Ferraris For All? (do we need growth?)

[bailey_187]

So there is a lot of arguments against economic growth from many 'leftists' these days(e.g "prosperity without growth"), but historically communists favoured economic growth (e.g. 5year plans, Great Leap Forward - if 'anti-stalinist' ignore this). So why is it different now? Are we still aiming for a world of abundance? Do we want the ability to provide 'ferraris for all'?(obviously some people, me included think ferraris are shit looking cars, but you get what i mean)

So in the current world, should communists be in favour of economic growth?

There is a new book out about this by Daniel Ben-Ami called "Ferraris For All". Here is a sympathetic review by the site he contributes to sometimes http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/3451/

[LaRiposte]

The one question I've never ever been able to answer about life in Communist society is this: "what if I want a yacht?"

[thälmann]

then take one....

[Franz Fanonipants]

This is a constant fight I have with my girlfriend.

Personally, I think if you don't NEED a yacht, why the fuck would you have one?

But if you want to live a life as an itinerant laborer from seaport to seaport, and you can show that you have value to society doing so, go ahead and take the yacht bro.

She would disagree, she'd argue anyone who wants a yacht should have one provided.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

So there is a lot of arguments against economic growth from many 'leftists' these days(e.g "prosperity without growth"), but historically communists favoured economic growth (e.g. 5year plans, Great Leap Forward - if 'anti-stalinist' ignore this). So why is it different now? Are we still aiming for a world of abundance? Do we want the ability to provide 'ferraris for all'?(obviously some people, me included think ferraris are shit looking cars, but you get what i mean)

So in the current world, should communists be in favour of economic growth?



Sounds like a straw-man type of fallacy, bro. Since when are communists against economic growth? We're against the poor-vs-rich gap between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and the one-sided economic exploitation that is inherent in the economic relations of these two classes.

Such problems as the environmental impact of polluting industries are obviously a concern that's often raised by the Left, but that's a more complex question that deals with adequate regulation and using resources in a sustainable and efficient manner than opposition to growth per se.

As far as your original post, I don't think that anyone opposes economic growth in and of itself, whether we're dealing with capitalists, communists, fascists, or what have you.

Frankly, I'm just not seeing any kind of mass of of 21st-century neo-Luddites running around us anywhere today. Are they really out there?

[bailey_187]

Frankly, I'm just not seeing any kind of mass of of 21st-century neo-Luddites running around us anywhere today. Are they really out there?

You should of been in London in the last anti-G20 thing. And the whole idea that the environmentalist hippies are "our comrades" e.g. some socialists i know were cheering the fact that the Green party won a seat in the last election here


Also i saw this book in a communist bookshop i go to (srs) : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prosperity-without-Growth-Economics-Finite/dp/1844078949/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280445963&sr=1-1

And this book that is praised by leftists has a similar anti-growth argument:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spirit-Level-Societies-Almost-Always/dp/0141032367/ref=pd_sim_b_3



Im glad you, and all other replies so far, agree that economic growth is a good thing

[Animal Farm Pig]

Do you want a Ferrari or a yacht, or do you want access to a Ferrari or yacht? There's a difference. Do you want to Ferrari just to have it? Will you leave it in your garage and never drive it? If it belongs to you, you have the right to set it on fire or otherwise intentionally destroy it. I don't want a kind of socialism like this.

What seems to me a more practical solution is to assign responsibility for the Ferraris, and yachts, and other large expensive toys to the local chapters of the sports car club, the sailing club, or other relevant club. If you want access to those large, expensive toys, join the club and organize who can use what when together with the other enthusiasts. For new expensive sports cars, perhaps some production lines could be maintained. Costs of production could be payed by club dues, fundraisers, etc. An alternative model could be to make the appropriate tools, facilities, materials, etc. available to club members and let them learn to construct their own yachts or sports cars.

