Is class static?

[t_wolves_fan]

Once working class, always working class?

[Forward Union]

pretty much yes. Though there is always the odd white elephant.

[LoneRed]

no its not entirely static, there are various things that could happen that could either raise a wage worker out of that position, or lower the petty-bourgeois into the working class, as we see happening today.

[KC]

No, although it's highly uncommon.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:26 PM
Once working class, always working class?
no its not static

thats the difference between the capitalist class system and the fuedalist system (king-nobility-peasantry...along those lines...called in dutch the "standensysteem", literally "position-system")

point is
it doesnt matter if its static or not, its still a load of shit, and its not like everyone can be part of the ruling class because if everybody was, that'd make the system classless ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

The class system is definitely not static. Thousands of workers jump classes on a daily basis, and thousands of bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie fall classes on a daily basis.

The capitalist economic system is based on the anarchy of production, meaning that the economic system is very disorderly and unorganized. This results in a petty-bourgeois manager to lose his job because the company has to cut back on employment due to poor results. But it could also be the opposite; a worker being promoted to manager to replace the former manager who went on pension.

Of course little changes like these don't really matter overall, but there have been some major affects to the class system due to the Imperialist system. For example in the 19th century the British empire was so wealthy, that Engels spoke of the "bourgeois proletariat", i.e., proletarians who were bought off by the wealth of the empire.

[LoneRed]

IT's much more common for a member of the middle class (petty-bourgeois) to fall into the proletariat, than a member of the proletariat to move up, they only move up, on chances of either luck, or knowing somebody or something that doesnt involve their regular workings.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 PM
IT's much more common for a member of the middle class (petty-bourgeois) to fall into the proletariat, than a member of the proletariat to move up, they only move up, on chances of either luck, or knowing somebody or something that doesnt involve their regular workings.
On what do you base this proclamation?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 5 2006, 09:12 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 5 2006, 09:12 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 PM
IT's much more common for a member of the middle class (petty-bourgeois) to fall into the proletariat, than a member of the proletariat to move up, they only move up, on chances of either luck, or knowing somebody or something that doesnt involve their regular workings.
On what do you base this proclamation? [/b]
Small businesses (the petit bourgeois) are constantly being eaten up by big businesses (the bourgeois). After losing their business the petit bourgeois are most likely to join the ranks of the proletariat.

The petit bourgeois is a class rapidly becoming extinct; even the bourgeois is shrinking, in fact, as failing big companies occasionally get eaten up by other big companies.

EDIT: If you were talking about his second statement....unless you're a very well paid prole you generally don't have the money to save up to start a business so it's usually only exceptional circumstances that would get you into it.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+Oct 5 2006, 05:37 PM--> (Matty_UK @ Oct 5 2006, 05:37 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:12 PM

[email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 PM
IT's much more common for a member of the middle class (petty-bourgeois) to fall into the proletariat, than a member of the proletariat to move up, they only move up, on chances of either luck, or knowing somebody or something that doesnt involve their regular workings.
On what do you base this proclamation?
Small businesses (the petit bourgeois) are constantly being eaten up by big businesses (the bourgeois). After losing their business the petit bourgeois are most likely to join the ranks of the proletariat.

The petit bourgeois is a class rapidly becoming extinct; even the bourgeois is shrinking, in fact, as failing big companies occasionally get eaten up by other big companies.

EDIT: If you were talking about his second statement....unless you're a very well paid prole you generally don't have the money to save up to start a business so it's usually only exceptional circumstances that would get you into it. [/b]
just because you lose your business doesn't suddenly mean you can only work as an unskilled worker. for as many small businesses that fail more come up, its a constant cycle of market rejuvenation.

[Demogorgon]

For an individual, not necessarilly, though in reality it is likely to be so.

But for society as a whole it is more fixed. A certain proportion of society will be middle class, working class etc. You'll get a bit of movement betweenn these classes, but what actually happens is in the long term if a hundred people move up, a hundred will move down. That is how it sustains itself. It's not exactly the ideal system.

[rouchambeau]

No.

[Severian]

No, that would be a caste.

Besides workers who become professionals, small businesspeople, or very occassionally upper-class - it's interesting to note that some of the biggest sellout labor bureaucrats in history have come from working-class family backgrounds.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:37 PM

Small businesses (the petit bourgeois) are constantly being eaten up by big businesses (the bourgeois). After losing their business the petit bourgeois are most likely to join the ranks of the proletariat.

The petit bourgeois is a class rapidly becoming extinct; even the bourgeois is shrinking, in fact, as failing big companies occasionally get eaten up by other big companies.

