The Psychology of Political Movements

I know that it's not a complete or even professional diagnosis, but today I will be taking a speculative look at the dominant psychology behind political movements in general. For reference, we will examine the /r/Anarchism sub-reddit on reddit as a prime example. This diagnosis may be extended to apply to the wider anarchist movement as well, keeping in mind the effects of the structural restraints that reddit's moderation and voting system has on determining which view-points get promoted and those which do not. That's to say,  in short, that uninformed users may leave with false impressions about anarchist goals. If you have been around /r/Anarchism for a while, you start to notice that several  commentators adopt a holier-than-thou attitude when speaking to other users. In /r/anarchism's case, it takes the form of the phrase "You are not an anarchist" or some variant thereof.

This condemnation is of course an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Even though it's erroneous, such a line of reasoning serves a useful purpose in the formation and preservation of any political movement. This is for the simple reason that it helps to preserve a uniform sense of identity that transcends the individual. It appears to be invoked whenever someone feels that his/her core identity is under attack and needs to respond defensively. Even so, it's an understandable if divisive phenomenon. Similar philosophies such as Marxist-Leninism (similar in the sense that both anarchism and Marxist-Leninism are socialist) seem to enjoy a more widespread presence in the political arena than does anarchism, and this is probably largely due to the fact that Marxist-Leninism itself has enjoyed an active existence in statecraft in the form of Soviet "communism", a bastardized form of socialism which collapsed back into state-capitalism.

The anarchist internalizes the difference in scale between the followings of anarchism and Marxist communism, and leaves with the need to self-preserve, to protect his/her identity against intrusive Marxist communists, "anarcho"-capitalists and other right-"libertarians", and the general population who harbor false ideas about what anarchism and socialism are about. To the anarchist, it's as if there's almost no space to diffuse anarchist ideas, since the existing political space is largely filled by hostile Trostykists, Leninists, "anarcho"-capitalists who co-opted the 'anarchist' label for their own purposes, naive Conservatives and Liberals who rationalize the existence of the State and capitalism.

Then there are the other "libertarians"--the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson types--who have the pretense of being "anti-establishment" and "forward-thinking", who--according to themselves--exist outside the left-right dichotomy of the political spectrum, but merely end up being the default third-positionists who feel swayed by right-libertarianism because of its favorable attitude toward pot legislation. On top of that, right-libertarians naturally have an ahistorical conception of the nature and origin of capitalism and its mechanisms, and hence cannot understand the implications of the positions they hold on issues relating to it.

But the point here is that every political movement engages in this process of self-preservation. Every given political movement denounces a competing philosophy/movement/ideology as illogical and as an epiphenomenon of itself. Modern liberalism reacts to trends within Western conservatism, anarchism reacts to Marxism and vice-versa, and this continues until each movement reaches a comfortable equilibrium where a given movement can define itself in relation to another concept --such as capitalism, freedom, property rights, the state--without sacrificing the values that comprise its core identity. The perceived needs of each movement are in fact concrete as they relate to abstract concepts which themselves, in turn, concern concrete concepts such as the fulfillment of individual need--in fact, I would argue that this is what all competing philosophies boil down to.

Political movements will continue to emerge, self-evaluate, develop and shift along the political spectrum in tandem with developments in the concrete, material conditions of the real world. Anarchism could not logically exist as a concept and praxis without defining itself in relation to capitalism and the state. Keynesian policies would not have gained as much traction if the devastations of the Great Depression and World War II had never occurred. This is self-evident, but it's a process worth bearing in mind. The question to each is-- will my philosophy survive long enough to serve its purpose?

Consensualism vs. Voluntarism

Introduction and Recap

You might remember my entry on Voluntarism. If you haven't read it, it's basically the 'philosophy' co-opted by 'anarcho'-capitalists to justify wage-slavery. I outlined central issues and condemned it as an ideology which failed to adapt to the realities of capitalism as it expanded to dominate the globe. The reasons for this failure I can't really speculate much on. I suspect it didn't gain much traction when first introduced because its central tenet is a fundamental truism. Physical aggression is generally undesirable.

Wow, so insightful. That really needed to be incorporated into a philosophy. Not just that -- prioritize the truism to the point where it severely limits serious ethical practice. I can't see voluntarists/'anarcho'-capitalists successfully setting up their notion of an ideal society without violating the non-aggression principle. I think it would go something like this:

Voluntarist #1: (on an island) Alright! We've finally escaped from the treacherous claws of the State. We founded this island paradise for ourselves. So how are we going to divide this up? 

Voluntarist #2: Hmm... Okay. You see that tree over there? (points to the only coconut tree). That's mine. And to prove it... (he draws a gun and aims it at Voluntarist #1). 

Voluntarist #1: (In shock) But that's... that's the only tree on this island. Are the coconuts yours too?

Voluntarist #2: Damn right. 

Voluntarist #1: But what if I want one?

Voluntarist #2: That's easy! According to our God, the Free Market, the price always matches supply versus demand. Since I'm in control of the only coconut supply, and it's in great demand, I'll charge you $89.95 for one coconut. 

Voluntarist #1: I can't afford that!

Voluntarist #2: Okay. How about you work for me? I'll pay you $5.00 an hour. (Cocks the gun). 

Voluntarist #1: ...It'll take me eighteen hours of work to buy one coconut. I need to eat in between then, you know.

Voluntarist #2: That's fine! Just ask for charity. 

Voluntarist #1: ...will you give me charity?

Voluntarist #2: No. And you can't force me to be charitable, because that would be immoral and involuntary. (Presses the gun against the other guy's temple). Or you could starve to death. Your choice! 

Voluntarist #1: ...Fine. I'll work for you. 

Voluntarist #2: Great! And by the way, the coconuts you crack open belong to me too. I'm glad we could come to an understanding. (Presses the gun even harder).

Voluntarist #1: But --

Voluntarist #2: Remember, it's voluntary, because you agreed to work for me. I claimed this tree first. Resources are scarce. There's no way we could possibly accord ownership fairly. I'm just taking advantage of the scarcity. It's not my fault. (Readies the trigger).

Voluntarist #1: ...Kill me now. 

Humor aside, I've mentioned how voluntarism is outdated. It's time for a new philosophy to take its place. I've dubbed it "Consensualism". It differs from Voluntarism in three important ways:

1. It clearly distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'consensual' relationships.
2. It doesn't declare consensual relationships to be ethical, unlike Voluntarism.
3. It accounts for coercion occurring through both non-violent and non-malicious means.

'Consensual' vs. 'Voluntary'

"Anarcho"-capitalists conflate the bare-bones definition of 'voluntary' with the loaded term of 'consent'. The 'bare-bones' designation specifies any action you consciously undertake. Typing a reply is voluntary. Choosing what shirt to wear is voluntary. Hence, so is employment. It shouldn't be used as an ethical metric, since its rhetorical flatness impedes genuine ethical inquiry. The term we really want to look at is consent.

'Consent' means agreement to participate in a relationship of some sort. You can choose whether or not to join (thereby entering and exiting or remaining outside). That implies freedom of choice. If you cannot freely enter or leave the relationship, you can't freely participate, and so the relation cannot be consensual. To interchange it with voluntary just trivializes the meaning, as by definition all conscious undertakings are, well ... voluntary.

A relationship/transaction is deemed consensual in nature if participation is non-essential. Employer-worker contracts are non-consensual since participation in the work-force is essential to continue living past a certain point in life (e.g. adulthood). You can't choose not to work, rendering freedom to participate, and thus consent, non-existent. It's voluntary on a semantic level, but that isn't helpful to our understanding of the case. All consensual relationships are voluntary. Not all 'voluntary' relationships are consensual.

It's important to note that wage-labor alternatives like social assistance remain first world luxuries. If the opportunity isn't equal, then it cannot be an equally viable option. The general compulsion of the system remains unchallenged. 

Consent != Ethical

Consent alone can't tell us if a relationship is legitimate. Let's say you have a spouse. It turns out he/she's been cheating on you with your next door neighbor. He/she consented to have sex (i.e. he/she freely participated) with him. But he/she's been unfaithful to you. Now it's harder to declare the relation 'legitimate' because we've sewn an extra ethical layer on. But it was absent of coercion. The relationship was not legitimate, even though it was consensual. In summary, consensualism is broader than voluntarism, but remains constrained in application. Care must be taken not to use this metric inappropriately. 

Coercion Isn't Only Violence

I define 'coercion' as the deliberate placement of someone into a compromised position to another party's benefit at the targeted party's material or emotional expense. I define 'compromise' as the otherwise unnecessary expense incurred by the targeted party. It's not required that both parties incur net expenses, since this doesn't reflect the material reality of capitalism. In negotiation between people, expenses are referred to as concessions and thus possess a strictly material value. The term compromised, in this context qualifies the concession in question as inevitable, and of significant value to both parties. If what's conceded is of no material impact, then the position cannot be truly compromised. I have two things to note about the first definition: Nature of intent and means. 

Nature of Intent

Just because an action is deliberate doesn't mean it was malicious. This allows for people with good intentions (like you and me) to unwittingly place others into harmful positions under the mistaken belief that the transaction is beneficial. This is the context in which I place wage-labor. It might seem strange, because people think of coercion occurring under malicious pretenses. When it comes to impersonal systems, we examine the system's structure itself, and not individual intentions, which drive the coercive nature of wage-labor. (Capitalism is an impersonal economic system). It's a fact that the laborer has to compromise, even if the relation is masked to seem beneficial. This is because the material reality between the two parties is significantly different: one controls the means of production, and the other does not. 

Means

The 'means' denotes the deliberately constructed methods (e.g. privatized means of production) or natural circumstances (e.g. scarcity of resources) that determine how the compromised position arose. Coercion can manifest through non-violent means. Blackmail would be an example of non-violent coercion. The perpetrator threatens to release embarrassing photos or correspondence to force the victim into a compromised position to the other party's benefit. He may promise not to release the photos in exchange for the victim's money. The means may be completely non-malicious and non-violent, but still coercive. Agreeing to wage-labor is a means to participate in capitalism, but remains coercive because the worker is deliberately placed into a compromised position for the capitalist's material benefit. 

In Conclusion...

In summary, Consensualism is a patched, updated version of Voluntarism. It doesn't tailor facts (e.g. people have to consign to wage-labor to earn a living ...because of the manufactured dependence on capitalism) to conform to capitalist assumptions about human behavior (i.e. they want to work because people are inherently selfish ...because no other option exists). Historically, Voluntarism existed before capitalism's rise, but 'anarcho'-capitalists have co-opted it, since it so nicely compliments their skewed world-view. The strike-through denotes the capitalist assumptions, bold commentary is the reality. You can see that the capitalist world view is neatly contradicted by the latter! 