[bailey_187]

Do you want a Ferrari or a yacht, or do you want access to a Ferrari or yacht? There's a difference. Do you want to Ferrari just to have it? Will you leave it in your garage and never drive it? If it belongs to you, you have the right to set it on fire or otherwise intentionally destroy it. I don't want a kind of socialism like this.

What seems to me a more practical solution is to assign responsibility for the Ferraris, and yachts, and other large expensive toys to the local chapters of the sports car club, the sailing club, or other relevant club. If you want access to those large, expensive toys, join the club and organize who can use what when together with the other enthusiasts. For new expensive sports cars, perhaps some production lines could be maintained. Costs of production could be payed by club dues, fundraisers, etc. An alternative model could be to make the appropriate tools, facilities, materials, etc. available to club members and let them learn to construct their own yachts or sports cars.


Would you say this system should apply to all cars though? If not, then say we were able to increase the surplus that we create to such a level, we could afford for everyones regular car (and those who right now dont have a car) to be an ferrari or a maybach or whatever.

[Franz Fanonipants]

the problem with production that isn't sustainable, in capitalism (because it seems like a lot of the 18-19 year old communists around here seem to not understand we still live in a capitalist system) is that the poorest suffer the most from it.

so for all the capitalist-style "growth" you get huge incidents of early mortality, illness, cancer, and environmental racism all among the proletariat/lumpen.

I'm far from a hippy, but I think you're kinda dumb Bailey.

[LaRiposte]

Do you want a Ferrari or a yacht, or do you want access to a Ferrari or yacht? There's a difference. Do you want to Ferrari just to have it? Will you leave it in your garage and never drive it? If it belongs to you, you have the right to set it on fire or otherwise intentionally destroy it. I don't want a kind of socialism like this.

What seems to me a more practical solution is to assign responsibility for the Ferraris, and yachts, and other large expensive toys to the local chapters of the sports car club, the sailing club, or other relevant club. If you want access to those large, expensive toys, join the club and organize who can use what when together with the other enthusiasts. For new expensive sports cars, perhaps some production lines could be maintained. Costs of production could be payed by club dues, fundraisers, etc. An alternative model could be to make the appropriate tools, facilities, materials, etc. available to club members and let them learn to construct their own yachts or sports cars.


An interesting proposition comrade. However, this necessarily posits the question of scarcity. I know it's a tertiary concern, and I mostly just think it's a funny idea, but something to think about.

[bailey_187]

(because it seems like a lot of the 18-19 year old communists around here seem to not understand we still live in a capitalist system)

Ah ok, i forgot, thanks for the reminder.



so for all the capitalist-style "growth" you get huge incidents of early mortality, illness, cancer, environmental racism, etc.

Are you seriously saying that economic growth increases mortality and illnes? Of course the relations of production lead to unequal benefits from the growth, but how does an expansion of production increase deaths overall?




I'm far from a hippy, but I think you're kinda dumb Bailey.

Yes because you have proved you are so smart, "cool story bro lulz, i can post like a BB Miscer, aware"

[Franz Fanonipants]

Are you seriously saying that economic growth increases mortality and illnes?


Yes. Go to the Third World you fucking child.

User got an infraction for this amazing post! - The Best Mod

[LaRiposte]

Economic growth under capitalism hurts people because it is wholly unplanned, anarchic, and undertaken with profit in mind, not human need.

Under socialism, economic growth will be democratically planned with human need in mind.

Therin lies the difference.

[bailey_187]

Yes. Go to the Third World you fucking child.

Ah ok, so the Third World does not need economic growth? Africa is not in a state of underdevelopment because Imperialism keeps it economically stagnated, it has too much growth. Good insight genius. Please help me understand the world more.

[Franz Fanonipants]

you are the worst poster on RevLeft

and this is coming from the second worst poster on RevLeft

fakedit.

The third world needs planned growth and development under a Socialist economy. You are a moron if you don't understand that.

[bailey_187]

Economic growth under capitalism hurts people because it is wholly unplanned, anarchic, and undertaken with profit in mind, not human need.