EDIT: If you were talking about his second statement....unless you're a very well paid prole you generally don't have the money to save up to start a business so it's usually only exceptional circumstances that would get you into it.
I need evidence, not proclamations or theory.

Actually make a case that what you describe is happening.

[Severian]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 6 2006, 07:18 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 6 2006, 07:18 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 10:37 PM

Small businesses (the petit bourgeois) are constantly being eaten up by big businesses (the bourgeois). After losing their business the petit bourgeois are most likely to join the ranks of the proletariat.

The petit bourgeois is a class rapidly becoming extinct; even the bourgeois is shrinking, in fact, as failing big companies occasionally get eaten up by other big companies.

EDIT: If you were talking about his second statement....unless you're a very well paid prole you generally don't have the money to save up to start a business so it's usually only exceptional circumstances that would get you into it.
I need evidence, not proclamations or theory.

Actually make a case that what you describe is happening. [/b]
Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend: Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top? (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560)

That's from the notorious communist publication - The Economist. It's been posted on this forum in the past.

As for Matty's point about the concentration of capital - that the number of businesses tends to shrink over time - that's too obvious to need proof. Consider how many auto manufacturers there used to be in the U.S......

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 5 2006, 10:52 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 5 2006, 10:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:12 PM

[email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 PM
IT's much more common for a member of the middle class (petty-bourgeois) to fall into the proletariat, than a member of the proletariat to move up, they only move up, on chances of either luck, or knowing somebody or something that doesnt involve their regular workings.
On what do you base this proclamation?
Small businesses (the petit bourgeois) are constantly being eaten up by big businesses (the bourgeois). After losing their business the petit bourgeois are most likely to join the ranks of the proletariat.

The petit bourgeois is a class rapidly becoming extinct; even the bourgeois is shrinking, in fact, as failing big companies occasionally get eaten up by other big companies.

EDIT: If you were talking about his second statement....unless you're a very well paid prole you generally don't have the money to save up to start a business so it's usually only exceptional circumstances that would get you into it.
just because you lose your business doesn't suddenly mean you can only work as an unskilled worker. for as many small businesses that fail more come up, its a constant cycle of market rejuvenation. [/b]
Just like to point out that "proletariat" does not equal "unskilled workers", at least thats not what Marx meant. Basically, an example of what hes describing would be, you own a small information tech company = you are a member of the petit-bourgeoisie, your business fails, and you take up a job as a waged or salaried worker at a larger information tech company = you are now proletarian. You dont have to be unskilled or be paid absolutely bad wages to be proletarian.

Now as for my answer to twolves: no, class is not static, although in general movement from class to class is very difficult to do. Whether there are more people moving up or down is variable depending on how the economy is doing, shifts in the economic structure etc. I would say that the number of large corporations as opposed to small businesses has grown quite a bit in the past 50-60 years. I would base that on the mere fact that nearly every consumer niche has been "corporatized". The mere number of chain consumer stores/restaurants as opposed to small privately owned ones has grown considerably. Even when people shop outside of their usual shopping habits and buy luxury or specialized goods, it tends to be at corporate owned stores. I dont have a link or data to back that up, but it would be interesting if you have a different view on how this phenomenon of increased corporate presence could be explained. If it is true, I would expect that the size of the petty bourgeoisie would have diminished in the past few decades.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:41 PM
That's from the notorious communist publication - The Economist.
:lol:

That crook Silvio Berlusconi used to call the Economist (a bourgeois publication if there ever was one) the Ecommunist.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:50 PM
Just like to point out that "proletariat" does not equal "unskilled workers", at least thats not what Marx meant. Basically, an example of what hes describing would be, you own a small information tech company = you are a member of the petit-bourgeoisie, your business fails, and you take up a job as a waged or salaried worker at a larger information tech company = you are now proletarian. You dont have to be unskilled or be paid absolutely bad wages to be proletarian.

people with failed businesses don't always take waged jobs and likewise people with waged jobs don't always keep their position.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Severian+Oct 6 2006, 06:41 PM--> (Severian @ Oct 6 2006, 06:41 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:18 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 10:37 PM

Small businesses (the petit bourgeois) are constantly being eaten up by big businesses (the bourgeois). After losing their business the petit bourgeois are most likely to join the ranks of the proletariat.

The petit bourgeois is a class rapidly becoming extinct; even the bourgeois is shrinking, in fact, as failing big companies occasionally get eaten up by other big companies.