Against Biblical Literalism and Symbolism

There seem to be two prevailing currents of thought when it comes to interpreting the Bible. One is Biblical literalism, or reading into the Bible as a historically accurate account of past events. The second is Biblical symbolism, or reading into the Bible as a protracted metaphor, acting as a meta-narrative of sorts. Both interpretations have some key weaknesses which limit the scope of their application.

Why Biblical Literalism Fails

The first interpretation fails for a few obvious reasons. The scientific method directly contradicts the claims put forth by the Bible. The Universe wasn't created in seven days. Humans aren't born as adults. Snakes have never been known to talk. No known Garden of Eden has ever been confirmed to exist, and so forth. Literalism is best understood in a historical realist context where certain Biblical claims are seen not as truthful, but as the result of mysticism, scientific knowledge gaps and vastly inadequate means to examine the superficial appearances of reality to bridge these gaps.

Indeed, as the philosophy of rationalism and the scientific revolution flourished in tandem in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, religious superstition lost influence in favor of verifiable naturalistic explanations which afforded the institution of science a newfound respect the world over. Though it should be noted that this conclusion is Eurocentric, since the Arabs had also progressed in mathematics and science under the spread of Islam centuries earlier, to name one example. Even if some Biblical claims have a grain of historical accuracy, it doesn't justify Biblical literalism.

The Bible is meant to present historical Jesus in a glorified manner. There's proof that a Jesus similar to the one described in the New Testament existed, but it's not proof of his Divinity. Facts about him will be exaggerated, understated, omitted or fabricated to tweak his appearance to conform to the greater narrative (the theological promotion of Jesus).The Jesus narrative shifts between several New Testament gospels and contradict one another at several points. If the Bible is to be taken literally, how do we resolve the factual errors, omissions and contradictions?

We must be mindful of the historical period in which the events were witnessed and written, the numerous translations, intermittent political revisions (see the First Council of Nicaea), and the faulty recollections and cognitive biases of the original authors, to name a few roadblocks we must surmount to understanding how the Bible is currently presented and structured. In short, Biblical literalism fails as an interpretive method because it ignores political motivations in Biblical presentation, human error and the mountain of evidence which contradicts the Bible's supernatural claims about the Universe and origin of life.

Why Biblical Symbolism Fails

This method fails because its too prone to being contorted to fit with desired interpretations. Though some books of the Bible aren't intended to be taken literally, such as Psalms (collection of poetry) or Proverbs (collection of wise proverbs). Poetry uses literary techniques which demand expanded situational awareness from the reader. Themes aren't presented straightforwardly as in plain prose literature. The text is deliberately obfuscatory and playful, rendering any straight interpretations useless.  It becomes problematic when you attempt to interpret scenarios recounted as factual or historically accurate. How do you reconcile prophetic visions? The visions experienced may contain metaphors, but the experience itself is presented as fact, and as far as the text informs us, it's factual. It seems then, that some parts were written to be taken literally. 

Let's suppose the entire Bible is metaphorical. What could it represent? Whatever the interpreter would desire it to. The book of Revelations is convenient for Biblical conspiracy theorists who take literalism with a dash of metaphor because they can't verify the dubious claims they put forth otherwise. The red dragon falling from the stars? That's the United States impending economic collapse! Trumpets sounding throughout the sky? It's the cause of those mysterious sonic booms we've been hearing earlier this year, of course. In short, Biblical symbolism fails as an interpretive method because it ignores evidence of historical Jesus, and reinterprets accounts obviously meant to be taken as factual. 

Discourse With A Skeptic

This time, I engage a well-read skeptic on the subject of crop circles and ET.  I am '1'. He is '2'. This post will be updated as the person replies. Enjoy. 

1: Hi!

I just wanted to say that I saw your thread, and I really appreciated how you persuaded others to think past ET explanations for complex structures. I didn't know residual radiation in crop could have had terrestrial sources, though it makes you question why an advanced space-faring species would use vehicles that emitted radiation if their observed effects were known to be harmful.

Anyhow, I wanted to message you directly because the thread is kinda old for any response by this point (unless you check it regularly, I suppose). My question to you is regards the Julia set crop formation. You may have heard of it. Is it possible for such a formation to have been produced within the 45 minute time frame by human agency? It was not reported to have been in the field at 5:30pm that morning, and was first reported at 6:15. I cannot find a source for this, but a guard from across Stonehenge glanced toward the field twice in a fifteen minute time frame, and when he glanced the second time, he saw the formation. There are two potential time-frames to work with.

What are your thoughts on the matter?


2: Hey there! First, that was a really nice message. Thank you! I appreciate it, and I wanted to dignify it with some time, so I jumped into this. The Julia Set crop circle isn't one I'm familiar with. I mean, I've seen it before, definitely, but I didn't know the story behind it. So I'm as fresh as can be on this one. I read the entire page you linked me to, all three articles. It's an interesting story! And a f'ing amazing crop circle. Good hell.

Assuming the pilot isn't mistaken, or fabricating for fun, the 45 minute time window is pretty insane. There's also a little part of me that's saying "You know, that time window hinges entirely on that one pilot's account. Is that enough to say it was definitely created in under 45 minutes? Am I being too unreasonable in even thinking about this?"

There were some parts that were pretty far out, like the eyewitness accounts of thick, magical mist creating the design. It seems like the only eyewitness to mention it was Lucy. But the mist, the time window, this is all secondary to how cool that thing is. That is some crazy engineering to get that down, no matter who (or what!) did it.

So then I did some Googling. Nothing biased in the search terms, just "julia set crop circle." The second over-all result was this interview with Rod Dickinson. He's the guy who's mentioned in the third article of the link you gave me. The article's author respectfully brings in alternate evidence that suggests it could be man-made. He mentions a guy named Rod Dickinson, who claims to know that it was. Could the interview be made up? Sure, but so could some of the Julia Set details, too, since both the accounts and the interview have about the same amount of authenticity to their evidence.

Now, this is all under the assumption that there's an agreement between us that the Julia Set crop circle could be designed and made by humans. If you're of the belief, instead, that it's too elegant and massive to have been made by humans, then it's a much different (but equally open and hopefully enjoyable!) conversation.

So anyway, that's sort of how it runs through in my head. The crop circle is real. We definitely know that! But the rest is truly he-said/she-said, and he-said/she-said isn't enough to demonstrate that the Julia Set crop circle is of non-human origin.

(If you ask me.)

What are your thoughts?

1: Excuse my late reply! I spent three hours or so writing this. (I'm a long thinker and even slower writer.)

Thanks for responding! I admit that I'm somewhat biased toward extra-terrestrial explanations of events, provided that a sufficient amount of alternate explanations have been discounted (and I arbitrate what those terms are). I quickly linked to that article through the same search term, but I gleaned most of the background details from Whitley Strieber's book, The Communion Enigma. I can't speak for what experiences he's had that persuaded him to accept (limited) evidence as a credible standard of evidence.

For instance, in his book he writes:

Much research, most of it on the part of Dr. Levengood, has shown that the stem nodes are heated to make them bend, and this is perfectly obvious even on casual observation. The nodes are darker and bent in flattened crop, but not in standing crop immediately beside it. But when I tried to bend standing crop, the stems broke off. Pushing at them with a board simply made more break than if I had done it by hand. (Page 109)

Yet it seems the qualities observed could be sufficiently explained by the rope-and-board hypothesis, where the nodes are blown out in felled plant stalk by downward pressure (correct me if I'm wrong; fallible memory). Residual radiation reported in recent accounts can be accounted for by the possible use of magnetrons in their production. It seems to be a novel method and, as technology progresses along new lines, the techniques for creating crop formations increase in sophistication as well. But Strieber seems to assume that humans cannot explode nodes, as they appear to be heat-induced. Indeed, he writes:

Perhaps Doug and Dave used curling irons or hair dyers. (Page 111). 

That's just a short note on how my exposure to new evidence has allowed me to reconsider the validity of previously posited explanations behind crop formations.

In short, I'm open to the possibility (perhaps even probability) that the Julia set crop circle was created by humans, considering the above. So there's an agreement between us there, at least.

What are your thoughts?

My perspective on this matter broadly concerns itself with standards of evidence which are in continuous conflict with what constitutes evidence and knowledge. It's more philosophical than factually based, I suppose. I should disclose that I'm not entirely convinced by certain skeptical arguments for the sake of being skeptical. Insufficient evidence exists to unquestionably confirm the ET hypothesis, on principle. Yet, naturalistic or mundane postulations cannot entirely account for strong anomalies in tabulated data either. We posit the best explanations to fit the known evidence. It follows that most phenomena can be explained by naturalistic accounts. Stanton T. Friedman wrote in his book, Top Secret/Majic that:

Project Blue Book Special Report 14 demonstrates that 21.5 percent of the 3201 [UFO] sightings investigated could not be identified, completely separate from the 9.5 percent which were labeled insufficient information. The probability that the Unknowns were just missed Knowns was shown to be less than one percent. It was found that the better the quality of the sighting, the more likely it was to be an Unknown. It is clear that the combination of appearance and incredible flight behavior rule out an earth origin for pre-1955 Unknown sightings.

'Unknowns' doesn't mean that the phenomena observed were intelligently controlled craft, of course. But given that the probability of those being missed Knowns was small, it seems unlikely that some other as of-yet undiscovered terrestrial phenomena could account for these sightings. Based on the anomalies tabulated, we can't conclude definitively that ET exist, but that the best remaining hypothesis which account for these Unknowns are intelligently controlled craft/ET. Until a likely naturalistic alternative is posited, it seems that ET is the best hypothesis for these Unknown observations. That is the attitude that reputable ET researchers have concerning standards of evidence (not to say I am one).

Now, in terms of this Julia set case ... to broaden the horizon, if you like.

I think this case illustrates that over-reliance on witness accounts is not a substitute for genuine inquiry. Humans, in terms of recollections of past events at least, are very susceptible to cognitive biases which color the reproduction of accounts, and can lead to conflicting witness statements. Though I think I understand the frustration between the skeptics and believers. It boils down to an acceptable standard of evidence, and the will to research outcomes which conflict with your reigning outlook when scheming a fruitful discourse.

