Motivation in Socialism

[Journeyman]

I was recently watching "The Big Idea" on CNBC. It normally features different entrepeneurs who come up with an innovative product that solves many problems, making them very wealthy in the process. Say you have the clip that holds broken public bathroom doors shut (from American Inventor), or Post-Its, for example. If not for profit, why would exactly a person bother to push such a product into production? What would his motivation be? Just to solve the problem per se and not for anything else? I mean, it will only mean a slight improvement in people's lives, it's not like the fate of the world depends on it, so why bother?

Take competition, for example. You have two video card companies, NVIDIA and ATI. Both are rabid with momentum to introduce a faster, cheaper video card to the market, which in turn drives progress much faster. If you only had one video card manufacturer, or a "socialized" manufacturer for that matter, what exactly would drive the urge to introduce better technology faster? How would the momentum of today be kept?

[Journeyman]

I should make a quick remark before someone else does. I know there is an exception in the academic circles (Mathematicians, Physicists), and of course in software development to an extent (great open source utilities, but no great open source games, only very few, believe me I know, I am a developer). But there is no way this can be compared with physical, hard to reproduce goods (cars, computers, bubble tape, whatever) and things that require tedious work to improve and produce in mass quantities.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Socialist countries had their share of inventors as well, what is your point? The fact is that many people invent things and never become millionaires or even close. You are more likely to serve your self-interests under socialism, insofar as a society can be established where people are paid the full value of their work.

Also keep in mind that none of these people succeeded on their own. Without society their inventions would be relatively useless.

[Journeyman]

That you may still have inventors in socialism and people who contribute selflessly does not cover the fact that it does not compare to the amount of motivation it creates in capitalist societites, competition creates motivation in people who are not directly interested in cotributing to society, and creates an "urge" to do it faster.

There is definetly a point in my post. I am talking about the way the system would maintain the same sense of urgency and motivation (and in the same amount of people, not only the philanthropists) to come up with something better in all areas. Better paper, better staplers, better cameras, etc..

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why do inventors make objects for their own personal use? To improve their own lives, correct? What if there was no economic disadvantages to introducing their products to the world? What if by introducing these products to the world they're getting the only reward available, respect. Demands for autographs, maybe, depending on the profession. Interviews on the most conspicuous television stations. Respect.

It's not like competition breeds these ideas. I can come up with the idea for a 500 GB mp3 player. People have been talking about the possibility of computer-driven cars. When the ipod came out I thought about making watches mp3 players. The market was what caught up with me, not the other way around. Imagine if I had the resources at my disposal to actually pursue the idea. The reason I didn't was 1.) trade school is out of my budget 2.) the additional costs of trial and error 3.) having to work 30 hours a week and carry school and 4.) the possible legal implications.

And there's nothing wrong with competition, so long as someone isn't financially or physically hurt by it in the process. Two people from different communes can bet [pride, toothpicks, antiques] on who will produce the best t-shirt design. Or, as is the nature of communism, they can join up and combine their ideas. It's up to them.

No, I think technology will only improve at a much greater rate than is possible under capitalism.

[Journeyman]

Ok, so let me clear things up a bit first to see if I understood you well. According to your response on the "Luxury in Socialism" thread (which is tightly linked to this one), there will be a reward system for doing the menial jobs that no one wants to do, which, as you said, includes "cleaning the gutters", among other things. Yes sir, a lot of things to be done every single day of the year. Currently, the lowest paying jobs are the most menial ones, which are the ones that no one wants to do, which are the jobs that the majority performs. In other words, the most abundant jobs are the most menial ones these days because there are no robots to do it.

So let me get this straight. The more menial the job the higher the reward? I don't know if I'm correct here. Wouldn't that mean that there would be more people willing to do the repetitive work than the less repetitive type? I really need to have this cleared up to think it over before I continue further with more arguments regarding motivation for invention (besides the respect, considering someone feels the need for it).




It's not like competition breeds these ideas. I can come up with the idea for a 500 GB mp3 player. People have been talking about the possibility of computer-driven cars. When the ipod came out I thought about making watches mp3 players. The market was what caught up with me, not the other way around. Imagine if I had the resources at my disposal to actually pursue the idea. The reason I didn't was 1.) trade school is out of my budget 2.) the additional costs of trial and error 3.) having to work 30 hours a week and carry school and 4.) the possible legal implications.


I know this is slightly beside the point, but "coming up with the idea for a 500gb MP3 player" or a "computer driven car" is not an idea. It is a natural desire. I am not referring to those as ideas, I am refering to "a clever design" "finding the right material" "the secret ingredient" as ideas, and such a thing does come up as a result of an arduous thought process and experimentation, and in some rare cases, an "epiphany", but in any case, fueled by competition, either to gain respect or wealth, but mostly in the common folk, wealth.

And not exactly to make our lives better. Some inventions would be hard pressed to appear if not for pressure of competition for acqusition of wealth or respect, like a material for softer toilet paper for instance. Why would we be scratching our heads to make our toilet paper just "a bit" softer just to make our ass wiping a bit more pleasant? I think that's too little of a reward for conducting tedious lab experiments and doing hard math and chemistry (unless you suffer from serious diarrhea).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

None of what I speculated about rewards is concrete socialist theory. In fact, it goes against the nature of communism, which is a system of social incentive and some of my comrades believe that I'm overemphasizing a problem that doesn't exist. However, since I feel the concern is real, I will I that if there are jobs the community can't fulfill for whatever reason and automation has not progressed far enough to make that duty obsolete, individual rewards is always a viable option.

What menial tasks are you thinking of? Most that I know of revolve around the protection, management, counting, and collecting of capital, or can be substituted with a better job. For example, janitor work in almost any facility can be done by the workers.

The main problems I see are mining and farming. I've voiced my concern over the fact we waste so much of our greatest minds and energy on war and space rovers when we can briefly discover a way to produce machines that will make these remote operations. Mining, for example, can be handled by a larger remotely powered machine that will save lives and strike an interest with people who like big wheelers.


Wouldn't that mean that there would be more people willing to do the repetitive work than the less repetitive type?

I personally will take a job in science or teaching over shoveling sh** any day, no matter if I get put first in the consumption line. Also, working conditions would be built around the worker instead of the worker having to fix into his conditions. Three hours a day, for five days a week, would be the average requirement of all jobs. Obviously for menial jobs this would probably be less for most people, while others like artisans may work all day.


I am refering to "a clever design" "finding the right material" "the secret ingredient" as ideas, and such a thing does come up as a result of an arduous thought process and experimentation, and in some rare cases, an "epiphany", but in any case, fueled by competition, either to gain respect or wealth, but mostly in the common folk, wealth.

Naturally. Respect doesn't mean jack under capitalism unless you've got some major gonads of dignity going for ya'. Our whole society emphasizes wealth. Without there being money, the focus would shift towards recognition and respect.


And not exactly to make our lives better. Some inventions would be hard pressed to appear if not for pressure of competition for acqusition of wealth or respect, like a material for softer toilet paper for instance. Why would we be scratching our heads to make our toilet paper just "a bit" softer just to make our ass wiping a bit more pleasant? I think that's too little of a reward for conducting tedious lab experiments and doing hard math and chemistry (unless you suffer from serious diarrhea).

Toilet paper is toilet paper. The differences between products that fall under the category of perfect competition [milk, toilet paper, computer paper] are trivial at best. Resources could be better spent on something more useful to society. That's the practical side of socialism: social management of the economy instead of profit motive.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:15 am
I should make a quick remark before someone else does. I know there is an exception in the academic circles (Mathematicians, Physicists), and of course in software development to an extent (great open source utilities, but no great open source games, only very few, believe me I know, I am a developer). But there is no way this can be compared with physical, hard to reproduce goods (cars, computers, bubble tape, whatever) and things that require tedious work to improve and produce in mass quantities.
You realize that there are engineers in the academic world that design such things, right?

Anyway, you answered you own question. Things will be invented, because there is a need.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Costa has made plenty of good arguments in here, and I just want to add to those. For one thing, think of all the inventions that aren't produced because they aren't profitable, even though there is a clear need. It is indeed true that socialism and Communism will totally release the fetters on technology, because technology will no longer be limited by the profit motive. Imagine how much today's automated factories could produce if the owners weren't limited by the profit motive.

[Demogorgon]

Well people innovate for all sorts of reasons, not just profit. Don't forget that many inventors won't be rewarded primarilly in financial terms anyway because they have to sign over the rights to their product to whoever they are contracted to. Similarly i the internet age people go to a great deal of effort to produce excellent websites or even highly useful softaware (isn't Linux free to those who want it?) for reasons of personal satisfaction or personal prestige.

Mind you I can see material rewards for innovation under socialism. After all if people are to enjoy the fruits of their labours, surely spectacularly useful labour is going to bear considerable fruit?

At any rate though incentive is only part of what makes people innovate. Ability is an important part too. For example I certainly have the incentive to write the greatest piece of music ever written. I just lack the ability.

Ability comes in too broad forms, one is talen, as in the above example, I lack the talent to write the music, nothing can be done about that. But the other is resources. And that is quite broad. SOme people simply lack the resources to carry out their ideas. That is why most who innovate have to sign over the writes tot ehir work, just so the can get the material to do so. A socialist society makes it easier to innovate through a far fairer distribution of resources. Hence one can expect more innovation as a result.

[pusher robot]

It's a complex problem, because different people are motivated by all sorts of different things.

However, I think the open-source software world is a good model of how a non-capitalist motivation system can exist. There is some indication of success - a large group of people, self-organizing, working for the good of everyone. Of course, there are substantial problems with this model - first of all, it is arguably not very innovative, in that much of its success comes from reverse-engineering or replicating for-profit software. A second problem is that actual volunteers for really difficult, unglamorous projects are scarce - often, they need the support of for-profit ventures to provide additional incentive to developers to work on them. A third problem is that it is much better at satisfying the needs of the producers than the consumers, even though the software is nominally aimed at consumers. For-profit software tends to be much better at catering to the needs and whims of consumers. A fourth problem is that when consensus breaks down, energy is dissipated into many different directions, often creating large numbers of projects that all do the same thing less well than one project might, were the collaborators able to agree.

But the real problem with extending this model is that it only works when the cost of distribution is zero. With physical products, there is a material cost to production, and that cost is wasted if the value of the produced item is less than the opportunity costs of the inputs.

For how else do we evaluate the social value of a potential good without assessing supply and demand? As Edison said, "Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility, and utility is success." Suppose in the hypothetical communist society I design a superior mousetrap. Everyone concedes it works much better than existing designs. But it requires a given amount of some resource - let's say, copper. In order for us to know whether production of this new mouse trap is a wise decision, we need to know several things:

1. How much will production cost, in social value of the resources? Obviously this depends on how much copper is needed for other things that society wants, and how much it wants those other things compared to this thing.
2. How much value do people gain from this product? It may be difficult to tell. After all, it may be a clearly superior design, but if current designs already catch all available mice, the net benefit to the consumer is zero.
3. Is there some other innovation that I could have been working on that would have been more valuable to society?

I say that it is virtually impossible to know all these things or for the mechanisms that persuade socially valuable production to work without markets, without prices, and without people pursuing monetary incentive. I think that the argument that spreading the resources around more equally will result in more innovation is simply utopian. Let's face facts, here: most innovations are far beyond the reach of the average person, who has neither the ability nor the desire to work on complex technical problems. The idea for an MP3 player in a watch is not an innovation, it's just an idea. The innovation lies in the technical problem-solving of constructing such a device. Well, how many people in society have both the technical ability and desire to do such a thing? 1%? Less? Capitalism is very effective at channeling resources into the hands of those people, and in doing so creates incentive for those with the ability but not the desire to do it anyway. Taking those resources from that 1% and giving them to Joe Sixpack makes those innovations far less likely.

[Robert]

Socialist countries had their share of inventors as well, what is your point?

Which socialist countries and which inventions? In other threads I have been admonished that there has never been one in the sense that leftists mean by "socialist." Hence the "how many chances...?" thread. At least that's how I have taken their arguments.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:36 am
I was recently watching "The Big Idea" on CNBC. It normally features different entrepeneurs who come up with an innovative product that solves many problems, making them very wealthy in the process. Say you have the clip that holds broken public bathroom doors shut (from American Inventor), or Post-Its, for example. If not for profit, why would exactly a person bother to push such a product into production? What would his motivation be? Just to solve the problem per se and not for anything else? I mean, it will only mean a slight improvement in people's lives, it's not like the fate of the world depends on it, so why bother?

Take competition, for example. You have two video card companies, NVIDIA and ATI. Both are rabid with momentum to introduce a faster, cheaper video card to the market, which in turn drives progress much faster. If you only had one video card manufacturer, or a "socialized" manufacturer for that matter, what exactly would drive the urge to introduce better technology faster? How would the momentum of today be kept?
Why would a person do anything except for profit?

I will state that I work worse when I have a salary, for then, I am frightened to work so bad I don't get anything and will do a bad work.

[Dimentio]

Production costs will be dependent on total control of the resource chain. Hence, a working socialist system must fulfil the three criterias of a technate.'

Oh... and http://en.technocracynet.eu

[R_P_A_S]

Here's the problem with your assumption Journeyman. and I don't blame you because you can't help it to think the way you do.

Our entire lives we are taught under the Capitalist system that the only way to get ahead is to compete. It breeds egoism that drives humans to innovate solely to make more profit and to 'get ahead' do you see the problem here?

contrary to a socialist economic system, a model that encourages the COMPLETE opposite. People won't be innovators and hard workers because they can have more and make more profits. they will simple do it because It will make life easier, and It will ultimately reward them and their society in the long run.

A socialist model encourages social growth NOT for personal gain and profit.

Do you see how living under a more progressive system will make the inventor think different? as opposed to doing it to "get rich!" He OR SHE will have a complete different incentive

If you are a capitalist and you opt NOT to contribute and work for the well being of all not just your personal gain then you will be miserable. because a socialist system is not about you getting richer off your inventions. It's about working together to solve problems, innovate, meet and over come lives challenges as a united society, not divided by money.

If money is your incentive for inventing something, well you are shit out of luck in a socialist society. You won't see anything from it. Others will eventually come up with it.

again, keep in mind the different traits of thoughts between a capitalist 'trained' mind and a more progressive, socially conscious one.

[Robert]

deleted

[Schrödinger's Cat]

However, I think the open-source software world is a good model of how a non-capitalist motivation system can exist. There is some indication of success - a large group of people, self-organizing, working for the good of everyone. Of course, there are substantial problems with this model - first of all, it is arguably not very innovative, in that much of its success comes from reverse-engineering or replicating for-profit software. A second problem is that actual volunteers for really difficult, unglamorous projects are scarce - often, they need the support of for-profit ventures to provide additional incentive to developers to work on them. A third problem is that it is much better at satisfying the needs of the producers than the consumers, even though the software is nominally aimed at consumers. For-profit software tends to be much better at catering to the needs and whims of consumers. A fourth problem is that when consensus breaks down, energy is dissipated into many different directions, often creating large numbers of projects that all do the same thing less well than one project might, were the collaborators able to agree.


Developing freeware is a time consuming job that requires either exceptional amounts of patience, or a bank account large enough to fund your living habits. It's hard, maybe even impossible, for most people to spend that much time and labor on software when you're having to make a living elsewhere, not to mention there can be costs that go into developing the product such as books and computer hardware.

I reject your statement that most on the replication of for-profit software. Computers are especially renown for their assortment of freeware video games. Internet sensations line the original Runescape and KumaWar are free. The reason a lot of for-profit software is superior should be obvious: there's more people working on the task and more resources at their disposal.

The "problem" with a break down in consensus isn't much of a problem. People only interested in the project should be the ones developing it. In the end that produces a much better software/item.


But the real problem with extending this model is that it only works when the cost of distribution is zero. With physical products, there is a material cost to production, and that cost is wasted if the value of the produced item is less than the opportunity costs of the inputs.

Because there's a price system in place. Yes.


For how else do we evaluate the social value of a potential good without assessing supply and demand? As Edison said, "Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility, and utility is success." Suppose in the hypothetical communist society I design a superior mousetrap. Everyone concedes it works much better than existing designs. But it requires a given amount of some resource - let's say, copper. In order for us to know whether production of this new mouse trap is a wise decision, we need to know several things:

1. How much will production cost, in social value of the resources? Obviously this depends on how much copper is needed for other things that society wants, and how much it wants those other things compared to this thing.
2. How much value do people gain from this product? It may be difficult to tell. After all, it may be a clearly superior design, but if current designs already catch all available mice, the net benefit to the consumer is zero.
3. Is there some other innovation that I could have been working on that would have been more valuable to society?

Edison inhabited a system where the only indicator of a product being successful is the revenue it brings in. The difference would be how much of the product is being taken. Workers will be encouraged to make different products and introduce it to the community, but if they start producing items that don't sell and the numbers are excessively above what is reasonable, the community and/or worker council will react immediately. The problem is minor because I doubt most people would invest in ideas that wouldn't have some audience.


I say that it is virtually impossible to know all these things or for the mechanisms that persuade socially valuable production to work without markets, without prices, and without people pursuing monetary incentive.

I say you're wrong.


The innovation lies in the technical problem-solving of constructing such a device. Well, how many people in society have both the technical ability and desire to do such a thing? 1%? Less? Capitalism is very effective at channeling resources into the hands of those people, and in doing so creates incentive for those with the ability but not the desire to do it anyway. Taking those resources from that 1% and giving them to Joe Sixpack makes those innovations far less likely.

No one is arguing the resources should be given to Joe Sixpack. If only 1% of the population knows how to develop an Mp3 player watch they will be the ones who construct it. Unlike now where the decision-making is being directed by 1% of that 1% -- or in most cases by some capitalist with no knowledge in the subject.

[pusher robot]

Workers will be encouraged to make different products and introduce it to the community

How?


if they start producing items that don't sell

Sell how much?


and the numbers are excessively above what is reasonable

What "numbers?" Where do these numbers come from? And how do we know what is "reasonable?"


the community and/or worker council will react immediately.

What "act" are we talking about here?


The problem is minor because I doubt most people would invest in ideas that wouldn't have some audience. How can they know whether there is an audience - a market - without information as to the value to the potential customers and the input costs? I might invent a resource-intensive tunneling electron widget that I know would only be greatly useful to a tiny fraction of the population and of small but non-negligible use to the rest, but if the value of its use to those few is greater than the costs of the inputs of production, it's a net benefit to society if I produce at least that limited number. How am I supposed to know what that number is? And how do I know when to stop? How do we make sure only the correct people obtain my goods?

[Journeyman]

None of what I speculated about rewards is concrete socialist theory. In fact, it goes against the nature of communism, which is a system of social incentive and some of my comrades believe that I'm overemphasizing a problem that doesn't exist. However, since I feel the concern is real, I will I that if there are jobs the community can't fulfill for whatever reason and automation has not progressed far enough to make that duty obsolete, individual rewards is always a viable option.

What menial tasks are you thinking of? Most that I know of revolve around the protection, management, counting, and collecting of capital, or can be substituted with a better job. For example, janitor work in almost any facility can be done by the workers.

The main problems I see are mining and farming. I've voiced my concern over the fact we waste so much of our greatest minds and energy on war and space rovers when we can briefly discover a way to produce machines that will make these remote operations. Mining, for example, can be handled by a larger remotely powered machine that will save lives and strike an interest with people who like big wheelers.


Well, you seem to be putting a lot of importance on automation. And for good reason. So many tasks require tedious work I wouldn't know where to start.

Transportation: Driving a bus through all the different routes, operating trains through all different routes, operating ferryboats, taxis, etc...

Security: Security guards. A security guard is needed almost everywhere. Neighborhoods, Schools, Factories, Laboratories, Hospitals, streets (for protecting public spaces), etc...

Cleaning: Scrubbing floors, dissinfecting floors, wiping clean the spaces between floor tiles, the hard to reach places that Roomba gets stuck on, pest control, cleaning pipes, sewers.

All these among others including farming and minig like you mentioned

You see that all of these jobs, as repetitive as they may be, are still far from being performed by robots. Honda's latest iteration of Asimo still can't go downstairs, and is not allowed outside by itself yet. I most likely know a lot more about this subject than you, I am well versed in neural networks, genetic algorithms and several sorts of AI, and I can assure you that even though I think Asimo will be able to perform much bigger feats in a few years, things like the common sense shown by blue collar workers are going to be hard to replicate. So we're still probably a good 50 years off from this reality, even if the robots are remote controlled. In the meantime, think of how you will manage to get people to do all these jobs, all while developing and testing the technology for the robots.





I personally will take a job in science or teaching over shoveling sh** any day, no matter if I get put first in the consumption line. Also, working conditions would be built around the worker instead of the worker having to fix into his conditions. Three hours a day, for five days a week, would be the average requirement of all jobs. Obviously for menial jobs this would probably be less for most people, while others like artisans may work all day.


That begs me to ask once again, The more menial the job the higher the reward?. I need you to directly assure me if this would the case before I speculate further.




Toilet paper is toilet paper. The differences between products that fall under the category of perfect competition [milk, toilet paper, computer paper] are trivial at best. Resources could be better spent on something more useful to society. That's the practical side of socialism: social management of the economy instead of profit motive.



So you mean that some products that could be improved regularly through competition under capitalism would stagnate and stay the same under socialism? Bear in mind that under these products I also place things like alcohol based hand cleaning gels, improved toothbrushes that last longer, "Stride, the ridiculous long lasting gum", the Gillete Mach3, toothpaste. Things that come out in new shapes and sizes more often than we can keep track of. These aren't crucial for our survival and enjoyment of life, they just make it a little bit better. And believe me, once you've got a Mach3, you don't want to go back to the standard stuff, because it actually is better, it's not just the shiny colors.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:44 am

Toilet paper is toilet paper. The differences between products that fall under the category of perfect competition [milk, toilet paper, computer paper] are trivial at best. Resources could be better spent on something more useful to society. That's the practical side of socialism: social management of the economy instead of profit motive.
If improving an existing product is "trivial" (softer toliet paper, better tasting milk) and not worth the time of the socialist community, then:

1. Does it not suggest that technological advancement will be SLOWER in the socialist community than more rapid? Improving a product usually requires some sort of technological enhancement of existing technology.

2. How can socialism claim to be superior in "social management" when it is does not believe improving the quality of life of the people of the community, even in such trivial matters as above, is worth its efforts?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 21, 2007 02:38 pm
Costa has made plenty of good arguments in here, and I just want to add to those. For one thing, think of all the inventions that aren't produced because they aren't profitable, even though there is a clear need. It is indeed true that socialism and Communism will totally release the fetters on technology, because technology will no longer be limited by the profit motive. Imagine how much today's automated factories could produce if the owners weren't limited by the profit motive.
What would limit technology in the socialist community? It would seem to be the same as what limits it in the capitalist community: Cost. Even geneCosta agrees that there is certain technological advancements that are just not worth the efforts of the community (that is to say, their "cost" does not justify the expenditure of resources on that technology).

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:16 pm
Well people innovate for all sorts of reasons, not just profit. Don't forget that many inventors won't be rewarded primarilly in financial terms anyway because they have to sign over the rights to their product to whoever they are contracted to. Similarly i the internet age people go to a great deal of effort to produce excellent websites or even highly useful softaware (isn't Linux free to those who want it?) for reasons of personal satisfaction or personal prestige.