Under socialism, economic growth will be democratically planned with human need in mind.

Therin lies the difference.

How exactly does an increase in output always (because you can find isolated incidents when it has ofc) hurt people?

If, rather than austerity, the British bourgeosie decides to invest massivly in creating new factories (not that they would), high speed rail etc creating massive economic growth, how would this hurt people? The benefits will largley be accrued by the capitalists ofc, but how will it actually hurt people anymore than if the growth didnt happen

[Franz Fanonipants]

How exactly does an increase in output always (because you can find isolated incidents when it has ofc) hurt people?

If, rather than austerity, the British bourgeosie decides to invest massivly in creating new factories (not that they would), high speed rail etc creating massive economic growth, how would this hurt people? The benefits will largley be accrued by the capitalists ofc, but how will it actually hurt people anymore than if the growth didnt happen

you're basically a capitalist bro.

trickledown economics is not socialist in ANY way.

[bailey_187]

you are the worst poster on RevLeft

and this is coming from the second worst poster on RevLeft

fakedit.

The third world needs planned growth and development under a Socialist economy. You are a moron if you don't understand that.

The Third World needs economic development. The only way to acheive this is socialism. If capitalism could provide the development, it would be acceptable, but capitalism cant.

[GPDP]

Can a mod please trash the flames? This is a serious topic that warrants a good discussion, and I doubt childish shitslinging does much to foster the necessary environment for it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The Third World needs economic development. The only way to acheive this is socialism. If capitalism could provide the development, it would be acceptable, but capitalism cant.

We agree. Capitalist development occurs, and oftentimes enslaves and kills tons of people in the process.

[bailey_187]

you're basically a capitalist bro.

trickledown economics is not socialist in ANY way.

lol what?

how have i argued that trickledown economics or an expansion of bourgeos production is socialist? Where have i argued that workers of Britain will benefit from trickle down economics? What i did was ask how, in that case of economic growth, people would actually be hurt by it, not that they would see much benefits from it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Ask people in Southern China who were displaced by capitalist development and now suck down hella carcinogens in poorly regulated new industries in the cities how they can be hurt by development.

[leftace53]

Why is "bro" the "it" werd now? O.o

For one thing, we wouldn't be wasting resources left and right in a communist society. We also wouldn't be "sabotaging" stuff to fall apart after a warranty wears out. So we would in fact have more to play around with than in a capitalist society. Like the OP expressed his dislike of Ferraris, not everyone would want a ferrari, I mean I'd be down with a box on wheels that gets good mileage. That would leave some of these big ticket type items to afficianados (I'd join the club which tastes the awesomest whiskey).

I like the responsibility sense to it, that when you get something like this, you can't just keep it and do nothing with it. Plus why would you even want to just keep it around, its not the class system will exist, so why have something as a status symbol?

In current society, I find that economic growth means a lot of over production and sort of a competition with who can throw away the most stuff (the GDP for example, its often cited as a naive measurement for economic growth). In that sense, no, economic growth is bad. However I support economic growth where it relates to technological advancements, in finding a way to make things the best with the least resources used/wasted.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'd join the club which tastes the awesomest whiskey.

This is correct and must be rewarded.

[bailey_187]

.

[RadioRaheem84]

I assumed that the third world was not underdeveloped but over exploited. Any benefits we felt from economic growth was due to class struggle seeking a more equitable distribution?

I agree that this is an excellent debate! I am just going sit back and learn.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I mean, I guess there needs to be more precise language involved here. Capitalism, in my opinion, cannot fully develop. It can exploit, but in terms of creating long-term development that is actually positive for the largest number of people? Not really the strong point of Capitalism.

As a result, Capitalist "development" may employ people and "raise" their standard of living, but the burden of value of labor exchanges being uneven and etc. basically creates our moral imperative to oppose Capitalism.

[bailey_187]

Any benefits we felt from economic growth was due to class struggle seeking a more equitable distribution?