There are stumbling blocks on this path which need to be addressed. If you're exposed to information about a particular event, you're more likely to draw upon that information if it seemed sufficient on its own at the time, which is reliant on several factors (I believe that's an example of confirmation bias). The argument is logically valid, but factually incorrect. This works best with uninformed people. I use the following cases as illustrative analogies of the present situation, they are not literally how

It seems people posit certain 'working' assumptions (read: they appear to work) when uninformed about certain observed events. This is drawn through inductive logic. "All of the swans that all living beings have ever seen are white. Therefore, all swans are white." This is valid on a logical level, but it falls apart when we see a black swan. We then amend the first statement to read: "Not all swans are white." It's an a posteriori statement which is informally true.

The assumptions posited appear to be reliant on the observed evidence. It's thus possible for us to posit more realistic assumptions about reality as we're exposed to new verifiable information. In fact, this process is central to scientific research. There are several ways to obtain information apart from personal observation which remain within the realm of naturalist empiricism. I can't directly compare assumptions drawn from personal observation and the systemic assumptions which ground empirical science, of course. But discourse fundamentally occurs on an individual level.

This assumption-positing becomes problematic on an individual level, because a skilled propagandist can exclude conflicting information to produce a sanitized argument which appears logical (through inductive logic) when examined on the surface. Yet, it dissipates when someone with particular knowledge (experience in a discipline or even basic research) scrutinizes it. However, particular knowledge is by definition uncommon, so inductive logic cannot be held as a standard when examining evidence.

This issue could be rooted in how we interpret declarative statements. If I point to a photo of President Kennedy, alive and well in the photo, and I say "This is a photo of a dead person", would that be a true statement? Informally, it is true, because people are generally aware of Kennedy's death. Death is retroactively applied (it must be; we are drawing upon the past [this person has died] to speak about the present [the is a photo of...] The active subject is also changed; instead of talking about the person, we are discussing what the photo itself represents, as per the sentence syntax. But people usually parse the syntax to mean the person subject itself is what's being referred to.

Nonetheless, the statement makes the silent implication that the observer retains factual knowledge of Kennedy's death, and can thus deductively draw that conclusion. But on a logical level, excluding these underlying cognitive assumptions, the statement asserts unqualified information (it is insufficient to conclude either outcome). Without particular assumptions of certain knowledge to qualify propositions, we cannot judge the truth-value of particular statements.

How does this tie in with standards of evidence when scrutinizing claims? Declarative statements make particular assumptions about factual knowledge, as we have seen. It follows that naturalistic explanations, as a set of hypotheses containing qualitatively true (by virtue of experiment) observations expressed as statements, make particular, possibly incorrect assumptions regards factual knowledge.

This raises the issue of what constitutes declarative knowledge and how it develops over time. Is it a social phenomenon? In my view, I'm inclined to think it is, as I have demonstrated how one can be left stranded when not privy to it. If it's a social phenomenon, it must be because declarative knowledge transfers between people, and can be independently verified on a mutual standard of evidence.

In the confirmation bias scenario, factual knowledge exists but is excluded from logical argument. It can be satisfactorily concluded by the observer, thanks to the exclusion of these facts, that the argument is valid. But it is not necessarily true. Even if the facts were presented accordingly, it remains a logically valid argument. Yet it can be overturned in the face of compelling evidence when it comes to what is likely to be true. If compelling evidence can demonstrate a greater likelihood of ET intelligence existing than not, then it seems skeptical arguments which rely on naturalistic explanations which, either by design, ignorance, or on purpose, fail to account for/ignore these same anomalies that would decimate those arguments.

In short, agreeing upon a standard of evidence is tough, not least because of how, in the absence of physical evidence of these phenomena (e.g. space vehicles), skeptics resort to naturalistic explanations which cannot account for true anomalies. This seems to be done in part because naturalism has large weight afforded to it already, and because UFO researchers have an increased burden to determine for the benefit of both parties what is acceptable and relevant evidence to pass scrutiny. As Friedman contends:

Friedman argues that reproducibility is largely irrelevant to the study of UFOs, essentially because by definition, scientists do not control variables if UFO phenomena involve intelligent extraterrestrial control; that is, in this case, the study of UFOs does not involve experiment and experimental methods. This position can be criticized on the basis that experiments can be conducted on materials or technology that are hypothesized to have an extraterrestrial origin. Although Friedman maintains that such materials have on at least one occasion been obtained, as stated above, he maintains these are highly classified and not available for conventional or mainstream scientific study.

He further notes that it would be irrational to dismiss credible witnesses as poor observers merely because they cannot identity given phenomena as conventional, or as good observers because they can. Who arbitrates this judgment, and why should it be used as a metric when falsifying evidence? Doesn't this indicate a bias toward naturalistic explanations for events which may not sufficiently account for them? This is a point to consider when deciding what explanation fits the bill best. I'm going to stop there because I realize I went off on a loooong tangent and I apologize for that.

Those are my thoughts in the matter, explicated in full.

1: I read over my previous responses and wanted to clarify some potentially confusing points.

"Inductive reasoning".

I assume that those with no specific knowledge of a subject will be receptive to naturalistic arguments, which rely on reproducible experiments and physical evidence. If these are not qualities which can be reproduced in a laboratory environment, it must be a regular enough pattern to be tabulated and construct general principles extracted from observing consistent behavior. This is a standard of evidence that is heavily supported, with falsifiable hypotheses and whatnot. Uninformed observers use inductive logic to reach conclusions in the absence of greater evidence. In general, all scientists do.

They construct general principles from tabulated observations. I just wanted to point out that inductive reasoning is biased toward natural indicators. If there exist anomalous observations which cannot be sufficiently accounted for by existing naturalistic explanations, then a dishonest skeptic will rely on the weakness of inductive reasoning to draw otherwise uninformed persons into his net of deception. I pointed out that the ET hypothesis cannot be entirely falsified because no physical evidence exists (at least publicly), but there exists enough evidence in the form of credible witnesses and high-quality sightings to not dismiss it entirely out of hand.

"The argument is logically valid, but factually incorrect. This works best with uninformed people."

I meant this as in the argument against a particular case that an uninformed person first reads, e.g. anthropogenic global warming, is logically valid but factually incorrect. The combination of these factors sows the impression that the argument holds any currency in truth, when it does not. This is again, another example of how inductive reasoning can be exploited by dishonest skeptics who purposely exclude observations which cannot be sufficiently explained by the theories posited.

"I use the following cases as illustrative analogies of the present situation, they are not literally how"

This sentence was cut off. I use the examples of confirmation bias and the ambiguity of declarative statements which constitute broader theories to illustrate what I perceive to be the epistemic problems present in the scientific method and with people who exploit these weaknesses to stamp out legitimate inquiry into unconventional, but credible phenomena (Yet again, UFOs. It's a real pattern, but what are they? Insufficient evidence to definitely conclude the nature of these, but the best explanation appears to be ET hypothesis, given that the anomalies of the characteristics observed cannot be sufficiently explained by the posited theories).

"If compelling evidence can demonstrate a greater likelihood of ET intelligence existing than not, then it seems skeptical arguments which rely on naturalistic explanations which, either by design, ignorance, or on purpose, fail to account for/ignore these same anomalies that would decimate those arguments."

This sentence loops on itself. I meant to say:

"If compelling evidence can demonstrate a greater likelihood of ET intelligence existing rather than not, it seems that conventional explanations for these observations, which fail to sufficiently account for these anomalies, would be discarded or fine-tuned to fit the new evidence."

I continued discussion in a similar topic started by this person on a later date. The conversation can be found here. I enjoyed chatting with this guy. I think it made me more skeptical since I was exposed to his measured, but open-minded skepticism. 

Blog Traffic

I checked out my blog traffic out of curiosity today. It's a bit higher than I expected. The time-line appears to be off since I know I started this blog in 2010. The earliest reads November 2009. It's strange. That aside, I will list the data as follows:

Page Views Per Month 

• November 2009: 78 page-views
• December 2009: 25 page-views
• January 2010: 32 page-views
• February 2010: 20 page-views
• March 2010: 11 page-views
• April 2010: 48 page-views
• May 2010: 50 page-views
• June 2010: 47 page-views
• July 2010: 40 page-views
• August 2011: 26 page-views
• September 2011: 19 page-views
• October 2011: 8 page-views
• November 2011: 47 page-views
• December 2011: 42 page-views
• January 2012: 21 page-views
• February 2012: 36 page-views
• March 2012: 85 page-views
• April 2012: 7 page-views
• May 2012: 13 page-views
• June 2012: 64 page-views
• July 2012: 41 page-views

Traffic Chart

The average appears to be around forty page-views per month.

Most Trafficked Posts

1. Books, Books and More Books (Nov 14, 2010).

2. Blog Refutals # 1: "Bad Christian, Good Atheist (Feb 4, 2012).
3. An Appeal to Get Rid of Non-Secular Influence (Dec 1, 2010).
4. Remembering Our Fallen, Continuing Their Legacy (Nov 13, 2010).
5. Reflections on Western Democracy (Jun 24, 2012).

It's understandable why number two would be so highly trafficked. I had an argument there with someone who clearly didn't read what I wrote in the original post. I'm surprised at number five (eleven page views). It was written not even a month ago and it ranks so highly. This may be a sign of recently increasing blog traffic.

Traffic Sources 

1. http://support.proboards.com/index.cgi? (55 referrals)
2. http://domar.ru (9 referrals)
3. http://domar.ru (7 referrals)
4. http://thecfe.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=tdlg (6 referrals) (dead link).
5. http://www.emailtray.com/members-area.html (5 referrals).

Audience 

Map of Audience

You can see that most of my audience comes from Canada, followed by the United States.

Hopefully in time, this blog will grow to appeal to many thousands of readers!

Stay tuned.

Money Troubles Update 2

I posted last week about my problems with PayPal and Amazon. They seemed to resolve themselves quickly afterwards. I received my Simpsons DVD, paid off the credit card balance. PayPal transfered the money to my account (finally). But in the interim, I learned that I could use PayPal for payments directly from my checking account. I didn't need to fund my PayPal. Knowing this, I decided to send the $20.00 back to my bank account.

The processing fee? Fifty cents. My account will receive only $19.50 instead of the twenty dollars I planned for. It's a small price to pay for knowing that I can pay directly from my bank. Yet again, though, I'll have to wait five to seven business days for the transaction to complete. PayPal sent me an e-mail saying that I can expect by money to be in my checking account by July 24, 2012 at the latest. I can be glad that this saga has ended uneventfully, though.

Stay tuned!