Mind you I can see material rewards for innovation under socialism. After all if people are to enjoy the fruits of their labours, surely spectacularly useful labour is going to bear considerable fruit?

At any rate though incentive is only part of what makes people innovate. Ability is an important part too. For example I certainly have the incentive to write the greatest piece of music ever written. I just lack the ability.

Ability comes in too broad forms, one is talen, as in the above example, I lack the talent to write the music, nothing can be done about that. But the other is resources. And that is quite broad. SOme people simply lack the resources to carry out their ideas. That is why most who innovate have to sign over the writes tot ehir work, just so the can get the material to do so. A socialist society makes it easier to innovate through a far fairer distribution of resources. Hence one can expect more innovation as a result.
Doubtful. The socialist community still has to make the decision as to whether your innovation is worth allocating resources to, at the risk of not allocating resources elsewhere. That resources are more spread out in the socialist community means its more difficult for the individual innovator to get that resources, not easier, because more people are needed to grant the allocation of THEIR resources to support your innovation (and please remember, just because you say you have improved an existing product does not mean you have done so. It still needs to be proven). Since the workers own the means of production, it means they are burdened with the risk of failure, which can be a double edged sword if one removes resources from a beneficial industry (thus harming that indusrty) and shipping it to an unproven product (which too can fail).

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:52 pm

The "problem" with a break down in consensus isn't much of a problem. People only interested in the project should be the ones developing it. In the end that produces a much better software/item.


No one is arguing the resources should be given to Joe Sixpack. If only 1% of the population knows how to develop an Mp3 player watch they will be the ones who construct it. Unlike now where the decision-making is being directed by 1% of that 1% -- or in most cases by some capitalist with no knowledge in the subject.
But the socialist is arguing EXACTLY that. As noted by Pusher, the capitalist system is able to channel capital to that 1%, who then take the risk on the endeavor. The only people taking the risk in the capitalist system is that 1% If the effort fails, then its those 1% who suffers the loss. The community is protected since only 1% of the community has suffered damages.

But since the socialist community says the workers should own the MOP, and that all resources should be owned by the people, the ENTIRE community has to approve the channelling of capital to that 1%. And since the resources being channeled to the community belong to everyone anyhow, it means everyone has to be involved, even if they know nothing about the technology being investigated. Even those who lost the vote in shipping the resources are involved since the resources still belong to that miority. The ENTIRE community, not just 1% is at risk in this endeavor, and the ENTIRE community take the loss should it fail.

[Invader Zim]

but no great open source games,

I can think of a few good ones, Tremulous and Planshift spring to mind.

[Robert]

The ENTIRE community, not just 1% is at risk in this endeavor, and the ENTIRE community take the loss should it fail.

No. We will take what helps the community (the rewards) and cast off that which does not (the risks).
We have never run a business, but all businesses will be eventually eliminated, so it really doesn't matter.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by pusher robot
How?

Social interaction. Without a profit to motivate people the next logical step is fame and recognition. Any person wanting to deny the importance of either concept on human motivation better stop looking at the human species through a narrow straw.



Sell how much?

Prior to initial distribution the demand can be determined by the internet and print questionnaires. In all likelihood a worker council will introduce its newest products to the community it inhabits. If there are requests for the substance from outside communes the worker council can act accordingly, possibly requesting a trade of some sort. If that individual worker council can't produce enough substances to meet the demands, it can pass all the information to people interested in the project. Of course it's wrong to assume the worker councils wouldn't freely distribute this information just to have less of a demand on themselves.

You wrongly assume that a communist economy would judge wants worse than a market when in fact the basic concept of supply and demand is universal and not indicative of a market system. Capitalists aren't endowed with the god-like ability to determine what amount of demand will meet the unveiling of a new product. They can track the sales, and that's easily duplicable by any person with the ability to count and subtract.


What "numbers?" Where do these numbers come from? And how do we know what is "reasonable?"

Visual evidence. If junk is sitting in the distribution centers for months and it piles up, in all likelihood the commune can find somewhere to ship it. If not then the community will act. Referenced below.


What "act" are we talking about here?

I don't believe I implied a single act. For some a verbal warning is all that's needed. In rare instances the person may be banned from using that facility.


How can they know whether there is an audience - a market - without information as to the value to the potential customers and the input costs? I might invent a resource-intensive tunneling electron widget that I know would only be greatly useful to a tiny fraction of the population and of small but non-negligible use to the rest, but if the value of its use to those few is greater than the costs of the inputs of production, it's a net benefit to society if I produce at least that limited number. How am I supposed to know what that number is? And how do I know when to stop? How do we make sure only the correct people obtain my goods?

Negligible concern. All of your assumptions thus far have been based on the idea of profit being the only major indicator.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 22, 2007 03:15 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 22, 2007 03:15 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 11:44 am

Toilet paper is toilet paper. The differences between products that fall under the category of perfect competition [milk, toilet paper, computer paper] are trivial at best. Resources could be better spent on something more useful to society. That's the practical side of socialism: social management of the economy instead of profit motive.
If improving an existing product is "trivial" (softer toliet paper, better tasting milk) and not worth the time of the socialist community, then:

1. Does it not suggest that technological advancement will be SLOWER in the socialist community than more rapid? Improving a product usually requires some sort of technological enhancement of existing technology.

2. How can socialism claim to be superior in "social management" when it is does not believe improving the quality of life of the people of the community, even in such trivial matters as above, is worth its efforts? [/b]
This entire premise is a red herring. Something as insignificant as the fluff of toilet paper is not handled better under capitalism. There is no major profit benefits to reducing the friction between your bum and the paper by one degree. People look big to make big bucks. Perfect competition is based almost entirely around marketing and nothing else. Substituting social standing with "bucks" ends this forced dilemma.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Security: Security guards. A security guard is needed almost everywhere. Neighborhoods, Schools, Factories, Laboratories, Hospitals, streets (for protecting public spaces), etc...

Last I checked the numbers, plenty of brave souls [millions] join the military for pay that could barely satisfy a teenager. The need for security guards would also decrease with the decrease in crime due to poverty and wealth disparity.


Cleaning: Scrubbing floors, dissinfecting floors, wiping clean the spaces between floor tiles, the hard to reach places that Roomba gets stuck on, pest control, cleaning pipes, sewers.

Some people enjoy cleaning, especially with the additional benefit of having the chance to interact with others. If janitor work was needing to be performed the workers could split the duty. 10 minutes per worker is more manageable then someone doing it 8 hours a day. It would all depend on the working environment. For schools the duty can go to the teachers and students. Right now people are negligent because they know there is someone out there who will pick up their mess.


All these among others including farming and minig like you mentioned

As I said, the solutions are already viable. These main industries which keep us alive and productive would be the primary focus carrying over to the communal stages.


Transportation: Driving a bus through all the different routes, operating trains through all different routes, operating ferryboats, taxis, etc...

Engineers are already working on ways to automate travel, but that withstanding, plenty of people enjoy working trains and boats.


You see that all of these jobs, as repetitive as they may be, are still far from being performed by robots. Honda's latest iteration of Asimo still can't go downstairs, and is not allowed outside by itself yet. I most likely know a lot more about this subject than you, I am well versed in neural networks, genetic algorithms and several sorts of AI, and I can assure you that even though I think Asimo will be able to perform much bigger feats in a few years, things like the common sense shown by blue collar workers are going to be hard to replicate. So we're still probably a good 50 years off from this reality, even if the robots are remote controlled. In the meantime, think of how you will manage to get people to do all these jobs, all while developing and testing the technology for the robots.

You mean how will we get people to work on cars when their hours are reduced from 8 to 3 due to the available labor and their facilities are rebuilt to make the conditions better? I don't know about you, but lots of people love breaking down cars. Your assumptions on what humans like to do is a little narrow-minded, if you don't mind me saying.


That begs me to ask once again, The more menial the job the higher the reward?. I need you to directly assure me if this would the case before I speculate further.

No. If there was a temporarily reward system it would go to the laborers who performed jobs others refuse to. That could be anything.


So you mean that some products that could be improved regularly through competition under capitalism would stagnate and stay the same under socialism? Bear in mind that under these products I also place things like alcohol based hand cleaning gels, improved toothbrushes that last longer, "Stride, the ridiculous long lasting gum", the Gillete Mach3, toothpaste. Things that come out in new shapes and sizes more often than we can keep track of. These aren't crucial for our survival and enjoyment of life, they just make it a little bit better. And believe me, once you've got a Mach3, you don't want to go back to the standard stuff, because it actually is better, it's not just the shiny colors.

See post above. This is a logical fallacy. There would be no stagnation. In fact, you could expect quite the opposite with more leisure time and education available.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by GeneCosta+November 22, 2007 07:17 am--> (GeneCosta @ November 22, 2007 07:17 am)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 22, 2007 03:15 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 11:44 am

Toilet paper is toilet paper. The differences between products that fall under the category of perfect competition [milk, toilet paper, computer paper] are trivial at best. Resources could be better spent on something more useful to society. That's the practical side of socialism: social management of the economy instead of profit motive.
If improving an existing product is "trivial" (softer toliet paper, better tasting milk) and not worth the time of the socialist community, then:

1. Does it not suggest that technological advancement will be SLOWER in the socialist community than more rapid? Improving a product usually requires some sort of technological enhancement of existing technology.

2. How can socialism claim to be superior in "social management" when it is does not believe improving the quality of life of the people of the community, even in such trivial matters as above, is worth its efforts?
This entire premise is a red herring. Something as insignificant as the fluff of toilet paper is not handled better under capitalism. There is no major profit benefits to reducing the friction between your bum and the paper by one degree. People look big to make big bucks. Perfect competition is based almost entirely around marketing and nothing else. Substituting social standing with "bucks" ends this forced dilemma. [/b]
Toilet paper is something one would think (hope) all would use. But if there was no profit to the capitalist in making a better quality roll (meaning as a result nobody much cared about quality), then one might as well package sandpaper to do the the job.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by GeneCosta+November 22, 2007 07:11 am--> (GeneCosta @ November 22, 2007 07:11 am)
pusher robot
How?

Social interaction. Without a profit to motivate people the next logical step is fame and recognition. Any person wanting to deny the importance of either concept on human motivation better stop looking at the human species through a narrow straw.



Prior to initial distribution the demand can be determined by the internet and print questionnaires. In all likelihood a worker council will introduce its newest products to the community it inhabits. If there are requests for the substance from outside communes the worker council can act accordingly, possibly requesting a trade of some sort. If that individual worker council can't produce enough substances to meet the demands, it can pass all the information to people interested in the project. Of course it's wrong to assume the worker councils wouldn't freely distribute this information just to have less of a demand on themselves.

[/b]
1. The old USSR sought to motivate their workers through public acclaim. National awards were set up to celebrate feats of industrial accomplishments (mining the most coal, smelting the most steel in a given period of time). News stories followed ans rewards like time in vacation resorts were given.
It didn't work.
Public acclaim can only go so far. And if what you are being acclaimed is in fact not being productive in reality, then nothing has been solved.

2. The idea that you would determine demand for a product AFTER it has been produced seems backward and wasteful. If your community is in need of a new product, that is why it is being produced in the first place.
What you are trying to do is match production for demand exactly, or as exactly as possible, with the thinking that in doing so you are not wasting production. But in fact you are, because you are ignoring the costs and subsequent wastes in the process of youir determinations (questionaires and such) which have to be factored as a cost of production.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

1. The old USSR sought to motivate their workers through public acclaim. National awards were set up to celebrate feats of industrial accomplishments (mining the most coal, smelting the most steel in a given period of time). News stories followed ans rewards like time in vacation resorts were given.
It didn't work.
Public acclaim can only go so far. And if what you are being acclaimed is in fact not being productive in reality, then nothing has been solved.

And to an extent it worked, even though the Soviet Union still utilized money and wealth disparity. What I've been talking about is communism. I apologize if I didn't announce that earlier.


2. The idea that you would determine demand for a product AFTER it has been produced seems backward and wasteful. If your community is in need of a new product, that is why it is being produced in the first place.
What you are trying to do is match production for demand exactly, or as exactly as possible, with the thinking that in doing so you are not wasting production. But in fact you are, because you are ignoring the costs and subsequent wastes in the process of youir determinations (questionaires and such) which have to be factored as a cost of production.

I never said demand would be determined after the initial distribution stage. I stated that tracking demand from that point on is an easy process, especially with the technology available to us today. The same methods capitalists use to determine demand can be used after everything has been collectivized.

I also don't know where from my posts you inferred the workers would only produce x amount to meet the x requests. Overproduction is not the same as ensuring any variables are covered, although that can factor into it.


Toilet paper is something one would think (hope) all would use. But if there was no profit to the capitalist in making a better quality roll (meaning as a result nobody much cared about quality), then one might as well package sandpaper to do the the job.

The difference between what has been said before in this thread about softening existing products and packaging sandpaper to wipe your bum with is starkly different.

[MT5678]

I think this question came up in another thread. The response went something like this:

Why would you clean your house? Do you get paid for that? You do it because it is your duty, and it is in your interest to keep your house organized.

Similarly, people will work in a commune out of a sense of civic duty, and out of knowledge that what they do for the commune intrinsically helps them as well (they are a part of the commune). Oh yeah, if they don't work, their complaints shall be heard before an elected judicial council. If the complaints are decided to be unjust, then the worker will be put on probation. If he adamantly refuses to work, we throw him out into the desert and watch him burn to death. :lol:

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 22, 2007 12:55 pm--> (Green Dragon @ November 22, 2007 12:55 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:11 am

pusher robot
How?

Social interaction. Without a profit to motivate people the next logical step is fame and recognition. Any person wanting to deny the importance of either concept on human motivation better stop looking at the human species through a narrow straw.



Prior to initial distribution the demand can be determined by the internet and print questionnaires. In all likelihood a worker council will introduce its newest products to the community it inhabits. If there are requests for the substance from outside communes the worker council can act accordingly, possibly requesting a trade of some sort. If that individual worker council can't produce enough substances to meet the demands, it can pass all the information to people interested in the project. Of course it's wrong to assume the worker councils wouldn't freely distribute this information just to have less of a demand on themselves.


1. The old USSR sought to motivate their workers through public acclaim. National awards were set up to celebrate feats of industrial accomplishments (mining the most coal, smelting the most steel in a given period of time). News stories followed ans rewards like time in vacation resorts were given.
It didn't work.
Public acclaim can only go so far. And if what you are being acclaimed is in fact not being productive in reality, then nothing has been solved.

2. The idea that you would determine demand for a product AFTER it has been produced seems backward and wasteful. If your community is in need of a new product, that is why it is being produced in the first place.
What you are trying to do is match production for demand exactly, or as exactly as possible, with the thinking that in doing so you are not wasting production. But in fact you are, because you are ignoring the costs and subsequent wastes in the process of youir determinations (questionaires and such) which have to be factored as a cost of production. [/b]
You make the mistake of associating our ideas of Socialist society with the failures or Soviet Russia, I would hope that our society would be markedly different from a Soviet one! We are discussing the future not the past.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:35 am
You make the mistake of associating our ideas of Socialist society with the failures or Soviet Russia, I would hope that our society would be markedly different from a Soviet one! We are discussing the future not the past.
Where those similiarities exist, it needs to be explained on your end.

A more moderate version of a flawed idea (or a more extreme version) is still flawed.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:13 pm

1. The old USSR sought to motivate their workers through public acclaim. National awards were set up to celebrate feats of industrial accomplishments (mining the most coal, smelting the most steel in a given period of time). News stories followed ans rewards like time in vacation resorts were given.
It didn't work.
Public acclaim can only go so far. And if what you are being acclaimed is in fact not being productive in reality, then nothing has been solved.

And to an extent it worked, even though the Soviet Union still utilized money and wealth disparity. What I've been talking about is communism. I apologize if I didn't announce that earlier.


2. The idea that you would determine demand for a product AFTER it has been produced seems backward and wasteful. If your community is in need of a new product, that is why it is being produced in the first place.
What you are trying to do is match production for demand exactly, or as exactly as possible, with the thinking that in doing so you are not wasting production. But in fact you are, because you are ignoring the costs and subsequent wastes in the process of youir determinations (questionaires and such) which have to be factored as a cost of production.

I never said demand would be determined after the initial distribution stage. I stated that tracking demand from that point on is an easy process, especially with the technology available to us today. The same methods capitalists use to determine demand can be used after everything has been collectivized.

I also don't know where from my posts you inferred the workers would only produce x amount to meet the x requests. Overproduction is not the same as ensuring any variables are covered, although that can factor into it.


Toilet paper is something one would think (hope) all would use. But if there was no profit to the capitalist in making a better quality roll (meaning as a result nobody much cared about quality), then one might as well package sandpaper to do the the job.

The difference between what has been said before in this thread about softening existing products and packaging sandpaper to wipe your bum with is starkly different.
1. Capitalists use the market and the potential for profit, to track demand. How does the socialist community relicate this?

2. And you missed the question. If improving an existing product by some small amount is not worth the effort of the socialist community, why are they producing, or trying to produce, anything of quality?

[RevSkeptic]

1. Capitalists use the market and the potential for profit, to track demand. How does the socialist community relicate this?

What if you have scenarios where profit is virtually guaranteed with no or little competition?

Competition is bad for business so you get all the bosses ruling over the different turfs for a nice business meeting.


1. Capitalists use the market and the potential for profit, to track demand. How does the socialist community relicate this?

My guess is...

For large items by ordering just in time production using modern communications technology.

For small items ordering unit batches into neighborhood distribution centers.


2. And you missed the question. If improving an existing product by some small amount is not worth the effort of the socialist community, why are they producing, or trying to produce, anything of quality?

And your point being? You can't have multiple variants branching of the same common product line to determine consumer preference? That's a mighty big assumption you're making on the limits of a distributive economy.

[RevSkeptic]

Similarly, people will work in a commune out of a sense of civic duty, and out of knowledge that what they do for the commune intrinsically helps them as well (they are a part of the commune). Oh yeah, if they don't work, their complaints shall be heard before an elected judicial council. If the complaints are decided to be unjust, then the worker will be put on probation. If he adamantly refuses to work, we throw him out into the desert and watch him burn to death.

You can't really expect someone who have lily white, labour free hands all their lives to suddenly be a responsible, nine to fiver, lunch bucket carrying, average joe/jane worker can you? We'll have lots of these people (particularly those in marketing and public relations) after your "revolution" so what are you going to do? How much does it cost to feed him until he dies of old age if he promises not to have kids?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:14 am

1. Capitalists use the market and the potential for profit, to track demand. How does the socialist community relicate this?

What if you have scenarios where profit is virtually guaranteed with no or little competition?

Competition is bad for business so you get all the bosses ruling over the different turfs for a nice business meeting.


1. Capitalists use the market and the potential for profit, to track demand. How does the socialist community relicate this?

My guess is...

For large items by ordering just in time production using modern communications technology.

For small items ordering unit batches into neighborhood distribution centers.


2. And you missed the question. If improving an existing product by some small amount is not worth the effort of the socialist community, why are they producing, or trying to produce, anything of quality?

And your point being? You can't have multiple variants branching of the same common product line to determine consumer preference? That's a mighty big assumption you're making on the limits of a distributive economy.
1. I do not understand how the scenario offerred changes anything. It would mean unlimited demand.

2. "Modern communication technology" is the result of some other capitalist trying to turn a profit in communications. How did this capitalist guauge demand?

3. The socialists like to say their production is more efficient than than capitalist production. So shipping off goods willy-nilly to "neighborhood distribution centers" is certainly no guarantor of success (considering capitalism has "neighborhood distribution centers" as well. They are generally known as "stores.")

[Journeyman]

Last I checked the numbers, plenty of brave souls [millions] join the military for pay that could barely satisfy a teenager. The need for security guards would also decrease with the decrease in crime due to poverty and wealth disparity.


I meant security guards, not policemen or soldiers, which I won't refer to right now. Picture the movie "A night at the museum", minus all the fun. Sitting on a chair and standing up every once in a while to make a few rounds accross the premises. With mostly no one to talk to. There's no point in highlighting the decrease in need for security guards, the fact still is that it's a job that someone must do, whether more or less are needed.




Some people enjoy cleaning, especially with the additional benefit of having the chance to interact with others. If janitor work was needing to be performed the workers could split the duty. 10 minutes per worker is more manageable then someone doing it 8 hours a day. It would all depend on the working environment. For schools the duty can go to the teachers and students. Right now people are negligent because they know there is someone out there who will pick up their mess.



I hope these people enjoy wiping excrement out of toilets, lots of toilets. Also scrubbing stains off repeatedly, which is a tedious and exhausting job. I also hope they enjoy dealing with spilt putrefact liquids in garbage bags, some of it not in garbage bags at all. Being exposed to harmful caustic cleaning substances. "Shovelling s**t" like you said. The list goes on.

The point is this is not a pleasant process by anyone's standard, and I doubt more that 0,1 of the population would enjoy anything more than having to do dishes and
wiping some dust with a broomstick. Just try cleaning the space behind a refrigerator and under it, inside it, taking all the stuff out, dissinfecting, putting it all back in. Do you think your average teenager would even wish to help mom do such cleaning without being forced? Imagine if the cleaning is done for the good of people you don't even know.




As I said, the solutions are already viable. These main industries which keep us alive and productive would be the primary focus carrying over to the communal stages.


I'd also like to see how many people enjoy taking out weed, plowing through hundreds of acres. Risking their lives underground breathing harmful fumes and getting killed once in a while by accidentally exploding dinamyte.


All of this considering the fact that many of these jobs require training, and pickcing up momentum for every two hours so you can go and start doing another one





Engineers are already working on ways to automate travel, but that withstanding, plenty of people enjoy working trains and boats.


Once again, this requires advanced artificial intelligence and an infrastructure that won't be around probably for the next 50 years. The point is the problem exists. And again, picture yourself pushing and realeasing the pedal in heavy traffic, yelling at jaywalkers, all around the same route over and over. This may be a sunday drive sometimes, but when you do the sunday drive 20 times in a row it stops being as fun. "Some" people who "enjoy" this will just not cut it.


There's also the fact that you're not forcing these people to do those things (or are you?), and you expect them to want to do them.






You mean how will we get people to work on cars when their hours are reduced from 8 to 3 due to the available labor and their facilities are rebuilt to make the conditions better? I don't know about you, but lots of people love breaking down cars. Your assumptions on what humans like to do is a little narrow-minded, if you don't mind me saying.


You reduce the working hours from 8 to 3, and the rest is voluntary work. Dust is accumulating, not in your house, but in a warehouse from you workplace that you
hardly ever go to. Do you go and decide to do some heavy lifting, taking all the boxes out, climbing onto creaking shelves, risking an injury, take stuff down, clean the whole place and put everything in the same way it was? or do you stay at home watching your favorite show?

I mean you might like to figure out how the brain works, in your garage, doing experiments with computers and tiny robots and such, it might develop into a passion. but that is IF you like that, and it might be fun because it feels more like a puzzle, more than tedious work. It might involve tedium, but the delight of discovering something new might be just enough motivation, believe me because i know the feeling.

