"R" vs. "K" Socialism vs Free Market Capitalism

[Slavik]

  A little about where I came from.  I came from ex. USSR, born and raised.  When I have immigrated to the USA in the midst of political and economic upheaval, I saw my old country move rapidly from 75 years of socialism to capitalism (not as free but capitalism non the less).  

 

  This has sparked  my interest.  The question "How can people who lived under the dictatorship of "R" preferred system, so quickly move in the opposite direction?"   

 

  Here is my hypothesis.

 

  Socialism by definition speaks of all workers and downtrodden holding the ultimate control in the society or the government providing for them.  What "R" people do not realize is that socialists very quickly run out of funds, and now the "R" life-style can no longer be subsidized.  After some time, new laws are passed, the welfare system breaks down, and all are mandated to work.  Partying and not "contributing to the society," is no longer acceptable, or even punishable by law.  Having children and not caring for them, is socially unacceptable, because the government can no longer subsidize them.  The number of single parent households decreases.  

 

   In the end, the "R" socioeconomic dream begins to give birth to more and more "K" type people.

 

  Now, looking at the "K" type societies, free markets provide tremendous amount of capital, therefore parenting mistakes that "breed" "R" type can now be subsidized.  That which you subsidize increases, and the pendulum begins to swing in the "R" direction, possibly all the way to the extreme of socialism, which will eventually swing it right back to capitalism.

 

These are just some of my thoughts on the matter.

[aviet]

These are just some of my thoughts on the matter.

A good nut-shelling of the situation.

 

In the UK, from around 1720 there was a growing economic boom, which was coupled with social liberalisation and the collapse of the church, owing to the end of the imposition of state religion in the mid-late 1600s. In 1731 Montesquie (an enlightenment philosopher) wrote of England, "There is no religion in England ... if religion is spoken of everyone laughs."

 

This liberalisation led to a vast growth in illegitimate childbirths. This cycle continued up until the 1830s, when the problems created by care-free living, growing cities and illegitimacy led to the creation of workhouses, in which the poor were quasi-criminalised. It was also the beginning of the Victorian era, in which moral values as well as religion made a come back. Although illegitimacy continued to rise it did eventually abate and decline. People joined more hard-line religious sects, as opposed to the bog-standard Church of England. They joined such sects as the Methodists, Baptists and Quakers, which are typically adverse to risk and pleasure seeking. Temperance gained massive traction and there was an organisation that promoted similar family values to Stef that had about 4 million members.

 

This K cycle lasted up until about the end of WWII, at which point the giant rise of the state began: state pensions, state healthcare, child support and so on. Attitudes again loosened, the church again waned and illegitimacy again soared.

 

When the UK state inevitably collapses and the deferment of responsibility to government ends will be the real beginning of the next K cycle, though it seems we are already in the transition period.

 

So the cycles go something like:

 

1720-1830 - R-selective

1830-1918 - K-selective

1918-2030? - R-Selective

 

The dates are somewhat arbitrary, but there are roughly two generations per cycle. The K cycle create a strong foundation that provides a safe footing for liberalism. The liberalism of the first generation weakens this foundation and the second generation seriously damage or destroy it.

 

The cycles appear to end when there is a critical mass of people who loose faith in the R/K selection.

 

    1720: state religion, monarchism and restraint are rejected (K)

1720-1830 - R-selective

    1830: loose social and fiscal standards are rejected ®

1830-1918 - K-selective

     1918: idea of Great and individualistic Britain is rejected (K)

1918-2030? - R-Selective

     2030: idea of the welfare state is rejected ®

 

You can see the epic movement to K-selection is already in play in Northern Europe:

 

 

Within the next few years it appears most of Northern Europe will go under the control on supposedly more K selective political parties:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47892-polling-the-rise-of-western-european-anti-establishment-parties/

 

 

In the new and harsh world that will follow the collapse of government people will have no choice but to become K selective or be removed from the voluntary gene pool.

 

----

 

In Singapore, a relatively and highly K selective society, things are currently going the other way. The vast wealth created by the K selective system, which went from third world to first world in one generation is now spawning people who are prone to emotional arguments about welfare and taking in refugees. Singapore has refused to take in refugees since the 70s, when some Vietnamese came in and made a bit of a racket. How much more Europe is prepared to take.

[luxfelix]

I've heard that the French Revolution scared Britain into the other direction?

[WasatchMan]

Its a good hypothesis.  What I wonder is whether resources push the changes faster than the genes. This could also mean there is a larger wavelength within a smaller fluctuation in R and K cultural dominance that could account for the genetic fluctuation over time.  "R"s ride the wave of excess resources and it seems that the recourse wave fluctuates more than the genes could account for but I bet there is a larger fluctuation in the R vs K dominance.  I think we are likely on top of the a larger R dominance cycle that it seems likely to crash hard within a generation with all the decadence and decay of values we see right now.  Not too many producers out there if you ask me.

[aviet]

I've heard that the French Revolution scared Britain into the other direction?