Money Troubles Update

Last week I posted about my problems with PayPal and Amazon, though in truth they could be chalked up to minor inconveniences. Which they proved themselves to be. I received the deposit from PayPal into my account about three days after I posted about not receiving it. I managed to confirm my account afterwards. I transferred $20.00 from my bank into PayPal, and at time of writing it's currently processing the transaction. It should be complete by July 12th. I received my credit card in the mail yesterday. Activated it, and purchased The Simpsons season 2 DVD box set. I chose super-saver shipping (meaning shipping is free) so I have to wait a couple extra business days for it to ship. It'll ship around July 9, and I can expect to receive it around July 12. Conveniently, that means both of my transactions will complete around that time. Though I realize I don't need to fund from my bank account to pay with PayPal. When that account receives the twenty dollars, I'm transferring it back to my checking account (which can take 6-8 business days to process). In short, my experiences with Amazon and PayPal have been more or less positive (That befits Amazon moreso, only because the latter takes so long to process payments).

Stay tuned. 

Money Troubles

Despite what the title says, I don't actually have money troubles. Not in the conventional sense, at least. I signed up for a PayPal account yesterday so I could transfer some funds from my bank to the PayPal. The latter said that they sent two small deposits into my bank account which I need to confirm with them so I can transfer funds into my account, amongst other things. Okay, I understand it's a security measure. It sounds easy enough. Today comes and PayPal says that they sent the money into my account. I check the transaction records; none recorded from them. I haven't received my latest bank statement yet, so I'll check that one when it comes. Except I don't know when my next bank statement comes. I'm certainly not going to wait an entire month (my last statement came on the 27^th) to transfer a few dollars into my PayPal. The bank is closed for the rest of today and tomorrow as it's a Sunday, so I'll have to call them on Monday to see when my statement comes. Unless they can tell me the deposit amounts off the phone.

That's the first 'money trouble' I'm experiencing at the moment. The second problem concerns Amazon, the online retail giant. I want to do business with its Canadian subsidiary. I plan to purchase The Simpsons Season 2 DVD box-set. On the site, Amazon says it accepts debit and credit cards. But when you check out the methods of payment it accepts, it only lists credit card issuers (Visa et al), and only accepts debit cards issued from those companies. A credit card has been added to my online account, but it hasn't physically arrived in the mail, let alone activated. I dunno when my card will arrive. The online card has been posted to my account for about a week or two, so I assume my application was accepted on the same day. The physical credit card typically arrives 7 to 14 days from the day the application is accepted. I think, then, I can expect my card to arrive either on the first or second week of July. When I receive it, I'll use it to purchase The Simpsons, and pay off the balance with my debit immediately. I don't understand why Amazon just doesn't accept debit cards. It would mean more business for them, I would think.

I hope these problems resolve themselves soon. In spite of purporting to offer convenience, both PayPal and Amazon fail to see the shortfalls of the methods they pursue. 

Graduation

I officially graduated from high school today! I'm so proud of myself and the others who took the effort to show up and collect their diplomas. Especially those who won awards, one of which I am a recipient. I won the Knights of Columbus Good Shepherd Award for service in the community. The love I feel for my school and broader community is worth more than its monetary value.

Thanks to Mr. Easton, Mr. Beckett, Mrs. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Gulliver, Ms. Campeau, Ms. Kyle and others I cannot presently mention, though it's many, for preparing me with the knowledge I now possess to take on the real world.

From this point on, I am enrolled as an undergraduate university student, so my profile will be updated to reflect that.

Moral Refutations

In this series of refutations, I engage in argument with an atheist whose vitriol for religion, it seems, is almost unparalleled. Enjoy. I am '1'. He is '2'. Notes and commentary inserted for clarity. 

2: [in response to someone else] You clicked that link and saw all that and you are criticizing me instead of the dogmatic ignorance, pain, and human suffering engendered by human superstition? You are a dangerous fucking psychopath if you place meager and morally bankrupt personal beliefs over the anguish of actual human beings.

1: You're addressing an extremely small minority of theists who are very aggressive and vocal. Human superstition does not cause ignorance, it's the result of ignorant people. I find it offensive that you'd call someone else dangerous for having the sense to understand that there are both dangerous and non-dangerous theists. There's no inherent moral quality to religion itself. It's the people who follow such morally questionable edicts (like Sharia law) that should be questioned, and institutions such as Sharia law to be critically examined in light of this. People with attitudes like yourself are the reason people of different beliefs refuse to get along: they see only the negative.

2: Religion is a net loss for humanity, arguing otherwise is the domain of a naive apologist. Religion is anachronistic, unhelpful, unnecessary, and detracts greatly from the human condition in the 21st century.

All religion (with maybe the exception of Jainism) is intellectual fascism.

1: Those arguments seemed tailored towards institutionalized religion as opposed to personal faith, in which case I would agree. And I disagree with your characterization of my arguments as thinly veiled apologetics -- in the first place, I don't condone religious terrorism, so it's inaccurate to imply otherwise.

2: Personal faith is delusion masquerading as virtue. Read it as many times as it takes to sink in. Superstition as faith is supremely arrogant in it's ignorance.

1: [I quote him]. Implying virtue is a universal set of ethics. The two are not so opposed to each other as to be rendered as mutually exclusive concepts. Are you saying a religious person cannot act ethically in accordance with the tenets of his faith? I would agree that unrelenting insistence on a deity's existence would qualify as arrogance, but denigrating seemingly everyone who aligns themselves with theism does not excuse yourself from acting arrogant -- which you appear to be doing here in your vicious attacks on theism.

2: [He quotes me]. Not sure how you got that from what I said. I didn't imply anything.

[He quotes me]. What two [concepts]? What are you talking about?

[He quotes me]. Let's say I am practicing alchemy (I'm trying to turn lead into gold, for example) and I accidentally create a chemical reaction by mixing 2 substances. I take this as a sign that I am nearing my goal of turning lead into gold. Does this make alchemy a science? Does this make me a scientist? No. The reaction was an accident, and the wrong lesson was taken away from it. The objective lesson is ignored. The subjective lesson is flawed as it is based on a false premise. Any decent 21st century moralist should be acting ethically for the sake of acting ethically. Not for fear of religious punishments or promise of religious rewards. Any religious compulsion or motivation does detract something ethically speaking, absolutely. It could be oversimplified to say religious people are essentially ethical "on accident". This is illustrated by the fact that countless religious people believe they are acting ethically when they are clearly inflicting harm. Many of these people thought of these actions as ethical or virtuous. This is the warp of delusion. [WARNING: Large (30,000 x 660) and graphic compilation of images]. 

1: [I quote him]. By framing faith as 'masquerading' (insincerely imitating) virtue, you necessarily disqualify religious faith as being capable to practice acts which can be deemed truly virtuous or possessing a set of ethics deemed virtuous in itself. In order to forward the claim that faith insincerely imitates virtue, you must have an idea of what constitutes true virtue already in mind. I deduct from this that either you're deferring to a supposed consistent set of ethics which you call virtue in order to forward this claim, or your own idea of what virtue is -- if so, you didn't elaborate in your last post.

[I quote him]. The two concepts that you were contrasting: personal faith and virtue. You said that personal faith, more or less, acts as a facsimile placeholder for real ethics -- I've asked you to define what constitutes a real set of ethics.

[I quote him]. In other words, securing divine favor is unethical because it treats 'moral' action as a means rather than an end in itself. I would argue that any incentive system that selects for these behaviors is unethical to the extent that it produces net negative results, for reasons I will clarify below.

How would you illustrate acting ethically for its own sake, then? It seems convenient that you invoke ethics several times but refrain from elaborating on what you think this consists of, although I think I detect traces of it in your argument. 

Why should individuals be compelled to act for the end's own sake? What defines this end? By saying we should act ethically for the sake of acting ethically, you're placing a moral imperative which exists independent of this act. What is this imperative?

 Not that I disagree on this point, but you're arguing, from what I can surmise, from a black-and-white perspective.

[I quote him]. If a person acts in a way that produces a net positive result, but this was not the end-in-itself, is it still an ethical action? If not, how much does acting morally as a means to an end detract from proper ethical practice, considering that net negative/positive results can presumably be measured in terms of an effect's scope?

If acting morally as a means to an end necessarily devalues an action, it must be metaphysical in its significance, since there are outward effects which can be reliably measured that would negate such objections, even if based on principles seeking to regulate these behaviors. 

In fact, if these principles were institutionalized, I argue that their utility is limited as they fail to account for means-as-ends actions that produce a visibly greater net positive effect compared to some actions as ends-in-themselves. 

They may be partially effective at addressing religious violence, but they also inhibit other behaviors which are not religiously motivated that culminate in net positive effects. You see, you don't have to be religious to treat an action as a means to an end -- where's the line drawn where we can say, "Okay, it's unnecessary to condemn this guy because the end justifies the means (greater net positive effect)". 

If people clearly inflict harm (a measurable value) when they think they're acting ethically, you must agree that the moral value of that act is deduced from the effect it has, not from how it's treated as a means to an end. This is how you have framed your argument so far. That they think they act ethically is another matter. There are theists which you'd agree act ethically because their actions have positive effects. To say they don't, or that its significance is devalued because it's a means to an end is to hold a double standard. 

One group -- the violent ones -- you are judging based on the effects they have, hence your illustration of religious terrorism. The 'good theists' are, you argue, selfish because their net positive actions are religiously motivated, but you agree they must be ethical because of those effects. This isn't a consistent position. 

I will demonstrate: Is an action (valued as an end in itself) which produces a net negative effect ethical? I think you're placing too much emphasis on a particular brand of ethics which you have either poorly elaborated upon or not at all.

2: I don't find the semantics and "philosophical" acrobatics you seem to enjoy necessary.

[He quotes me]. It is you that are thinking black and white. Ethics can be measured on a gradient. One ethical action can be more ethical than another ethical action. Two of the same action can carry different ethical values based on intent. Giving a homeless person $5 because you want them to have money for food is more ethical than giving them $5 because you want to curry favor with the divine.

Let's keep this simple: a 21st century moralist should strive to increase the happiness and decrease the suffering of other human beings because you are also a human being.

1: [I quote him]. No, the semantics of this case are important to the discussion at hand. Instead of addressing those arguments directly, you choose to dismiss them out of hand as 'acrobatics'. If you think it's not necessary, fine. I won't argue its necessity any longer.

Case in point: [I quote his example]. 

Now we get to the root of my objection. Namely, intent and its effects. We judge actions based on consequences as well as intent. Would you say this is a fair statement? Where Islamic terrorists might see the intents of their actions as ethical, the consequences of their actions visibly aren't, in terms of damage caused. In the terrorists' mind, the end justifies the means, so this point isn't arguable on a metaphysical level if we assume the Muslim conception of God exists and has been faithfully represented. To them, the intent overrides any visible harm caused; that's secondary to pleasing God. I'm not engaged in apologetics here, I'm just stating how they see things. 