Not necesarily. In Britain the last 15 years have been nearly dead for class struggle, but most workers have seen living standard increases, atleast before the credit crunch (although not as much as it could have).

[Franz Fanonipants]

basically Bailey can't understand class struggle properly cus

[bailey_187]

basically Bailey can't understand class struggle properly cus

true. i am quite dumb and only 18, as you said. Luckily you are here i can read through your posts :thumbup1:

[Franz Fanonipants]

true. i am quite dumb and only 18, as you said. Luckily you are here i can read through your posts :thumbup1:

i use internet lingo for maximum pedagogical effect

[RadioRaheem84]

Not necesarily. In Britain the last 15 years have been nearly dead for class struggle, but most workers have seen living standard increases, atleast before the credit crunch (although not as much as it could have). I thought the last fifteen years was marked by a decrease in living standards? Everything from wages, access to healthcare, income disparity, etc.

[Adil3tr]

economic growth is central to Marxism, but there are three things to remember,
1. We don't exploit the majority at the hands of a minority
2. We don't waste this growth on weapons
3. We can have better growth since we aren't held by by the profit motive

[Franz Fanonipants]

I thought the last fifteen years was marked by a decrease in living standards? Everything from wages, access to healthcare, income disparity, etc.

That was my point when I said Bailey couldn't grasp class struggle. As far as I know Britain has been in decline in terms of Workers since the 1980s if not before.

That, coupled with the not seeing anything wrong with the British Bourgeoisie building a factory in say East Africa to extract resources, because it allegedly would "develop" East Africa.

[Franz Fanonipants]

economic growth is central to Marxism, but there are three things to remember,
1. We don't exploit the majority at the hands of a minority
2. We don't waste this growth on weapons
3. We can have better growth since we aren't held by by the profit motive

Another thing to note, the extraction of resources from colonies, even if that resources is labor (it never is JUST that) is exploitation, not development.

[Animal Farm Pig]

Sorry, I got so caught up in the question of Ferrari cars that I missed the larger issue-- one of economic growth and scarcity.

Marilyn Waring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Waring) made a good film called Who's Counting? about the absolutely retarded way we measure economic activity (and therefore economic growth) under capitalism. She points out that pranging your car en route to the grocery store is better for economic growth than making a simple trip. The cost of repair adds to economic growth. I know nobody is advocating this absolutely stupid way to look at economic activity, but it's something to keep in mind.

As far as growth in general goes, we need to remember that most of the world is poor and has shitty living conditions. I've met people in poor countries whose homes consisted of scavenged plastic attached to sticks. Many others live in homes with dirt floors, walls made of mud, and roofs made of grass. Nothing wrong with that as a construction style, but I bet they would like floors with carpet or wood. They would like electricity. They could benefit from proper plumbing and sanitation. The UN maintains statistics on access to clean water and latrines. If you want to be depressed, take a look at them some time.

A little story: I used to work in Mozambique. In the morning, I would ride my bicycle the 5 km to the city, leave the bike at my friend's shop, and take a minibus for the remaining 30 km to the small town where my office was. One day, my bus broke down on the way home from work. So, all the passengers were standing outside, talking, smoking cigarettes, passing the time until another bus came. An old farmer was walking along the road, and he noticed me-- the white guy wearing a tie. He came over and he started asking about me. I told him that I was a clerk for an NGO in Gondola, and I was just on my way home to Chimoio. Then, he said that I should come back to the same place the next day, so that I could meet his daughter, marry her, and take her to Norway. Some people might laugh, saying "hahaha, another crazy story from Mozambique!" No. That's not what this is. This man wanted a better life for his daughter so badly, that he tried to arrange for her to marry a foreigner that he had just met with the hope that I would take her away to some developed country.

My point is that there are a whole fucking lot of people who have shit and live in shit situations. We need to change this. For one thing, we should welcome people from poor countries to the developed countries. In developed countries, the infrastructure is already in place, and it is possible to expand it to help provide a dignified standard of living to more people. That's not enough, though. We also have to bring development to the places where the poor people are. That's going to take a significant use of resources, and it's going to be real "growth."