 

The French Revolution had an effect, but like pretty much everything England (and Wales) were ahead of France by a considerable margin. England (and Wales) had its version of the French Revolution in the 1640s and 1650s, in which the monarch was also killed. The monarchy was later reinstalled, but there was a considerable reformation and compromise. This is something that England did well, as opposed to continental Europe who were more given to state, religious and social totalitarianism.

 

Going into the 1800s in Britain, you had a lot of agitation for further reform and this is something the elite were gradually pressured into surrendering. Of those who pushed for reform, I would put them into two categories:

 

Proto-Marxist-radicals: emotionally charged, irrational, deferring, bile-spitting degenerates (R selective)

Socially-conservative-progressives: those given to temperance and high moral standards, but also for women's rights, against landlordism, against trade unions and ... against state education (K selective)

 

The latter group have a lot in common with those in the US who are very independent, into homeschooling, the constitution etc. It is a shame this tradition died out and its proponents are virtually unknown, yet Marx's visage adorns the mental mantelpiece of every plonker in the country.

 

Even though Marx himself peddled his excuse for failure novels from the UK, the country was largely able to fend off communism and the bile-spitters by working to provide access to capitalism for everyone, rather than working on providing redistribution for everyone ... and much of this was done voluntarily via education provided by the Church of England, other religious denominations and the wealthy; unemployment insurance provided by subscription, libraries provided by subscription, hospitals provided by subscriptions and so on. This all started going out of the window at the peak of the K selective cycle (cira 1875) when the government started getting involved in education. By 1930 the government had pretty much taken control of all education; at which point innovation in education ended.

 

The great experimentation in English voluntarism is now largely unknown. For a flavor search the text here for 'charity' and 'subscription':

 

http://forebears.io/england/yorkshire/sheffield#historicalDescriptions

 

Describing a town with a population of about 90,000 in 1871 and you will find it had about fifty various charity/free/voluntarily funded schools and other institutions. Now it probably has zero. My town had a population of about 6,000 at this time and had many more schools, hospitals and other institutions, all voluntarily funded than it does today with a population of 16,000 which are all state funded, bar one which is a £12,000 / year private school.

 

 

Its a good hypothesis.  What I wonder is whether resources push the changes faster than the genes. This could also mean there is a larger wavelength within a smaller fluctuation in R and K cultural dominance that could account for the genetic fluctuation over time.  "R"s ride the wave of excess resources and it seems that the recourse wave fluctuates more than the genes could account for but I bet there is a larger fluctuation in the R vs K dominance.  I think we are likely on top of the a larger R dominance cycle that it seems likely to crash hard within a generation with all the decadence and decay of values we see right now.  Not too many producers out there if you ask me.

To me it seems fairly clear that resources are the primary driver. You could be at the peak of a K selective cycle and then the black plague hits. That will only push society more K, even if the society is ready to go R due to wealth. Genes are largely irrelevant if the situation requires improvisation or forces extinction.

 

Looking at the cycles in Britain:

 

1720-1830 - R-selective <- driven by raising standards of living caused by agricultural revolution

1830-1918 - K-selective <- driven by industrial revolution, overpopulation, smaller farms, people forced into cities in poverty; mass unemployment from mechanisation

1918-2030 - R-Selective <- driven by state redistribution

2030-2120 - K-selective <- driven by turmoil of the demise of state redistribution

 

We are certainly at a peak of R behavior right now. So many young people just think: Oh, I'll take a gap year, spend some time travelling, see the world, go trekking, smoke a peace peace pipe. And most of the jobs they want to do are economic dead-ends, i.e. no one can do anything else productive with what they have made: arts, academia etc, which are full of state money. Then they are in their thirties, renting in a city, with no saving, no pension. Entrepreneurship and independence are rare. People expect things to fall onto their laps.

 

We've never seen anything like this before. On top of that, the more you do what you are told to do (be ecconomically productive) the more you are punished (taxed) and the more you do what you are told not to do (make bad life decision, e.g. single motherhood) the more you are rewarded (benefits). It's the worst R system that has ever existed.

[luxfelix]

 

The French Revolution had an effect, but like pretty much everything England (and Wales) were ahead of France by a considerable margin. England (and Wales) had its version of the French Revolution in the 1640s and 1650s, in which the monarch was also killed. The monarchy was later reinstalled, but there was a considerable reformation and compromise. This is something that England did well, as opposed to continental Europe who were more given to state, religious and social totalitarianism.

 

Going into the 1800s in Britain, you had a lot of agitation for further reform and this is something the elite were gradually pressured into surrendering. Of those who pushed for reform, I would put them into two categories:

 

Proto-Marxist-radicals: emotionally charged, irrational, deferring, bile-spitting degenerates (R selective)

Socially-conservative-progressives: those given to temperance and high moral standards, but also for women's rights, against landlordism, against trade unions and ... against state education (K selective)

 

The latter group have a lot in common with those in the US who are very independent, into homeschooling, the constitution etc. It is a shame this tradition died out and its proponents are virtually unknown, yet Marx's visage adorns the mental mantelpiece of every plonker in the country.