If you believe intent is the weighting factor of an ethical action, then means-as-ends are irrelevant to the case. What you mean to attack are actions based on negative intents, not means-as-ends. Showing compassion to a homeless person is indeed a means to an end. The action of giving them five dollars is a means to fulfill your desire (the end) for them to eat.

[I quote him]. I never denied this. It was quite clear when I asserted that means-as-ends acts can yield greater net positive effects compared to ends-in-themselves acts. In my opinion, net positive effect and intent are what weigh the ethics of an action. If intent is positive, but the effect is negative, than any benefits yielded are negligible. I would never condone people intent on committing violent acts, since those are negative intentions likely to carry negative consequences.

Where we differ is how we value intent. You see means-as-end intent as negative because it's self-interested. But in the theist's mind, that intent is ethical since pleasing God supersedes placing other's needs ahead of your own. In addition, self-preservation (through pleasing God to avoid punishment) shown outwardly as selfishness is justified when you espouse faith in a vindictive deity who'll eternally banish you to the endless depths of a fiery Hell if you reject Him. The same acts, performed by two different people with two different motives, have the same net effect, and in their own minds, have the same ethical level of intent.

[I quote him]. Agreed, but I don't think that attitude is confined to any period of time. As Jesus said, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." He may have existed, but not in a divine capacity, so don't take this to mean that I'm a theist or something.

I'll note, finally, that 'selfishness' is a term I actually despise. It's demonized to the point where it weighs seriously down upon moral decisions. People should question what constitutes selfishness, in what contexts it can manifest, and the utility it serves that justifies and necessitates its perpetuation, for starters. You could never advance your own interests if you weren't allowed to be selfish. Where it needs to be addressed is when it advances the self to the detriment of others. If it advances the self on a metaphysical level as well as satisfying someone's needs, is it as morally repugnant to you?

[He didn't respond to me past this point. I suppose he thought I was delusional or something.] 

Capitalist Refutations

I'm not explicitly a socialist, but I'm attracted to its allure. I've been studying socialist politics for about a year now. It follows that I've familiarized myself with its core basics and have been able to refute common misconceptions surrounding it. Here are a couple of arguments between a capitalist and myself. 'C' is capitalist. 'I' is me. Notes and commentary inserted for clarity.

Basics of Socialism

C: [in response to someone else] The fact that you keep using that word ['proletariat'] tells me you're no different than any other rebellious teenager who hates the idea of having to work for a living. Stop leeching off your parents and the rest of society. Contribute for once in your life and maybe you'll feel a sense pride that will overshadow your profound jealousy of your betters. 

I: You're an idiot. No socialist dislikes work (socially useful labor time). What they oppose is work based on wage-labor, which is fundamentally exploitative and therefore should be dismantled. Socialists envision a society where work-places are democratically managed, and where labor and resources are freely used and contributed to. In addition, work in a socialist society has infinitely more utility than it does in a Capitalist society.

C: [Quotes me]. That's the thinking of someone that doesn't understand how economies work. It's not exploitative, it's voluntary. "Socialists" envision a society where they can get the same as people smarter and harder working than they are without putting in as much effort. The idea that everything should be mutually owned and shared is childish nonsense.

I: Haha, no. The extraction of surplus value which constitutes the profit that the employer pockets from his wage-slaves, and forms the basis of exploitation, is not at all voluntary. 'Surplus value' refers to the labor time for which the employee is not compensated for. Employers pay their workers less than what their labor is worth. Therefore, workers can only buy back a limited amount of what they produce. 

The continued exploitation of labor creates a large disparagement in wealth between the worker and the owner because the worker has a set salary while the owner can continue to profit as he hires more wage-slaves and profits from the additional labor.

The working class cannot rise above its condition because their labor is being undersold to them and labor’s product is being oversold to others, creating a cycle where they must earn more than their initial labor to buy back something worth much less. 

These conditions create and sustain social relations based around hierarchal structures of power. Those who control the means of production and distribution have the power i.e. the Capitalist elite. You cannot voluntarily enter into contracts with someone who claims a monopoly on the means of production: your existence is dependent on your access to those means, meaning usage is involuntary, not voluntary. 

This places people who don't have access to those means at a disadvantage as they must sell their labor-power in order to continue living otherwise. Limiting who may have access to and control those means, is to say the least, is undemocratic as it creates social relationships based on authority. 

You don't understand how economies work, never mind the fact we're not discussing economics, we're discussing the social relationships that wage-labor perpetuates. Capitalist economics depends on wage-labor to maintain its coercive monopoly on the means of production and distribution. 

It cannot be voluntary, as resources are bought with wages, which comes from hiring out your labor power. On the other hand, people may freely contribute to and use resources in a socialist society, which is inherently opposed to wage-labor. 

You've completely ignored my rebuttal. That socialists oppose wage-labor doesn't mean they oppose work. My point is that socialists oppose how work is oriented in a Capitalist society. The utility of Capitalist work serves only to sustain the Capitalist system and thus has no use to the individual performing that work. Work in a socialist society is of infinitely more utility, so people have much more incentive to do so (as it wouldn't be seen as drudging wage-labor, but rather socially productive labor time). 

Now that you've mentioned economics, I should point out that Capitalist economics is thinly veiled apologetics designed to wave-away the 'naturally resulting' inequalities of the 'free-market' system. 

That is to say, economics isn't a science, so understanding its biased suppositions is not necessary in terms of qualifying its truth-value. What is necessary to understand about capitalist economics is how it's designed to serve the interests of private tyrannies and how it adapts to changing social conditions to reflect this fact. 

Capitalist economics has been shown several times to be extremely unscientific. It continues to rely on suppositions which have been proven wrong, has numerous problems with internal consistency, and if it does change in it assumptions, takes a long time to react (essentially as long as those assumptions about reality serve Capitalism. They're discarded once exhausted of utility). 

I know you think "socialism" (as you put it) is some selfless utopian theory that's completely opposed to human nature. Well, I only have to observe your attitude to know that you understand nothing about socialism. 

In the first place, socialism is not altruistic. To be altruistic means to care for others at your own expense. You have nothing to lose by contributing to a socialist society. Socialism offers incentives that greater fulfill ends than could be satisfied under capitalism. 

Whereas in capitalism you're focused on economic self-preservation (which is naively mistaken by conservatives as 'individualism'), socialism is focused on true individualism (self-affirmation and expression) and solidarity (popular unity whilst recognizing individual autonomy). 

Secondly, socialism isn't a 'utopian theory'. It's at once both a methodical analysis of the socioeconomic nature of capitalist phenomena and its mechanisms, as well as a reaction to it in the forms of a workers' program (democratic takeover and control of the means of production).

In short, it has much greater truth-value, as its suppositions about Capitalism aren't metaphysical, but grounded in testable observation of its phenomena. It's very scientific in its methodology (how it approaches its analysis of capitalism). This means the theory can be adjusted to offer a more accurate account of Capitalism's machinations as developments unfold. 

Hence largely why original Marxist analysis of Capitalism is out of date: many changes have taken place within Capitalism since then. We must remember that his analysis was written in the context of an industrial capitalist society. Nations have moved into post-industrialism; commerce is now fully global and stream-lined. 

Several large changes have taken place which Marx could not have predicted. Our behaviors and subsequent social relations are shaped and influenced by these changes. Policies in reaction to new technologies, for example. Technology is much more efficient today at de-skilling the worker so he's more easily replaceable and his labor more easily exploitable. This creates a permanent labor market of unskilled workers. 

Whereas Marx wrote in a context where skilled craftsmen occupied the ranks of the proletariat, today unskilled laborers occupy the bulk of the working poor. What this means is that workers today are much less involved with the products of their labor: alienation of man from his labor has been greatly increased, as now even intangible services can't escape commodification.

[I quote him]. I didn't assert that everything tangible should be mutually owned. The means of production which is to say the means of sustaining life, which is impossible to avoid using, should be democratically owned as everyone is dependent on the fair allocation of resources to meet each of their needs. To claim a monopoly on the means of production, thereby alienating persons who have a right to cultivate its fruits, unfairly raises dependency on its use. In would be sensible to eliminate extraneous dependence and therefore relinquish the means of life to common ownership. You are dependent on it as well. Why should you be forced to sell your being to survive? Cut out the middle man.

Marx certainly wasn't correct in all his assertions, and I have yet to read all those assertions to pass any judgment on them. He wasn't perfect, so you shouldn't take this to mean that I revere him. But it's a shame to see that one of his most valuable contributions to society is so poorly misunderstood.

Selfishness In A Socialist Society

C: [This capitalist proponent is different from the previous one]. Human behaviour stems from human nature (unless you think there is something non-physical driving our brain functions), and it seems that capitalism is close to said 'nature'. Human selfishness does not only explain why capitalism works in our society, it also explains why every socialist attempt so far (communist or other) has failed: smart and able people, under produce because the return for their work is capped. A smart selfish individual will deduce that since there is no extra gain for his services, it is beneficial for him to work as much as the lowest producing worker in his unit.

I: This is exactly my criticism of Capitalist proponents. Capitalism is not reflective of human nature, it's four hundred years old. Unless you mean to say that the behaviors that Capitalism specifically selects for are 'natural', I can assure you they aren't as they are selected for, they don't bubble up to the surface. It's also more accurate to term these behaviors as 'self-preservation' (e.g. working for a much lower wage). In a socialist society, the same selfish behaviors would serve a different end which end up having a greater utility to the individual, as there's much less to lose and much more to gain in terms of self-advancement.

Successful socialist societies have flourished all throughout human history. Even before Capitalism was in its genesis, communes exhibiting largely socialist features (e.g. democratic control of the means of production and resource allocation) worked with other communes to meet the needs of individuals. These societies were crushed as merchants and other feudal puppeteers took advantage of the potential these growing communes had, which eventually took the shape of small towns, and eventually cities. Laborers, once free to cultivate and freely disseminate the fruits of their labor, were subsumed to the will of the upper class. 

This had been in cycle in many places around the world at this point, but mostly concentrated in Europe where this historical mode was predominant. Once feudalism collapsed, people were free to exchange goods without fiscal constraints (i.e. money itself) or having to follow the edicts that social relationships flowing from unlimited property rights produced. 

Capitalism disproportionately rewards people who happen to have skill-sets it arbitrarily values. This is why stock-brokers, investors and so forth can make far more than the common laborer without as much effort. Realistically, his labor investment is a pittance compared to what the worker has to expend. Think about it. Does someone who earns $600,000,000 a year work 20,000 times harder then someone who earns only 1/20,000th of that amount? No. For a fraction of a fraction of the same effort, the broker is awarded 20,000 times the amount. 

