Thanks for sharing these ‘counterintuitive’ results. The philosophical discourse in your work reminds me of Aristotle’s critique (Politics II) of total unity and wealth equality as envisioned in Plato’s Republic. Aristotle offers several interesting arguments for why the ‘polis’ should not aim at absolute unity but rather at an intermediate degree, since otherwise it would lose its strengths — including diversity and self-sufficiency (αυτάρκεια)— and would degenerate into a mere coalition. He also provides several arguments against imposed equality of wealth or the abolition of private property, the most insightful of which, I find, is that such measures would rob people of the opportunity to be virtuous by being generous, self-restrained, and genuinely friendly toward one another. Instead, he suggests that unity should be sought through education, which addresses the deeper moral and social causes of conflict rather than the purely economic ones.
Thanks very much, Any, for the excellent comment and the quotation. Of course, Aristotle was unparalleled in history. It would have been much more beneficial for me if, when I was reading Marxism-Leninism in my youth, I had instead immersed myself in Aristotle.
All of the Maths and most of the entropy discussion were incomprehensible to me but, forgive me if I make three comments:
1. There are many politicians, bureaucrats, media people and academics who call themselves Leftists and who imagine that by inhabiting or promoting a strong State they help workers. Maybe they just don't know that Marx was against the State, particularly a large and strong one that empowered royalty, bankers, powerful landowners and wealthy capitalists to exploit and oppress workers.
2. Wealth 'equality' is not required (or demanded much nowadays) but equal educational opportunities, respect and the freedom to lead fulfilled lives – for everyone – would be good and would lead to increased entropy and flourishing.
3. While technological development can improve the quality of life for many, it can also increase to extremes the income inequality between the wealthiest few and the poorest many, in ways and with consequences even Aristotle could not have imagined.
Since you say Marx was against the State, how is this reconciled with the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which he envisaged? Who would impose this dictatorship? (I must have forgotten the answer after so many years since my readings, if I ever knew it...)
Of course it is impossible to know exactly what was in Marx's mind that was translated from the German into the English word 'dictatorship'. One can only speculate along the lines that, as someone examining how the wealthier class (bankers, capitalists, landowners...) were controlling and exploiting the proletariat via the State, in what could be categorised as a dictatorship, Marx would have suggested that when the proletariat has ownership of the means of production, that this would be a fairer system. In fact, today we see growing totalitarianism coinciding with the growing ownership of AI, digital and electronic media, natural resources, land, finance and data by the wealthier class. Perhaps it is less an issue of workers 'imposing' a dictatorship but rather an issue of the ever-increasing implausibility that the proletariat and the poor will ever own anything.
Not convinced that we are allowed to replace the word 'dictatorship' with 'freedom' as you suggest in your Appendix II. Also, not convinced any more that an ugly "initial" or "transition" period would ever promise a beautiful final outcome. But this is a long discussion.
Indeed, it is a long discussion. I suggested 'freedom' from what Engels wrote in Socialism Utopian and Scientific, where he explains his vision of how divisions between ruler and ruled disappear when working people manage the productive forces "according to the needs of the community and of each individual" where production is "sufficient materially and becoming day by day more full" with the "possibility of securing for every member of society...an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties..."..."It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom."
Thanks, Ariane! I agree that equal opportunities is an important issue. We mention this in the paper. Educational opportunity presupposes a good educational system, which is doubtful nowadays. Perhaps the deterioration of education is a deliberate action for several reasons. Many think that education is not necessary, as AI will take care and replace the less educated at a smaller cost.
I found your analysis and your results very interesting. I wonder what the results would have been for Germany before the first and second world wars. That would also be very interesting.
Thanks for sharing these ‘counterintuitive’ results. The philosophical discourse in your work reminds me of Aristotle’s critique (Politics II) of total unity and wealth equality as envisioned in Plato’s Republic. Aristotle offers several interesting arguments for why the ‘polis’ should not aim at absolute unity but rather at an intermediate degree, since otherwise it would lose its strengths — including diversity and self-sufficiency (αυτάρκεια)— and would degenerate into a mere coalition. He also provides several arguments against imposed equality of wealth or the abolition of private property, the most insightful of which, I find, is that such measures would rob people of the opportunity to be virtuous by being generous, self-restrained, and genuinely friendly toward one another. Instead, he suggests that unity should be sought through education, which addresses the deeper moral and social causes of conflict rather than the purely economic ones.