For that reason, the "zero growth" people fucking piss me off. Zero growth means billions of people stay in poverty. It means 200 per 1,000 infant mortality rates. It means death from preventable disease. It means young girls keep having to walk 8 km to the well, and then walk 8 km back carrying 20 kg of water on their heads. It means continued deforestation from charcoal production instead of investing in electric or gas distribution and use systems for cooking and heating. The privileged motherfuckers willing to consign billions of people to poverty in the name of some half-baked idea that "growth" as such is bad make me fucking livid.

That being said, there is an issue of resource usage. The planet is finite. The universe is (expanding but) finite. Material, labor, and energy cannot just appear from nowhere. I've heard in different places the statement that "We would need X [where X > 1] number of Earths if the whole world/China/India/other place with lots of people consumed at the same level as the people in the USA/Europe/other rich place." I don't know where those numbers come from, but this seems intuitively true; however, I would replace the word "consume" with the word "waste."

The capitalist system and system of private property is inherently wasteful.

When I think about capitalist production, I often think about this Onion article (http://www.theonion.com/articles/chinese-factory-worker-cant-believe-the-shit-he-ma,1343/). Capitalist production wastes resources (material, labor, energy) to produce a lot of absolute shite. Not only are these things of dubious utility, but there are also probably about 5 different brands of "salad spinners" that all have their own development budget, tooling costs at the factory, advertising budgets, accounting departments, and they're all gonna fucking break after 5 uses anyway. I wrote this, also about auto production (what can I say, I like cars), in another thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-nationalization-500-t138714/index.html?p=1806201#post1806201):


I think R&D costs could be decreased a lot. Right now, there are a crazy number of different models of cars. Each has a research and development cost. The reason for the crazy number of different models is all about capitalist competition, market differentiation, and market segmentation. A merged national auto company shouldn't have this problem. I think that they could produce maybe three different vehicles-- a small car, a large wagon/saloon, and a pick-up truck. We can quibble about the number of vehicles and types. Maybe a sports car and a mid-sized car could be included. Maybe the small car could be modified or optioned with sports parts, etc. Nonetheless, by decreasing from 100 different models to ~3, R&D costs will go down significantly. This will also introduce economies of scale in manufacturing and servicing. Moving from a perspective of planned obsolescence to a perspective or producing a quality product for workers will diminish long term services costs and allow R&D to operate on longer product cycles. A quality standardized product is far better than companies producing 100 different models with yearly change cycles and a 3 -5 year "upgrade" cycle.

These same ideas can be applied to other sectors. The point is to move from the current wasteful capitalist system of production to a more sane one. I think that by creating quality products that will last a long time, use standard parts, and adopt best practices (in terms of resource use) in manufacturing and administration, we could greatly expand production, reduce resource use (including material, labor, and energy), and provide quality goods to other productive units and consumers.

We can also reduce the amount of stuff we need to produce on a per capita basis by changing the system of "private property." An example-- I own a digital multimeter. I use it maybe twice a year to check electrical voltage, amperage, impedance, etc. When I need it, I need it, but 99.9% of the time, it's sitting in my cabinet doing absolutely nothing. I don't need to own a digital multimeter, I need occasional access to a digital multimeter. Unfortunately, under the capitalist system, the only way for me to have access to the multimeter is by owning it. Centers for the rental of tools, cars, movies, books, etc. are a good model to look at. They're not as common as they should be, and where they are, (with the exception of libraries and some very progressive areas) they are organized for profit rather than to serve human needs. This is also a result of the system of private property-- in fact, for profit rental depends on it. The key right of private property is not to have access to something, but to deny others access.