The Capitalist upper class historically constitute the bulk of earnings with little productive hours spent compared to the working class. This is not a sign of their efficiency; it's a sign that Capitalism disproportionately awards people for the same amount of effort. This system cannot be meritocratic (i.e. hard work leads to reward) in light of this fact. 

Not to mention that in order for an upper class to exists, there needs to be a permanent working class tier to feed the rich and build the toys they play with. In other words, there are many who will be consigned to selling their labor power their whole life to sate the petty needs of the elite. 

I have already explained why the working-poor and petty bourgeois engage in the behaviors they do: capitalism offers ultimatums (disguised as genuine incentives) to the working class that are designed to greatly benefit the elite. This leads the working class to enter into self-preservation mode: acquiescing to a lower wage, competition amongst workers and so forth. 

The elite don't engage in these behaviors; they draft policies which encourage them (tax cuts for the rich, wage slashes, firing without cause, etc.) whilst getting disproportionately awarded off non-labor income. 

If behaviors were truly selfish, they'd have greater utility to the individual as they'd entail self-advancement. Working for a lower wage is not beneficial; there's no other option. It's either work for pittance or die from hunger. Ostensibly it may somewhat resemble behaviors in socialism, insofar that self-interest is limited toward preservation and not advancement of said conditions. 

Socialism is much more selfish than Capitalism as it involves seizing the means of production for the worker's benefit, not the exploiter's. That's what it boils down to, if you want to discuss selfishness. Never mind the increased utility of labor and free time individuals have to themselves in a democratic socialist society.

C: Too much text that has nothing to do with my point: why would a skilled worker put anything but the minimum effort since his returns are capped? Example: You can produce 3 TV sets per hour working at your best while I can produce 1 per hour working at my best. Why shouldn't I produce 3 per hour (no-one will complain), and have it easy? If you need real life examples of the above visit Cuba or any government paid agency in my country.

I: Cuba isn't a socialist country. By definition no socialist country can exist, unless it's a transitory stage as conceived by Marx wherein the means of production are democratically held by the workers, who elect recallable representatives to socialize property of public utility. Once property of utility to the public has been relinquished to common ownership, the delegates are recalled and the transition to communism has ended. That is the socialism Marx describes.

In its general usage, 'socialism' is an umbrella term which refers to schools of sociopolitical thought which seek to change the relations between labor and capital in favor of the people who use the means of production. This includes communism (and its various strains), libertarian socialism (which flows into anarchism and its numerous strains) and other movements which seek to abolish all hierarchy (including the State) in favor of a stateless socialist society. 

The above is a summary of what the basic tenets of socialism are and what it's used to refer to. 

In contrast, Cuba's a state-capitalist enterprise. The difference between a socialist society and a state-capitalist one is the usage of wage-labor. In the former, the workers control the means of production, thus circumventing the notion of wage-labor. All capitalist societies use wage-labor. Therefore, Cuba is capitalist. 

Let's keep it simple. Communism (and socialism) aren't about equalizing wages or the amount of resources people can produce and consume. To ensure that all outcomes are equal requires State force. Socialism is opposed to the state. It doesn't view 'equality' as equal allocation of resources or abilities. Rather, it champions the notion that each individual should be free to pursue their own goals, in addition to freely contributing to (and using) communal resources (tools for work, recreation, expression, and so on). 

Government-owned agencies aren't exemplary of socialism. They are capitalist, hierarchial enterprises whose head is a government bureaucrat which nominally represents the public as opposed to a private bureaucrat who represents private interests. Aside from who's in charge, the concepts are exactly the same. 

I can't address your point directly since it completely strawmans socialism. It's not my burden to answer your question. The onus is on you to properly educate yourself about socialism.

C: So much text without answering a simple question: why should I put the effort to do my best without reward? There is no burden for you to answer anything, this is the Internet after all, but can I assume that according to your reply, if I educate myself in socialism I will find a reason to go against my self interests in my hypothetical TV building scenario?

 I: Your question assumes that you work under a society that uses wage-labor. Correct me if I'm wrong. In that case, I should point out that in a socialist society (Cuba is not socialist so it's not an example), people are free to produce as much as they please. Likewise, the needy can take as much as they require. People generally have enough sense to not consume more than they need, so there's no worry for depletion.

In terms of reward for labor. You're not paid in wages, as the method of resource distribution is different. It's more accurate to say that the community 'rewards' you by allowing unhindered access to its recreational resources. The point to understand is that there's no contract of work involved. People are free to produce and distribute the fruits of their labor, keeping whats necessary to satisfy their needs. 

In Capitalism, wages are used to purchase goods like televison sets. The purpose of producing these televison sets isn't to directly satisfy someone's needs to watch televison, but to sell for profit. However, the only way you can continue to purchase goods is if you continually hire your labor power for wages, which you then use to purchase goods. 

In other words, your access to resources is dependent on your ability to work, whereas your reliance on those resources to live isn't. This means in a socialist society, people who can't work (due to disability, etc.) still retain access to resources to fulfill a meaningful life. Both consumer and producer are rewarded alike because of their unhindered access to the means of life. 

That's about the best way I can answer your question. It's not that you aren't rewarded for your effort. Rather, you're rewarded in more meaningful ways.

C: What you describe is a 'saints/angels' society: produce what you can, receive what you need. Even if you can imagine a society which covers "all needs", some people will want something "better" in order to apply their talents. Case in point: if you compare the average western world citizen with his counterpart 300 years ago, he should be happy, he has everything without working via the state unemployment benefits: a house, food, basic medical care. Still he will not contribute to the society unless payed: why?

I: You describe a society where contributions are valued as number of hours worked or wages earned. People who are on disability or other state benefits are seen as not being able to contribute to society. Indeed, they cannot 'contribute' to capitalist society, as they have no labor power to be exploited.

The term 'contribution' here I think is a loaded one. It's meant to have a positive connotation, and it's a pretty exclusive notion. That is to say, contributions are what society values to be useful. All labor power is useful, but it's not the only thing that can be contributed, or of utility. 

How does someone on unemployment not contribute to society? This may be easier for people entrenched in Capitalism to answer. But you still retain your creative and expressive power on unemployment. Authors are a great example. J.K. Rowling was a single mother on welfare before she became an author. People valued her work enough that she was able to pull out of welfare. 

Unfortunately, other people with unique talents or abilities not valued by Capitalism aren't so easily noticed. It takes a lot of luck to be successful in a Capitalist world. In socialism, you can advance in society on your abilities alone. Not in terms of material wealth, but certainly in reputation and authority (in the sense that Noam Chomsky's an authority on linguistics). 

We can't assume that people don't have the ability to give back to society just because they're on the receiving end of it.

[I quote him]. It's not that he refuses to contribute. He has no choice. Acquiescing to wage-labor is the only way the working class can sustain a living (unless you have no labor power to be exploited, e.g. disability) since we're so entrenched in it. If it were easy to abandon Capitalism, there'd be no need to consign yourself to wage-slavery since there'd be more efficient ways to obtain the resources you require.

C: No choice to contribute, [seriously] now? Why can't they (people on unemployment benefits) pick up the trash from the street? Who is stopping them? Carry the bags for the elderly? Clean their houses? There is so much free shit that an unskilled unemployed worker can do, if your theory is correct, they should be lining up on the street offering their free services (the society is covering their needs after all)

I: Hmm? Who says they don't do that? My point was that contributions that capitalism values are the ones that can be exploited, and more importantly, used to perpetuate its existence. Purchasing a television set in a commodity market fuels commerce and by extension capitalism. The profits from the TV you bought with your wages is piled on top of the company's profits, who can hire more employees to earn them more profit (or technology to further deskill said employees). What you consider to be a contribution is irrelevant. Not trying to be antagonistic. Just stating the case.

C: Where is this place that you live and you witness the majority of unemployed (living under benefit programs) lining up to serve society for free? Tell me and I will visit. There can be no exploitation under capitalism because by definition both parties must agree to the exchange: the company cannot force the customer to buy their product and the customer cannot force the company to sell at his price. Unless they both agree, the transaction will not be done. The same applies to workers: they are free to leave for better jobs, and the company is free to get better workers.

I: [I quote him]. They don't have to be lining up anywhere. It happens. Do you think they just sit at home all day, sitting on the couch and munching potato chips? Not every unemployed person volunteers, as some may be in no physical position to do so. This detracts from my point though. The point is that Capitalism is a global, hegemonic economic system. For its effects to be extinguished on any reasonable scale, we must institute world socialism.

The incentives and utility of voluntarily producing and distributing goods is easier to see when the entire world is engaged in it. Not literally every person, but a great portion of what are now the laboring class, expressing their abilities to greater serve themselves and the population. Work would not be seen as back-breaking or drudge weary. 

It would manifest under a fresh paradigm: one of solidarity and self-affirmation. People work harder at something when they enjoy it. They may enjoy it because it best expresses their talents, or merely because they are helping to build a society where everyone's basic needs are met (which is not necessarily altruistic, since every person shares this same interest of fulfilling individual needs).

[I quote him]. Weak argument, sorry. The bargaining power between an individual who has to sell his labor power to survive and someone who claims a monopoly on the means of life is not equal. The 'agreement' is a rubber stamp. Sure, you can leave for a better job, but many don't have that opportunity. What entails a better job? Higher salary? Better working conditions? Higher retention? Worker benefits (vacation time, sick days, etc.)? Besides, you still won't escape from the dilemma of having to sell your being for wages.

You're just better off than the tier below you. And unless you have the skills and connections, you won't advance much higher. The decision to purchase commodities itself (and thus adopt a consumer role in the capitalist sense) isn't voluntary. Again, your continued existence depends on the continuous expenditure of necessities. 

Sure, you get a choice between different brands, but that's about as voluntary as it gets. Someone who has a nice-paying job can purchase greater amounts of commodities, but that's not fair to the destitute who get priced out of the market thanks to the profit motive. Needs could be greater fulfilled if there weren't barriers to resource access. The solution isn't to find a better paying job, it's to overthrow the construct that unfairly perpetuates inequality and to institute a sane system based on equitable resource distribution.

C: It happens in an invisible minority, while is should be the norm for the majority of unemployed with benefits (under your theory of course). Just because "some" do it, does not support your theory.

