What Would It Look Like?

[trivas7]

As the structures of modern society crumble, is it enough to respond with the same tired solutions? Or are we being called to question a set of unexamined assumptions that form the very basis of our civilization?

This 25-minute retrospective asks us to reflect on the state of the world and ourselves, and to listen more closely to what is being asked of us at this time of unprecedented global transformation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ96y_yOkI0

[Robert]

The world's wretchedly poor are born into absurdly overpopulated cities like Calcutta and Mexico City.

I do not believe that deep introspection by capitalists will ameliorate that at all.

[Bud Struggle]

The world's wretchedly poor are born into absurdly overpopulated cities like Calcutta and Mexico City.

I do not believe that deep introspection by capitalists will ameliorate that at all.

From what I understand if all the wealth of the world was distributed evenly each person would make about $7000 per anum.

The entire world would be Calcutta.

[BobKKKindle$]

The entire world would be Calcutta. For a start, the GDP/Capita of the world is USD $9600, based on a PPP measure, and so if you somehow found a way to share the world's entire wealth out amongst the entire population with everyone receiving the same amount, everyone would receive USD $9600, given that GDP/Capita is calculated by dividing an area's annual income by the population for that year. Even if the GDP/Capita for the world were actually USD $7000, this would not mean that everyone would have the same living conditions as most of the people who live in Calcutta - where the GDP/Capita is presumably also USD $7000 - because Calcutta, like everywhere else in the world, has a grossly unequal distribution of wealth (India as a whole has a Gini coefficient of 36.8, making it a fairly unequal country, but by no means the most unequal out of all the countries for which data is available) and so most people actually get by with much less than USD $7000 each year, whilst a small proportion of the population receives much more. If we want to get a more accurate picture of what life would be like if everyone had USD $9600 then we need to find a country with a GDP/Capita that is currently close to that figure as well as a fairly equal distribution of wealth, so that most people do earn around USD $9600, and not significantly less. There is such a country and it (quite conveniently) comes in the form of Cuba, which has a GDP/Capita of USD $9500, and, as acknowledged by the UN and other such organizations, has an excellent standard of healthcare, one of the lowest levels of illiteracy in the world, a low level of infrant malnutrition, and full employment. This indicates that if we did have an equal distribution of the world's wealth then it would be possible to give each and every individual a standard of living close to that of the average Cuban citizen - and in my book that would be a pretty good thing, given the conditions in which most people currently live.

In reality, though, if the world operated under a socialist system (which, incidentally, would not involve a rigidly egalitarian distribution of wealth) it would probably be possible to do much better than Cuba. Cuba's GDP and living standards are artificially diminished as a result of the blockade, which prevents the economy from accessing crucial goods such as fuel and medical supplies, as well as wasteful forms of production, which arise from the need for Cuba to defend itself against imperialist attack (Cuba spends in excess of 3% of GDP on its military) as well as the bureaucratic forms of management that have been imposed on the ruling elite. In a socialist world there would be nothing to prevent the abolition of various wasteful forms of production which consume significant amounts of resources and offer no real utility to the human race (military spending and advertising come to mind) and workers control would allow all the world's natural and human resources to be used in a sustainable and efficient way. This, combined with the abolition of alienated labour, would generate a society in which each and every individual is able to develop their abilities, through meaningful relationships with their fellows, and enjoy full material security.

[Bud Struggle]

Good post Bob. I know we got off on the wrong foot earlier in our postings--but I must admit I really you analysis of economics. I don't agree, but you are insightful and well informed and bring an interesting perspective to things.

Anyway, that $9600 is fine--but there's no improvement for those that want to work harder and try a bit in life. There's no boats and second houses and airplanes perks for those that give more to get more.

I like the idea of things being more equal--but there should be a reward for those that produce more.

I've been to Cuba and it's an OK life--but nothing spectacular. There's poverty and black markets all over the place--and there are government people that do quite well on the system and live above the rest. In lots of way's it's better than Honduras and not as good as Belize. The poor there live nowhere as good as the poor in the US or Britain or most of Europe for that matter.

[Ele'ill]

1:09 was exciting

I don't trust actors because they're psychotic.

This is a good thread - I liked the video.