“δεῖ μὲν γὰρ εἶναί πως μίαν καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ τὴν πόλιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντως. ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ὡς οὐκ ἔσται προϊοῦσα πόλις, ἔστι δʼ ὡς ἔσται μέν, ἐγγὺς δʼ οὖσα τοῦ μὴ πόλις εἶναι χείρων πόλις, ὥσπερ κἂν εἴ τις τὴν συμφωνίαν ποιήσειεν ὁμοφωνίαν ἢ τὸν ῥυθμὸν βάσιν μίαν. ἀλλὰ δεῖ πλῆθος ὄν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, διὰ τὴν παιδείαν κοινὴν καὶ μίαν ποιεῖν·” (Aristotle, Politics II, 1263b)
Thanks very much, Any, for the excellent comment and the quotation. Of course, Aristotle was unparalleled in history. It would have been much more beneficial for me if, when I was reading Marxism-Leninism in my youth, I had instead immersed myself in Aristotle.
All of the Maths and most of the entropy discussion were incomprehensible to me but, forgive me if I make three comments:
1. There are many politicians, bureaucrats, media people and academics who call themselves Leftists and who imagine that by inhabiting or promoting a strong State they help workers. Maybe they just don't know that Marx was against the State, particularly a large and strong one that empowered royalty, bankers, powerful landowners and wealthy capitalists to exploit and oppress workers.
2. Wealth 'equality' is not required (or demanded much nowadays) but equal educational opportunities, respect and the freedom to lead fulfilled lives – for everyone – would be good and would lead to increased entropy and flourishing.
3. While technological development can improve the quality of life for many, it can also increase to extremes the income inequality between the wealthiest few and the poorest many, in ways and with consequences even Aristotle could not have imagined.
Since you say Marx was against the State, how is this reconciled with the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which he envisaged? Who would impose this dictatorship? (I must have forgotten the answer after so many years since my readings, if I ever knew it...)
May I refer you to an examination that I did of this issue in my paper:
https://www.sciencexcel.com/article/blob-lords-and-the-left (see Appendices).
Of course it is impossible to know exactly what was in Marx's mind that was translated from the German into the English word 'dictatorship'. One can only speculate along the lines that, as someone examining how the wealthier class (bankers, capitalists, landowners...) were controlling and exploiting the proletariat via the State, in what could be categorised as a dictatorship, Marx would have suggested that when the proletariat has ownership of the means of production, that this would be a fairer system. In fact, today we see growing totalitarianism coinciding with the growing ownership of AI, digital and electronic media, natural resources, land, finance and data by the wealthier class. Perhaps it is less an issue of workers 'imposing' a dictatorship but rather an issue of the ever-increasing implausibility that the proletariat and the poor will ever own anything.
Not convinced that we are allowed to replace the word 'dictatorship' with 'freedom' as you suggest in your Appendix II. Also, not convinced any more that an ugly "initial" or "transition" period would ever promise a beautiful final outcome. But this is a long discussion.
Indeed, it is a long discussion. I suggested 'freedom' from what Engels wrote in Socialism Utopian and Scientific, where he explains his vision of how divisions between ruler and ruled disappear when working people manage the productive forces "according to the needs of the community and of each individual" where production is "sufficient materially and becoming day by day more full" with the "possibility of securing for every member of society...an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties..."..."It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom."
Thanks, Ariane! I agree that equal opportunities is an important issue. We mention this in the paper. Educational opportunity presupposes a good educational system, which is doubtful nowadays. Perhaps the deterioration of education is a deliberate action for several reasons. Many think that education is not necessary, as AI will take care and replace the less educated at a smaller cost.
I found your analysis and your results very interesting. I wonder what the results would have been for Germany before the first and second world wars. That would also be very interesting.
Thanks Panayoti! I am afraid what you ask is not possible to address, because the available database starts in 1947, as we write in the paper.