[continued from previous message]

✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ capitalism-from-socialism/ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ One ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ of the fundamental
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ differences between ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ capitalism and socialism is ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ in
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ the area of class ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ structure and, unfortunately, many people do not
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ grasp this difference. Under capitalism, there are three levels: an ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ upper class
representing super
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ successful people ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ who have earned a ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ fortune, the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ middle class ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ representing John/Jane Doe who works ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ diligently ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ to put food
on the table for their family, and a lower class ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ representing the less fortunate of us. ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Influence is
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ top-down
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ based on ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ the economic pecking ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ order, thereby ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ creating resentment by those lower ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ in the chain.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Socialism, on the other hand, has just two classes: the
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ruling class, as represented by the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ state, and the
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ working
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ class where
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ everyone is equal. ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ I tend to refer ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ to this as a “Master/Slave” ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ relationship as the analogy to ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ slavery is
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ uncanny, where the Master ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ micromanages ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ everything and the Slave puts forth just enough effort to ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ get by, but expects to be taken care ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ of by the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Master.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ That ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ isn't socialism; it's feudalism, as practiced
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ in Saudi
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Arabia and ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ in medieval times. ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ There have been very few actual socialist societies.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ One
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ existed in ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Spain for a period of time ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ in the 19th ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ century, I
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ think. On the other ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ hand a lot of ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ governments
have
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ called
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ themselves "socialist" without ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ being ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ anything of
the
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ sort;
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ notably, to
be socialist requires the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ workers ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ control the
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ means of production. If the state owns all the
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ means
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ of
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ production,
and the state is undemocratic, then the workers ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ipso facto don't control the means of production and it's not ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ socialism, no matter what it calls ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ itself. so maybe if you're such a "leader and scholar" post a link to ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ "reductionist theory" and fight the fight instead of farting into the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ wind like you have been for decades.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism Reductionism is any of ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ several related philosophical ideas regarding the associations between ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ phenomena which can be described in terms of other simpler or more ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ fundamental
phenomena.[1] The Oxford Companion to Philosophy suggests ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ that reductionism is "one of the most used and abused terms in the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ philosophical lexicon" and suggests a three part division:[2] ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Ontological
reductionism: a belief that the whole of reality consists ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ of a minimal number of parts. Methodological reductionism: the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ scientific attempt to provide explanation in terms of ever smaller ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ entities. Theory reductionism: the suggestion that a newer theory does ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ not replace
or absorb an older one, but reduces it to more basic terms. ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Theory reduction itself is divisible into three parts: translation, ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ derivation and explanation.[3] Reductionism can be applied to any ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ phenomenon,
including objects, explanations, theories, and ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ meanings.[3][4][5] For the sciences, application of methodological ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ reductionism attempts explanation of entire systems in terms of their ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ individual,
constituent parts and their interactions. For example, the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ temperature
of a gas is reduced to nothing beyond the average kinetic ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ energy of its molecules in motion. Thomas Nagel speaks of ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ 'psychophysical reductionism' (the attempted reduction of psychological ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ phenomena to physics and chemistry), as do others and 'physico-chemical ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ reductionism' (the attempted reduction of biology to physics and ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ chemistry),
again as do others.[6] In a very simplified and sometimes ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ contested form, such reductionism is said to imply that a system is ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ nothing but
the sum of its parts.[4][7] However, a more nuanced opinion ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ is that a system is composed entirely of its parts, but the system will ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ have features that none of the parts have (which, in essence is the ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ basis of emergentism).[8] "The point of mechanistic explanations is ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ usually showing how the higher level features arise from the parts."[7] ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Other definitions are used by other authors. For example, what John ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Polkinghorne terms 'conceptual' or 'epistemological' reductionism[4] is ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ the definition provided by Simon Blackburn[9] and by Jaegwon Kim:[10] ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ that form of reductionism concerning a program of replacing the facts ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ or entities
entering statements claimed to be true in one type of ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ discourse with other facts or entities from another type, thereby ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ providing a
relationship between them. Such an association is provided ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ where the same idea can be expressed by "levels" of explanation, with ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ higher levels reducible if need be to lower levels. This use of levels ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ of understanding in part expresses our human limitations in remembering ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ detail. However, "most philosophers would insist that our role in ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ conceptualizing reality [our need for a hierarchy of "levels" of ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ understanding] does not change the fact that different levels of ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ organization in reality do have different 'properties'."[8] ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Reductionism should be distinguished from eliminationism: reductionists ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ do not deny
the existence of phenomena, but explain them in terms of ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ another reality; eliminationists deny the existence of the phenomena ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ themselves.
For example, eliminationists deny the existence of life by ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ their explanation in terms of physical and chemical processes. ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Reductionism does not preclude the existence of what might be termed ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ emergent phenomena, but it does imply the ability to understand those ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ phenomena completely in terms of the processes from which they are ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ composed. This reductionist understanding is very different from ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ emergentism, which intends that what emerges in "emergence" is more ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ than the sum of the processes from which it emerges.[11] Some ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ physicists,
however, claim that reductionism and emergentism are ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ complementary: both are needed to explain natural processes.[12] ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ This sounds like it might be more up kensi's alley than mine.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ...
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ What makes you think it's relevant to economic and political systems?

it's relevant to BINARY reduced bullshit.


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)