You then design how such a device or other might be built, but then it starts demanding real tedious work and sometimes dangerous. You then need workers to help you out, and you need them to do it willingly, because nobody forces tedious and repetitive work on anyone in socialism I presume.






No. If there was a temporarily reward system it would go to the laborers who performed jobs others refuse to. That could be anything.


Ok I'm not sure if I understand what you say but at least I read a "No" there. It means then I presume that menial work does not merit bigger rewards.
Ok, so in that case, one wouldn't need to do it, and there would be no evident reason pushing one to do so. Unless of course, one feels the need to help the comunity.

You've been stressing a lot the fact that people should be motivated by the good of the community, by being taught the right values from birth, and that's where the discussion turns complex. Humans are social creatures, and thus they show the need to help their own, their family and close friends. The closer they are, the more one feels in need to help each other out. Also one feels the need to get even closer to those who share our visions and our likes and dislikes. The more distant though, the less they feel compelled to share their most valued resources, time and support. There needs to be face to face contact in order to establish more empathy, one needs to be in contact with individuals as close as possible. The more nondescript and more alien they are to us, the less we care about them and their dreams. Hell, we don't even have a face to look at. This, IMO, is an undeniable fact and part of our nature.

Thus, how the hell do we guarantee that separate groups won't blow each other to bits? We need to find a way to cooperate, WITHOUT losing our individuality as a
group. And that means still being able to share you dreams, your time and you work with your loved ones, without hurting the dreams of others. Read "Not hurting others". This is where the issue turns even MORE complex. What does it mean not to hurt others? It certainly DOESN'T mean one thing, and that is to have to give your precious help to someone not belonging to your group unless you fancy yourself a humanitarian, which is choice. And we all know how many people actually go to the local poorhouse to help out the less fortunate.

So how do you guarantee that at the point when a conflict of interests between groups arises you can reach an agreement instead of slaughtering each other? Easy.

You make a trade. At this point we obviously descend into capitalism and governments and taxes, which is when the more highminded communist proposal makes an appearance. Because it IS highminded, and in my opinion, meant for more evolved beings. The point is thus is not to discuss the pros and cons of communism, but the true nature of human motivation.



This entire premise is a red herring. Something as insignificant as the fluff of toilet paper is not handled better under capitalism. There is no major profit benefits to
reducing the friction between your bum and the paper by one degree. People look big to make big bucks. Perfect competition is based almost entirely around marketing and nothing else. Substituting social standing with "bucks" ends this forced dilemma.






See post above. This is a logical fallacy. There would be no stagnation. In fact, you could expect quite the opposite with more leisure time and education available.



I assume you say that those incremental imrovements are not real and mostly a product of marketing. Thus you assume that there is actual stagnation right now in
products that are merely glorified by advertisement. This is no secret. It has been a part of our culture to discuss that fact, and people who are asked if there's any real improvement over another product when they clearly bought it for it's publicity, they usually agree. They just don't care. If the other product is good enough then they're satisfied.

So that means people DO notice difference when it's real, and these products usually take over the market. Even with small improvements. It's just that when the improvement is not there, people are just content to fool themselves into thinking that prettier packaging means a better product. They know they're being duped, they just choose not to bother with complaints.

Thus the reason why people know that if they develop a slightly better formula for instance, they will be able to retire to their private island, or whatever it is they desire. It will take over the market even with moderate marketing. But I'm pretty sure there's not going to be enough fame to satisfy your wishes, in those cases you care more about the money. "Hey, there's they guy who developed a laundry detergent that's 10% more effective". That excitement wil not last long I assure you, unless you discovered warp speed travel or something.

And with regards to your assumption that more leisure time and education would mean enough motivation, read my previous, larger reply regarding human nature.

[RevSkeptic]

I was recently watching "The Big Idea" on CNBC. It normally features different entrepeneurs who come up with an innovative product that solves many problems, making them very wealthy in the process. Say you have the clip that holds broken public bathroom doors shut (from American Inventor), or Post-Its, for example.


If not for profit, why would exactly a person bother to push such a product into production? What would his motivation be? Just to solve the problem per se and not for anything else? I mean, it will only mean a slight improvement in people's lives, it's not like the fate of the world depends on it, so why bother?


Take competition, for example. You have two video card companies, NVIDIA and ATI. Both are rabid with momentum to introduce a faster, cheaper video card to the market, which in turn drives progress much faster. If you only had one video card manufacturer, or a "socialized" manufacturer for that matter, what exactly would drive the urge to introduce better technology faster? How would the momentum of today be kept?

From people who enjoy solving problems for the sake of solving problems much like artists create art for the sake of taking pride in the finished product.

In otherwords, people need to be inspired from a young age that life involves solving problems including problems of uninspiring routine work. Before the time of monolithic, profit driven, monsters called corporations that makes pride in the quality of one's work irrelevant there were social structures called craftsmen guilds.

Not all work needs to be uninspiring drudgery, but work in mastering skills and taking pride in those skills need to be developed. Once we have an entire population of craftsmen guilds then the "work" of drudgery and animal-like labour would be made obsolete.

What is this type of Socialism called?: guild socialism

The high technology variant of this for today's modern society is called: Technocracy.

[pusher robot]

And your point being? You can't have multiple variants branching of the same common product line to determine consumer preference? That's a mighty big assumption you're making on the limits of a distributive economy.

You can't determine preferences without prices, that's the point. It's not always the case that the consumer is best served with a product they like more than a similar product, because the costs may still outweigh the benefits. Can't you see this?

You might find that 100% of consumers prefer Beer Y to Beer X - say they like it twice as much. It doesn't follow that we should favor production of Beer Y over Beer X. Suppose that Beer Y costs 10 times in resources to manufacture as Beer X. You're getting twice the benefit, but at ten times the cost. Those resources are best directed elsewhere, where they can deliver a bigger bang for the buck. In a market with prices, this happens automatically, because consumers are not going to spend ten times more money on Beer Y even though it's twice as good. They'll still buy Beer X.

The distributive economy still needs some way to factor in the resource costs of production to consumer preferences.


Why would you clean your house? Do you get paid for that? You do it because it is your duty, and it is in your interest to keep your house organized.

No, there is no duty involved at all. I do it for the same reason I go to work to get money - it has a direct, tangible reward to me, namely, living in a tidy environment.

Rest assured that if someone else came to clean my house at no cost to me, I would not refuse them the opportunity out of some sense of "duty."

The question for communists is: why aren't you out there cleaning other peoples' houses?

[pusher robot]

f he adamantly refuses to work, we throw him out into the desert and watch him burn to death. laugh.gif

Why would it be an improvement to replace a system that punishes idleness with poverty with one that punishes idleness with death?

[Robert]

Why would it be an improvement to replace a system that punishes idleness with poverty with one that punishes idleness with death?

Pusher, since you and the socialists are playing cards with different decks, or singing from two different hymnals, or ... oh just pick your favorite metaphor ... you can't expect a satisfying answer to that question.

But I wish someone from the left would respond to pusher's question, because the answer I think will reflect basic values of the left which are not shared by ... well, anyone else. We aren't arguing means, we're arguing destinations. We non-leftists assume that the left values the life of one man less than the right does. (In fairness, there is nothing about capitalism per se that values the life of one man either, is there?)

If the capitalist v. socialist value systems are 180 degrees out of phase, and I think pusher's query is one more indication that they are, then no one is ever going to convince anyone on the means to improving society.

Maybe this is why Lenin believed that capitalism could only be overthrown through revolution, not reform. He knew we're just talking different languages here and the battle will be decided by force or not at all.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I meant security guards, not policemen or soldiers, which I won't refer to right now. Picture the movie "A night at the museum", minus all the fun. Sitting on a chair and standing up every once in a while to make a few rounds accross the premises. With mostly no one to talk to. There's no point in highlighting the decrease in need for security guards, the fact still is that it's a job that someone must do, whether more or less are needed.

This will be the second false dilemma I've encountered in one thread. Security guards are products of a system based on the management and protection of capital. Most places of operation are safe without a security guard. The drastic decrease in crime resulting from wealth conditions would make the problem even less of an issue.

Proceed.


The point is this is not a pleasant process by anyone's standard, and I doubt more that 0,1 of the population would enjoy anything more than having to do dishes and
wiping some dust with a broomstick. Just try cleaning the space behind a refrigerator and under it, inside it, taking all the stuff out, dissinfecting, putting it all back in. Do you think your average teenager would even wish to help mom do such cleaning without being forced? Imagine if the cleaning is done for the good of people you don't even know.


You're approaching the subject as a capitalist thinking only in terms of the capitalist system. Give that teenager a hose and let him have fun. One major aspect of socialism is turning "work" into fun. Where before the industrial revolution fun was used to make work better, we want work to make fun better.


I'd also like to see how many people enjoy taking out weed, plowing through hundreds of acres. Risking their lives underground breathing harmful fumes and getting killed once in a while by accidentally exploding dinamyte.


All of this considering the fact that many of these jobs require training, and pickcing up momentum for every two hours so you can go and start doing another one

Third false dilemma. Agriculture and mining would be the primary industries science would be targeted at. Plenty has been said on how to automate these industries from my own suggestions to the "Venus Project" movie.

I suggest you rehearse yourself in the subject before trying to come up with all these "gaping holes" in the system. The rest of your post dwells on all these jobs you think "nobody will perform," but all you do is think in terms of capitalism. There's been suggestions about building separate road systems for licensed truckers to use, with more emphasis placed on their comfort. Or turning every "boring office job" into a Google-esque environment. Half of the fun in socialism is coming up with solutions to build the work place around people. Until you realize that you will never understand where we Leftists come from.

[Robert]

Give that teenager a hose and let him have fun.

No. He'll hose me. And then he'll hose you. And the refrigerator will still be dirty and work inefficiently.

Not every teenager, but many. No teenager will clean the fridge or the toilets or work in rice fields (I know, running a wonderful computerized rice planter/harvester) for "fun."

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:52 pm

You're approaching the subject as a capitalist thinking only in terms of the capitalist system. Give that teenager a hose and let him have fun. One major aspect of socialism is turning "work" into fun. Where before the industrial revolution fun was used to make work better, we want work to make fun better.


I suggest you rehearse yourself in the subject before trying to come up with all these "gaping holes" in the system. The rest of your post dwells on all these jobs you think "nobody will perform," but all you do is think in terms of capitalism. There's been suggestions about building separate road systems for licensed truckers to use, with more emphasis placed on their comfort. Or turning every "boring office job" into a Google-esque environment. Half of the fun in socialism is coming up with solutions to build the work place around people. Until you realize that you will never understand where we Leftists come from.
Unfortunately, we are not thinking in "terms of capitalism" but in terms of rationality, which even a socialist community will have to do.

So maybe you can unleash a teenager to have fun in cleaning that refrigerator. Maybe he will spray water around, soak his buddies a bit, and after a while the refrigerator is clean.

But the problem that the socialist community faces is this:
While the kid was spraying water about and having a blast, he was using a resource which has many other uses, and can be used by other people (like every living person). All you have done is used MORE water than needed to wash the refrigerator, water which cannot of course be used elsewhere.
Since the teen is goofing around, it means he is taking LONGER to wash that one refrigerator than he ought. Since TIME is a resource, it means he is wasting time. rather than washing a dozen refrigerators in a given set of time, he has only washed say half dozen.

The same problem presents itself for the highway only for truckers. When creating such roads, the community has to understand that the material, space and time to build it (and to maintain) cannot be used elsewhere. So the community has to have a way of determing whether the benefits of that road to the community outweigh its costs (ie whether the community will turn a profit from the road). If the ciosts are greater than its benefits,yet the community persists in building the road, then the community is harmed, no matter how much "fun" the truckdrivers who use it are having.

These types of problems are not the result of "thinking in terms of capitalism", but as a result of "life."

Using more resources than neccessary (even while having "fun") is not an efficient way of running a community.

I know socialists like to say they will use less resources, and I am sure they believe it. They like to say such views are centered around "people." But saying it isnt enough. It has to be proven.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 10:54 pm

f he adamantly refuses to work, we throw him out into the desert and watch him burn to death. laugh.gif

Why would it be an improvement to replace a system that punishes idleness with poverty with one that punishes idleness with death?
i think the laugh smiley means it was supposed to be construed light heartedly.

Jees, are all capitalists as cold and sterile as this? <_<

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 28, 2007 01:09 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 28, 2007 01:09 am)
pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 10:54 pm

f he adamantly refuses to work, we throw him out into the desert and watch him burn to death. laugh.gif

Why would it be an improvement to replace a system that punishes idleness with poverty with one that punishes idleness with death?
i think the laugh smiley means it was supposed to be construed light heartedly.

Jees, are all capitalists as cold and sterile as this? <_< [/b]
Hey, we&#39;re not the ones proposing to do menial chores for fun.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 04:27 pm
The question for communists is: why aren&#39;t you out there cleaning other peoples&#39; houses?
Because I don&#39;t want to. There is nothing in it for me and its not in the least bit enjoyable.

Happy?

Much as I loathe to admit it, you might have won this particular argument by default because the arguments my side have made have been so appallingly weak. But that doesn&#39;t mean the arguments that socialism has to offer are weak, just that a lot of people here either don&#39;t understand them or can&#39;t articulate them.

It is a matter of interest for some anarchists whether people will work for no reward directly related tot he work they are doing. There is evidence they might as it happens, and I think they would if there was sufficient understanding that the more people put in the more they get out in general will correspond to: the more you put in, the more you will put out.

But that&#39;s not what concerns me. I&#39;m not an anarchist. Obviously people are going to need some kind of direct incentive to work in any kind of society resembling this one. A side note first of all, I always laugh at the presumptuousness of people who try and proclaim exactly how a Communist society might work, particularly as they usually do it in an almost childlike way. Nobody knows exactly how a society will work other than the way it will work will establish itself as we change from one society to another.

All I can offer you is how a transitional programme might work. Very simply, society must make sure all its members have basic level of sustenance. Secondly it must make sure that those who are unable to work for various reasons are well provided for. Thirdly it must makes sure that those able to work are rewarded fairly for the work they do. One means of doing that is to give people democratic control over their own work. To put it in your terms, people run their own "firms" and take a share of the proceeds to be decided democratically. Society of course deciding how to organise things at the macro level in terms of resource allocation and the like.

I agree that a transitional system would have to maintain a price system for the time being, so you can&#39;t get me there. I have no desire to argue about that, because you are using that to mask the weakness in your own argument that just because at this precise moment in time we obviously need a price system that it does not follow that capitalism provides the best example of such a system.

[Lynx]

Where personal initiative ends, incentives begin. Incentives can be pleasant or unpleasant. In capitalism, what incentives are used to encourage people to do crappy jobs?

Perhaps some of these can be adapted for use in communism.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 28, 2007 01:37 am--> (pusher robot @ November 28, 2007 01:37 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 01:09 am

pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 10:54 pm

f he adamantly refuses to work, we throw him out into the desert and watch him burn to death. laugh.gif

Why would it be an improvement to replace a system that punishes idleness with poverty with one that punishes idleness with death?
i think the laugh smiley means it was supposed to be construed light heartedly.

Jees, are all capitalists as cold and sterile as this? <_<
Hey, we&#39;re not the ones proposing to do menial chores for fun. [/b]
Neither am I. I told you the technocrats would let the automated machines do it. I would rather do applied mathematics in a nice warm laboratory than stand around a freezing cold factory losing IQ points.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 28, 2007 06:40 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 28, 2007 06:40 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 28, 2007 01:37 am

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 01:09 am

pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 10:54 pm

f he adamantly refuses to work, we throw him out into the desert and watch him burn to death. laugh.gif

Why would it be an improvement to replace a system that punishes idleness with poverty with one that punishes idleness with death?
i think the laugh smiley means it was supposed to be construed light heartedly.

Jees, are all capitalists as cold and sterile as this? <_<
Hey, we&#39;re not the ones proposing to do menial chores for fun.
Neither am I. I told you the technocrats would let the automated machines do it. I would rather do applied mathematics in a nice warm laboratory than stand around a freezing cold factory losing IQ points. [/b]
You do realize we don&#39;t live in the Star Wars Universe, right?

Just checking.

Your fantasies are not arguments.

[Dr Mindbender]

its got nothing to do with my ideas, fantasy or not, just don&#39;t tar me with the same brush as the old-skool marxists.

Sheesh. <_<

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 08:18 pm
its got nothing to do with my ideas, fantasy or not, just don&#39;t tar me with the same brush as the old-skool marxists.

Sheesh. <_<
You aren&#39;t going to like to hear it, but he is right here. If it were possible to get machines to simply do all the work, capitalists would do it, because machines don&#39;t need pay, pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike. That is why to the greatest extent they can, they do use capital intensive means of production. But this technocratic notion that somehow simply by "applying science" we won&#39;t have to do any work any more is the most unscientific argument I have heard since I last browsed conservapedia.

[Robert]

In capitalism, what incentives are used to encourage people to do crappy jobs?

1) Wages; and 2) freedom to apply for less crappy jobs when they become available. But let&#39;s not assume that we agree on what is a crappy job is.

What do I get for cleaning the toilets when the revolution comes? An "attaboy" ribbon?

[RevSkeptic]

You aren&#39;t going to like to hear it, but he is right here. If it were possible to get machines to simply do all the work, capitalists would do it, because machines don&#39;t need pay, pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike. That is why to the greatest extent they can, they do use capital intensive means of production. But this technocratic notion that somehow simply by "applying science" we won&#39;t have to do any work any more is the most unscientific argument I have heard since I last browsed conservapedia.

The reason why conservative Capitalists won&#39;t implement it is because it takes a lot more technology and hence a bigger investment that would only pay back on itself after a few decades which is not surprising because technologists and engineers being a step up in the social pyramid isn&#39;t going to stand for slave conditions and slave wages.

This means that from a cost/benefit analysis which is not necessarily a ethical or ecological analysis, the relocation of industries into areas where labour laws are weak so that slave conditions and slave wages are all that exists for workers is more cost beneficial than having middle class technicians and engineers implement a solution after being paid middle class wages in the time of development which may span many years.

Because this... "machines don&#39;t need pay, pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike."

could just as well be translated to... "hungry and poor workers without labour laws and organization won&#39;t need pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike."

Now would educated middle class technicians and engineers mind doing without pensions, breaks and sick days and be verbally abused by clueless middle management types so that they could make a machine that would earn their bosses, bosses, boss millions or billions once their project is completed and they&#39;ll be tossed out without pensions, royalties or any other guarantee of future work or income?

You see, educated middle class types like me are smart enough to know that the project completed by our ingenuity isn&#39;t going to be benefitting us once the work is over so the best course of action for income purposes (and basically survival purpose) is to either drag out the thing as long as we could or ask for the greatest contract fee.

But smart Capitalists knowing that we&#39;re smart enough to know what their game is, isn&#39;t going to be playing along when we negotiate for the job and job conditions.

[Demogorgon]

I am sorry but this is just unbelievably stupid and the sooner this board admits to itself that it has been partially hijacked by a lunatic cult, the better we will be.

Look at what capitalists do. They keep the ratio of labour to output as low as possible so that they can in order to maximise profit. Of course they move production to areas where they can exploit labour the best, but you will notice they still use capital intensive industry once they get there.

Now lets see what technocracy is offering us: "Machines will do all the work". Really? Who makes these machines, who designs them? Who makes sure they work properly? Who solves the fact it is impossible for machines to perform certain basic actions (picking up an egg for instance)?

Brilliant, what have we next? "scientists will make the best decisions for society". I see. The fact that scientists can investigate natural phenomena, design new products etc they must automatically be experts on human relations and know how to govern societies. The wonderful logic of technocracy&#33;

And what have we beyond this? "A system of energy credits will track demand". Really? According to technocrats these energy credits will be far in excess of what anyone will actually spend (which raises its own queries), if that is the case, then people will not direct their credits into what they want. They will splash them out all over the place, because that is the msot tempting course of action. You won&#39;t be able to track what people want at all because they won&#39;t use their credits int he same way they would use money.

And most tellingly at all, where is the evidence this will work? Where are the trends in society pointing that way? Where are the small scale examples? Communists and anarchists can point to various trends in society indicating their beliefs to be correct and point to examples like the Paris Commune, Catalonia etc. What can technocrats say? "It works in Star Trek"?

Now, if me not agreeing with this wonderful utopia where all our problems will go away because machines have suddenly magically appeared to do all the work is a problem, then great, you can have me crushed by your robot army or caught up in the death laser your copy of the Death Star fires when you come to take over the world, but in the meantime I am going to work for human emancipation and leave the science fiction to the sci fi writers, okay?

[Labor Shall Rule]

This is a society that is divided between wage-laborers and owners of capital, which is a contradiction that has created created dysfunctional planet that operates in the interests of profit rather than human need.

To seize the productive tools does not mean &#39;equal wages&#39; or even worse, the termination of market transactions, but it does mean that the co-operative proceeds of labor would be under the cogestion of the producers themselves. The motivational trait that exists under capitalism is not a negative thing, but through obvious observation, we can see that many are unable to flex their abilities in the first place because of their unhealthy development in what is a very unhealthy world. As far as new ideas and inventions go, most of these are developed by the research and development teams of large corporations that are barely competitive and that pay their scientists, engineers, and technicians a salary just like everyone else.

The &#39;motivation&#39; does not change, but the strata that appropriates a portion of the total product disappears, which opens up the possibility of allocating the &#39;profits&#39; to a social fund that will promote the growth of society in general. The goal of socialism is to create a sort of social investment that would promote all around development and education, which would allow assembly-line workers, cashiers, and janitors to not worry about student loans, or debt. Already many jobs can be replaced (and made easier) with computerizing and automation, and when humans finally have a chance to meet their potential, and have a change to expand their abilities, they can spend less time in these undemanding professions. I would predict that &#39;resturants&#39; in general would die out, not due to a lack of motivation, but because of an increase of it.

In areas where it really counts - medicine, the environment, and energy - capitalism has actually stifled scientific advancement, rather than help it. The robbers and pirates that run away with a irregular surplus need to be appropriated, and by doing so, it won&#39;t stifle &#39;motivation&#39; in any way.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:24 am
I am sorry but this is just unbelievably stupid and the sooner this board admits to itself that it has been partially hijacked by a lunatic cult, the better we will be.
Ah, you see what you can - what would be OH SO VERY USEFUL of you to do would be to fuck off and die.. Me, US, Serpent, NoXion and the the others do not need you spouting your shite. Especially, especially, when you support religious shit.


Now lets see what technocracy is offering us: "Machines will do all the work". Really?

A simplification, but I don&#39;t expect someone like you you understand technocray beyond that, so let&#39;s move on to this joke that you call a post.


Who makes these machines, who designs them? Who makes sure they work properly? Who solves the fact it is impossible for machines to perform certain basic actions (picking up an egg for instance)?

Engineers and people interested in machines design machines, as if you or your paternalistic "communism" could stop them. Machines can&#39;t perform the tasks you highlight simply because no one has designed an advanced enough system. Designing AIs, robots and other automated systems bares very little relation to work as it understood now and more to play as in the idea of "abolish work, institute play".


Brilliant, what have we next? "scientists will make the best decisions for society". I see. The fact that scientists can investigate natural phenomena, design new products etc they must automatically be experts on human relations and know how to govern societies. The wonderful logic of technocracy&#33;

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You were trying to make the perefect example of a strawman post so that OIers would know what not to post, right?


