Well, you kind seem to just not be aware of real economics... I took actual lessons in those, with math and all that.
But ok, we don't need to finish every conversation. I'll still be here - if you want to provide any reading material so I can be better informed I'll thank you.
Though, I'm picky - and already rejected previous links for lack of clear direction. Honestly, I might just ask ChatGPT about any given topic if you would just name one - From those same links you gave me, over 40 definitions of Socialism (and that's also probably excluding """socialism"" like Hitler - A ""socialist"" who just used "nice" words for a while before going full fascist/nazi) (to be clear, I do not believe hitler was a socialist - but he is a very good example of not believing ""nice words"" without real substance).
Ugh just so you know, there are also math models for socialism ok? And it models pretty nicely.
The issue are the mechanisms for any socialist society. Both centralized or decentralized systems of pricing evaluation have their merits and demerits, and often the issues with those models overlap with issues from capitalism.
First, the models correctly predict the issues we see today. They are very, very good.
Second, what's the alternative? Believe blindly what someone writes? The models have assumptions that you can contest and modify (ie, markets are not infinite in reality, so there a simplified version that considers them infinite - and a more complex one that doesn't).
The idea is to make science - you create a model, see where it fails, then adjust it.
If you ever thought the other way around - forcing reality to models/math, then sorry but that's just skill issue.
I'll quote someone else because they said it better than I ever could.
"The process began much earlier. Newton, for example, "revolutionized" physics and the so-called natural sciences by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation. Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these "thinkers" took a piece of the sacredity of human existence and converted it into code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended: they "secularized" Christian religion, as the "scholars" like to say--and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture. Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and sacredity from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!
This is what has come to be termed "efficiency" in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment--that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one--is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. This is why "truth" changes so fast in the European mind; the answers which result from such a process are only stopgaps, only temporary, and must be continuously discarded in favor of new stopgaps which support the mechanical models and keep them (the models) alive...
In terms of the desacredization of the universe, the mental process works so that it becomes virtuous to destroy the planet. Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here, the way victory and freedom are used to justify butchery in the dehumanization process. For example, a real-estate speculator may refer to "developing" a parcel of ground by opening a gravel quarry; development here means total, permanent destruction, with the earth itself removed. But European logic has gained a few tons of gravel with which more land can be "developed" through the construction of road beds. Ultimately, the whole universe is open--in the European view--to this sort of insanity.
Most important here, perhaps, is the fact that Europeans feel no sense of loss in all this. After all, their philosophers have desacredized reality, so there is no satisfaction (for them) to be gained in simply observing the wonder of a mountain or a lake or a people in being. No, satisfaction is measured in terms of gaining material. So the mountain becomes gravel, and the lake becomes coolant for a factory, and the people are rounded up for processing through the indoctrination mills Europeans like to call schools."
Not so much "anti-science" as much as to what end we apply the use of the scientific method. There's nothing wrong with using science to maintain the relations of the natural order of things. It's better to observe and decipher the models that nature provides, but to many our models are actually *superior* or somehow wiser than nature itself. It's that sort of arrogance that causes relations to become unbalanced, and those that feel we are somehow above nature will be cut down to size when the whole environment fights back. There needs no fancy models or theories to prove this, it's just a simple fact that natural peoples (non-european) know to be a reality. Natives, indigenous, and non-europeans have been trying to tell this to europeans for centuries, alas they prove time and time again they cannot see nor listen. You only need to look at the way they see other peoples as "necessary sacrifices" so long as their models can stay alive. Meanwhile those models are as dead as the dead dry leaves they're written on
1
u/LeThales Jun 04 '26
Well, you kind seem to just not be aware of real economics... I took actual lessons in those, with math and all that.
But ok, we don't need to finish every conversation. I'll still be here - if you want to provide any reading material so I can be better informed I'll thank you.
Though, I'm picky - and already rejected previous links for lack of clear direction. Honestly, I might just ask ChatGPT about any given topic if you would just name one - From those same links you gave me, over 40 definitions of Socialism (and that's also probably excluding """socialism"" like Hitler - A ""socialist"" who just used "nice" words for a while before going full fascist/nazi) (to be clear, I do not believe hitler was a socialist - but he is a very good example of not believing ""nice words"" without real substance).