Of course, there will be disagreements about what people should own versus what people should have access to. My toothbrush, I would prefer to be my own personal property. I don't think it's wrong to design apartments were kitchens and latrines were on an 'access' basis rather than 'ownership' basis. For cars, it depends on material conditions. In American suburbia, they're pretty necessary, but perhaps there could be a system of "puntos amarillos" like in Cuba. They're not as necessary in areas with good public transport. Perhaps there could also be a system of taxis and paratransit as public utilities.

So, my point in dealing with the issue of scarcity is that we can greatly decrease resource use by: 1) producing things that are useful, not shit; 2) making things in an efficient way; 3) looking towards long term resource use in maintenance and servicing during design and production; 4) making smart decisions on when products should be private versus products people have access to but cannot deny access.

So, sorry about the long post. I'm sure other people have made other posts while I have been writing this. I look forward to reading them. My main point is that we have to grow the production in order to lift people out of poverty, and I think we can grow the production while still staying within the limits of finite resources.

[RadioRaheem84]

That was my point when I said Bailey couldn't grasp class struggle. As far as I know Britain has been in decline in terms of Workers since the 1980s if not before.

That, coupled with the not seeing anything wrong with the British Bourgeoisie building a factory in say East Africa to extract resources, because it allegedly would "develop" East Africa.

I thought it was this much was assumed by Marxists?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I thought it was this much was assumed by Marxists?

Bailey seemed pretty astonished by this. I can see WHY you'd feel industrial development was always an unchecked good, but as with any other form of Capitalist "progress" big parts of the actual development process are clearly exploitative in nature.

I have a feeling that a lot of the folks in the Human Progress Group would see any sort of "development" as an unchecked good.

[Animal Farm Pig]

I just want to clarify-- when I talk about development in poor countries, I am talking about development on a socialist basis-- development to serve human needs. I just want to distance myself from capitalist ideas of third world "development", which means foreign capital penetration and alliance with national capitalists and bourgeoisie to exploit the people more efficiently.

That being said, we do not live in world socialism now. So, what should be our stance on capitalist penetration of third world countries? It's a complicated question, and I don't have an easy answer for it.

I'm thinking about oil production in Nigeria, because I have personal experience with it. The best system I could imagine (inside the current world economic and political order) would be a non-corrupt government operating a national oil company and using the generated surplus for the common good of the Nigerian people. Unfortunately, there are some big obstacles to this-- getting a non-corrupt government, having the human and capital resources to run a state oil company, and solidarity between the people of the oil producing areas (ie Akwa Ibom and River State) and the rest of country to allow generated surplus to be used for all people.

As it is now (or at least, last time I discussed it with people working in Nigeria), foreign companies are obligated to operate as a sort of joint venture with the Nigerian state oil company. From what I understand, the state company doesn't add much value but takes its share of the generated surplus. I think this is actually a fairly good system.

Still, it raises the question of exploitation. We know that all capitalist production is exploitation. So, any other discussions are merely a question of degree of exploitation. Should you employ local workers at shit wages? What if those wages are higher than what they would receive at other local businesses? Of course, they might not have a choice-- they could be peasants whose land was expropriated by corrupt local politicians (haven't heard of this in Nigeria, but have heard of it in other places). What do you do then? What about when the local population simply doesn't have the capacity to do the jobs needed?

They are difficult question. Like I said, I don't have an easy answer. All I can do is look at things on a case-by-case basis.

[Animal Farm Pig]

I assumed that the third world was not underdeveloped but over exploited. Any benefits we felt from economic growth was due to class struggle seeking a more equitable distribution?

You must like Michael Parenti. :) It is both. The third world is over-exploited, but we have to keep in mind the underdevelopment (or mal-development) imposed on the third world by the colonial countries. Europe underdeveloped Africa, India, and every other place they colonized. It was a necessary task to maintain a colony.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You must like Michael Parenti. :) It is both. The third world is over-exploited, but we have to keep in mind the underdevelopment (or mal-development) imposed on the third world by the colonial countries. Europe underdeveloped Africa, India, and every other place they colonized. It was a necessary task to maintain a colony.

Have you read Gwaltney's masterwork on the above topic? I imagine you have, working from its premises, but just outta curiosity.