And what have we beyond this? "A system of energy credits will track demand". Really? According to technocrats these energy credits will be far in excess of what anyone will actually spend (which raises its own queries),

It only "raises it&#39;s own queries" if you don&#39;t understand leftism. Leftism is not a system for carefully rationed scarcity but for fairl distribute abundance


if that is the case, then people will not direct their credits into what they want. They will splash them out all over the place, because that is the msot tempting course of action.

...and? In a post scarcity society it won&#39;t matter.


You won&#39;t be able to track what people want at all because they won&#39;t use their credits int he same way they would use money.


Yes, and? Are you proposing we use money? I thought you were a leftist (At least I did until you expressed your support for Islam)


And most tellingly at all, where is the evidence this will work?

Careful calculations based on current energy outputs and maximum available energy outputs.


Where are the trends in society pointing that way? Where are the small scale examples?

yeah because your trotskyite islamist paradise has so many of those :lol:


Communists and anarchists can point to various trends in society indicating their beliefs to be correct and point to examples like the Paris Commune, Catalonia etc. What can technocrats say? "It works in Star Trek"?

No. Technocrats can point to hard sciebtific data as opposed to vague "well it almost worked" historical examples. Stop embarrassing yourself, I almost feel bad for you (and I&#39;d actually feel bad for you if you weren&#39;t such a cock satchel)


Now, if me not agreeing with this wonderful utopia where all our problems will go away because machines have suddenly magically appeared to do all the workis a problem, then great, you can have me crushed by your robot army or caught up in the death laser your copy of the Death Star fires when you come to take over the world,

Strawman. Fuck off.


but in the meantime I am going to work for human emancipation and leave the science fiction to the sci fi writers, okay?

While you can pretend that the 20th and 21st centuries were just things that happened to other people us Marxian communists will learn from it. Fuck off back to the 1850s if you thin human emancipation can happen without acknowledging and embracing current technology.

[Easterbrook]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:51 am
It only "raises it&#39;s own queries" if you don&#39;t understand leftism. Leftism is not a system for carefully rationed scarcity but for fairl distribute abundance


...and? In a post scarcity society it won&#39;t matter.



And most tellingly at all, where is the evidence this will work?

Careful calculations based on current energy outputs and maximum available energy outputs.

yeah because your trotskyite islamist paradise has so many of those :lol:


Communists and anarchists can point to various trends in society indicating their beliefs to be correct and point to examples like the Paris Commune, Catalonia etc. What can technocrats say? "It works in Star Trek"?

No. Technocrats can point to hard sciebtific data as opposed to vague "well it almost worked" historical examples. Stop embarrassing yourself, I almost feel bad for you (and I&#39;d actually feel bad for you if you weren&#39;t such a cock satchel)


Now, if me not agreeing with this wonderful utopia where all our problems will go away because machines have suddenly magically appeared to do all the workis a problem, then great, you can have me crushed by your robot army or caught up in the death laser your copy of the Death Star fires when you come to take over the world,

Strawman. Fuck off.


but in the meantime I am going to work for human emancipation and leave the science fiction to the sci fi writers, okay?

While you can pretend that the 20th and 21st centuries were just things that happened to other people us Marxian communists will learn from it. Fuck off back to the 1850s if you thin human emancipation can happen without acknowledging and embracing current technology.
Wait just a minute. If I understand you correctly, Jazzratt, a fundamental assumption of leftist theory is a world where there is no scarcity?

BTW, if you are going to accuse another poster of setting up a "strawman", you may want to lay off the ad hominem arguments. A poster&#39;s religious views have no barring on the truth of his or her argument.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:51 am
Ah, you see what you can - what would be OH SO VERY USEFUL of you to do would be to fuck off and die.. Me, US, Serpent, NoXion and the the others do not need you spouting your shite. Especially, especially, when you support religious shit.




Well if I am so useless best send in the robot armies to get rid of me :lol: I promise I won&#39;t draw my lightsaber to get rid of them. :lol:
Engineers and people interested in machines design machinesAnd it is these people that reliably inform me that machines are incapable of certain basic actions. If your theory is relying on us developing technology generally though to to be impossible to make, you had better file your ideas under must try harder.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You were trying to make the perefect example of a strawman post so that OIers would know what not to post, right?I wouldn&#39;t need to do that. The single thing which I have to admit you are better than me at is posting strawmen. Every post you have ever made on the subject of religion for instance would qualify there.
t only "raises it&#39;s own queries" if you don&#39;t understand leftism. Leftism is not a system for carefully rationed scarcity but for fairl distribute abundanceLeftism is about control of the means of production and a fair distribution of what is produced. Scarcity is a seperate issue, but if you think tackling it is suddenly going to allow us to develop an infinite amount of goods with a finite amount of resources you best think again.

Yes, and? Are you proposing we use money? I thought you were a leftist (At least I did until you expressed your support for Islam)Well it is you proposing money in this instance, energy credits are a kind of money after all. As it happens, I tend to favour using some form of labour vouchers, but both of us are still proposing a certain kind of money in the broad sense.

And you thought I was a leftist? I am flattered because I would not extend the same to you. You strinke me as some kind of totalitarian obsessed with having everyone think the way you do as your posts on religion demonstrate. I never supported Islam or Christianity or whatever. What I supported were Muslims and Christians who are not to be subjected to the kind of persecution you have in mind for them.

Careful calculations based on current energy outputs and maximum available energy outputs.Show me these calculations

yeah because your trotskyite islamist paradise has so many of those :lol: Well I don&#39;t know where the Islamist bit comes into it, but Trotskyism does have rather more to its name than an obscure movement from the nineteen thirties.

No. Technocrats can point to hard sciebtific data as opposed to vague "well it almost worked" historical examples. Stop embarrassing yourself, I almost feel bad for you (and I&#39;d actually feel bad for you if you weren&#39;t such a cock satchel)Show me this "hard scientific data". If it were so convincing technocracy would have broad support int he scientific community. The trouble is it is barely heard of there.
While you can pretend that the 20th and 21st centuries were just things that happened to other people us Marxian communists will learn from it. Fuck off back to the 1850s if you thin human emancipation can happen without acknowledging and embracing current technology.You? A Marxian? :lol: That&#39;s some joke.If you are any kind of Communist or socialist at all you are a utopian. Anyway, shouldn&#39;t you be criticising Marx like some of your pals here do, because he wasn&#39;t an anti-religious bigot?

As for embracing current technology, I certainly embrace that. What I do not embrace is technology that does not exist, may never exist and even if it does exist may not do so for hundreds of years.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:12 am

BTW, if you are going to accuse another poster of setting up a "strawman", you may want to lay off the ad hominem arguments. A poster&#39;s religious views have no barring on the truth of his or her argument.
Well yeah. I should particularly point out that contrary to what you might believe from her posts I am not a Muslim or any religion at all from that matter. I just happen not to be a religious bigot which upsets her.

[Journeyman]

This will be the second false dilemma I&#39;ve encountered in one thread. Security guards are products of a system based on the management and protection of capital. Most places of operation are safe without a security guard. The drastic decrease in crime resulting from wealth conditions would make the problem even less of an issue.

Proceed.


I&#39;m sorry but lots of things that are not capital require security guards. Museums, Hospitals, Factories, Farms, Laboratories. The only goal of theft is not exclusively the acquisition of capital, but also of what capital can buy. You are also forgetting the prevention of general vandalism. Why was the public phone outside my house destroyed? Did it have money in it? NO.




You&#39;re approaching the subject as a capitalist thinking only in terms of the capitalist system. Give that teenager a hose and let him have fun. One major aspect of socialism is turning "work" into fun. Where before the industrial revolution fun was used to make work better, we want work to make fun better.


Well I believe someone else in this thread has already done the job of ridiculizing this argument of yours. Just try to put the phrases "Sorry. I was just having so much fun" and " cleaning your dried excrement off the toilet walls" together and try to think if it even makes sense. And allow me once more to remind you about what YOU said regarding "shovelling s**t".




Third false dilemma. Agriculture and mining would be the primary industries science would be targeted at. Plenty has been said on how to automate these industries from my own suggestions to the "Venus Project" movie.


Once again I musr repeat, 50 years or more until we get to see a fraction of a possibility of this coming to fruition.

And by the way, I liked the Venus Project, might be good source material for a sci fi novel, but it&#39;s nothing more than another Futurama from the 50&#39;s. Get real.





I suggest you rehearse yourself in the subject before trying to come up with all these "gaping holes" in the system. The rest of your post dwells on all these jobs you think "nobody will perform," but all you do is think in terms of capitalism. There&#39;s been suggestions about building separate road systems for licensed truckers to use, with more emphasis placed on their comfort. Or turning every "boring office job" into a Google-esque environment. Half of the fun in socialism is coming up with solutions to build the work place around people. Until you realize that you will never understand where we Leftists come from.



My friend, it doesn&#39;t matter how much you optimize workflow, even if you just have to spend 3 hours a day just clicking a button, or cruising by unobstructed on your happy go lucky Bob The Builder pick up truck, if you do it for 3 hours or more a day, it&#39;s still going to be repetitive, and it&#39;s still going to be tedious.


You want me to name more dull jobs? Fine. Personal assistants (again, not related to capital), delivery, factory workers, cooking (of the burger flipping kind), I could go on and on.


OOOPS&#33;&#33; You forgot to refute the lower half of my post. Here it is again for your convenience. I apologize to the moderators if this is considered spamming.


1. [Btw you may think you replied to this but you didn&#39;t entirely]

Once again, this requires advanced artificial intelligence and an infrastructure that won&#39;t be around probably for the next 50 years. The point is the problem exists. And again, picture yourself pushing and realeasing the pedal in heavy traffic, yelling at jaywalkers, all around the same route over and over. This may be a sunday drive sometimes, but when you do the sunday drive 20 times in a row it stops being as fun. "Some" people who "enjoy" this will just not cut it.


There&#39;s also the fact that you&#39;re not forcing these people to do those things (or are you?), and you expect them to want to do them.





2.

You reduce the working hours from 8 to 3, and the rest is voluntary work. Dust is accumulating, not in your house, but in a warehouse from you workplace that you
hardly ever go to. Do you go and decide to do some heavy lifting, taking all the boxes out, climbing onto creaking shelves, risking an injury, take stuff down, clean the whole place and put everything in the same way it was? or do you stay at home watching your favorite show?

I mean you might like to figure out how the brain works, in your garage, doing experiments with computers and tiny robots and such, it might develop into a passion. but that is IF you like that, and it might be fun because it feels more like a puzzle, more than tedious work. It might involve tedium, but the delight of discovering something new might be just enough motivation, believe me because i know the feeling.

You then design how such a device or other might be built, but then it starts demanding real tedious work and sometimes dangerous. You then need workers to help you out, and you need them to do it willingly, because nobody forces tedious and repetitive work on anyone in socialism I presume.



3.


Ok I&#39;m not sure if I understand what you say but at least I read a "No" there. It means then I presume that menial work does not merit bigger rewards.
Ok, so in that case, one wouldn&#39;t need to do it, and there would be no evident reason pushing one to do so. Unless of course, one feels the need to help the comunity.

You&#39;ve been stressing a lot the fact that people should be motivated by the good of the community, by being taught the right values from birth, and that&#39;s where the discussion turns complex. Humans are social creatures, and thus they show the need to help their own, their family and close friends. The closer they are, the more one feels in need to help each other out. Also one feels the need to get even closer to those who share our visions and our likes and dislikes. The more distant though, the less they feel compelled to share their most valued resources, time and support. There needs to be face to face contact in order to establish more empathy, one needs to be in contact with individuals as close as possible. The more nondescript and more alien they are to us, the less we care about them and their dreams. Hell, we don&#39;t even have a face to look at. This, IMO, is an undeniable fact and part of our nature.

Thus, how the hell do we guarantee that separate groups won&#39;t blow each other to bits? We need to find a way to cooperate, WITHOUT losing our individuality as a
group. And that means still being able to share you dreams, your time and you work with your loved ones, without hurting the dreams of others. Read "Not hurting others". This is where the issue turns even MORE complex. What does it mean not to hurt others? It certainly DOESN&#39;T mean one thing, and that is to have to give your precious help to someone not belonging to your group unless you fancy yourself a humanitarian, which is choice. And we all know how many people actually go to the local poorhouse to help out the less fortunate.

So how do you guarantee that at the point when a conflict of interests between groups arises you can reach an agreement instead of slaughtering each other? Easy.

You make a trade. At this point we obviously descend into capitalism and governments and taxes, which is when the more highminded communist proposal makes an appearance. Because it IS highminded, and in my opinion, meant for more evolved beings. The point is thus is not to discuss the pros and cons of communism, but the true nature of human motivation.


4.


I assume you say that those incremental imrovements are not real and mostly a product of marketing. Thus you assume that there is actual stagnation right now in
products that are merely glorified by advertisement. This is no secret. It has been a part of our culture to discuss that fact, and people who are asked if there&#39;s any real improvement over another product when they clearly bought it for it&#39;s publicity, they usually agree. They just don&#39;t care. If the other product is good enough then they&#39;re satisfied.

So that means people DO notice difference when it&#39;s real, and these products usually take over the market. Even with small improvements. It&#39;s just that when the improvement is not there, people are just content to fool themselves into thinking that prettier packaging means a better product. They know they&#39;re being duped, they just choose not to bother with complaints.

Thus the reason why people know that if they develop a slightly better formula for instance, they will be able to retire to their private island, or whatever it is they desire. It will take over the market even with moderate marketing. But I&#39;m pretty sure there&#39;s not going to be enough fame to satisfy your wishes, in those cases you care more about the money. "Hey, there&#39;s they guy who developed a laundry detergent that&#39;s 10% more effective". That excitement wil not last long I assure you, unless you discovered warp speed travel or something.

And with regards to your assumption that more leisure time and education would mean enough motivation, read my previous, larger reply regarding human nature.



I patiently await your response.

[Connolly]

I&#39;m sorry but lots of things that are not capital require security guards. Museums, Hospitals, Factories, Farms, Laboratories. The only goal of theft is not exclusively the acquisition of capital, but also of what capital can buy. You are also forgetting the prevention of general vandalism. Why was the public phone outside my house destroyed? Did it have money in it? NO.

Security guards protect property, private or state owned. When there is no property, there is no security guards. I think thats common sense. And of course security guards dont just protect capital - but when you speak about "what capital can buy", you are talking about property.

Can we conclude that vandalism is an environmental problem, the result of social and economic conditions? I think thats common sense also, unless those who vandalise are inherently "degenerate". And we know where that leads and how ridiculous such an argument is.



My friend, it doesn&#39;t matter how much you optimize workflow, even if you just have to spend 3 hours a day just clicking a button, or cruising by unobstructed on your happy go lucky Bob The Builder pick up truck, if you do it for 3 hours or more a day, it&#39;s still going to be repetitive, and it&#39;s still going to be tedious.


You want me to name more dull jobs? Fine. Personal assistants (again, not related to capital), delivery, factory workers, cooking (of the burger flipping kind), I could go on and on.

Firstly, living in a socialist society means you are free to do as you wish. You would not "have" to do anything. Those who work, most I would imagine, as not working is unbearable for most - even under this system - would operate in democratic workplaces. They could rotate their roles if they wished.

My mother for example, works in a warehouse at the most repetitive and dull job imaginable - I cant understand how she has stead 20 odd years in it, I personally wouldnt last a week.

But, she enjoys working. Not the job or what she does, but the social environment that she works in. The social interaction the workplace brings. It gives her something to do, it gives her purpose in life.

Also, I think if you look at some jobs under this system - they dont seem that desirable - yet they are most honoured and looked up too. The army, for example. That can hardly be a nice job to do, or something desirable under other conditions. Being treated like your in school again. Mentally abused. Repetitive work. Work which is undesirable such as scrubbing floors and toilets. Burger flipping for the troops. Looking at a guage all day in the engine room of a warship. Living onboard in cramped quarters on a submarine for months on end not knowing where you are. Being trained to kill. Dieing in war, putting yourself on edge. I mean i could go in.

When you step back and look at this, its not a very nice job to do.

YET, its something people want to do. YET, its something thats looked up to and honoured. YET, those who do it have a sense of "pride" in their job. Its lauded bu society.

The reason, - it directly serves the interests of bourgeois society more than any other occupation. THEY are the ones who protect bourgeois interests.

People are institutionalized to think in such a manner towards the military from a very young age. Through the school system, advertising, toys, computer games, cartoons - kids go around playing "army" theyv been so brainwashed. All because its the most honoured role by the bourgeois that a layman can reach.

The question is, if they can make people think this way towards an otherwise shit job - why not for other ocupations?

You know, give a garbage man a nice uniform and make him honoured for doing this occupation which serves society in such a manner. Give a cleaner utmost respect and laudability for their most necessary role.

Those who are most vital are instead forgotten and made feel subhuman. Unemployed are thought to think they are something lesser that they dont have a job.

What i am trying to say overall - is that we are thought to think in a certain way, by the media, school system, upbringing etc, to suite the interests of certain classes. This can be changed when class interests change.


Do you go and decide to do some heavy lifting, taking all the boxes out, climbing onto creaking shelves, risking an injury, take stuff down, clean the whole place and put everything in the same way it was? or do you stay at home watching your favorite show?

Go to ANY job and youll find the types of people who are lacky&#39;s for the bosses and managers, thinking theyr getting somewhere by doing jobs and running about for them.

These people are looking for recognition - or if I could even say "praise" - particularly from the bosses and managers who are using them.

Why not flip it around?......workers would seek praise and recognition from fellow workers who would actually recognise and respect a persons contribution.

Your example is devoid from reality. I have often did things without getting paid, digging gardens, helping throw stuff into skips, help someone remove their furniture or help a blind man cross the road. You couldnt say any are enjoyable, but what matters is that I feel like im contributing, or helping - and thats certainly enjoyable.

Staying at home watching the "box" isnt rewarding or enjoyable. Its usually depressed people who&#39;d do that. As I said - people like to work.


I wont reply to the rest of your post. All it requires is a little flexing of the mind to see how these problems you speak of could be resolved. Think back to your childhood and how you did things for others, not for material reward, but simply for recognition. That is, before you enter the workplace or have been institutionalized to think otherwise.

[Robert]

Firstly, living in a socialist society means you are free to do as you wish. You would not "have" to do anything.

Oh, good. Then the revolution has already come and succeeded in the USA anyway. For as Justice Douglas wrote in his concurring opinion in Roe v. Wade:

This right of privacy was called by Mr. Justice Brandeis the right "to be let alone." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (dissenting opinion). That right includes the privilege of an individual to plan his own affairs, for, "&#39;outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.&#39;" Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126.

Third is the freedom to care for one&#39;s health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf.

Personally, I think Justice Douglas was a nut, but he was a very smart nut and he knew the Constitution backwards and forwards.

So, Commies have already won, and so there&#39;s no need for revolution.

[RevSkeptic]

And it is these people that reliably inform me that machines are incapable of certain basic actions. If your theory is relying on us developing technology generally though to to be impossible to make, you had better file your ideas under must try harder.

A bee is a machine is it not? If it doesn&#39;t have a brain then how can it "know" to fetch honey. Is it conscious? Is it introspective like a human? No, then it&#39;s a machine. But, it&#39;s not programmed so it&#39;s not a machine. What you failed to understand is that evolution "programmed" the bee machine to become the way it is. How we could not similarly mimic evolution to program an artificial bee is simply due to the failure of the imagination of people like you. You have definitely not seen the cutting edge. The most you have witnessed is 30 year old technology.


As for embracing current technology, I certainly embrace that. What I do not embrace is technology that does not exist, may never exist and even if it does exist may not do so for hundreds of years.

Yes, that may be a possibility too. Perhaps we are simply too dumb to figure it out so we will die on this planet after massively destructive resource wars. The political wars of the early twentieth century may be puny compared to what&#39;s coming.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 29, 2007 04:22 pm

Firstly, living in a socialist society means you are free to do as you wish. You would not "have" to do anything. Those who work, most I would imagine, as not working is unbearable for most - even under this system - would operate in democratic workplaces. They could rotate their roles if they wished.

My mother for example, works in a warehouse at the most repetitive and dull job imaginable - I cant understand how she has stead 20 odd years in it, I personally wouldnt last a week.

But, she enjoys working. Not the job or what she does, but the social environment that she works in. The social interaction the workplace brings. It gives her something to do, it gives her purpose in life.


While your mom may like the work she does, it is important to understand this is not why she has a job. She has a job because someone, somewhere, needs the product in which she works.

This idea of the socialists that workers will be able to do "anything they want" is so spurious and so lacking in thought. No consumer of a good really cares if the worker who produced it was "happy" or "satisfied" during its production. Nobody begrudges such happiness, of course, but there is no reason why a consumer should adjust his happiness in obtaining his needed wants so as to make the producers happy in producing what they want.

If the socialist community tries to make the producer of goods happy, the result can only be that the producers are producing items which make them happy. Which is not neccessarilly the same as producing goods which makes the consumer happy. Your community winds up producing goods which few people, or in ways which few people. This does not make people happy, but sad. And wastes a lot of resources in the process.

[Connolly]

While your mom may like the work she does, it is important to understand this is not why she has a job. She has a job because someone, somewhere, needs the product in which she works.

Blunt point. Eh, whats that to do with what&#39;s being disscused? - another tangent maybe?


This idea of the socialists that workers will be able to do "anything they want" is so spurious and so lacking in thought. No consumer of a good really cares if the worker who produced it was "happy" or "satisfied" during its production. Nobody begrudges such happiness, of course, but there is no reason why a consumer should adjust his happiness in obtaining his needed wants so as to make the producers happy in producing what they want.

Again, what has this got to do with anything, I never mentioned anything about the consumer. I am talking about the individual, and their motivation to work.


If the socialist community tries to make the producer of goods happy, the result can only be that the producers are producing items which make them happy. Which is not neccessarilly the same as producing goods which makes the consumer happy. Your community winds up producing goods which few people, or in ways which few people. This does not make people happy, but sad. And wastes a lot of resources in the process.

If you read what i wrote. One of the major factors which makes a person work, is their social interaction with others. People seek to be accepted, to be respected and recognised for what they do.

How much social respect would a person get for producing something which has no use to anyone? - how happy would an artist be producing art only to be viewd by himself? - - making something for onself happiness at the expense of social gratitude dosnt make any sense.

You must also realise, that production is democratically controlled and takes the labour of many to produce. A car for example. Production wouldnt change much - parts are prefabricated by machines, sprayed by machines, and the whole thing fits together like a big jigsaw puzzle - there&#39;s not much room for creativity or "individual" endeavors when there&#39;s no room for that modification you want to make.

Your argument simply makes no sense, and assumes that the production of goods is not a social process involving much labour.

[Connolly]

This right of privacy was called by Mr. Justice Brandeis the right "to be let alone." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (dissenting opinion). That right includes the privilege of an individual to plan his own affairs, for, "&#39;outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.&#39;" Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126.

Third is the freedom to care for one&#39;s health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf.

Tell that to the prisoners in gitmo.

[Robert]

So all those gentlemen in Gitmo were just loafing around in Afghanistan? That&#39;s all they were doing? Well then I join your call for their liberation.