It makes you feel less confident - less radical but more passionate at the same time.

[danyboy27]

Good post Bob. I know we got off on the wrong foot earlier in our postings--but I must admit I really you analysis of economics. I don't agree, but you are insightful and well informed and bring an interesting perspective to things.

Anyway, that $9600 is fine--but there's no improvement for those that want to work harder and try a bit in life. There's no boats and second houses and airplanes perks for those that give more to get more.

I like the idea of things being more equal--but there should be a reward for those that produce more.

I've been to Cuba and it's an OK life--but nothing spectacular. There's poverty and black markets all over the place--and there are government people that do quite well on the system and live above the rest. In lots of way's it's better than Honduras and not as good as Belize. The poor there live nowhere as good as the poor in the US or Britain or most of Europe for that matter.

well, so far, in my vision of a communist world, there would be incentives and reward for those who work harder. the motivational factor of reward and competition is really important. i mean, lets say tomk you work more hour or you create something new, you should be rewarded for this. plus, there is always the factor of socialisation, if you got enough connection you would be able to have everything you want legally. you know a guy who build boat? scratch his back and he will build one for you. there is many model of communist society, and has you are aware some models suppport the idea of a free market, or at least a certain form of it

a healthy dose of motivation and competition is always good, its something that force innovation. But like everything, when there is too much competition it tend to stop innovation, and burry the small lone inventor inside his basement.

[Killfacer]

delete me!

[RGacky3]

From what I understand if all the wealth of the world was distributed evenly each person would make about $7000 per anum.

The entire world would be Calcutta.

Measuring a communist society in monitary capitalist forms does'nt make sense, remember money does not equal resouces, capital and comfort, it is a measure of market demand.

Using your analysis no one would be able to afford a new car, which means cars would'nt be made. Which is rediculous because the cost of a car is the result of market forces, which is'nt pure "supply and demand" its cost and profit potential.

My main point here is money cannot be used as a representation of post capitalist life.

[trivas7]

Measuring a communist society in monitary capitalist forms does'nt make sense, remember money does not equal resouces, capital and comfort, it is a measure of market demand.

Communist society has never existed; what's to measure?

[Bud Struggle]

Measuring a communist society in monitary capitalist forms does'nt make sense, remember money does not equal resouces, capital and comfort, it is a measure of market demand.

Using your analysis no one would be able to afford a new car, which means cars would'nt be made. Which is rediculous because the cost of a car is the result of market forces, which is'nt pure "supply and demand" its cost and profit potential.

My main point here is money cannot be used as a representation of post capitalist life.

Bottom line--we'd all be poor. there aren't enough Bill Gates to go around.

[Rosa Provokateur]

All I can say about that video is... beautiful.

I'm passing it on to other people through facebook and myspace, it needs to be seen.

[Phalanx]

Well, I liked the first part of the video when it was stating the facts at hand, but it decended into overly optimistic shit about two thirds in. They spoke about how it was possible to unite humanity, but not how to eliminate the desire to live lifestyles far beyond the planet's capabilities. I'm pessimistic, but I think it's more likely we'll run this planet into nothing before we wake up to necessary changes.

[RGacky3]

Bottom line--we'd all be poor. there aren't enough Bill Gates to go around.

What do you mean by poor, you don't think there are enough resources (not money) to allow everyone to live comfortable.

Also you say bottom line, did you read my post?

[Bud Struggle]

What do you mean by poor, you don't think there are enough resources (not money) to allow everyone to live comfortable. I don't know if there are. My guess would be there would be mass starvation efore the world economy could change from the Capitalist to the Anarchist system.

Also you say bottom line, did you read my post?[/QUOTE]

You said you can't use present economic conditions as any indicator of what a Communist would would look like.

So it could be good--or it could be hell. :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

My guess would be there would be mass starvation efore the world economy could change from the Capitalist to the Anarchist system.

Well anything to back up that guess?

anyway, there IS mass starvation going on now. Even though we produce enough food.


You said you can't use present economic conditions as any indicator of what a Communist would would look like.

So it could be good--or it could be hell.

I said you can't use money as representation of whether or not we can sustain decent living standards for everyone. The rason being that the market place distorts all of that.