EDIT: If you were talking about his second statement....unless you're a very well paid prole you generally don't have the money to save up to start a business so it's usually only exceptional circumstances that would get you into it.
I need evidence, not proclamations or theory.

Actually make a case that what you describe is happening.
Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend: Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top? (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560)

That's from the notorious communist publication - The Economist. It's been posted on this forum in the past.

As for Matty's point about the concentration of capital - that the number of businesses tends to shrink over time - that's too obvious to need proof. Consider how many auto manufacturers there used to be in the U.S...... [/b]
considering the size of the income classes have grown so much its not surprising that not as many make it to the top 20%. just because not as many made it doesn't mean their mobility is any less.

[KC]

people with failed businesses don't always take waged jobs and likewise people with waged jobs don't always keep their position.

In order to become bourgeois you must own and direct capital. In order to do that you must have an initial capital to invest. The majority of the working class doesn't, so the majority of the working class can't become bourgeois.

Those that do have capital to invest and choose to invest it usually go out of business and sink back down to the proletariat, since they no longer have capital to invest.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 7 2006, 12:50 AM

people with failed businesses don't always take waged jobs and likewise people with waged jobs don't always keep their position.

In order to become bourgeois you must own and direct capital. In order to do that you must have an initial capital to invest. The majority of the working class doesn't, so the majority of the working class can't become bourgeois.

Those that do have capital to invest and choose to invest it usually go out of business and sink back down to the proletariat, since they no longer have capital to invest.
no they don't

[KC]

No they don't what?

[colonelguppy]

always sink back into the proletariat.

[KC]

I don't think I said "always".

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 7 2006, 02:25 AM
I don't think I said "always".
ok usually even. well maybe if they open a restraunt or something.

[Jazzratt]

Whether or not it's static is almost acedemic, society still works by exploiting those who did, or could, not move out of a certian class. THe fact that people could move out of this is neither here nor there, especially as it is extremely difficult to move from exploited to exploiter. Why have the class exploitation at all?

Bu that small poitn aside I would have to say no, class is not Static but it certianly is not fluid, I'd say it was glelatinous, barely moving at all. Class is also more downawardly fluid, by virtue of the current practice of larger corporations to try to own as much of the MoP as possible.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 09:24 PM
especially as it is extremely difficult to move from exploited to exploiter.
No it isn't.

If you called up the local unit of government with a half-way decent business plan you could have the capital to start your own business in about a week. If you found a run-down home and got a mortgage (and they're still giving those away these days) you could live off the profits of flipping homes with a month's work, or even less.

This false premise really damages your credibility.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's impossible for everyone in capitalism to acquire and maintain an equal share of capital. Impossible.

[chimx]

social mobility is one of the defining concepts of capitalism. however, over the past 50 years, social mobility has been on the decline.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 12:35 PM
It's impossible for everyone in capitalism to acquire and maintain an equal share of capital. Impossible.
yeah but who cares

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 05:35 PM
It's impossible for everyone in capitalism to acquire and maintain an equal share of capital. Impossible.
So what? That is unimportant because:

A>Capital distribution need not be equal in order to have justice.
B>Capital distribution need not be equal in order to have a decent, comfortable life.
C>Capital distribution need not be equal in order for someone currently in the working class to receive capital and invest it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 9 2006, 07:42 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 9 2006, 07:42 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 05:35 PM
It's impossible for everyone in capitalism to acquire and maintain an equal share of capital. Impossible.
So what? That is unimportant because:

A>Capital distribution need not be equal in order to have justice. [/b]
Basis?


B>Capital distribution need not be equal in order to have a decent, comfortable life. Fair enough, but why put somone in a less comfortable situtian for your own comfort?

C>Capital distribution need not be equal in order for someone currently in the working class to receive capital and invest it. Irellevant.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 9 2006, 07:42 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 9 2006, 07:42 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 05:35 PM
It's impossible for everyone in capitalism to acquire and maintain an equal share of capital. Impossible.
So what? That is unimportant because:

A>Capital distribution need not be equal in order to have justice.
Basis?[/b]

My opinion, just as its your opinion that capital distribution needs to be equal to have justice.



B>Capital distribution need not be equal in order to have a decent, comfortable life. Fair enough, but why put somone in a less comfortable situtian for your own comfort?

I can ask you the exact same question sport. Except I would spell "situation" correctly.

The answer is simple: it's infeasible to ensure that every person has an equal standard of living. The only way to even attempt it would be so autocratic and unjust that it should never be tried.



C>Capital distribution need not be equal in order for someone currently in the working class to receive capital and invest it. Irellevant.