You don&#39;t have much respect for our men in uniform. I do.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 28, 2007 10:45 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 28, 2007 10:45 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 08:18 pm
its got nothing to do with my ideas, fantasy or not, just don&#39;t tar me with the same brush as the old-skool marxists.

Sheesh. <_<
You aren&#39;t going to like to hear it, but he is right here. If it were possible to get machines to simply do all the work, capitalists would do it, because machines don&#39;t need pay, pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike. That is why to the greatest extent they can, they do use capital intensive means of production. But this technocratic notion that somehow simply by "applying science" we won&#39;t have to do any work any more is the most unscientific argument I have heard since I last browsed conservapedia. [/b]
as much as the capitalists would love to employ a 100% robot workforce they cant afford to because the impending crisis of desperate people would trigger a radical change in ideaology. They have to employ working class people for 2 reasons - to bribe them out of revolutionary aspirations, but most importantly to keep tabs on them. The workplace under capitalism serves as a wonderful means of divide and conquer.

[Connolly]

So all those gentlemen in Gitmo were just loafing around in Afghanistan? That&#39;s all they were doing? Well then I join your call for their liberation.

You don&#39;t have much respect for our men in uniform. I do.


Watch this film, then talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHBD548vcIs

If you still want to rationalize and justify the detention of people without trial or evidence for years with psychological torture and forced confesions - I cant cure you, sorry.

[RevSkeptic]

You aren&#39;t going to like to hear it, but he is right here. If it were possible to get machines to simply do all the work, capitalists would do it, because machines don&#39;t need pay, pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike. That is why to the greatest extent they can, they do use capital intensive means of production. But this technocratic notion that somehow simply by "applying science" we won&#39;t have to do any work any more is the most unscientific argument I have heard since I last browsed conservapedia.

The funny thing is there are still people in third world factories employed as circuit board stuffers where proven technology already exists that has been doing this work automatically for years since 15 years ago in the industrialized west. Automated circuit board etchers and assemblers have existed for at least a decade and a half. Can you imagine why you would want to employ manual labour for work that could be accomplished quicker and with much higher precision than human hands could possibly hope to match?

What are the solutions if school cost money, food cost money, housing cost money and manual work is the only way to get money to do all those things? High technology only makes people more miserable because robots cannot be consumers and consumers can only consume if they are also paid workers. Automation goes against the fundamental premise of Capitalism which is people demand money for manual work and that money can be exchanged for the supply of products resulting from manual work. Automated work simply throws this basic supporting pillar of Capitalist logic out the window.

edit:
It should be noted that certain variants of Communism also have this type of logic where you shouldn&#39;t innovate to keep the simple folks content and some of us who are true individuals who are sick of mindless repetitive actions bored to death and unenthusiastic about facing such a life, so it&#39;s not just Capitalism that I&#39;m skeptical of.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 30, 2007 11:23 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 30, 2007 11:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:45 pm

Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 08:18 pm
its got nothing to do with my ideas, fantasy or not, just don&#39;t tar me with the same brush as the old-skool marxists.

Sheesh. <_<
You aren&#39;t going to like to hear it, but he is right here. If it were possible to get machines to simply do all the work, capitalists would do it, because machines don&#39;t need pay, pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike. That is why to the greatest extent they can, they do use capital intensive means of production. But this technocratic notion that somehow simply by "applying science" we won&#39;t have to do any work any more is the most unscientific argument I have heard since I last browsed conservapedia.
as much as the capitalists would love to employ a 100% robot workforce they cant afford to because the impending crisis of desperate people would trigger a radical change in ideaology. They have to employ working class people for 2 reasons - to bribe them out of revolutionary aspirations, but most importantly to keep tabs on them. The workplace under capitalism serves as a wonderful means of divide and conquer. [/b]
No they wouldn&#39;t. Nobody, not even technocrats pretends you can use an 100% Robot workforce, there still has to be some human element there. But suppose the technology and practicality existed for a 99% Robot workforce, of course the capitalists would do it. They could produce far more thn they can now at far lower costs and skim off much larger profits.

Ignoring the fact that there are not enough raw resources (as technocrats usually do) they could still maintain high human employment. Don&#39;t forget output is in simplistic terms going to determined by an equation where labour and capital (the robots) are the variables, By keeping the labour variable as it is, and greatly increasing the capital variable, they can greatly increase their production without making too may people unemployed (and they do this all the time, it is just that they do it on a smaller scale within the realm of the possible).

Indeed this technocracy would be the capitalists wildest dream. It would allow for much greater profits, allow them so much money that they could easily plug the gaps whenever there is an economic downturn, meaning they will be permanently in business. There will be enough money left to keep the human workforce (and consumer base of course) well bribed not to ever consider revolution and so on. So why don&#39;t they do it? The answer is because it is impossible.

We keep getting told by the technocrats that this is all about science. Well then, if it is scientific then it is easy enough to prove it is correct. A scientific theory that has been doing the rounds for eighty years will have a great deal of literature backing it up. People for instance will know the equations that will allow the scientists to calculate the most efficient allocation of resources, what are they? People will know how to design the robots that will do all the work, what are the designs? What are the great fetes of engineering that have overcome the technical limitations we thought applied to all machines? Where are the countless peer reviewed papers demonstrating exactly how this will all work?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 30, 2007 11:17 pm
So all those gentlemen in Gitmo were just loafing around in Afghanistan? That&#39;s all they were doing? Well then I join your call for their liberation.

You don&#39;t have much respect for our men in uniform. I do.
Now here is a prime example of a silly argument? Why does your support for soldiers in Afghanistan correspond automatically to support for torture in a military base half way around the world?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:25 pm

While your mom may like the work she does, it is important to understand this is not why she has a job. She has a job because someone, somewhere, needs the product in which she works.

Blunt point. Eh, whats that to do with what&#39;s being disscused? - another tangent maybe?


This idea of the socialists that workers will be able to do "anything they want" is so spurious and so lacking in thought. No consumer of a good really cares if the worker who produced it was "happy" or "satisfied" during its production. Nobody begrudges such happiness, of course, but there is no reason why a consumer should adjust his happiness in obtaining his needed wants so as to make the producers happy in producing what they want.

Again, what has this got to do with anything, I never mentioned anything about the consumer. I am talking about the individual, and their motivation to work.


If the socialist community tries to make the producer of goods happy, the result can only be that the producers are producing items which make them happy. Which is not neccessarilly the same as producing goods which makes the consumer happy. Your community winds up producing goods which few people, or in ways which few people. This does not make people happy, but sad. And wastes a lot of resources in the process.

If you read what i wrote. One of the major factors which makes a person work, is their social interaction with others. People seek to be accepted, to be respected and recognised for what they do.

How much social respect would a person get for producing something which has no use to anyone? - how happy would an artist be producing art only to be viewd by himself? - - making something for onself happiness at the expense of social gratitude dosnt make any sense.

You must also realise, that production is democratically controlled and takes the labour of many to produce. A car for example. Production wouldnt change much - parts are prefabricated by machines, sprayed by machines, and the whole thing fits together like a big jigsaw puzzle - there&#39;s not much room for creativity or "individual" endeavors when there&#39;s no room for that modification you want to make.

Your argument simply makes no sense, and assumes that the production of goods is not a social process involving much labour.
What I assume that the purpose of labor is to provide consumers (not labor) with their needs and wants. Thats how the success of production is measured.

Yes, it is true that people work better when all are friendly with each other, when they feel appreciated and valued ect ect.

But that is not the objective of labor. The workplace can be made a very positive place for the worker. But if it produces nothing of value to the community, it doesn&#39;t matter how happy the workers in the factory. This of course stands to reason, in a reasonable economic order.

But socialism is not reasonable. Since it tends to worry first and foremost of the hapiness of the workers, since it places value of labor performed as opposed to whether the labor is desirable, the socialist community constantly worries about the wrong thing and proposes to do things backwards.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:14 am

You aren&#39;t going to like to hear it, but he is right here. If it were possible to get machines to simply do all the work, capitalists would do it, because machines don&#39;t need pay, pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike. That is why to the greatest extent they can, they do use capital intensive means of production. But this technocratic notion that somehow simply by "applying science" we won&#39;t have to do any work any more is the most unscientific argument I have heard since I last browsed conservapedia.

The funny thing is there are still people in third world factories employed as circuit board stuffers where proven technology already exists that has been doing this work automatically for years since 15 years ago in the industrialized west. Automated circuit board etchers and assemblers have existed for at least a decade and a half. Can you imagine why you would want to employ manual labour for work that could be accomplished quicker and with much higher precision than human hands could possibly hope to match?

What are the solutions if school cost money, food cost money, housing cost money and manual work is the only way to get money to do all those things? High technology only makes people more miserable because robots cannot be consumers and consumers can only consume if they are also paid workers. Automation goes against the fundamental premise of Capitalism which is people demand money for manual work and that money can be exchanged for the supply of products resulting from manual work. Automated work simply throws this basic supporting pillar of Capitalist logic out the window.

edit:
It should be noted that certain variants of Communism also have this type of logic where you shouldn&#39;t innovate to keep the simple folks content and some of us who are true individuals who are sick of mindless repetitive actions bored to death and unenthusiastic about facing such a life, so it&#39;s not just Capitalism that I&#39;m skeptical of.
If "automation" was somehow anti-capitalist, then capitalist modes of production technology would still be at 1790 levels.

The reason we don&#39;t have all these machines doing all this work today is real simple: Such development requires the allocation of tremendous amounts of resources. Naturally, by deploying such resources TODAY merely limits what can be produced TODAY. For strange and mysterious reasons, the technocrats believe that they are exempt from needing to allocate such vast amounts of resources to develop this machinery. That is truly where your skepticism should be placed.

[Connolly]

What I assume that the purpose of labor is to provide consumers (not labor) with their needs and wants. Thats how the success of production is measured.

Yes, it is true that people work better when all are friendly with each other, when they feel appreciated and valued ect ect.

But that is not the objective of labor. The workplace can be made a very positive place for the worker. But if it produces nothing of value to the community, it doesn&#39;t matter how happy the workers in the factory. This of course stands to reason, in a reasonable economic order.

But socialism is not reasonable. Since it tends to worry first and foremost of the hapiness of the workers, since it places value of labor performed as opposed to whether the labor is desirable, the socialist community constantly worries about the wrong thing and proposes to do things backwards.

Those who consume, are also those who produce - except of course under capitalism, where a small parasitic class appropriate that which society produces, without contributing anything of substance themselves - thats clearly unreasonable.

You are making a ridiculous distinction between those who produce and those who consume, when, infact, both are one and the same. Who say&#39;s individual happiness is not the objective of labour? - there are many objectives to labour, and its not merely within the narrow brackets that you make out. Work serves many social and individual functions.

Under socialism, there is no distiction between the worker and the consumer, as I said, both are one and the same. You make this distinction because your mind is still thinking within the confines of the capitalist system - where there is a distinction - not least because there are those who are just consumers and contribute nothing.

Thus, it dosnt "worry first and foremost for the happiness of the worker" - there is no distinction between worker and consumer.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:57 pm

What I assume that the purpose of labor is to provide consumers (not labor) with their needs and wants. Thats how the success of production is measured.

Yes, it is true that people work better when all are friendly with each other, when they feel appreciated and valued ect ect.

But that is not the objective of labor. The workplace can be made a very positive place for the worker. But if it produces nothing of value to the community, it doesn&#39;t matter how happy the workers in the factory. This of course stands to reason, in a reasonable economic order.

But socialism is not reasonable. Since it tends to worry first and foremost of the hapiness of the workers, since it places value of labor performed as opposed to whether the labor is desirable, the socialist community constantly worries about the wrong thing and proposes to do things backwards.

Those who consume, are also those who produce - except of course under capitalism, where a small parasitic class appropriate that which society produces, without contributing anything of substance themselves - thats clearly unreasonable.

You are making a ridiculous distinction between those who produce and those who consume, when, infact, both are one and the same. Who say&#39;s individual happiness is not the objective of labour? - there are many objectives to labour, and its not merely within the narrow brackets that you make out. Work serves many social and individual functions.

Under socialism, there is no distiction between the worker and the consumer, as I said, both are one and the same. You make this distinction because your mind is still thinking within the confines of the capitalist system - where there is a distinction - not least because there are those who are just consumers and contribute nothing.

Thus, it dosnt "worry first and foremost for the happiness of the worker" - there is no distinction between worker and consumer.

Certainly, socialism sees no distinction between consumer and laborer.

And certainly, the socialist is wrong with respects to reality in this regard.

How many computers does the worker need for personal use? How about clothes?
What about food?

And does the laborer really have to consume that which he produces?

Should work busy itself with satisfying the needs of the worker as its main objective, then your community suffers since the concerns of the laborer will trump the concerns of the consumer.

[Connolly]

Certainly, socialism sees no distinction between consumer and laborer.

And certainly, the socialist is wrong with respects to reality in this regard.

How many computers does the worker need for personal use? How about clothes?
What about food?

And does the laborer really have to consume that which he produces?

Should work busy itself with satisfying the needs of the worker as its main objective, then your community suffers since the concerns of the laborer will trump the concerns of the consumer.

A person does not have to consume their own produce in order for us to see no distinction between worker and consumer.

The production of goods is a social process, not one whereby the only labour applied to the end product is by one individual. The dichotomy you see does not exist.

Satisfying the needs of the workers is satisfying the needs of the consumers - seeing as there is no distinction. Consumers are workers, and workers are consumers.

[Robert]

a small parasitic class appropriate that which society produces,

With this, we&#39;re getting to the root of the differences between the left and right. I see at least two problems with that remark, and I am sure the poster and the rest of the left see nothing at all wrong. There&#39;s no convincing the other side of either position.

First, the "class" I suppose he refers to is "the rich," which may or may not be what he calls the bourgeoisie. If so, the problem with excoriating the rich is that many of them work, work harder than average laborers, and yes they do produce. They produce jobs. Some of them have made their employees rich (Microsoft). One can certainly identify wealthy individuals, like children of movie stars or oil barons, who do not work, yes, but you can identify many poor who do not work. To me, it&#39;s a matter of differing individual attitudes and energies. You can no more make fair generalizations about the rich than you can about the poor.

I am starting to wonder whether these class distinctions are more obvious in Europe than in the USA. There are rich individuals in my home state who still cook and eat at home everyday, mow their own lawns, wash their own cars, and have no servants. They give much to charity. I don&#39;t see them as parasites. Perhaps the rich working man is an American phenomenon. Read "The Millionaire Next Door." They exist, and they are working as I type this instead of debating idealistic utopian bullshit like this.

By "appropriate," I guess he means "buy." Certainly we can put a stop to that by taking his property, taking his money, and outlawing commerce. If that&#39;s what you really want. (You don&#39;t.)

[Connolly]

They produce jobs

They create jobs under the present system because they control resources through private ownership and capital.

You are also partially wrong, society creates jobs. The bourgeoisie simply direct resources which they command to fill that which society wants or needs.

Society need not have this minority of individuals controlling resources. Abolish private property and this non-productive class and there would be a more equitable distribution of wealth - badly needed in todays world.


By "appropriate," I guess he means "buy."

4. to take to or for oneself; take possession of.
6. to steal, esp. to commit petty theft.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appropriate

[Robert]

Connolly, I&#39;ll surprise you maybe by conceding that the disparities among the wealth(s) of (in ascending order) a Sudanese refugee, a middle class English bureacrat, an American corporate manager, a Fortune 500 CEO, and an Arab oil sheik are grotesque, and I wish I could fix it without creating the same problems that followed revolution in China and the USSR (I know, those weren&#39;t "real socialists"), but I just don&#39;t know how.
I sincerely wish you luck in finding the way. Remember, I don&#39;t want any gulags or re-education camps. Fair enough?

As to "appropriate" meaning to steal, I&#39;ll grant you that as well, like when the state steals property in a revolution. What I can&#39;t concede is that the rich (you are talkinga bout the rich, correct? How do you define that, by the way?) have stolen their property. No more than the Arabs are stealing my money when they trade me petroleum for dollars. You don&#39;t seriously believe that every rich man has stolen all his property, or even that he has worked less than you have. I will not believe that you honestly think that.

[Connolly]

Connolly, I&#39;ll surprise you maybe by conceding that the disparities among the wealth(s) of (in ascending order) a Sudanese refugee, a middle class English bureacrat, an American corporate manager, a Fortune 500 CEO, and an Arab oil sheik are grotesque, and I wish I could fix it without creating the same problems that followed revolution in China and the USSR (I know, those weren&#39;t "real socialists"), but I just don&#39;t know how.
I sincerely wish you luck in finding the way. Remember, I don&#39;t want any gulags or re-education camps. Fair enough?

Just consider that there are many types of communist and socialist, with very different ideas. Anarchists, council communists, libertarian marxists, - all of whom do not support the tactics used by the Bolsheviks in the USSR. Such as, the vanguard party and the state.

What we all have in common though, is the recognition that we live in a class society - which is inherently unjust. How exactly we can change this system is not known fully. What we propose is not known fully either. Accepting the system as-is will not do much to make things better though.


As to "appropriate" meaning to steal, I&#39;ll grant you that as well, like when the state steals property in a revolution. What I can&#39;t concede is that the rich (you are talkinga bout the rich, correct? How do you define that, by the way?) have stolen their property. No more than the Arabs are stealing my money when they trade me petroleum for dollars. You don&#39;t seriously believe that every rich man has stolen all his property, or even that he has worked less than you have. I will not believe that you honestly think that.

How much money a person has does not define what class they are. Class is defined by a persons relation to the means of production - in particular the property relation, or ownership.

Consider, for example - the construction of, say, a skyscraper, or other large building.

It involves the labour of thousands. Those who mine for the metal ore, manufacture the concrete, steel erecters, lorry drivers, those who refine the fuel for the lorries, those who fit the wiring, bricklayers, architects, engineers, surveyers etc etc - you get the point&#33; - everyone involved in making that building what it is from every aspect.

It take blood, tears and sweat, maybe some lives lost in the end through accidents.

Its a massive construction.

Does it not boggle the mind how such a construction can come into the ownership of one man, or a few individuals - who never laid a brick?, might never have even seen the construction?

What is that but theft? - be it, legitimized by the state and the laws that protect such appropriation. Its wrong. It cannot be justified. Those who try to rationalize such property appropriation must be brainwashed in some shape or form, or on the other end of the stick (someone who is actually gaining).

[Robert]

Does it not boggle the mind how such a construction can come into the ownership of one man, or a few individuals - who never laid a brick?

Well, it doesn&#39;t boggle my mind, because I have a capitalist orientation. I&#39;ve been "brainwashed" as you would say. But that doesn&#39;t embarrass me. We&#39;re all brainwashed, just with different detergents (pretty good, eh?)

Does it bother me? Yes, but not as much as it bothers you, and for different reasons.

First, the skyscraper isn&#39;t going to exist at all, and no one will be laying any bricks or running wires or mining ore, without some strong, intelligent, highly educated man or woman standing up and saying "I want a building, I want it right here, there is a good reason for it, and I&#39;ll show you how to make it." We agree I am sure that there is a cause for everything. Well, that&#39;s the primordial cause of your building. It isn&#39;t someone wishing it were there. And if it weren&#39;t for this elite "class" in society (more open to entry than you will ever admit), we&#39;d all be scratching for ant grubs in the desert or the jungle. the banks aren&#39;t going to loan the construction money, and the city won&#39;t approve the site, without convincing reasons. More importantly, the capitalist must assume some of the risk of financial failure, and they do. The laborers get paid either way.

Second, you assume that the corporate owner has never laid a brick. I have argued elsewhere that this is not invariably true. In the USA at least (I don&#39;t know where you are), the "capitalist" is often, I think more often than not, a man who at one point in his life certainly did lay bricks or something equivalent. Or if he was born to a rich daddy, then daddy is usually astute enough to recognize that junior will be eaten alive in the real world, or succumb to drug addiction and general dissipation, if he just hands him &#036;50 million dollars and says "go have fun&#33;" There are many exceptions, I agree. That&#39;s as harmful to the heir as it is unfair to the working man.

And then I wonder, do the bricklayers and the miners really want that building with everything that goes along with it? Do you want it? The management responsibility, the risk of failure? Do they have the managerial ability to run it if they are given title? Do you? The inevitability of bankruptcy if they don&#39;t let the market decide how to allocate the space in the building and what to charge? The possibility of bankruptcy and lawsuits even if they do know how, but the market compels failure? I don&#39;t have it and society would be insane to entrust that building to me.

What does bother me is the self-perpetuating nature of wealth. If the rich man hits one good lick in the market, he is free to retire and live off the interest. That&#39;s his good luck and my bad luck, I guess, but I don&#39;t know how to fix it without destroying it. Better men than me have tried. Maybe you&#39;ll do better.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 01, 2007 04:14 am--> (Demogorgon @ December 01, 2007 04:14 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 11:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:45 pm

Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 08:18 pm
its got nothing to do with my ideas, fantasy or not, just don&#39;t tar me with the same brush as the old-skool marxists.

Sheesh. <_<
You aren&#39;t going to like to hear it, but he is right here. If it were possible to get machines to simply do all the work, capitalists would do it, because machines don&#39;t need pay, pensions, breaks or go off sick or on strike. That is why to the greatest extent they can, they do use capital intensive means of production. But this technocratic notion that somehow simply by "applying science" we won&#39;t have to do any work any more is the most unscientific argument I have heard since I last browsed conservapedia.
as much as the capitalists would love to employ a 100% robot workforce they cant afford to because the impending crisis of desperate people would trigger a radical change in ideaology. They have to employ working class people for 2 reasons - to bribe them out of revolutionary aspirations, but most importantly to keep tabs on them. The workplace under capitalism serves as a wonderful means of divide and conquer.
No they wouldn&#39;t. Nobody, not even technocrats pretends you can use an 100% Robot workforce, there still has to be some human element there. But suppose the technology and practicality existed for a 99% Robot workforce, of course the capitalists would do it. They could produce far more thn they can now at far lower costs and skim off much larger profits.

[/b]
sorry, i should&#39;ve been more specific, i should have said the capitalists would love to employ a 100% robotic production workforce. Yes there will be humans involved, but that will be constrained mainly to breakdown and mantainance engineers, and other skilled roles.
The other response i shouldve given to the previous argument was the capitalists will not commit to this measure, because without employing a wage earning working class there will be far fewer people to spend income on their products.

[Connolly]

Im not really in the humour of arguing long winded things like this.

Ill touch briefly on some points.




without some strong, intelligent, highly educated man or woman standing up and saying "I want a building, I want it right here, there is a good reason for it, and I&#39;ll show you how to make it."

This is a common misconception and a myth.

What is the engineer and architects - thick? dumb?.

The bourgeois do not show anyone "how to make it". Again, he commands resources, the workers "make it".

Why should he say "I want a building"? - why not society? - seeing as its socially produced.


And if it weren&#39;t for this elite "class" in society (more open to entry than you will ever admit), we&#39;d all be scratching for ant grubs in the desert or the jungle

Most ideas come from the working class. 99.9999999%? - everything from digging a road to designing the next jet engine is done by workers. The boss commands the resources.


the banks aren&#39;t going to loan the construction money, and the city won&#39;t approve the site, without convincing reasons. More importantly, the capitalist must assume some of the risk of financial failure, and they do. The laborers get paid either way.

why must it be a risk to only one man? - he is risking socially produced resources and other peoples labour in the end.