Who has a monopoly on the means of life? (unless you are referring to the pre-fall USSR [Soviet Union], where I would agree that the state could target you and deny you EVERY single job). The rest of the post is based on this baseless assumption (unless of course you mean USSR, China, [North Korea], etc. of course)

I: [I quote him]. My point again was that what you consider to be 'contributions' are irrelevant. Your personal musings concerning the matter don't change the fact that labor-power is not as socially useful as it would be in a socialist society. Debating whether or not the unemployed can 'contribute' detracts from my point.

Labor-power under Capitalist dominion has a specific utility and purpose which inherently stunts its liberatory potential. Thus, its 'contributions' toward society are limited in scope as they don't advance a state of affairs for either an individual's or society's benefit. 

Participating in the commodification of life is not liberating, it's alienating. My second point was that whilst labor-power can directly contribute, its not the only tangible concept that people can consider to be of value. 

Ideas themselves contain value. Thus books contain value. My example to support this was J.K. Rowling and her literary success. Unfortunately, ideas containing genuine value are also commodified, which does not help to stall the degradation of society's deplorable state.

[I quote him]. No, it's not a baseless assumption. It's an observation very strongly backed by centuries of Capitalist development. The Capitalist elite (that is, the super-rich and politically powerful): the ones that draft policies concerning wage-labor, regulations regards working hours, compensation, wages, etc. are those which ultimately control the means of life. The corporations and other private interests which fund these policies have their piece of the pie as well, as corporate welfare and subservience help establish a permanent labor and consumer market which the former can freely penetrate to their satisfaction.

The means of life should not belong to any single individual, state or capitalist. It should be relinquished to common ownership where it can be used to its greatest effect, as I have explained previously.

C: Lets keep it simple: according to your socialist theory (as described in your posts, please re-read what you write), individuals take what they need and offer what they can.

Unemployed citizens under benefits, receive from society what they need: food, shelter, medical utilities (my country sends them on vacations too). Their possible contributions (which they CAN give unless handicapped) are too numerous to list but lets give it a shot:

Pick up the trash, help elder citizens, reforestation, road building, etc etc, you get the point.

But, they do nothing of this sort. You have to explain why your theory is falsified by this simple observation: they receive but offer very very little (the "little" is from your personal anecdotes, I am still waiting to see someone cleaning the roads if not employed by the city, or getting a call from my grandmother telling me that I do not need to do shopping for her because a young unemployed man is offering to carry the bags)

Theory does not stand against observation.

I: Completely incorrect. You fail to take into account that your observation takes place within capitalism. In order to prove that my argument is incorrect, your suppositions must be formed within a socialist context.

I see you've made some assumptions in your argument which I'll have to address.

You suppose that the same people who are currently unemployed in Capitalist society will not participate in its socialist equivalent. However, work in a socialist society is voluntary, as it's not dependent on wage-labor. Consequently, we see a distinction between the incentives to work in a socialist society and in a capitalist one. 

What drives incentive to perform work in a socialist construct? There are several. The satisfaction in expressing your abilities and thus affirming your being is one. Many people work harder doing something they enjoy. Indeed, many professional craftsmen enjoy what they do despite the weary fact that their being is tied to wage-labor. The knowledge that you're secure in your access to necessities is another. People have much more free time to contribute in meaningful ways since they aren't occupied earning wages to sustain a living. 

What drives incentive to work in a Capitalist society? As previously mentioned, people work to sustain a living. Indeed, ostensibly in both socialism and capitalism, work is needed to continue living. But this superficial glance overlooks the subtle differences between the two states of affairs. Whereas labor within its socialist conception is life-affirming, labor in capitalism is performed to earn wages to continue living. This is life-degrading. But you can't continue living without having to earn wages to access the commodity market to purchase goods which were sold to you at a profit. 

There are two principal ways in which consumer-workers perpetuate capitalism. The first is purchasing products with wages. The second is consigning to wage-labor. It's within this cycle that the proletariat (working class and people who otherwise would be, such as the disabled) must escape to liberate their being. Since the proletariat constitute the bulk of capitalist society, ending our forced participation in it by seizing the means of production for our benefit would essentially consign capitalism itself to the history books. 

It's in this way that socialism is also much more selfish than capitalism, since the means of production are used for the benefit of the worker.

Participating in the market in any capitalist sense (either by being a consumer, or laborer; both whose existence is reliant on wage) means that labor is used to sustain capitalism, and consumption of commodities continues this production. 

This is because labor is used to produce commodities which necessarily accrue profit for the owner of the means of production. This is what I mean by 'labor has limited utility in Capitalism'. It alienates the worker from the production process (he cannot keep what he produces), from other workers (competition), and his self (self-worth). The end result of labor is to accrue profit. In socialism, it's to realize the self. This benefit, coupled with the incentives people are offered to voluntarily perform labor, is one of the prime reasons why socialism is a preferable alternative method of economic organization to capitalism.

In the end, your observation does not translate to the failure of socialism, as it was observed within a capitalist context. This speaks more towards the shortfalls of Capitalism: people are so dependent on wage labor or other means of income that they rarely contribute in other ways; merely because those efforts won't be reciprocated in a capitalist construct. There's no incentive to voluntarily work (indeed, that is the antithesis of capitalist doctrine), so that's a failure on its part, not socialism's.

C: [He quotes me]. There is voluntary work in a capitalist society, but unemployed under benefit programs don't do any. Invalid argument due to observation.

[He quotes me]. Why would they not be satisfied with helping via voluntary work? Senior citizens would thank them x 1000. Your assertion is baseless.

[He quotes me]. Unemployed under benefits have all the free time in the world to contribute - they do not have a job to do, remember? No-one is asking them to do anything, they can volunteer for whatever they choose/like/etc.

I am not advocating that the lack of voluntary work is the fault of socialism, I am simply pointing that PEOPLE do not volunteer even if their needs are covered and nothing is required of them.

Nothing is stopping them from voluntary work, and the last sentence in your post contains all the truth of the matter: There's no incentive to voluntarily work.

I understand your pipe dream: somehow in socialism people will get satisfaction from voluntary work (that they do not get now), and they will start doing so. 

I hope you understand that this is a baseless assertion: I could argue for example that dodekatheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Polytheistic_Reconstructionism) will help people realise themselves and become the true incentive to work. Actually, you can repeat your whole post, and replace socialism with any -ism you choose. There is no evidence/explanation, why people will start behaving differently.

I: [I quote him]. No, there isn't. If you've failed to comprehend my argument thus far, it's useless to pursue further discussion with you. It's not voluntary if dependence on the means of life is involuntary and extraneously elevated thanks to an illegitimate monopoly on it. Your observation is invalid since you've formed within a Capitalist construct. Do you not understand this? Have you not seen my reasoning? I've made it clear as day.

[I quote him]. Invalid supposition due to the fact that your supposition is founded on a capitalist basis. You really don't get this, do you. There's no incentive to voluntarily perform labor in a capitalist society. That's the anti-thesis of capitalist labor. It won't be reciprocated on a large-scale in the sense it would be in its socialist equivalent. Capitalism isn't designed to benefit the common man, its to benefit the exploiters of his being. I'm completely skipping over your next point since it's based on that same invalid supposition.

[I quote him]. I've belabored specific parts to my post germane to my point. Socialism has been realized in communes before, during and after the development of Capitalism, as I explained in my first reply to you. Right as I type this, there are several hundreds if not thousands of participatory communes in which people voluntarily perform labor and retain free access to resources. If it were on a large-enough scale, they'd be much more successful than they are now (hard to keep a commune together when it's so difficult to keep distance from capitalism itself).

People are afforded limited insight into the complex machinations of capitalist phenomena since they view it through a capitalist framework: false consciousness. If you constructed a framework which exposed the realities of capitalism quite neatly, people would gain clarity into the possibilities and benefits a socialist conception of society has to confer.

 C: [He quotes me]. Why? Because you say so?

In order to avoid playing with words allow me to paste the definition from the dictionary: 1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will 2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward

Is an unemployed person (under benefit programs) free to pick up the trash (hence helping voluntarily) whenever the fuck he wants to or not? If not, what is stopping him? (be specific pls). Will there be anyone con-straining him from doing so? If yes, who and how? Is there any reward from picking up the trash on your own? 

In order to dismiss this basic observation that refutes your theory, you are trying to redefine the meaning of "voluntary": there is a "capitalist voluntary" different from "socialist voluntary" (and I guess different from "whateverist voluntary")

To sum up, discussion has come to a "no true voluntary fallacy", it seems there are more things needed to be called voluntary apart from free will, willingly, without constraint and no reward.

I: [I quote him]. No, I have explained to you already why there are no incentives to work voluntarily in a capitalist society. I thought I had made myself clear. There's no "capitalist voluntary"; it's literally coercion dressed as free agreement. This is distinction I had made in my argument. You can't accuse me of the No True Scotsman fallacy when I had explicitly said that capitalist labor is coercive. Nowhere in my argument did I attempt to redefine 'voluntary.

You're the one forwarding the definition of voluntary without critically considering the capitalist shortfall to it. Hence why you belabor that capitalist labor is voluntary, which involved redefinition on your part, ironically. I have sought to explain why it isn't. The general usage of voluntary (found in a dictionary) is directly contradicted by the notion of capitalist labor.

[I quote him]. Belaboring this point. Nowhere have I said he isn't free to pick up the trash. My point is that wage labor isn't voluntary. Picking up the trash is voluntary unless it's under wage-labor. In which case, picking up the trash to the extent you're free from physical constraints to do so, is a means to satisfy the end of earning wage.

Now, why is wage-labor coercive? Simply put, as I have expressed before, it's married to your continued existence. 

In order to live, you must eat. In order to eat, you must have food. In order to have food, you must purchase it from a commodity market, which itself sells products manufactured under the exploitation of labor-power to sell at a profit. 

To participate in the commodity market as a consumer drives the production of these products, and thus by extension, capitalism. To purchase products, you must earn wage. To earn wage, you must hire out your labor power. Labor-power is undercompensated. 

This is what socialists call "appropriation of surplus value". In other words, employers only pay for a fraction of what your labor is worth. This payment is the 'wage' portion of labor. That which isn't compensated is the profit. The employer can sell the product of your labor (whose value is derived from the labor you invested into it) for higher than what your labor is worth. 

This is the source of illegtimate appropriation: the employer is making money off what you produced, but weren't paid for. This appropriation constitutes the basis of profit and necessarily capitalism. Why? Capitalism is concerned only with investing capital. 

What is capital? A tangible/ntangible asset which can be invested for future returns (profit). Labor-power constitutes a portion of the pantheon that is capital (which includes tools for the performance of work, such as machinery, and tools dedicated to the streamlined erformance thereof, such as automated systems, which deskill the worker as the system performs essentially the same work more efficiently -- suited to the purpose of commodification rather than quality, of couse). 