[RadioRaheem84]

You must like Michael Parenti. :) It is both. The third world is over-exploited, but we have to keep in mind the underdevelopment (or mal-development) imposed on the third world by the colonial countries. Europe underdeveloped Africa, India, and every other place they colonized. It was a necessary task to maintain a colony.

Good catch! All Parenti. :thumbup1:

[Animal Farm Pig]

Have you read Gwaltney's masterwork on the above topic? I imagine you have, working from its premises, but just outta curiosity.

No, sounds interesting. Googling Gwaltney doesn't get me much. What is the title?

Several years ago, I read some parts of and heard analysis on Sir Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. That, and some of Michael Parenti's analysis, is what I was referencing.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No, sounds interesting. Googling Gwaltney doesn't get me much. What is the title?

Several years ago, I read some parts of and heard analysis on Sir Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. That, and some of Michael Parenti's analysis, is what I was referencing.

Shit, I meant Rodney! Its been years since I read it and got his name garbled.

Yeah. That book is amazing.

[Glenn Beck]

The one question I've never ever been able to answer about life in Communist society is this: "what if I want a yacht?"

What if I want one of these (http://www.arthursclipart.org/transport/land/sedan%20chair.gif)?

Same answer in both cases.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What if I want one of these (http://www.arthursclipart.org/transport/land/sedan%20chair.gif)?

Same answer in both cases.

bro after the revolution ROBOTS will carry your sedan

[Glenn Beck]

bro after the revolution ROBOTS will carry your sedan

More like after the revolution we'll all be robots because thats the only way communism can exist, among soulless machines with no individuality or free will

[Franz Fanonipants]

socialism: secretly all about ridiculous opulence.

also, human robots. humanbots. fuck i mean cyborgs.

[bricolage]

You should of been in London in the last anti-G20 thing.
Are you referring to climate camp?


And the whole idea that the environmentalist hippies are "our comrades"
In regards to the above I dont think its true that everyone at climate camp is an 'environmentalist hippie', also that climate change is an 'environmentalist hippie' issue... actually I have a pretty good pamphlet called 'climate change is not an environmentalist issue!'

Which brings me on to my main point here, I'm not arguing against growth rather putting out an honest question about how people think this can be coupled with the ecological effects of it as well as the fact that certain fuels used to power growth (oil, coal) are going to run out at some point?

I understand websites like spiked like to simply knock every point like this into 'green authoritarianism' and sure such a thing exists but they never actually accept that climate change (whatever it may or may not be - I don't know much about the science to be fair) does in some way exist and is going to have really impacts upon us.
(aside from the fact spiked is a haven for liberal sanctimonious pricks...)

[Theoneontheleft]

Just being able to survive and being able to provide a comfortable, healthy, & good quality life, for oneself and their family should be enough. Why do we need an expensive sports car, when a good quality affordable compact car will do the same job? Why would we need a 400 suit, when you can buy something comfortable that still looks nice for under 40 dollars, at a discount store?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Doing a bit of research on Sp!ked magazine I found this amazing bit of work:

"spiked is endorsed by free-thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, and hated by the narrow-minded such as Torquemada and Stalin."

lol forever

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.spiked-online.com/

I don't mean to "diss" our English comrades but I have always noticed that English intellectual rags seem to be staffed with quite overly idealistic liberals, even if they claim to be "socialist". When I think of the English non-socialist (or self proclaimed socialist) "left" I think of the Euston Manifesto, Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen and this god awful twit named Oliver Kamm I've seen on the BBC. They exhibit the worst excesses of American Cold War Liberalism combined with the worst kind of Western-English chauvinism. And they love American neo-cons!

I see this in the Netherlands too with the late artist Theo Van Gogh, politician Pim Fortuyn, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali etc. Denmark too.