I think more often than not, a man who at one point in his life certainly did lay bricks or something equivalent.

1. how much money a person has is not an indicator - in any way - of how much or hard they work.

2. capitalism rewards those of a certain type, capable of playing by its rules. its simply not fair. its like taking Tiger Woods and putting him playing soccer and saying "look, he&#39;s no use" or he&#39;s this or he&#39;s that. he simply cant play the game and its not a level playing field.

3. Drug addicts are not scum. they are disadvantaged.

[Robert]

You&#39;re not in the "humour," eh? Well you managed to get a little long-winded yourself. Which is okay. Relax&#33;


What is the engineer and architects - thick? dumb?.


Oh no, they&#39;re smart too. That&#39;s why they&#39;re capitalists.


The boss commands the resources.

And how does he get to be the boss? Hint: Bill Gates and Microsoft



Why should he say "I want a building"?

That is the single strangest question I have ever read. It&#39;s not a matter of should or ought. The best I can tell you is that he thinks he has an idea, something to sell, and that someone else (society collectively) wants it. And they do. If they don&#39;t want it, it doesn&#39;t get built.


why must it be a risk to only one man? It mustn&#39;t. And it isn&#39;t. I didn&#39;t say the contrary.


how much money a person has is not an indicator - in any way - of how much or hard they work.

Sometimes it certainly the hell is. Sometimes it is not.


capitalism rewards those of a certain type, capable of playing by its rules. its simply not fair. its like taking Tiger Woods and putting him playing soccer and saying "look, he&#39;s no use" or he&#39;s this or he&#39;s that. he simply cant play the game and its not a level playing field.


I agree. It&#39;s also unfair that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I. I just don&#39;t care. Sorry. Obviously Tiger Woods should do something for the poor, either by charitable donations, which he does Tiger Woods Foundation (http://www.twfound.org/newscenter/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=132144&itype=7592&iCategoryID=632)

or by paying more taxes than you do. He does.


3. Drug addicts are not scum. they are disadvantaged.


Who the hell said they were? Don&#39;t waste my time with bullshit breast beating like this. I was arguing against the rich giving their kids money, not the reverse.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 05:55 pm
You&#39;re not in the "humour," eh? Well you managed to get a little long-winded yourself. Which is okay. Relax&#33;


What is the engineer and architects - thick? dumb?.



Some of the smartest men who lived disagreed with capitalism- Marx, Einstein and Naom Chomsky among others.

By the way piss off about all that capitalism having a monopoly on brainpower - its probably one of the most prominent strawmen that here make me want to pull my teeth out.
Simply because the ruling establishment has been able to get away with throwing its weight about to protect it&#39;s hegemony does nothing to make them ideaologically superior to anti-capitalists.
<_<

[Connolly]

Oh no, they&#39;re smart too. That&#39;s why they&#39;re capitalists.

Engineers and architects are members of the proletariat, I like to call them working class. That means, they are in the same category as cleaners, labourers and what not.

Def.

2. (in Marxist theory) the class of workers, esp. industrial wage earners, who do not possess capital or property and must sell their labor to survive.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proletariat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat


And how does he get to be the boss? Hint: Bill Gates and Microsoft

There is too many variables to account. What is know however, is that he accumilates wealth created by those he employs - legally.

Also, in the case of Bill Gates - much of it is circumstantial. Someone with no access to a computer - most id imagine at the time - particularly working class people who make up the majority - could not possibly have created an operating program for computers. Just as a poor african couldnt miraculously think up a new computer script, having never set eyes on a computer.

It depends on a persons external conditions for the most part.


That is the single strangest question I have ever read. It&#39;s not a matter of should or ought. The best I can tell you is that he thinks he has an idea, something to sell, and that someone else (society collectively) wants it. And they do. If they don&#39;t want it, it doesn&#39;t get built.

Yet if it fails, society loses most. It results in wasted labour and resources - which could otherwise have been put to better social use. One mere human goes bankrupt - he kind of pales into insignificance.

The point is. Its not for him to gamble what society produces.


Sometimes it certainly the hell is. Sometimes it is not.

Very, very rarely. Bill gates does not work as much as subsahara africa combined. Nor does a part time worker in Ireland work as much as a sweatshop worker in vietnam - despite getting better paid.

It really is a measure of nothing.


I agree. It&#39;s also unfair that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I. I just don&#39;t care. Sorry. Obviously Tiger Woods should do something for the poor, either by charitable donations, which he does Tiger Woods Foundation

or by paying more taxes than you do. He does.

You missed the point. Its a game that suites some - while everyone else cannot play or is excluded.

Maybe you just dont care, fair enough. Why you bother arguing with those who do care, I dont know then.

[Robert]

Bill gates does not work as much as subsahara africa combined.

I know. So does he. But if you think Bill gates stole his wealth from Africa you&#39;re ... incorrect.

You would dismantle Microsoft and put everybody out of work, which would do nothing, zero, for the Africans. Bill would rather do this:

Gates foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalDevelopment/Agriculture/Announcements/announce-060912.htm)


With all due respect, Gates&#39; initiatives are more sensible and helpful than all those I have seen on this board combined. Moreover, without Bill Gates and a lot of people like him, you and
I would be corresponding by snail mail. Give the man credit for a job well done.

[Connolly]

I know. So does he. But if you think Bill gates stole his wealth from Africa you&#39;re ... incorrect.

Never said he did (or didnt).


You would dismantle Microsoft and put everybody out of work, which would do nothing, zero, for the Africans.

I never mentioned anything about resolving Africa&#39;s problems. All I am saying is that wealth, or property ownership, is not a measure of how hard a person works.


With all due respect, Gates&#39; initiatives are more sensible and helpful than all those I have seen on this board combined. Moreover, without Bill Gates and a lot of people like him, you and
I would be corresponding by snail mail. Give the man credit for a job well done.

Ideas are the resultant of material surroundings. What BG came up with would have happened more or less inevitably by someone else. Its nothing to parade.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:11 pm

Certainly, socialism sees no distinction between consumer and laborer.

And certainly, the socialist is wrong with respects to reality in this regard.

How many computers does the worker need for personal use? How about clothes?
What about food?

And does the laborer really have to consume that which he produces?

Should work busy itself with satisfying the needs of the worker as its main objective, then your community suffers since the concerns of the laborer will trump the concerns of the consumer.

A person does not have to consume their own produce in order for us to see no distinction between worker and consumer.

The production of goods is a social process, not one whereby the only labour applied to the end product is by one individual. The dichotomy you see does not exist.

Satisfying the needs of the workers is satisfying the needs of the consumers - seeing as there is no distinction. Consumers are workers, and workers are consumers.
True the worker probably consumes next to nothing as part of the total of what they produce. As a unit, the workerS not much more.

So the workers of particular products cannot be said to be consumers of those products. The workers are not producing for themselves, but for others who want the product.

As such, their interests are not the same, and even less so in a socilaist community.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:40 pm



without some strong, intelligent, highly educated man or woman standing up and saying "I want a building, I want it right here, there is a good reason for it, and I&#39;ll show you how to make it."

This is a common misconception and a myth.

What is the engineer and architects - thick? dumb?.

The bourgeois do not show anyone "how to make it". Again, he commands resources, the workers "make it".

Why should he say "I want a building"? - why not society? - seeing as its socially produced.


The engineer and architect are trained in building the edifice. They are not trained in determinig whether the structure should be built.

And the bourgeoise do indeed "show" them how it is to be built. Since they seek to build a builing using the fewest resources as possible, that will maximise the profit to be made by the structure.
The funny thing, is that the socialist community will have to make the same determinations as well.

[Connolly]

So the workers of particular products cannot be said to be consumers of those products. The workers are not producing for themselves, but for others who want the product.

As such, their interests are not the same, and even less so in a socilaist community.

They do not have to produce for themselves, as I stated.

For example, the interests of those who contribute to manufacturing fertilizer - are not contrary to the interests of those who use the fertilizer for the production of crops and food - seeing as those who produce the fertilizer rely on food to continue.

There is a mutual reliance and no conflicting interest.


The engineer and architect are trained in building the edifice. They are not trained in determinig whether the structure should be built.

Is there such a training course?


And the bourgeoise do indeed "show" them how it is to be built. Since they seek to build a builing using the fewest resources as possible, that will maximise the profit to be made by the structure.

That is why he employs quantity surveyors and other professions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_surveyor

He dosnt show anyone how to build anything - he commands the resources, thats it.


The funny thing, is that the socialist community will have to make the same determinations as well.

Of course, yes.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:15 am

So the workers of particular products cannot be said to be consumers of those products. The workers are not producing for themselves, but for others who want the product.

As such, their interests are not the same, and even less so in a socilaist community.

They do not have to produce for themselves, as I stated.

For example, the interests of those who contribute to manufacturing fertilizer - are not contrary to the interests of those who use the fertilizer for the production of crops and food - seeing as those who produce the fertilizer rely on food to continue.

There is a mutual reliance and no conflicting interest.


The engineer and architect are trained in building the edifice. They are not trained in determinig whether the structure should be built.

Is there such a training course?


And the bourgeoise do indeed "show" them how it is to be built. Since they seek to build a builing using the fewest resources as possible, that will maximise the profit to be made by the structure.

That is why he employs quantity surveyors and other professions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_surveyor

He dosnt show anyone how to build anything - he commands the resources, thats it.


The funny thing, is that the socialist community will have to make the same determinations as well.

Of course, yes.
The person working for the fertilzer plant knows the farmer will produce food. He does not know what that food will be, in what quanity, how it will be shipped ect. There is no reason for him to know. He is not a farmer.
Yet the fertiliser man will have his own preference in food. And he does not care about the problems the farmer might have (except as it pertains to the farmer&#39;s consumption of fertiliser, at least in the capitalist community, but not so clear in the socialist one).

Allocating and directing of resources is a major job, and a major skill. The bourgeoise "commands" the resources only so far as the resources are willing to be commanded by the bourgeoise (will labor work for the pay offerred, will the community utilise the resources as directed).

[Connolly]

The person working for the fertilzer plant knows the farmer will produce food.

He also knows the farmer will not produce food without fertilizer.


He does not know what that food will be, in what quanity, how it will be shipped ect. There is no reason for him to know. He is not a farmer.

Of course he knows what food is being produced, he knows where the fertilizer is being shipped. We are not talking about a capitalist firm where only senior management know such details.

He also knows its socially detrimental to not produce fertilizer. People have social conscience which can be seen to varying degree&#39;s throughout existing society, even though it manages to be suppressed through existing social relations.


Yet the fertiliser man will have his own preference in food. And he does not care about the problems the farmer might have

Of course he cares. He might not like the food, but others producing products the "fertilizer man" likes do eat that food. If they arnt happy, the fertilizer man aint happy.

Its in the interests of the fertilizer man to produce fertilizer to satisfy his own consumption.


Allocating and directing of resources is a major job, and a major skill.

Its not as great a job as one might think, considering the complications brought about through the existence of capital and commodity exchange value - which of course wouldnt exist.


The bourgeoise "commands" the resources only so far as the resources are willing to be commanded by the bourgeoise (will labor work for the pay offerred, will the community utilise the resources as directed).

There would be no wage labour and society would democratically decide the utilization of resources - the bourgeois class would not need to exist to "command" resources.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:46 am

The person working for the fertilzer plant knows the farmer will produce food.

He also knows the farmer will not produce food without fertilizer.


He does not know what that food will be, in what quanity, how it will be shipped ect. There is no reason for him to know. He is not a farmer.

Of course he knows what food is being produced, he knows where the fertilizer is being shipped. We are not talking about a capitalist firm where only senior management know such details.

He also knows its socially detrimental to not produce fertilizer. People have social conscience which can be seen to varying degree&#39;s throughout existing society, even though it manages to be suppressed through existing social relations.


Yet the fertiliser man will have his own preference in food. And he does not care about the problems the farmer might have

Of course he cares. He might not like the food, but others producing products the "fertilizer man" likes do eat that food. If they arnt happy, the fertilizer man aint happy.

Its in the interests of the fertilizer man to produce fertilizer to satisfy his own consumption.


Allocating and directing of resources is a major job, and a major skill.

Its not as great a job as one might think, considering the complications brought about through the existence of capital and commodity exchange value - which of course wouldnt exist.


The bourgeoise "commands" the resources only so far as the resources are willing to be commanded by the bourgeoise (will labor work for the pay offerred, will the community utilise the resources as directed).

There would be no wage labour and society would democratically decide the utilization of resources - the bourgeois class would not need to exist to "command" resources.
1. The fertilser guy knows where all food is being produced, at all times&#33; yeah, right.

2. Distribution is the major problem for socialism (it is not a problem for the capitalist of course, since produced items are by definitio already distributed). And this is because the system has to decide who is deserving of finished products and in what order. Its a tough task. Naturally, capital will always exist in a socialist community, despite their denials. The utlisation of capital will done "democratically" which is only half the equation: WHY are the voters deciding a particular course of action? What information do they use to tell them they are "correct" in their vote?

3. Is it "socially detrimental" to produce screws over nails? What information does those workers use to make their choice? Were they told to do so?

[Robert]

Distribution is the major problem for socialism

It won&#39;t be a problem once you and the rest of the People understand that what is produced for you is produced for your own good. What makes you think you know better than the state what it is you really need?

[Connolly]

1. The fertilser guy knows where all food is being produced, at all times&#33; yeah, right.

Why, are farms on rollers or something, do they move around? - what a way to put something.

I think its becoming evident that you dont actually work yourself. Even under the present workplace setup, workers have a good idea "who the companies contracts are with", "who the company might be signing up with", "where the goods are distributed" and other "exotic" information that&#39;s usually the domain of the managers.

Socialism will have domocratic control over the workplace - information will be available to all.


2. Distribution is the major problem for socialism (it is not a problem for the capitalist of course, since produced items are by definitio already distributed). And this is because the system has to decide who is deserving of finished products and in what order. Its a tough task. Naturally, capital will always exist in a socialist community, despite their denials. The utlisation of capital will done "democratically" which is only half the equation: WHY are the voters deciding a particular course of action? What information do they use to tell them they are "correct" in their vote?

No, im sorry, i cant understand how capital will always exist "naturally" in socialism. Its funny how you make these stupid assertions without any argument to go along with it.

Distribution isnt too great a problem. Infact, existing systems used today in various supermarkets and megastores - and more than likely many more examples - work quite effective. Superquinn (http://www.superquinn.ie/) for example here in Ireland has automatic computer ordering in place to replenish stock which is starting to dwindle. No human need interfere in the ordering and therefore distribution from distributers under the set up in place.


3. Is it "socially detrimental" to produce screws over nails? What information does those workers use to make their choice? Were they told to do so?

What a silly question, infact, its not even possible to reply as its so vague.

Make their choice about what exactly?


It won&#39;t be a problem once you and the rest of the People understand that what is produced for you is produced for your own good. What makes you think you know better than the state what it is you really need?

Still cant get that nagging USSR totalitarian state bollox out of your head yet?, shame, as there is so much more to socialism than the narrow confines you set yourself.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:28 am

1. The fertilser guy knows where all food is being produced, at all times&#33; yeah, right.

Why, are farms on rollers or something, do they move around? - what a way to put something.

I think its becoming evident that you dont actually work yourself. Even under the present workplace setup, workers have a good idea "who the companies contracts are with", "who the company might be signing up with", "where the goods are distributed" and other "exotic" information that&#39;s usually the domain of the managers.

Socialism will have domocratic control over the workplace - information will be available to all.


2. Distribution is the major problem for socialism (it is not a problem for the capitalist of course, since produced items are by definitio already distributed). And this is because the system has to decide who is deserving of finished products and in what order. Its a tough task. Naturally, capital will always exist in a socialist community, despite their denials. The utlisation of capital will done "democratically" which is only half the equation: WHY are the voters deciding a particular course of action? What information do they use to tell them they are "correct" in their vote?

No, im sorry, i cant understand how capital will always exist "naturally" in socialism. Its funny how you make these stupid assertions without any argument to go along with it.

Distribution isnt too great a problem. Infact, existing systems used today in various supermarkets and megastores - and more than likely many more examples - work quite effective. Superquinn (http://www.superquinn.ie/) for example here in Ireland has automatic computer ordering in place to replenish stock which is starting to dwindle. No human need interfere in the ordering and therefore distribution from distributers under the set up in place.


3. Is it "socially detrimental" to produce screws over nails? What information does those workers use to make their choice? Were they told to do so?

What a silly question, infact, its not even possible to reply as its so vague.

Make their choice about what exactly?


It won&#39;t be a problem once you and the rest of the People understand that what is produced for you is produced for your own good. What makes you think you know better than the state what it is you really need?

Still cant get that nagging USSR totalitarian state bollox out of your head yet?, shame, as there is so much more to socialism than the narrow confines you set yourself.
1. Do you think maybe farmers have different needs with respect to fertilizer? Thats its not all cookie cutter stugff?
Do you think maybe people OTHER than farmers use fertizer?

2. I know that all workers have an idea where their product is being shipped. But determinig how to set up the work site, from where to aquire your raw materials, determine why the product should be shipped to Wicklow as opposed to Derry, is itself a job. Yet you are proposing that your skilled workers also become skilled in doing another job as a matter of course (would the two be part of an overall reduced workweek, or would it be considered consecutive?).

3. Socialism cannot use existing systems. Existing systems are based upon capitalism. That computer program is designed to satisfy that store&#39;s interest in a capitalist manner. Your computer program would have to addess it in a socialist manner. What is that manner?

[pusher robot]

Distribution isnt too great a problem. Infact, existing systems used today in various supermarkets and megastores - and more than likely many more examples - work quite effective. Superquinn (http://www.superquinn.ie/) for example here in Ireland has automatic computer ordering in place to replenish stock which is starting to dwindle. No human need interfere in the ordering and therefore distribution from distributers under the set up in place.

That is NOT a distribution system. That&#39;s a replenishment system. There is a difference. We are not talking about knowing that something is out of stock. We are talking about the allocation of resources, and knowing what is efficient to produce and what is not efficient to produce. That&#39;s not something an inventory system can tell you.

To apply this to the fertilizer issue: the question is what kind of fertilizer to produce, who needs it the most, and whether it is efficient to produce the next unit of fertilizer. Let me illustrate why simply polling the farmers is not sufficient:

Suppose you have Farmer Brown. He can produce x number of crops without fertilizer, and 5 times x number of crops with fertilizer. If you ask Farmer Brown, "Would you like some fertilizer?" then of course he&#39;ll say, "Yes." You could also independently verify that he would gain five times the crop production with fertilizer. It&#39;s a slam-dunk he should receive fertilizer, right? Wrong. We also need to know the value of the crops and the cost of the fertilizer. Suppose that Farmer Brown&#39;s crops have a value of &#036;1000. Use of fertilizer could increase that to &#036;5000. But if the fertilizer consumes &#036;10,000 worth of resources, this is a stupid allocation&#33; We&#39;ve just spent &#036;10,000 to make &#036;5,000. But Farmer Brown was creating a demand for that fertilizer - how would the fertilizer produces know that they should say no to Farmer Brown? These are the kinds of efficiency calculations for which no plausible mechanism seems to exist under a communist society.

[Connolly]

1. Do you think maybe farmers have different needs with respect to fertilizer? Thats its not all cookie cutter stugff?
Do you think maybe people OTHER than farmers use fertizer?

Yes to all those questions.


2. I know that all workers have an idea where their product is being shipped. But determinig how to set up the work site, from where to aquire your raw materials, determine why the product should be shipped to Wicklow as opposed to Derry, is itself a job. Yet you are proposing that your skilled workers also become skilled in doing another job as a matter of course (would the two be part of an overall reduced workweek, or would it be considered consecutive?).

1. The bourgeois do not determine "how" to set up the work site. They employ professionals to do that.

2. Where to aquire raw materials: Is this such a "challenge"? - how do they do it at the moment? - I guess they have some sort of directory, and communication links with these places and sources.

3. Determining where the product should be shipped: Well, again, I think this is quite easy. Those who need it most - determined by their stock levels.

4. Managers would be elected from the ranks of the workers on a rotational basis. All workers would do training courses in management to progress their skills, and elected managers would as a necessity, be trained. No person is "forced" through economic circumstances to work - they can work if they want.


3. Socialism cannot use existing systems. Existing systems are based upon capitalism. That computer program is designed to satisfy that store&#39;s interest in a capitalist manner. Your computer program would have to addess it in a socialist manner. What is that manner?

As pusher robot pointed out correctly, I was explaining a possible replenishment system. This can be used in a similar fashion under socialism.

For an example of what computers can do - with a little vision - Salvador Allende and his administration, in 1970&#33;&#33;, set up "Project Cybersyn" to coordinate resources with good success.

""Allende also undertook Project Cybersyn, a system of networked telex machines and computers. Cybersyn was developed by British cybernetics expert Stafford Beer. The network transmitted data from factories to the government in Santiago, allowing for economic planning in real-time"" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Yes, in 1970. Just imagine what computers could do for the coordination of resources using modern technology.



PUSHER ROBOT


We are talking about the allocation of resources, and knowing what is efficient to produce and what is not efficient to produce. That&#39;s not something an inventory system can tell you.

Pusher robot. I really do need more information on what you mean exactly. Are you talking about manufacturing efficency?


Suppose you have Farmer Brown. He can produce x number of crops without fertilizer, and 5 times x number of crops with fertilizer. If you ask Farmer Brown, "Would you like some fertilizer?" then of course he&#39;ll say, "Yes." You could also independently verify that he would gain five times the crop production with fertilizer. It&#39;s a slam-dunk he should receive fertilizer, right? Wrong. We also need to know the value of the crops and the cost of the fertilizer. Suppose that Farmer Brown&#39;s crops have a value of &#036;1000. Use of fertilizer could increase that to &#036;5000. But if the fertilizer consumes &#036;10,000 worth of resources, this is a stupid allocation&#33; We&#39;ve just spent &#036;10,000 to make &#036;5,000. But Farmer Brown was creating a demand for that fertilizer - how would the fertilizer produces know that they should say no to Farmer Brown? These are the kinds of efficiency calculations for which no plausible mechanism seems to exist under a communist society.

Firstly, there is no exchange value in socialism, the money aspect does not come into it. Instead, you might have efficiency calculations based on the tonnage of crops produced versus fertilizer tonnage used and other such factors to be considered. This would be used to make a priority list for distribution from the fertilizer plant to the highest priority farms - based on efficiency and size of farm, the consumption level for what the farm produces aswell.

As I stated, there is no value on goods and resources. 40 tonne of fertilizer is not necessarily worth less than 1 tonne of crops - but of course, its inefficient.

There is no reason to undertake inefficient production, its not, as if, someone depends on such production to keep a roof over their head or keep their "livelyhood". Labour is voluntary and there is free access to all socially produced resources and goods.


To apply this to the fertilizer issue: the question is what kind of fertilizer to produce, who needs it the most, and whether it is efficient to produce the next unit of fertilizer. Let me illustrate why simply polling the farmers is not sufficient:

The capitalist system is not very efficient when it comes to need. Labour is waisted and social resources are wasted producing unnessary goods and luxury additions.