The means of production is married to profit. It isn't used to satisfy need; rather to continuously accrue profit. Usage of the means of life is involuntary. If you restrict access to it, you unfairly raise dependency on its use. 

Case in point: why can no worker keep what he produces so he may distribute it? It's instead directed to a commodity market designed to accumulate profit for the owner of the means of life. This is because the capitalist has monopolized the means of life and is using to profit. If the means of life were socialized and used to directly satisfied need, as socialism advocates, real demand could be properly satisfied without worries of overconsumption. (Capitalism artifically induces scarcity and demand. Very rarely do prices reflect supply and demand, and if so, to a negligble degree). 

Instead, the laborer is required to dole out the same product for pittance whilst being alienated from the production process.

Thanks to the profit motive, those who require necessities moreso cannot adequately satisfy those needs, whilst those who're better off are encouraged to buy more than they can consume. Such is the nature of the commodification of our precious resources. 

No company would produce to satisfy need since that's anathema to the profit motive (whose betrayal has economic and legal implications for the company). How may more people could obtain the resources they require if this weren't the case? 

People with genuine needs are cornered then, into selling their labor-power to access the commodity market to satisfy those needs. This is why wage-labor is both coercive and involuntary. It's not that you agree to wage-labor, you have no choice to unless you're disabled. It's the lesser of two evils. The second evil is starvation and inevitably death. This is the truth. To argue otherwise is the domain of a naive apologist. 

I'm not the one redefining free agreement to fit an agenda. However, you're unwittingly playing into the agenda of the bourgeois.

C: [He quotes me]. Finally, yes! on topic!

My observation involves unemployed people (under benefit programs), who do NOT work, and are NOT under wage-labour or any labour. Food, housing, health, education, vacations are provided for FREE, and nothing is required of them (apart from filling up the paperwork). These people live with the above facilities as we speak in most western countries (mine is one of them). These are the facts, and my observation follows:

Why don't you see any of these people, go out on the street, on their own FREE WILL, start picking the trash voluntarily? Again: they don't have to, no-one can force them to (no-one will look down on them for not doing it either), they can do it whenever they feel like it for however long they wish. They also know that no reward is given apart from a possible applause by the bystanders, and a possible feeling of good doing for themselves.

According to your theory, we should be seeing most of them doing this or something similar (or at least the majority)

[He quotes me]. Please explain the coercion done to an unemployed who DOES decide to go out today and do something good for the planet: pick up some trash.

I: [I quote him]. I didn't say that. I don't think you understood that part of the argument. In fact, I don't think you even recalled it correctly.

[I quote him]. You have completely failed to note the connection between the necessity of wage-labor in capitalist society and how it differs from free agreement in its socialist equivalent. If you truly have that much difficulty comprehending, then I will sum it up for you: access to means of life. That's it.

An unemployed person's efforts will not be reciprocated, so there's no incentive to voluntarily perform labor. Why won't it be reciprocated? Because no one else can direct the fruits of their labor to a communal pool where such can be freely taken from thereof. If there were a communal pool swelled with resources of public utility, people would find much more time to propel their own interests in meaningful ways. 

How so? People can freely take from and contribute to the communal pool, instead of spending the majority of their time occupied earning wage to obtain such resources. Hence, your incentive to voluntarily work in a socialist society. Your being isn't attached to wage-labor, and consequently your labor-power is much more life-affirming. 

The products your labor-power produces are much more useful since they aren't produced for profit, they're produced to directly satisfy need. This is not the case in capitalist society, since the means of life aren't held in common. Hence why there's much less incentive to voluntarily perform labor in capitalist society. There is your answer, in summation. 

You want evidence of voluntary labor happening? Look at socialist communes all throughout history. Their actions are a result of the incentives that a socialist construct offers. Further, the decisions to perform these actions on any large-scale are freely agreed upon, democratically. Persons affected by the decision have a say in how the decision affects them. 

You're operating from the premise that voluntary labor is necessarily altruistic and thus should not require incentives to be performed. My argument is that voluntary labor is inherently selfish, since there are many more incentives to do so which greater fulfill our selfish ends. In contradistinction, wage-labor is not selfish, as you have argued; it's limited in its utility to serve selfish ends, as I've explained earlier. That's the full answer to your question. 

Voluntarily labor is selfish, not altruistic. Hence why it cannot be performed as expected in capitalist society: there are no incentives to fulfill our selfish ends to voluntarily perform labor. You must detach yourself from the naive preconception that voluntarily labor is altruistic, or that any aspect of socialism is such. 

However, there's a task all socialists must partake in to incentivize voluntary labor. We must seize the means of life so that we may produce and distribute for our benefit as opposed to the capitalists'. With people producing to satisfy their needs, much more time will be allotted for leisure and so forth. Though seizing the means of life, we also transform the notion of labor from a dreary one to a life-affirming one that best fulfills our selfish ends.

C: [He quotes me]. Of course they will not be reciprocated, because that would imply a reward of some sort (thanks dictionary again), making the "voluntary" nature void. Are you trying to troll me with circular logic?

Let's try to stay on topic: If you read the rest of the partially quoted paragraph and put it as a reply to my question you get this: An unemployed person will not voluntarily pick up the trash because there is no communal pool swelled with resources of public utility, which would allow people to find much more time to propel their own interests in meaningful ways. 

Wut?

I: I did fudge up on the term 'reciprocated' a bit. My apologies. The last paragraph is my direct answer to your question about free labor in a capitalist society. I recommend reading the following two paragraphs to understand where I'm coming from before reading the last one. The text in-between isn't needed to get the gist of what I'm saying.

What is "reciprocated" is the act of contributing to society itself on a large-scale. That is to say, no individual should have to worry about contributing involuntarily to society in some shape (such as through wage-labor) since its been abolished. In its place, many people partake in the same activity of contributing to and withdrawing from resources. In this sense, 'reciprocation' is not an individual expectation, as in a contract between two parties, but a secured societal expectation regards access to necessities. 

In other words, you can nearly always expect to obtain what you need (the extreme but unlikely cases include freezing to death in a subarctic plateau somewhere) without first currying society's good will. It's not an explicit contract between society and yourself to secure a service or good, but it's mutually understood to exist in a passive sense. This is what I meant by 'reciprocated'. You can see the thought is quite complex, so I had difficulty describing it initially. This does not render my previous commentary irrelevant, however. It just turns out I have a lot to say. I have difficulty being succinct, as you can see. I think that many points are germane to this exchange, so I work them into my case where possible. 

In contrast, capitalism does not secure the same expectations or offer the same incentives to voluntarily labor. In capitalism, many disadvantaged people suffer and even die thanks to lack of basic necessities. Why? The infrastructure for work itself may be inadequate (think severely underdeveloped business co-ops in Africa, south-east Asia, etc.), the economy may be in a depression, and other structural deficits which rely on the robustness of the economy to forestall their decay (but nonetheless can still appear. Refer to Attawapiskat in Ontario, Canada). This intricate connection to the economy in some ways stalls the potential for progress since its so reliant on capital to propel itself. 

The solution in the short-term may be to turn to radical self-reliance (and communal co-operation to bear the grunt of crisis) in the face of this austerity, but the sensible answer would be to overthrow the system that perpetuates inequalities and stalls progress. This is how structural asymmetries (wage-gaps between sexes, races etc.) can be extinguished, since everyone would have an opportunity to benefit from access to the means of life, as opposed to merely drifting in tandem with the fortunes bequeathed upon capital. 

Returning to societal expectations. For example: clothes, tools and sustenance will be voluntarily produced. The neat thing is that whilst production is socialized, socialists aren't picky about personal property rights. Items designed for personal use, such as clothing, are considered your possessions, since you use them for personal purposes over an extended period of time. 

People have opportunity to work for their benefit, and not the capitalists'. They will work to directly satisfy their needs as they get to keep what they produce, whereas in capitalism what you produce is sold to the consumer for profit. In this way, you directly control what you may receive and contribute to society. 

If someone is too ill or otherwise cannot reasonably contribute in some form to society, he won't be shunned. There are more than enough able-bodied people to provide for their self-interest and secure the health of another. I will point out that this isn't altruism, but rather an enlightened form of self-interest. We necessarily all share the same interests. No expenses are incurred caring for someone else in a construct where the cost (which can be socialized by the combined efforts of society) is worth the result. 

Co-operation is not a linear transaction. It remains in continuous flux amongst the rising and falling of different tides; persistently punctured by the incongruities present in between the varying needs, abilities, and decisions formed between people in free agreement within the flow of time. That is to say, humanity itself is in constant flux within socialism, since it has fully expressed its nature and cultivated the fruit of its labor: never again to be rendered predictable by economic trends or constraints. Resources and man himself has been liberated. You cannot compare the two states of affairs. 

That last paragraph was more poetic prose than concentrated argument. I decided to end with a flourish. In summation, capitalism does not secure the same incentives or societal expectations that socialism does. There's no mutually understood expectation that your needs will be sufficiently met in capitalism. You might say that socialism offers a wider and more useful safety net than capitalism ever could. That's oversimplifying the point, but captures its essence well. 

The apathy one encased in a capitalist construct feels, in the knowledge that he isn't secure in his well-being, leads him to think his efforts are of no use. The disenfranchised are alienated. The issue isn't the lone instance of 'voluntarily picking up trash'. It's the lack of security behind that principle that's so foreboding.

C: I have to give it to you: you win the argument by sheer force of out-of-topic wall of text :-)

You wrote a bazillion words about capitalism and socialism, while our topic is a simple real life observation: unemployed under benefit programs do very very little voluntary work (free work, under their own free will), that could contribute to our society.

[He quotes me]. Let's format your explanation together with my observation: unemployed do not volunteer in our society because they are not secure for their well being (A), they think that their efforts are of no use (B) hence they are alienated (C).

(A) False: their well being is secured by law (they are under benefit programs). If some believe they are not secured there is nothing to be done, it is their free will to believe things not based in reality (some believe this planet is 6000 years old)

(B) Do you think unemployed people are retarded or uneducated (or both)? What can possibly prevent them to come to the conclusion that picking up the trash is not useful? 

(C) That's a big assumption. Unemployed take part in our society 100%, 50% of the people I know are unemployed [for fuck's sake]!

[I didn't respond further because I was exasperated by this point, frankly. If he won't get it, I'm more than happy to leave him wallowing in his pathetic, myopic delusions concerning reality. I hope you enjoyed this exchange.]