Guys, just what is up with the dreamy eyed idealism in your countries? At least our liberals have some realism injected into their political mantra. Our politicians and intellectuals know that the liberal idealism is half a cover for the public and half a real belief. But English intellectuals seem to really buy into it. I could see Hitchens popping you in the eye if you called him an "imperialist lackey".

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think its cus of the degree that Socialism etc. are more mainstream in Europe. There's less rigor/ferocity because there isn't as much really vigorous opposition to Leftist ideas.

On the other hand, tbh there are some decent articles on Sp!ked I've seen. But that little bit of advertising boilerplate is super-hilarious.

e. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh aren't/weren't even liberals. They're reactionary as ffffff.

[RadioRaheem84]

e. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh aren't/weren't even liberals. They're reactionary as ffffff.

Agreed.

It's just some of the one's listed above remind me of Alden Pyle in the Quiet American.

[Franz Fanonipants]

o wait

i forgot

the economist (wah-wah-WAAAAAH)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Agreed.

It's just some of the one's listed above remind me of Alden Pyle in the Quiet American.

Hitch does remind me of a Graham Greene character. Unironically I agree w/you.

[RadioRaheem84]

o wait

i forgot

the economist (wah-wah-WAAAAAH)

Oh man that is the worst! The Bible for any graduate economic student or a wannabe policy wonk at a top school. Disgusting rag.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Oh man that is the worst! The Bible for any graduate economic student or a wannabe policy wonk at a top school. Disgusting rag.

There's some ok journalism in it. But it is hilariously evil.

"WHY CAN'T THE STATE FOREVER YIELD TO THE POWER OF CAPITAL!?" - every issue of the Economist ever.

[RadioRaheem84]

"WHY CAN'T THE STATE FOREVER YIELD TO THE POWER OF CAPITAL!?" - every issue of the Economist ever. :lol: Pretty much!

[Ele'ill]

This thread is fairly far along but my opinion is that there needs to be a dramatic shift in regards to the ecological fallout affects of industry. There's no such thing as a 75% 'eco' or sustainable operation.

In a new world- I would hope that everything from overconsumption to excessive waste both from industry and from living populations is dealt with in a manner that leaves ecosystems healthy enough to repair themselves. Right now we're a world apart.

[LaRiposte]

How exactly does an increase in output always (because you can find isolated incidents when it has ofc) hurt people?

If, rather than austerity, the British bourgeosie decides to invest massivly in creating new factories (not that they would), high speed rail etc creating massive economic growth, how would this hurt people? The benefits will largley be accrued by the capitalists ofc, but how will it actually hurt people anymore than if the growth didnt happen

Imperialist wars fought for control of the resources that are used in such investment/production are just one example. Environmental pollution, exploitative/dangerous working conditions, so on and so forth.

Think dialectically, comrade. Yes of course these things would produce massive benefits for human kind, but as they say "you have to break an egg to make an omelet."

[RedSonRising]

Questions like these are why I think that there should exist a market for certain things considered commodities in the Socialist transition economy. The profit motive may still play a factor where decentralized cooperatives are used in favor of central planning; not suggesting this should be a universal economic principle, but who knows if it may have its place in certain sectors- one certainly cannot assume all business mechanics will function the same under the same principles.

If wealth distributed meritocratically among producing workers is not favorable within the production of certain goods and this method of distributing purchasing power, then I propose the following as an alternative or a co-existing option: Since a socialist economy is based on the value of labor instead of the exploitative ownership of capital, then anyone who wants a luxury item should be able to have access to a program where experienced workers in the field of, say for example, luxury automobiles, can teach the client and share the experience of building the ferrari or whatever it is. This way, people will have a more intimate relationship with the craft of the product they are taking part in constructing and ownership can really be properly entitled.

Something with a large production cost like a yacht can't be easily distributed with scarcity in mind, and if one seeks ownership of such a thing instead of temporary supervision, then the mechanisms should require the labor necessary for its acquisition, whether it be directly aiding in generating the labor to produce such an item, or using currency derived from the income of a different occupation earned on merit and distributed that way by democratic consent within the workplace.