Under the present system even, the state undertaking projects is actually cheaper as opposed to using private contractors for various reasons.....

"""Look at it simply from a value for money point of view. Two examples. The first in education. The Comptroller & Auditor General has exposed the fact that PPPs are more expensive than normal state construction. This is because not only can the state borrow for capital investment at a better rate than business, but the state does not need a profit margin.


The building of schools under PPP in the South was estimated by the Department to cost 6% less than under normal procurement. The C&AG’s report in 2004, found they will cost between 8% and 15% MORE than under normal procurement.


So the only argument put in favour of PPPs, that they save the state money and off-load risk to the private sector is a nonsense.


But wait a minute, maybe it’s an isolated case. Maybe elsewhere PPPs are functioning perfectly. Well, let’s take road-building. Here’s a good example in road-building from the Irish Independent. One section of the Dublin to Galway motorway was built by the state. Another section of it was built under Public Private Partnership. Cost of the state built section worked out at 8.1 million Euros per kilometre. Cost of the PPP built section worked out at 14.1 millioon Euros per kilometre. The PPP section, by the way, will have a toll on it for almost three decades, up to 2035 so the taxpayer gets to pay again, and again, and again."""

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/06/0...just-dont-work/ (http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/ppps-they-just-dont-work/)

[pusher robot]

Pusher robot. I really do need more information on what you mean exactly. Are you talking about manufacturing efficency?


I am talking about the use of scarce resources to create the maximum possible value to society.


As I stated, there is no value on goods and resources. 40 tonne of fertilizer is not necessarily worth less than 1 tonne of crops - but of course, its inefficient.

Hooooo boy&#33; If there is no value to goods and resources, then why manufacture anything?

I think you mean to say that there is no DOLLAR value. Fine, but that doesn&#39;t change AT ALL that people value certain things more and other things less, just because they are no longer able to express those values in dollar amounts. My example still stands in that you are wasting a more valuable resource to create a less valuable one, regardless of whether or not that value is expressed in dollars or utils or gold or whatever.



The capitalist system is not very efficient when it comes to need. Labour is waisted and social resources are wasted producing unnessary goods and luxury additions.

Who decides what is unnecessary? Who decides what is a luxury? Capitalism produces those things because they create more value for society than the value of the resources consumed in their production.


Labour is voluntary and there is free access to all socially produced resources and goods.Are you going to volunteer to work in the fertilizer factory? Would anybody?

[Connolly]

I am talking about the use of scarce resources to create the maximum possible value to society.

:huh: That dosnt seem like a problem - it certainly is under capitalism as gold is used to plate peoples engines, alloy wheels, door knockers and god knows how many other inefficient uses the bourgeois put it too.

Labour is applied to putting wine storage compartments in jaguars when it could be applied to solar panels or other things necessary for todays society. They use Private jets - Bono even flew his hat over the atlantic on one.

The amount of wastage this system produces is beyond belief in so many ways. Bloody cornflakes come free with a stupid toy that kids look at for about 2 minuites and then throw away. My my my, it dosnt bare thinking about the wasted labour and resources in a consumerist society.

Wasteful and a shame on social efficiency this system.


Hooooo boy&#33; If there is no value to goods and resources, then why manufacture anything?

An exchange value that is.


My example still stands in that you are wasting a more valuable resource to create a less valuable one, regardless of whether or not that value is expressed in dollars or utils or gold or whatever.

No, your example is useless.

I explained why its pointless to produce something inefficiently. There is no reason to.


Who decides what is unnecessary? Who decides what is a luxury? Capitalism produces those things because they create more value for society than the value of the resources consumed in their production.

Really? - more value to society than the resources used?

Yeah right. A millionaire having 12 mansions produces more value to society than the resources and labour used to construct them :rolleyes:

The mass production of crap gimmick toys in cornflakes adds so much to the childrens day, so much play value - - I suppose youll say it has nothing to do with trying to market the cornflakes and manipulate the childrens emotions into purchasing them. Oh no, of course not, its for "social value" :rolleyes:

What you say dosnt make any sense. The consumerist society we live in has nothing to do with creating "soicial value" and everything to do with making profit.

Wasteful&#33;


Are you going to volunteer to work in the fertilizer factory? Would anybody?

Iv explained something along these lines in another thread, I wont repeat it.

[pusher robot]

I explained why its pointless to produce something inefficiently. There is no reason to.

Well thank you, Captain Obvious&#33; Perhaps you might recall that I wasn&#39;t arguing in favor of inefficient production, I was arguing that they don&#39;t know simply by the virtue of producing whether or not the production is efficient, and you have not proposed a plausible mechanism by which they might obtain that information.


it certainly is under capitalism as gold is used to plate peoples engines, alloy wheels, door knockers and god knows how many other inefficient uses the bourgeois put it too.

If a miniscule amount of gold can bring a bit of happiness into a person&#39;s life by plating their door knocker, why is that inefficient? If people value "teh shiny," who are you to tell them they are wrong?


Labour is applied to putting wine storage compartments in jaguars when it could be applied to solar panels or other things necessary for todays society.
It&#39;s not inefficient, because the value of those wine storage compartments exceeds the costs of the resources that are put into their manufacture. And what if those workers would rather be putting in wine storage compartments than building solar panels?

Why are you here on the internet instead of out making solar panels?


My my my, it dosnt bare thinking about the wasted labour and resources in a consumerist society.
You don&#39;t think so because you are apparently so shallow that you can&#39;t possibly conceive that other people may have different priorities than your own.


Yeah right. A millionaire having 12 mansions produces more value to society than the resources and labour used to construct them :rolleyes:It is obviously so, otherwise they would not be purchased in the first place.



The mass production of crap gimmick toys in cornflakes adds so much to the childrens day, so much play value - - I suppose youll say it has nothing to do with trying to market the cornflakes and manipulate the childrens emotions into purchasing them. Who are you to say that 20 minutes of a child&#39;s happiness isn&#39;t worth more than the nickel&#39;s worth of plastic in that box of cereal? The people in a position to make that decision evidently think it is.


What you say dosnt make any sense. The consumerist society we live in has nothing to do with creating "soicial value" and everything to do with making profit.

Perhaps we are using different interpretations of "social value." When I say it, I mean "the amount of surplus utility generated, aggregated." You seem to mean "valuable to whatever it is I deem to be in everyone else&#39;s best interests."


Iv explained something along these lines in another thread, I wont repeat it.Got a link?

[Connolly]

Well thank you, Captain Obvious&#33; Perhaps you might recall that I wasn&#39;t arguing in favor of inefficient production, I was arguing that they don&#39;t know simply by the virtue of producing whether or not the production is efficient, and you have not proposed a plausible mechanism by which they might obtain that information.

I cannot make out what it is you are saying, it dosnt seem to make sense..."they don&#39;t know simply by the virtue of producing whether or not the production is efficient"


If a miniscule amount of gold can bring a bit of happiness into a person&#39;s life by plating their door knocker, why is that inefficient? If people value "teh shiny," who are you to tell them they are wrong?

"Miniscule" - I think if you look at the amount of gold used for luxury items its far from miniscule. Rings, earings, bracelets etc etc.

People are told what they want by marketing companies and the media, not because they themselves want or need it. That is common sense.

They are told buying this useless shite will make them happier - it dosnt.


It&#39;s not inefficient, because the value of those wine storage compartments exceeds the costs of the resources that are put into their manufacture. And what if those workers would rather be putting in wine storage compartments than building solar panels?

Why are you here on the internet instead of out making solar panels?

What "value" would that be then?

1. Not sure which economic system you are talking about here.
2. I would make solar panels if i had the resources, I dont.


Who are you to say that 20 minutes of a child&#39;s happiness isn&#39;t worth more than the nickel&#39;s worth of plastic in that box of cereal? The people in a position to make that decision evidently think it is.

Who am I? - I am someone who can see that a cardboard box is more fun to a child than the shite they pack in to them. Any fucking idiot can see that.

I can see that marketing companies play with peoples emotions and media and educational institutions teach people false truths - namely - that being wealthy and making loads of money makes a person happier. All bollox.


Got a link?

My mistake, this thread.

-----------

I cannot argue on such a wide range of issues at one time, please make your "problems" more specific - otherwise its totally pointless and well go around in circles and all over the place.

This thread is about motivation to work under socialism - I gave my argument on this - yet we end up talking about why people consume the various goods available.

[Connolly]

Let me als say pusher robot - you are using terminology and phrasing in your sentences in such a manner to diffuse and divert the arguments as you see fit.

Example


""I am talking about the use of scarce resources to create the maximum possible value to society.""

What the fuck is that supposed to mean like? - it could mean so many different things and you are tuning and confusing.

I later learn that "social value" is a persons pivate property "surplus utilization value".

Complete shite.


If you continue with this nonsense I wont bother any further, as its impossible to place one genuine idea against another.

[pusher robot]

I cannot make out what it is you are saying, it dosnt seem to make sense..."they don&#39;t know simply by the virtue of producing whether or not the production is efficient"

What is so hard to understand about that? I am saying that just because someone is producing something, they don&#39;t automatically know whether or not that production is efficient. I don&#39;t know how I can possibly state it any clearer.


"Miniscule" - I think if you look at the amount of gold used for luxury items its far from miniscule. Rings, earings, bracelets etc etc.

It is miniscule, whatever you want to believe. By far most gold is used in bullion and industrial applications.


People are told what they want by marketing companies and the media, not because they themselves want or need it. That is common sense.

They are told buying this useless shite will make them happier - it dosnt.

This is very elitist of you, not to mention blatantly silly. So people didn&#39;t value the aesthetics of gold until the rise of consumer advertising? Do you even think about what you are saying?


Who am I? - I am someone who can see that a cardboard box is more fun to a child than the shite they pack in to them. Any fucking idiot can see that.That&#39;s it, then&#33; No toys for you, children&#33; But all the empty boxes you could want&#33;


I later learn that "social value" is a persons pivate property "surplus utilization value".

Complete shite.


This is not a difficult concept. Imagine that you would like a beer. You don&#39;t want a beer REALLY bad, but it would be nice. You can quantify the amount you want a beer by assigning a dollar value: you&#39;d be willing to pay no more than &#036;6 for a beer. So you go to the pub and find that they&#39;re willing to trade you a beer for &#036;4. So you buy it, trading &#036;4 for &#036;6 worth of value. You&#39;ve just netted yourself &#036;2 of value. If the pub wanted &#036;7 for the beer, you wouldn&#39;t buy it, because you&#39;d be spending &#036;7 to get &#036;6 of value, an obvious waste. If the pub wanted &#036;6, you&#39;d be indifferent - maybe you&#39;d flip a coin to decide, or try to persuade yourself to raise or lower your subjective valuation of a beer. That&#39;s why they give you those free pretzels, you know - to try to get you to raise your subjective valuation of a beer.

When I talk about social value, I mean taking all of those net gains across the society and adding them up.

My points about valuation is that you still want a beer more or less, even if you can&#39;t assign a dollar value to how badly or slightly you want it.

Feel free to replace all my uses of the word "value" for "benefit" or "utility" if you prefer different terminology.

[Connolly]

What is so hard to understand about that? I am saying that just because someone is producing something, they don&#39;t automatically know whether or not that production is efficient. I don&#39;t know how I can possibly state it any clearer.

Ok. So whats your point? - did I say something contrary?


It is miniscule, whatever you want to believe. By far most gold is used in bullion and industrial applications.

Bullion stored up in vaults is very useful isnt it?


This is very elitist of you, not to mention blatantly silly. So people didn&#39;t value the aesthetics of gold until the rise of consumer advertising? Do you even think about what you are saying?

It must be natural then for young girls to like the colour pink - very aesthetic&#33; - If i say thats social conditioning im elitist and dont understand the aesthetic qualities of the colour pink :rolleyes:

By the way, copper is very nice aesthetically aswell, I dont see many wearing it though.

There are numerous reasons gold has been used throughout history for jewellry - very few reasons they used it apply to those wearing it today however.


That&#39;s it, then&#33; No toys for you, children&#33; But all the empty boxes you could want&#33;

You miss the point.


This is not a difficult concept. Imagine that you would like a beer. You don&#39;t want a beer REALLY bad, but it would be nice. You can quantify the amount you want a beer by assigning a dollar value: you&#39;d be willing to pay no more than &#036;6 for a beer. So you go to the pub and find that they&#39;re willing to trade you a beer for &#036;4. So you buy it, trading &#036;4 for &#036;6 worth of value. You&#39;ve just netted yourself &#036;2 of value. If the pub wanted &#036;7 for the beer, you wouldn&#39;t buy it, because you&#39;d be spending &#036;7 to get &#036;6 of value, an obvious waste. If the pub wanted &#036;6, you&#39;d be indifferent - maybe you&#39;d flip a coin to decide, or try to persuade yourself to raise or lower your subjective valuation of a beer. That&#39;s why they give you those free pretzels, you know - to try to get you to raise your subjective valuation of a beer.

When I talk about social value, I mean taking all of those net gains across the society and adding them up.

My points about valuation is that you still want a beer more or less, even if you can&#39;t assign a dollar value to how badly or slightly you want it.

Feel free to replace all my uses of the word "value" for "benefit" or "utility" if you prefer different terminology.

Right, whatever.

[pusher robot]

Ok. So whats your point? - did I say something contrary?

No, but you responded to a point nobody made and pretended that you addressed what I said.


Right, whatever.

Sorry, my mistake, apparently this is not a serious subject for you to bother to even try to understand it, just a trendy posture to take to look cool in front of the chicks. Good luck with that.

[Robert]

If people value "the shiny," who are you to tell them they are wrong?

He&#39;s the commy. You couldn&#39;t tell?

[Connolly]

No, but you responded to a point nobody made and pretended that you addressed what I said.

I probably responded because you dont make yourself clear about what it is you are saying.


Sorry, my mistake, apparently this is not a serious subject for you to bother to even try to understand it, just a trendy posture to take to look cool in front of the chicks. Good luck with that.

I say "social value" as being something of general importance and use to society. a school is of social value.

I say it as it is.

You concoct bolloxology terminology only beknown to yourself knowing full well the use of the term social value by us socialists.

So fuck off if you think your ideas are so weak as to purposely avoid clarity of debate and discussion.

[pusher robot]

So fuck off if you think your ideas are so weak as to purposely avoid clarity of debate and discussion.

I use the term as it is used by economists since we are, as you may have noticed, talking about economics. But fine, I accept that you might not use it that way, so I went through the trouble of explaining what I&#39;m talking about so that you can understand the concept. Why are you still complaining about terminology?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:13 pm

1. Do you think maybe farmers have different needs with respect to fertilizer? Thats its not all cookie cutter stugff?
Do you think maybe people OTHER than farmers use fertizer?

Yes to all those questions.


2. I know that all workers have an idea where their product is being shipped. But determinig how to set up the work site, from where to aquire your raw materials, determine why the product should be shipped to Wicklow as opposed to Derry, is itself a job. Yet you are proposing that your skilled workers also become skilled in doing another job as a matter of course (would the two be part of an overall reduced workweek, or would it be considered consecutive?).

1. The bourgeois do not determine "how" to set up the work site. They employ professionals to do that.

2. Where to aquire raw materials: Is this such a "challenge"? - how do they do it at the moment? - I guess they have some sort of directory, and communication links with these places and sources.

3. Determining where the product should be shipped: Well, again, I think this is quite easy. Those who need it most - determined by their stock levels.

4. Managers would be elected from the ranks of the workers on a rotational basis. All workers would do training courses in management to progress their skills, and elected managers would as a necessity, be trained. No person is "forced" through economic circumstances to work - they can work if they want.


3. Socialism cannot use existing systems. Existing systems are based upon capitalism. That computer program is designed to satisfy that store&#39;s interest in a capitalist manner. Your computer program would have to addess it in a socialist manner. What is that manner?

As pusher robot pointed out correctly, I was explaining a possible replenishment system. This can be used in a similar fashion under socialism.

For an example of what computers can do - with a little vision - Salvador Allende and his administration, in 1970&#33;&#33;, set up "Project Cybersyn" to coordinate resources with good success.

""Allende also undertook Project Cybersyn, a system of networked telex machines and computers. Cybersyn was developed by British cybernetics expert Stafford Beer. The network transmitted data from factories to the government in Santiago, allowing for economic planning in real-time"" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Yes, in 1970. Just imagine what computers could do for the coordination of resources using modern technology.




1. Very good. So how does the worker of the fertiliser determine how to satisy the needs of the farmer?

2. Even if it is true that the bourgeoise hire "professionals" to set up the work place, those professionals are working within the structure of the capitalist community, and making decisions based upon those calculations.
How is it so decided in the socialist community? Saying "by the workers" is not the answer, since the workers would need to have a reason for making their decsisions (unless the system is to be entirely arbitrary).

3. Lots of people need lots of different items. Some might need certain items more than others. It doesn&#39;t help to look for empty store shelves to determine distribution (perhaps the people in that community took more than their fair share).

3. Of course, being a manager is a difficult task (since the job is to manage the work of others) that not all can do successfully- even with training. Its a job in and of itself. The proposal to rotate the job simply means your managers will have less expreience and knowledge because it is not what they are always working upon and always practicing.
"How do I get to Carnegie Hall?" Not by reading a book about music theory.

4. And pusher robot accurately pointed out that the computer program is innacurate.

5. If the computers were programmed according to socialist ideas, you are not solving any problem. The problem with socialism is socialism, not the methods by which it is proposed to be implemented.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by C[email protected] 06, 2007 09:44 pm

I say "social value" as being something of general importance and use to society. a school is of social value.

I say it as it is.

You concoct bolloxology terminology only beknown to yourself knowing full well the use of the term social value by us socialists.


The socialists can use whatever terminology they like.

But it does not mean they are correct.

Pusher has adequately challenged YOUR claim of "social value" and demanded a defense of it. Your response has been to throw out some four letter words.

[Connolly]

I use the term as it is used by economists since we are, as you may have noticed, talking about economics. But fine, I accept that you might not use it that way, so I went through the trouble of explaining what I&#39;m talking about so that you can understand the concept. Why are you still complaining about terminology?

Because your arguments are a load of bollox thats why.


1. Very good. So how does the worker of the fertiliser determine how to satisy the needs of the farmer?

Please explain. Sexual needs or what?

I cant answer something if you dont be more specific.

I assume you mean how does the fertilizer manufacturer know what quantity of fertilizer to ship to a farmer, yes? - or maybe its the quality of fertilizer?

Its something called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n.



2. Even if it is true that the bourgeoise hire "professionals" to set up the work place, those professionals are working within the structure of the capitalist community, and making decisions based upon those calculations.
How is it so decided in the socialist community? Saying "by the workers" is not the answer, since the workers would need to have a reason for making their decsisions (unless the system is to be entirely arbitrary).

The same way its done now. But advisors advise the community instead of a capitalist or a group of capitalists on their decision to risk. Easy.


3. Lots of people need lots of different items. Some might need certain items more than others. It doesn&#39;t help to look for empty store shelves to determine distribution (perhaps the people in that community took more than their fair share).

Superquinns ordering system is designed to order more stock once it reaches a certain low. No need for empty shelves.


3. Of course, being a manager is a difficult task (since the job is to manage the work of others) that not all can do successfully- even with training. Its a job in and of itself. The proposal to rotate the job simply means your managers will have less expreience and knowledge because it is not what they are always working upon and always practicing.
"How do I get to Carnegie Hall?" Not by reading a book about music theory.

Elaborate further please, thank you.


.4. And pusher robot accurately pointed out that the computer program is innacurate

It will be modified.


5. If the computers were programmed according to socialist ideas, you are not solving any problem. The problem with socialism is socialism, not the methods by which it is proposed to be implemented.

"the problem with socialism is socialism"

Grand, thank you for telling me that.

[Connolly]

Pusher has adequately challenged YOUR claim of "social value" and demanded a defense of it. Your response has been to throw out some four letter words.

"Social Value is created when resources, inputs, processes or policies are combined to generate improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole."

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/1957.html

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:50 pm


Please explain. Sexual needs or what?

I cant answer something if you dont be more specific.

I assume you mean how does the fertilizer manufacturer know what quantity of fertilizer to ship to a farmer, yes? - or maybe its the quality of fertilizer?

Its something called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n.



The same way its done now. But advisors advise the community instead of a capitalist or a group of capitalists on their decision to risk. Easy.


Superquinns ordering system is designed to order more stock once it reaches a certain low. No need for empty shelves.


Elaborate further please, thank you.


It will be modified.


5. If the computers were programmed according to socialist ideas, you are not solving any problem. The problem with socialism is socialism, not the methods by which it is proposed to be implemented.


1. Very good. D-e-s-c-r-i-b-e the c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n.

2. If the community is run according to caitalist principles (there is after all nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry), then indeed the community could hire those "professionals." But I don&#39;t think the socialist community will function the same as the capitalist community.
So what sort of information will those socialist "professionals" be basing their advice upon?

3. Superquinns system is not distribution, and doesn&#39;t solve the problem.

4. Elaborate further why a manager position is difficult? Or why its not advantageous to have your workers learning numerous differing skills to be used at the same time?

5. Modified according to what principles?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:53 pm

Pusher has adequately challenged YOUR claim of "social value" and demanded a defense of it. Your response has been to throw out some four letter words.

"Social Value is created when resources, inputs, processes or policies are combined to generate improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole."

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/1957.html
And as pusher robot accurately observed, it is an entirely arbitrary value.
Which means it is worthless.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:53 pm

Pusher has adequately challenged YOUR claim of "social value" and demanded a defense of it. Your response has been to throw out some four letter words.

"Social Value is created when resources, inputs, processes or policies are combined to generate improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole."

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/1957.html
And as pusher robot accurately observed, it is an entirely arbitrary value.
Which means it is worthless.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 06, 2007 06:21 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 06, 2007 06:21 pm)
[email protected]mber 06, 2007 11:53 pm

Pusher has adequately challenged YOUR claim of "social value" and demanded a defense of it. Your response has been to throw out some four letter words.

"Social Value is created when resources, inputs, processes or policies are combined to generate improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole."

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/1957.html
And as pusher robot accurately observed, it is an entirely arbitrary value.
Which means it is worthless. [/b]
[img]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd298/COMRADE_CRUM/2043-fail-camera.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />
Your logic FAILS in block letters.

[Connolly]

1. Very good. D-e-s-c-r-i-b-e the c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n.

Well you see I cant describe it. Im not sure yet whether he wants to satisfy his need for a blowjob or quantity of fertilizer or quality of fertilizer.

You havnt given any specifics - all you said was - "So how does the worker of the fertiliser determine how to satisy the needs of the farmer?"

That could be anything.


2. If the community is run according to caitalist principles (there is after all nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry), then indeed the community could hire those "professionals." But I don&#39;t think the socialist community will function the same as the capitalist community.
So what sort of information will those socialist "professionals" be basing their advice upon?

It depends on what it is to be done.


3. Superquinns system is not distribution, and doesn&#39;t solve the problem.

well its difficult for me to put forth possible solutions to this percieved problem if i dont know what it is. explain it clearer.

You mentioned empty shelves - thats a problem the computerized model solves for distributing goods and resources to where its needed.


