generic way”? Please do not forget that there is no practical evidence. The examples of the premodern economic situations do not count, because we are talking about modern economic situations.
If this was true, Uccisore, then I would more argue in the opposite direction. Again: I am Catholic. I think you are the one who tries to win arguments by using those words whatever you need them to mean: you started with the word “dense”, and now you are already at the point to allege that I want to win arguments on the internet. That is ridiculous.
You are wrong. Because of the fact that socialism needs money in order to redistribute wealth, it depends on capitalism. That is logical. Therefore socialism became a part of the economic system.
No. In your sentence the word “completely” is completely wrong.
I would like to read some arguments for the thesis that the distributivism of the Catholic social teaching will have a chance to win in the near future. Are you interested in such arguments or not?