Absolutely it's relevant because it destroys your argument that class is static and a working class stiff will never, ever, never, ever, never ever never have a chane to better his or her life.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:27 PM


B>Capital distribution need not be equal in order to have a decent, comfortable life. Fair enough, but why put somone in a less comfortable situtian for your own comfort?

I can ask you the exact same question sport. Except I would spell "situation" correctly.
My, aren't we the fucking internet genius. I bet you were positivley ejacaulating at the sight of a spelling mistake. I mean, fuck me I should have known better than to argue with you oh great master, I mean you corrected my spelling - that is the mark of a pure genius there I physically feel the weight of your strong and not at all pointless or semantic argument. In fact I'd also like to take this moment to congratulate you on the comedy masterpiece that is your signature, it looks like it took literally seconds of thought.


The answer is simple: it's infeasible to ensure that every person has an equal standard of living. The only way to even attempt it would be so autocratic and unjust that it should never be tried. Clear bollocks. Unless you define 'autocratic' as 'democratically arranged so as to prevent unessecary exploitation' and 'unjust' as 'not allowing one person to exploit thousands of others'. Well, I recommend looking deeper into technocracy before you start that paticular line of argument again.




C>Capital distribution need not be equal in order for someone currently in the working class to receive capital and invest it. Irellevant.

Absolutely it's relevant because it destroys your argument that class is static and a working class stiff will never, ever, never, ever, never ever never have a chane to better his or her life. Ah, this is why I knew I would regret arguing with you - you twist statements and create really pathetic strawmen.

[SmithSmith]

Class mobility exists but it is very rare. Like for example black people will always dominate the lower class in America becuase they are already there. Sure one or two make it up but the majority of them will remain lower class becuase wealth does not flow down it flows up.

[chimx]

anyone that argues that class is static under capitalism misunderstands the basic tenets of capitalism. the point is that under capitalism, a few will always have capital possessions in excess of the majority. social mobility will always be a reality, but the point is that this class dynamism will always be disproportionate.

[Severian]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 9 2006, 11:32 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 9 2006, 11:32 AM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 09:24 PM
especially as it is extremely difficult to move from exploited to exploiter.
No it isn't. [/b]
Yes it is! No it isn't! Yes it is!

Unsupported assertions do not exactly move a discussion forward.

You asked for a source, and I gave you one - the Economist article I linked on page 1. Did you read it?

[t_wolves_fan]

The answer is simple: it's infeasible to ensure that every person has an equal standard of living. The only way to even attempt it would be so autocratic and unjust that it should never be tried. Clear bollocks.

Because you say so.


Unless you define 'autocratic' as 'democratically arranged so as to prevent unessecary exploitation' and 'unjust' as 'not allowing one person to exploit thousands of others'. Well, I recommend looking deeper into technocracy before you start that paticular line of argument again.

Um, no, I do not mean it in those ways. What I mean is that you would have to have an autocratic means by which people's current wealth would be appropriated "for the common good", because even most working class folks are unlikely to vote for such a process.

As far as technocracy, what are you suggesting? Are you pro or con?



Ah, this is why I knew I would regret arguing with you - you twist statements and create really pathetic strawmen.

:D

The last bastion of the intellectually weak and dishonest: the strawman claim.

Your whole premise is that the working class are exploited by those with capital. When the fact that access to capital for the working class is not really all that limited, your argument falls apart.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:31 PM


The answer is simple: it's infeasible to ensure that every person has an equal standard of living. The only way to even attempt it would be so autocratic and unjust that it should never be tried. Clear bollocks.

Because you say so.
You should have read a little firther to understand I was claiming it was clear bollocks, because there is a system for efficiant resource distribution based democratically and justly. It's called technocracy.



Unless you define 'autocratic' as 'democratically arranged so as to prevent unessecary exploitation' and 'unjust' as 'not allowing one person to exploit thousands of others'. Well, I recommend looking deeper into technocracy before you start that paticular line of argument again.

Um, no, I do not mean it in those ways. What I mean is that you would have to have an autocratic means by which people's current wealth would be appropriated "for the common good", because even most working class folks are unlikely to vote for such a process. Who mentioned voting? We can't use a more just system currently because there is currently an unjust plutocracy in the way, which needs to be torn down before we can build anything positive. If the process of revolution strikes you as autocratic then you either don't understands revolutions or aautocracy.