 

Even though Marx himself peddled his excuse for failure novels from the UK, the country was largely able to fend off communism and the bile-spitters by working to provide access to capitalism for everyone, rather than working on providing redistribution for everyone ... and much of this was done voluntarily via education provided by the Church of England, other religious denominations and the wealthy; unemployment insurance provided by subscription, libraries provided by subscription, hospitals provided by subscriptions and so on. This all started going out of the window at the peak of the K selective cycle (cira 1875) when the government started getting involved in education. By 1930 the government had pretty much taken control of all education; at which point innovation in education ended.

 

The great experimentation in English voluntarism is now largely unknown. For a flavor search the text here for 'charity' and 'subscription':

 

http://forebears.io/england/yorkshire/sheffield#historicalDescriptions

 

Describing a town with a population of about 90,000 in 1871 and you will find it had about fifty various charity/free/voluntarily funded schools and other institutions. Now it probably has zero. My town had a population of about 6,000 at this time and had many more schools, hospitals and other institutions, all voluntarily funded than it does today with a population of 16,000 which are all state funded, bar one which is a £12,000 / year private school.

 

 

To me it seems fairly clear that resources are the primary driver. You could be at the peak of a K selective cycle and then the black plague hits. That will only push society more K, even if the society is ready to go R due to wealth. Genes are largely irrelevant if the situation requires improvisation or forces extinction.

 

Looking at the cycles in Britain:

 

1720-1830 - R-selective <- driven by raising standards of living caused by agricultural revolution

1830-1918 - K-selective <- driven by industrial revolution, overpopulation, smaller farms, people forced into cities in poverty; mass unemployment from mechanisation

1918-2030 - R-Selective <- driven by state redistribution

2030-2120 - K-selective <- driven by turmoil of the demise of state redistribution

 

We are certainly at a peak of R behavior right now. So many young people just think: Oh, I'll take a gap year, spend some time travelling, see the world, go trekking, smoke a peace peace pipe. And most of the jobs they want to do are economic dead-ends, i.e. no one can do anything else productive with what they have made: arts, academia etc, which are full of state money. Then they are in their thirties, renting in a city, with no saving, no pension. Entrepreneurship and independence are rare. People expect things to fall onto their laps.

 

We've never seen anything like this before. On top of that, the more you do what you are told to do (be ecconomically productive) the more you are punished (taxed) and the more you do what you are told not to do (make bad life decision, e.g. single motherhood) the more you are rewarded (benefits). It's the worst R system that has ever existed.

 

 

I really hope I don't have to wait until 2030 until the pendulum swings back towards K... 

 

The last time I went to see the Constitution, I noticed a side exhibit dedicated to the Magna Carta.

[aviet]

I really hope I don't have to wait until 2030 until the pendulum swings back towards K... 

 

The last time I went to see the Constitution, I noticed a side exhibit dedicated to the Magna Carta.

At least they haven't made the side exhibition Michael Moore's Stupid White Men yet.

 

What do you expect to happen when big government comes to an end?

 

There are a number of scenarios I envisage. I think one of the most likely will include a massive reduction in population. If European, the US and a few other countries' governments fail or are massively reduced this will mean:

 

- an end to the threat of US/NATO intervention in the numerous conflicts that would otherwise be raging

- an end of the ability of said governments and associated NGOs to force human rights on the third world

- decimation of 3rd world resource-based economies

- an end to foreign aid which can constitute up to 50% of a 3rd world government's budget

 

All the problems of the third world will blow back on the inter-dependent West and cause global food, energy and raw material markets to collapse. I would expect large portions of the world's population to die of starvation and conflict in this scenario.

 

We've never seen such an inter-dependent world, where relationships have been crated by a small number of people by force and against market (natural) forces. The collapse of major governments would outweigh the affect of the Roman Empire.

 

But I also think its quite likely that the system will be able to be propped up for a long time. People with a stake in society will rather keep some of their net worth rather than loose pretty much all of it; and they will keep rolling things over until it becomes obvious to all that there isn't much left to roll over.

 

My eye is mainly on Italy, if it goes, I think France could be drawn into essentially insolvency and that would probably be enough to trigger The Greatest Depression. It's just a question of what schemes they can dream up to manage the decline.

[luxfelix]

 

What do you expect to happen when big government comes to an end?

 

 

In part, I imagine that big government would be widely discredited and that over time people will gravitate toward meritocratic societies, self-sufficent/trade centers, and oases of peace (K); I'm optimistic that if the system falls completely, it will be gone for as long as we remember.

[DaviesMa]

I would say that R and K or socialism and capitalism also have another paradigm - childhood verses adulthood.

 

Childhood is about trying to manipulate people to get resources whereas adulthood is about manipulating the world. When you run out of money as a socialist government it is a bit like your parents kicking you out of the house to make it on your own - you hate it at first but then you adjust and it becomes very satisfying.

 

People with the capacity for being K can, when the chips are down, become Ks and ultimately be more happy about it. The stress of this puberty comes from the mental changes that must occur and the risk that some people might not be able to adapt. Look at social justice warriors for perfect examples of tall children.