As far as technocracy, what are you suggesting? Are you pro or con? Well, my user title is 'Technocratic Anti-Primmie', my sig references the 'Price System' - a traditonal tenet of technocracy is that the price system is inefficiant. Armed with this knoweledge you could make an educated guess as to my views. I'll give you a hint though, in case you're stuck - I hold a largley positicve attitude towrads technology and efficiency.




Ah, this is why I knew I would regret arguing with you - you twist statements and create really pathetic strawmen.

:D

The last bastion of the intellectually weak and dishonest: the strawman claim. Traditionally it's the one making the strawman argument that is considered intellectually weak, but I wouldn't know about how you debate in bourgeoise circles. From your argument style I guess you just either make irrelevant points against people or start arguing with a position you imagine they hold, or one that sounds close enough to theirs that you can claim confusion.


Your whole premise is that the working class are exploited by those with capital. When the fact that access to capital for the working class is not really all that limited, your argument falls apart. Regardless of who can and cannot exploit the fact still remains that capitalism requires the exploited to continue hobbling along on its ineffeciant hiding to nothing.

[t_wolves_fan]

You should have read a little firther to understand I was claiming it was clear bollocks, because there is a system for efficiant resource distribution based democratically and justly. It's called technocracy.

Technocracy is fool's gold. Empricial, objective data never formulates an optimal solution due to subjective and often irrational opinion. Worse, the solution that makes the most empirical sense to one problem can make another problem worse. Say for instance you need to increase food production. The empirical answer is to cultivate more land. The problem is that would likely mean cutting forest or filling in wetland which results in damage to the ecosystem.


I hold a largley positicve attitude towrads technology and efficiency.

Which is naive.



Regardless of who can and cannot exploit the fact still remains that capitalism requires the exploited to continue hobbling along on its ineffeciant hiding to nothing.

That statement makes no sense. "Hiding to nothing"? What does that mean?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:50 PM

You should have read a little firther to understand I was claiming it was clear bollocks, because there is a system for efficiant resource distribution based democratically and justly. It's called technocracy.

Technocracy is fool's gold. Empricial, objective data never formulates an optimal solution due to subjective and often irrational opinion. Worse, the solution that makes the most empirical sense to one problem can make another problem worse. Say for instance you need to increase food production. The empirical answer is to cultivate more land. The problem is that would likely mean cutting forest or filling in wetland which results in damage to the ecosystem.
Have you actually looked into technocracy?

The cultivating more food thing is a good example of subjective idiocy get in the way of a good and solid solution: if you need food, but growing mored damages the environment - why not synthesise?




I hold a largley positicve attitude towrads technology and efficiency.

Which is naive. Ah yes, it's naive to support technology and effeciency as opposed to backward cave dwelling and inefficiency? Correct?




Regardless of who can and cannot exploit the fact still remains that capitalism requires the exploited to continue hobbling along on its ineffeciant hiding to nothing.

That statement makes no sense. "Hiding to nothing"? What does that mean? It's one of those terms used by the 'great unwashed', no wonder you don't understand it - it's probably 'beneath you' or something. Regardless, look it up - I don't have to babysit you through all my sentences do I?

[t_wolves_fan]

Have you actually looked into technocracy?

Yes. A very good book that explains why it doesn't work when considering public policy is Parsons' Public Policy. (http://www.amazon.com/Public-Policy-Introduction-Practice-Analysis/dp/1852785543/sr=1-2/qid=1160672365/ref=sr_1_2/104-0495884-9394347?ie=UTF8&s=books) Try reading that behemoth cover to cover and you'll discover that the main reason technocracy is fool's gold is because it relies on humans agreeing what is rational and then acting rationally 100% of the time. While we're at it, let's assume we can bicycle to the moon?

Then study policy analysis, work with experienced policy analysts, and become one yourself and you'll learn real fucking quick why technocracy doesn't work.

On what do you base your support for technocracy? Your extensive experience in policy analysis or because a few books and websites made it sound really cool?


The cultivating more food thing is a good example of subjective idiocy get in the way of a good and solid solution: if you need food, but growing mored damages the environment - why not synthesise?

Collective is meeting to discuss how to overcome the expected food shortfall. Experts get up and say food can be synthesized to meet demand. Hand goes up.

Johnny Prole: "What are the long-term health effects of eating fake food?"

Expert: "There is no evidence it's harmful, but we won't know for sure for years."

Johnny Prole: "Well if it's fake, I ain't eatin' it and I ain't feeding it to my kids."

Sally Prole: "Oh goodness! I'm not risking the health of my children on fake food! I won't eat it!"

A murmur goes through the crowd: fake food? not sure about the health effects? fear that the kids get sick...disabled...or die.

Proposal is defeated for reasons either rational or irrational, it depends on your point of view, doesn't it?


Ah yes, it's naive to support technology and effeciency as opposed to backward cave dwelling and inefficiency? Correct?

No, what is naive is to assume technology will lead to optimal policy choices.



It's one of those terms used by the 'great unwashed', no wonder you don't understand it - it's probably 'beneath you' or something. Regardless, look it up - I don't have to babysit you through all my sentences do I?

Or it could be that it's British and I'm an American.

Few if any people face a no-win situation over the long term. Opportunities present themselves, it's up to you to take advantage of them.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:12 PM

Have you actually looked into technocracy?

Yes. A very good book that explains why it doesn't work when considering public policy is Parsons' Public Policy. (http://www.amazon.com/Public-Policy-Introduction-Practice-Analysis/dp/1852785543/sr=1-2/qid=1160672365/ref=sr_1_2/104-0495884-9394347?ie=UTF8&s=books)
One book on making public policiy? ALso your link appears to be broken or something, instead of any useful text all I got was some website trying to make me buy the damn thing. You don't happen to have a scan or something?


Try reading that behemoth cover to cover It's less than 700 pages long according to the website you linked me to, how the living fuck does that constitute a 'behemoth' to anyone but the intellectually deficient.
and you'll discover that the main reason technocracy is fool's gold is because it relies on humans agreeing what is rational and then acting rationally 100% of the time. It assumes a central government of technocrats who are experts in their relavant fields will make rational policies based on their expertise in areas that have simple objective solutions (like the food example).
While we're at it, let's assume we can bicycle to the moon? What I love is that you're cast from the same mold as the kind of person that believes that removing the minimum wage will result in wage increases.


Then study policy analysis, work with experienced policy analysts, and become one yourself and you'll learn real fucking quick why technocracy doesn't work. I assume by that little rant you wanted to imply that perhaps you had done so? The problem is that you're trolling an internet message board, which kind of suggests you've got more time than sense.


On what do you base your support for technocracy? Your extensive experience in policy analysis or because a few books and websites made it sound really cool? Is there the option of having been raised as a psuedo marxist, going through a phase as an anarchist (this with a lot of reading of diverse theoretical books including Nozik's 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' and Proudhon's 'What is property') followed by a lot of theoretical study of both marxism and technocracy. Also I kind of resent the implication that anyone without a background in political analysis will select an ideology based on how 'cool' it looks. Especially as Libertarian Capitalism is certianly one of the 'coolest' looking ideologies.



The cultivating more food thing is a good example of subjective idiocy get in the way of a good and solid solution: if you need food, but growing mored damages the environment - why not synthesise?

Collective is meeting to discuss how to overcome the expected food shortfall. Why the fuck would the collective gather to decide on a technical issue? Anyway let's see how your event unfolds anyway...

Experts get up and say food can be synthesized to meet demand. Hand goes up.

Johnny Prole: "What are the long-term health effects of eating fake food?"

Expert: "There is no evidence it's harmful, but we won't know for sure for years." IS that how you envisiage the expert winning support for synthetic foods? I suppose "There are no long term health effect from eating this food evident in subjects after eating it in our extensive lab tests." would be beyond their linguistic reach?


Johnny Prole: "Well if it's fake, I ain't eatin' it and I ain't feeding it to my kids." Fine, so what's you're alternative?


Sally Prole: "Oh goodness! I'm not risking the health of my children on fake food! I won't eat it!" Oh goodness! I'm not letting your children starve, so I'm afraid unless you can come up with a more sensible solution you will have to eat this food.


A murmur goes through the crowd: fake food? not sure about the health effects? fear that the kids get sick...disabled...or die. You are aware that the crowd at this meeting would A) Not involve the people outside of the main commitees of agriculture, logistics and bio-chimsty
B) Not be made up entirely of your straw-proles that have incredibly bourgeoise attitudes to food. (Remember it's the richer people who buy Organic foods and other such hippy cons.).


Proposal is defeated for reasons either rational or irrational, it depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Not at all. The people who would rather starve are being entirely irrational.



Ah yes, it's naive to support technology and effeciency as opposed to backward cave dwelling and inefficiency? Correct?

No, what is naive is to assume technology will lead to optimal policy choices. Hence the two teir governmental system whereby imprortant issues are handled by those most technically able and all other issues are handled via a decentrilised direct democracy (prefarably with online voting booths that are installed in people's houses for their convienince.)




It's one of those terms used by the 'great unwashed', no wonder you don't understand it - it's probably 'beneath you' or something. Regardless, look it up - I don't have to babysit you through all my sentences do I?

Or it could be that it's British and I'm an American. I'll give you that one. But I always thought you bourgeoise were meant to be more cosmopolitian.


Few if any people face a no-win situation over the long term. Opportunities present themselves, it's up to you to take advantage of them. That doesn't prevent the system itself from being a mug's game. Especially as it requires that one group of people be below another and therfore builds up an unhealthy dominance/submission type psychology which often manifests itself in problems like Narcissiscm.

[Janus]

The thread starter stated this in a separate thread:


Your anecdotal stories do nothing to disprove the fact that class is highly fluid and those who strive to succeed often will. Besides, you cannot guarantee or even assume that nepotism or cronyism would magically disappear under communism.

"Often"? It's simply idealistic to believe that anyone can just simply overcome their environmental conditions through willpower. There are many workers who work hard yet never increase their class status whether due to inadequate education or the system itself which negates even the smallest of salary raises.

[t_wolves_fan]

One book on making public policiy?

Good lord, if you need more go to the library.


You don't happen to have a scan or something?

No, but this (http://www.gdnet.org/rapnet/pdf/Beyond%20Economics%20Stone.pdf)contains a brief overview of the chief problems with technocracy. Start at the bottom of page 13 under the heading, "The rational model".


It assumes a central government of technocrats who are experts in their relavant fields will make rational policies based on their expertise in areas that have simple objective solutions (like the food example)

Problems with that assumption:

1. Researchers cannot be assumed to act rationally or objectively all the time. They're people.

2. Not every problem has a simple objective solution. In fact few do, because humans have subjective opinions and values on just about all of them.


I assume by that little rant you wanted to imply that perhaps you had done so?

Yes. Have you?


Is there the option of having been raised as a psuedo marxist, going through a phase as an anarchist (this with a lot of reading of diverse theoretical books including Nozik's 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' and Proudhon's 'What is property') followed by a lot of theoretical study of both marxism and technocracy.

Wow, that's impressive. Studying theories definitely means you know how stuff actually works. Because you know, theories are never wrong.



Why the fuck would the collective gather to decide on a technical issue?

People aren't going to get to have a say in what food they're going to eat?


IS that how you envisiage the expert winning support for synthetic foods? I suppose "There are no long term health effect from eating this food evident in subjects after eating it in our extensive lab tests." would be beyond their linguistic reach?

That's the long-winded version of what I said.


Fine, so what's you're alternative?

Hoard real food.


Oh goodness! I'm not letting your children starve, so I'm afraid unless you can come up with a more sensible solution you will have to eat this food.

Now that's democracy in action. :lol:


You are aware that the crowd at this meeting would A) Not involve the people outside of the main commitees of agriculture,

So again people have no say in what they eat. Awesome.


logistics and bio-chimsty

Read (http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1897018_1_1_1_1,00.html).

Then name me one issue except perhaps the earth revolving around the sun on which there is complete scientific agreement.

How about the number of planets in the solar system? Hell they can't even agree on that.

You: "All scientists will be rational and agree on everything."

Me: "But, um, they never have before and don't now."

You: ?


Not at all. The people who would rather starve are being entirely irrational.

It is irrational to fear that fake food, the long-term consequences of consuming which have not yet been fully determined, might make one sick enough that he refuses to eat it?

Helllooo hoarding and black market.


Hence the two teir governmental system whereby imprortant issues are handled by those most technically able and all other issues are handled via a decentrilised direct democracy (prefarably with online voting booths that are installed in people's houses for their convienince.)

Again what happens when people vote on their telescreens against eating fake food?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:21 PM

You don't happen to have a scan or something?

No, but this (http://www.gdnet.org/rapnet/pdf/Beyond%20Economics%20Stone.pdf)contains a brief overview of the chief problems with technocracy. Start at the bottom of page 13 under the heading, "The rational model".
:lol: It's making the same arguments that you are and it uses 'technocracy' in the same way a deranged religious fanatic would use 'The Great Satan'. Could I be arsed to read through the other subheadings I'd have no doubt they'd refer to 'planned economics' in much the same way.



It assumes a central government of technocrats who are experts in their relavant fields will make rational policies based on their expertise in areas that have simple objective solutions (like the food example)

Problems with that assumption:

1. Researchers cannot be assumed to act rationally or objectively all the time. They're people. They are more likley to, especially if they are placed in power whilst the correct material conditions are in place.


2. Not every problem has a simple objective solution. In fact few do, because humans have subjective opinions and values on just about all of them. The food one does. Other issues will be voted on irrationally as I explained later, it's only issues of technical interest that are decided on technically.



I assume by that little rant you wanted to imply that perhaps you had done so?

Yes. Have you? I find that hard to believe, being that you come on this forum trolling when you're ostensibly an intellegigent creature. Also no I haven't, my area of expertise is political philosophy and a bit of chemisty.



Is there the option of having been raised as a psuedo marxist, going through a phase as an anarchist (this with a lot of reading of diverse theoretical books including Nozik's 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' and Proudhon's 'What is property') followed by a lot of theoretical study of both marxism and technocracy.

Wow, that's impressive. Studying theories definitely means you know how stuff actually works. Because you know, theories are never wrong. Wonderful you've resorted to your old standby of strawmanning. Fucking fabulous. Where, exactly did I imply that a theory could never be wrong? Can you do that? If you can I'd like you to riddle me this: I'm mention reading Robert Nozik's "Anarchy, State & Utopia" (A true behemoth of a book, if we're measuring intellectual penis size in book thickness.), yet I really fucking dislike free market economics - which was his theory. That's your first strike on strawmen for this argument by the way.




Why the fuck would the collective gather to decide on a technical issue?

People aren't going to get to have a say in what food they're going to eat? Once it is decided how the food will be created, in this case through synthesis, they can have a say in what food is created.



IS that how you envisiage the expert winning support for synthetic foods? I suppose "There are no long term health effect from eating this food evident in subjects after eating it in our extensive lab tests." would be beyond their linguistic reach?

That's the long-winded version of what I said. I'd have thought as a "big politico" you'd have understood the fundamenta difference in the two sentences, that of their connotations. One Implies that they really have no idea and haven't based the assumption that it's safe on any kind of scientific research. The second one clearly implies quite the reverse and is therfore much more likley to garner support from the Straw Proletariat you've created.



Fine, so what's you're alternative?

Hoard real food. Real food spoils faster. There is no currency, You would gain nothing through making such a hoard. Please try to grant your straw proletariat a little more rationality than that.



Oh goodness! I'm not letting your children starve, so I'm afraid unless you can come up with a more sensible solution you will have to eat this food.

Now that's democracy in action. :lol: I feel no sympathy for somone so irrational as to frego eating based on pure emotionalism. Bear in mind we already have food synthesis technology (albeit primitivly) and thus far no long term health effects have been identified and being that this technology is not exactly new I could reasonably deduce that it is not in fact that unsafe. Find yourself a few back issues of New Scientist magazine, it should straighten things up for you on the whole "fake food" emotionalism.



You are aware that the crowd at this meeting would A) Not involve the people outside of the main commitees of agriculture,

So again people have no say in what they eat. Awesome. A large number of people cannot be trusted with an improtant technical issue.



logistics and bio-chimsty

Read (http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1897018_1_1_1_1,00.html).

Then name me one issue except perhaps the earth revolving around the sun on which there is complete scientific agreement.

How about the number of planets in the solar system? Hell they can't even agree on that.

You: "All scientists will be rational and agree on everything."

Me: "But, um, they never have before and don't now."

You: ? If you could avoid put words (or punctation points) in my mouth that would be FUCKING GRAND, cheers. As for my response it is quite simple "hence the need for the debate." of course there will be disagreement among the technocrats, but those can be sorted out through the debating process, which will be argued on the basis of scientific reasoning alone - any emotionalism will either be laughed out or forcibly chucked out.



Not at all. The people who would rather starve are being entirely irrational.It is irrational to fear that fake food, "fake food" is an emotionally loaded term.
the long-term consequences of consuming which have not yet been fully determined, might make one sick enough that he refuses to eat it? Point me to this mysterious synthetic food that has long term health effects, please - it would be very nice of you.


Helllooo hoarding and black market. Hoarding what food for what purpose? Trading with what currency? Operating on what rationale? People can easily aquire 'real food' simply by putting energy credits into its production, but why they would waste them on something they get for 'free' (an automatic energy credit investment, that is calculated outside of the specifics of individual energy accounting) (food) is entirely beyond me.



Hence the two teir governmental system whereby imprortant issues are handled by those most technically able and all other issues are handled via a decentrilised direct democracy (prefarably with online voting booths that are installed in people's houses for their convienince.)

Again what happens when people vote on their telescreens against eating fake food? THey don't vote on technical issues. For the god knows what-th time.


I tire of ramming the same infromation through the thick bone membarane around your tiny cognitive unit.