4. Elaborate further why a manager position is difficult? Or why its not advantageous to have your workers learning numerous differing skills to be used at the same time?

Well explain in further detail what you believe the duties of a manager to be.


5. Modified according to what principles?

efficiency and rational distribution.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:07 am

Well you see I cant describe it. Im not sure yet whether he wants to satisfy his need for a blowjob or quantity of fertilizer or quality of fertilizer.

You havnt given any specifics - all you said was - "So how does the worker of the fertiliser determine how to satisy the needs of the farmer?"

That could be anything.


as was established earlier- the latter obviously.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:53 pm

Pusher has adequately challenged YOUR claim of "social value" and demanded a defense of it. Your response has been to throw out some four letter words.

"Social Value is created when resources, inputs, processes or policies are combined to generate improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole."

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/1957.html
So what?

You can call what I was talking about jibberjabberdoowhicky for all I care. Are you going to respond to my point intelligently or continue to argue about semantics?



"So how does the worker of the fertiliser determine how to satisy the needs of the farmer?"

Maybe we should make this into a word problem:

Farmer Brown can produce 100 tons of crops with no fertilizer, 1000 tons of crops with 100 tons of fertilizer, 5000 tons of crops with 1000 tons of fertilizer, and 10,000 tons of crops with 4000 tons of fertilizer. You are the fertilizer manufacturer. How much fertilizer should Farmer Brown get? Explain your answer. How much fertilizer should Farmer Brown request? Explain your answer. BONUS POINTS: Describe enforcement mechanisms.

Are you starting to see the problem here?



well its difficult for me to put forth possible solutions to this percieved problem if i dont know what it is. explain it clearer.


The problem, as I already pointed out, is that whether or not something needs replenishment does nothing to tell you whether it&#39;s production is actually efficient&#33;&#33;

Look&#33; We have a severe shortage of platinum-plated spatulas right now&#33; Is your answer to ramp up production? If not, why not? How do you assess this?


efficiency and rational distribution.

How do you assess efficiency? How do you assess rationality? Your stock answer of "computer stock replenishment&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;1" does neither.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:07 am

2. If the community is run according to caitalist principles (there is after all nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry), then indeed the community could hire those "professionals." But I don&#39;t think the socialist community will function the same as the capitalist community.
So what sort of information will those socialist "professionals" be basing their advice upon?

It depends on what it is to be done.


Pretend it is four days ago and you wish to expand upon the economic relationship between farmer and fertiliser worker which you offerred up.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:07 am


4. Elaborate further why a manager position is difficult? Or why its not advantageous to have your workers learning numerous differing skills to be used at the same time?

Well explain in further detail what you believe the duties of a manager to be.


To supervise and direct the work of others; to have responsibility for the results of the people he or she supervises.

[Connolly]

So what?

You can call what I was talking about jibberjabberdoowhicky for all I care. Are you going to respond to my point intelligently or continue to argue about semantics?

What point was that.


Maybe we should make this into a word problem:

Farmer Brown can produce 100 tons of crops with no fertilizer, 1000 tons of crops with 100 tons of fertilizer, 5000 tons of crops with 1000 tons of fertilizer, and 10,000 tons of crops with 4000 tons of fertilizer. You are the fertilizer manufacturer. How much fertilizer should Farmer Brown get? Explain your answer. How much fertilizer should Farmer Brown request? Explain your answer. BONUS POINTS: Describe enforcement mechanisms.

Are you starting to see the problem here?

Using no fertilizer is most efficient in this case.

Its not possible to give any further detail on "how much farmer brown" should get given the available information, its not possible.

Define enforcement mechanisms.


The problem, as I already pointed out, is that whether or not something needs replenishment does nothing to tell you whether it&#39;s production is actually efficient&#33;&#33;

Look&#33; We have a severe shortage of platinum-plated spatulas right now&#33; Is your answer to ramp up production? If not, why not? How do you assess this?

Using precious metals to plate kitchen cuttlery is wasteful and not very productive and generally inefficient. It wouldnt be done in the first place.

1. The rate at which such metals could become available for use would be slower as opposed to other more available resources. Efficient mass production requires all manufacturing equipment to be running at close to 100% all the time to make back the resources put into its construction (determined through an engineers report on other possible methods for the construction of a spatula and a comparison of efficiency with those other methods) - its an inefficient use of resources otherwise. Such precious metals would not be available in great quantities and so the machines which have been specially modified to work with such a metal would not be running at 100% in a mass production factory resulting in inefficiency. Output would be minimum as opposed to constructing the spatula from more available metals such as aluminium and steel.

2. There is no logical reason to use such a metal for the purposes of a spatula.

3. Resources are placed in an order of priority determined by many factors and depending on the individual case. A spatula would not be far up such a list.


How do you assess efficiency? How do you assess rationality? Your stock answer of "computer stock replenishment&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;1" does neither.

Efficiency is determined by the individual case and by looking at standardized examples and set standards.

Rationality is based on logical assesments of the details by those trained to do so, and act as advisors to the democratic decision making process.





as was established earlier- the latter obviously.

Youll have to be more specific, sorry.


Pretend it is four days ago and you wish to expand upon the economic relationship between farmer and fertiliser worker which you offerred up.

Again, its not possible to answer the question with such limited information.


To supervise and direct the work of others; to have responsibility for the results of the people he or she supervises.

Thats a supervisor not a manager.

[pusher robot]

What point was that.

That your proposals do not maximize aggregate utility.


Using no fertilizer is most efficient in this case.

Just how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Its not possible to give any further detail on "how much farmer brown" should get given the available information, its not possible.
What additional information do you require? I&#39;ll be more than happy to make some up.

Define enforcement mechanisms.
Supposing that the fertilizer producers do not act efficiently, what mechanism will force or induce them to change their behavior?

1. The rate at which such metals could become available for use would be slower as opposed to other more available resources.
Excellent&#33; You&#39;ve recognized that scarcity will still exist. Now, what mechanism do you propose for determining where platinum will be used?

2. There is no logical reason to use such a metal for the purposes of a spatula.
Therefore, we ought to expect the abolition of any "illogical" products? What if people get enjoyment from illogical products?

3. Resources are placed in an order of priority determined by many factors and depending on the individual case. A spatula would not be far up such a list.What factors are you referring to? How are those measurements made? And who decides? The platinum miners? The platinum refiners? Or the people who want to use platinum?


Efficiency is determined by the individual case and by looking at standardized examples and set standards.
Can you give an example of what you are talking about?
As I see it, production is not efficient if either the production of another unit fails to be of greater value to somebody that the costs of its production. If there are no prices on the beers in the pub, what prevents me from drinking even when the benefits to me are far less the costs of producing that beer?

Rationality is based on logical assesments of the details by those trained to do so, and act as advisors to the democratic decision making process.
What details? I get the feeling you are being deliberately vague. If you don&#39;t know, just say so. Nobody will hold it against you.

[Connolly]

That your proposals do not maximize aggregate utility.

In plain english, thank you.


Just how did you arrive at that conclusion?

It was a very 2 dimensional problem, and based on the information the first was most efficient.

The most efficient option gives 0 tonnes of fertilizer for 100 tonnes of produce.

The least efficient was 4,000 tonnes of fertilizer for 10,000 tonnes of produce.

The worst has 2.5 tonne of produce per tonne of fertilizer, the second has 100 tonne of produce for no fertilizer at all.

Using no fertilizer is the better option given the information and clearly is more efficient.


What additional information do you require? I&#39;ll be more than happy to make some up.

There are so many other factors one could include. Quality of produce, dimensions of produce, consumer demand for chemically assisted produce as a opposed to organic, necessity to use fertilizer under various soil and climatic conditions, environmental effects and limits on the use of fertilizer.

Neither you nor me are qualified to assess the quantity of fertilizer to use in agriculture under the various conditions. We cannot argue on a technical level the efficient use of fertilizer or how much a particular farm requires and whether it is efficient to distribute the resources to the farm.


Supposing that the fertilizer producers do not act efficiently, what mechanism will force or induce them to change their behavior?

Technical experts are there to advise the democratic process of allocating resources and managing production. Social interest and control over the means of production encourage change.


Excellent&#33; You&#39;ve recognized that scarcity will still exist. Now, what mechanism do you propose for determining where platinum will be used?

Prioritisation through democratic bodies and institutions advised by technical experts who consider all possible factors relating to the use of platinum.


Therefore, we ought to expect the abolition of any "illogical" products? What if people get enjoyment from illogical products?

Such a question could lead anywhere and everywhere off topic - and, its a stupid question.

Products such as what?


What factors are you referring to? How are those measurements made? And who decides? The platinum miners? The platinum refiners? Or the people who want to use platinum?

I cant refer to any factors seeing as it depends on the case in question, as I said.

What measurements?

Those democratically elected to organised bodies and institutions decide the technical standards.

Society determine the allocation of resources with the assistance of technical advisors.


Can you give an example of what you are talking about?
As I see it, production is not efficient if either the production of another unit fails to be of greater value to somebody that the costs of its production. If there are no prices on the beers in the pub, what prevents me from drinking even when the benefits to me are far less the costs of producing that beer?

The "benefits to you" cannot be quantified. The allocation of resources, the efficiency of production and the production of goods versus consumption can be quantified. your question makes no sense.

There are technical standards for pretty much everything relating to production. Machines of manufacture have technical standards that they should meet for their construction and more technical standards of use in order to be efficient.

An example: Trains have a fuel consumption efficiency and standards relating. The resources put into their construction is also monitored.

If a yard requires a shunter for use around the grounds - it is inefficient to use a train specifically designed for long range travel, that is built to exceed certain speeds and requires the modifications needed for mainline use.

Likewise, using a shunter for long range use is equally inefficient.

To find the efficiency - graphs are plotted using the technical data and standards to find the most suitable train for the job.

----------------

What you are asking here is so "common sense". Capitalist companies tune the efficiency of production to maintain costs and keep up profits. Socialist society is not concerned with costs and profit - but just with efficiency.

Socialism uses the same methods to determine efficiency minus the capital concerns.

The question is "what is the incentive" - not "how do you determine efficiency" - which is well known.


What details? I get the feeling you are being deliberately vague. If you don&#39;t know, just say so. Nobody will hold it against you.

As with above. You dont need money to determine efficiency.

[Robert]

We cannot argue on a technical level the efficient use of fertilizer or how much a particular farm requires

On what level can you argue it? You two are speaking two different languages, only one of which I understand.

[Connolly]

On what level can you argue it? You two are speaking two different languages, only one of which I understand.

I shouldnt have to argue it.

What is, and what isnt efficient, and how it is determined, is already known.

The efficiency of something, be it, of an engine, a factory or the allocation of resources is already outlined in mathematical equations and theory.

Definition of efficiency: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/efficiency

2. accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort: The assembly line increased industry&#39;s efficiency.

3. the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage.


How to make agricultural production of crops efficient is already established - I am not educated to discuss the technical details of it.

[Robert]

Those democratically elected to organised bodies

Oh, no doubt, but: a) What if those democratically elected decide to let the market decide our fertilizer hypothetical? b) How are you proposing to put democratically elected socialists in power since no one will vote for them?

I do feel relieved that you are at least talking democracy in all this, but it makes me wonder why you need a revolution in the first place since we already have democratically elected officials. What I see of your democracy here is that everyone can participate if they "have their minds right"? Otherwise they are discriminated against. You wouldn&#39;t ever do or support that, would you?

[Connolly]

a) What if those democratically elected decide to let the market decide our fertilizer hypothetical?

Its not their property to market. There is no money. There is no property. There is no market. There is no commodities.


b) How are you proposing to put democratically elected socialists in power since no one will vote for them?

The institutions of power would be radically different from what exists today.

You do not live in a democracy.


but it makes me wonder why you need a revolution in the first place since we already have democratically elected officials.

They are not democratically elected.

Revolution is needed to smash the state - who&#39;s purpose it is to enforce, maintain and protect bourgeois property relations.


And why do the socialists spend so much time in OI?

I entered this thread to explain something and defend the socialist position. Im in here responding and replying to the replies from that initial post. when this is over, I will leave as I dont post here much anyway - unless something &#39;takes my fancie&#39;.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:28 pm


To supervise and direct the work of others; to have responsibility for the results of the people he or she supervises.

Thats a supervisor not a manager.
Okay. So define it.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:57 pm

The "benefits to you" cannot be quantified. The allocation of resources, the efficiency of production and the production of goods versus consumption can be quantified. your question makes no sense.


Of course it can be quantified- by yourself. You can determine if you would prefer to spend your time on Revleft, or watching the ball gane.

Likewise, you can determine whether the benefits of using fertiliser outweigh the costs of not using it.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:57 pm


----------------

What you are asking here is so "common sense". Capitalist companies tune the efficiency of production to maintain costs and keep up profits. Socialist society is not concerned with costs and profit - but just with efficiency.

Socialism uses the same methods to determine efficiency minus the capital concerns.

The question is "what is the incentive" - not "how do you determine efficiency" - which is well known.


What details? I get the feeling you are being deliberately vague. If you don&#39;t know, just say so. Nobody will hold it against you.

As with above. You dont need money to determine efficiency.
You only deal with part of the problem. One can have a highly efficient train or production process, as designed by the engineers and other technical folks.

But how does your community determine if this highly efficent machinery benefits the community?

How does your community measure if a highly efficient train is more efficient than using another form of transportation? American passenger trains are more efficient than they were 100 years ago. Yet it is far more efficient to travel by plane across the USA.

By what measurements will your socialist community use, when making the decision to allocate resources for trains versus planes?

[Robert]

You do not live in a democracy.

Oh yeah, right. I&#39;m in North Korea. I forgot.

Connolly, there are laws in Britain, where I imagine you live, that address minimum wage, the right to strike, safety in the workplace, unfair termination, discrimination. Workers in every western industrialized state, as well as Australia and much of the Pacific rim, enjoy these rights. Moreover, they have the right to vote to change representatives if the existing laws are intolerable. How do you suppose these rights became enacted into law?

You really want to destroy this wonderful system? You do understand that destroying it with violence is the only way it&#39;s going, to happen, correct? Tell me you know that.

[Connolly]

Okay. So define it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manager

as opposed to what you suggested:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supervisor

3. a person who controls and manipulates resources and expenditures, as of a household.

Now you stated that there would be difficulties with managing something on a rotational basis.

The difficulties of "managing" something can be greatly reduced with the assistance of innovation and the removal of complications.

Innovations being computer assisted, complications being capital management. If you take marine navigation as an analogy.

At one time - mariners needed "experience" to navigate. Navigation was a "skill". Vessels often only carried only one navigator, it was a very specialised role requiring very indepth knowledge of the field.

Now, navigation has been simplified and much of the tasks once "managed" by humans is now automatic and controlled by a computer.

The only learning involved is learning to use and manage the navigation system, not have indept knowledge of the field.

Likewise, factory processes can be simplified reducing the "skill" involved making management something of less specialisation.


Of course it can be quantified- by yourself. You can determine if you would prefer to spend your time on Revleft, or watching the ball gane.

Likewise, you can determine whether the benefits of using fertiliser outweigh the costs of not using it.

Not at all. Can he put a figure on his enjoyment? - such a figure is not measurable and is totally subjective.

Quantity of fertilizer is empirically measurable.


But how does your community determine if this highly efficent machinery benefits the community?

The same way its done under capitalism.

Example: How do we know building a new hospital benefits a community?

It might not. It could be a complete waste. But you would look at the same sort of data used to make the decisions as is today.

Again, this sort of analysis is already established - I really dont need to explain this.


How does your community measure if a highly efficient train is more efficient than using another form of transportation? American passenger trains are more efficient than they were 100 years ago. Yet it is far more efficient to travel by plane across the USA.

Same as above. These analysis are used all the time - whether to build tram lines versus bus lanes etc. It requires looking at the information.

Before capitalism, propert and money, such analysis were carried out, be it, on a very primitive level - eg. whether to use square wheels or circular wheels.

This has nothing necessarily to do with capitalism but rather how humans solve problems under any system.


By what measurements will your socialist community use, when making the decision to allocate resources for trains versus planes?

The very same as would be used under capitalism - resource considerations and practical considerations - excluding the need for profit margins and other capital considerations (seeing as capital would not exist).

Solving problems is not somehow exclusive to capitalism and private property.


Oh yeah, right. I&#39;m in North Korea. I forgot.

Connolly, there are laws in Britain, where I imagine you live, that address minimum wage, the right to strike, safety in the workplace, unfair termination, discrimination. Workers in every western industrialized state, as well as Australia and much of the Pacific rim, enjoy these rights. Moreover, they have the right to vote to change representatives if the existing laws are intolerable. How do you suppose these rights became enacted into law?

You really want to destroy this wonderful system? You do understand that destroying it with violence is the only way it&#39;s going, to happen, correct? Tell me you know that.

Im from Ireland. I think if you study Irish history you will find that these "safeguards" were fought for by working class people - right to join a union, minimum wage, maximum working week etc - they were not "granted" by the bourgeois out of their own humanity and kindness (infact we see their barbarism in Iraq and afghanistan which contradicts this notion).

These were fought for, these were socialist gains. Jim Larken and James Connolly - both Marxists - are the two most prominent leaders of the Irish labour movement for the advancement of working conditions.

If the bourgeois didnt grant the working class these conditions they wouldnt last long, revolution would have happened long ago. Their own greed will begin, and have begun, to strip away working class gains.

What you call a democracy is a joke.

[Robert]

These were fought for, these were socialist gains. Jim Larken and James Connolly - both Marxists - are the two most prominent leaders of the Irish labour movement for the advancement of working conditions.


I&#39;ll grant you that. And I admire Larken -- he appears to have been a great man (probably a relative of mine since I&#39;m Irish and Great too). But what form did this "fight" take? Organization, strikes and boycotts., not revolution. Looks like he ultimately endorsed the political system that resulted from the war and went mainstream. To call the result of his and other liberationists&#39; work a "joke" is blasphemy.

If all you want is strikes and boycotts, peaceful demonstration, I am sure you&#39;ll get not argument from any capitalist here.

Would that we had such rights here in North Korea.

Brrrrr&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Pass the weed soup, please. I&#39;m cold & hungry&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:02 am

Okay. So define it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manager

as opposed to what you suggested:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supervisor

3. a person who controls and manipulates resources and expenditures, as of a household.

Now you stated that there would be difficulties with managing something on a rotational basis.

The difficulties of "managing" something can be greatly reduced with the assistance of innovation and the removal of complications.

Innovations being computer assisted, complications being capital management. If you take marine navigation as an analogy.

At one time - mariners needed "experience" to navigate. Navigation was a "skill". Vessels often only carried only one navigator, it was a very specialised role requiring very indepth knowledge of the field.

Now, navigation has been simplified and much of the tasks once "managed" by humans is now automatic and controlled by a computer.

The only learning involved is learning to use and manage the navigation system, not have indept knowledge of the field.

Likewise, factory processes can be simplified reducing the "skill" involved making management something of less specialisation.


Its the same thing. The manager has to supervise the employees to direct their work to acheive the objective.

But a manager does not simply shuffle paper about, as you imply. The mananger has to manage people. Its not an easy task. Computer technology makes the paperwork part of it easier (sort of, since computers have not resulted in people becoming less productive, but more so. One can get more done in the same time with computers and the like than could be done before). It changes nothing with regards to dealing with people, in motivating them, in keeping them on track and in accepting responsibility for what happens under your team.

My objection is that the rotational idea is akin to all the ideas like putting surgeons to mop floors a few hours per month- Your community is training people to do a certain task, then they are not taking advantage of the training. And since they are not constantly working on the task, practicing, the skills are not being developed as could and ought to be.

One caould certainly endeavor to make a task "simpler." But such decisions also involve cost, and there needs to be mechanisms to determine whether a task done "simpler" is being done "better," or the same.

And please don&#39;t say navigators do not have to know how to navigate. Only a moron, pardon my french, would rely upon a computer program in that endeavor.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:02 am

Not at all. Can he put a figure on his enjoyment? - such a figure is not measurable and is totally subjective.

Quantity of fertilizer is empirically measurable.


But how does your community determine if this highly efficent machinery benefits the community?

The same way its done under capitalism.

Example: How do we know building a new hospital benefits a community?

It might not. It could be a complete waste. But you would look at the same sort of data used to make the decisions as is today.

Again, this sort of analysis is already established - I really dont need to explain this.


How does your community measure if a highly efficient train is more efficient than using another form of transportation? American passenger trains are more efficient than they were 100 years ago. Yet it is far more efficient to travel by plane across the USA.

Same as above. These analysis are used all the time - whether to build tram lines versus bus lanes etc. It requires looking at the information.

Before capitalism, propert and money, such analysis were carried out, be it, on a very primitive level - eg. whether to use square wheels or circular wheels.

This has nothing necessarily to do with capitalism but rather how humans solve problems under any system.


By what measurements will your socialist community use, when making the decision to allocate resources for trains versus planes?

The very same as would be used under capitalism - resource considerations and practical considerations - excluding the need for profit margins and other capital considerations (seeing as capital would not exist).


Of course a person can put a figure on it- his own figure. What is the "cost" of my being on REVLEFT right now? I could be cleaning my bathroom, reading a book, watching an (American) football game. Maybe a different time the cost of being on Revleft will exceed those other needs.

The same with fertiliser. Is there a point where the quanity of fertiliser is not worth the cost to the expected benefit? Sure, as determined by the consumer of the fertilser.

And it should be obvious that the socialist community cannot use capitalist methods for determing its production decisions. It has to devise its own.

The hospital example is a good example. In New York City, presently several hospitals are being closed. Why? Because the costs of running them are exceeding the benefits being derived from their comtinued operation. The resources being sunk into those hospitals can be diverted to other hospitals, thereby improving those hospitals and healthcare in NYC in general. The benefits of continuing those hospitals are being judged to be less than their cost of running the hospital.

If the socialist community chooses to base its production upon the benefits of a completed item exceeding its cost, then it is basing its production decisions on a pursuit of "profit" as that is all profit is. If the community chooses not to pursue its production based upon profit, then it needs to come up with another way.

The "cappies" on this board are eagerly awaiting...

[Journeyman]

I&#39;m sorry but lots of things that are not capital require security guards. Museums, Hospitals, Factories, Farms, Laboratories. The only goal of theft is not exclusively the acquisition of capital, but also of what capital can buy. You are also forgetting the prevention of general vandalism. Why was the public phone outside my house destroyed? Did it have money in it? NO.

Security guards protect property, private or state owned. When there is no property, there is no security guards. I think thats common sense. And of course security guards dont just protect capital - but when you speak about "what capital can buy", you are talking about property.

Can we conclude that vandalism is an environmental problem, the result of social and economic conditions? I think thats common sense also, unless those who vandalise are inherently "degenerate". And we know where that leads and how ridiculous such an argument is.




Yes, I&#39;m talking about property. Property such as that old painting of Fernando Botero hanging on your dining room wall prettying up the place. You love that painting. It&#39;s original, not a copy. It makes your house unique and stylish. In any case, you love having it in your house, decorating your dining room table. So what&#39;s gonna stop me from yanking a painting of Monet from a museum to hang it over my toilet? I definetly would love to have a Monet over my toilet. An original Monet, not a copy. You might argue that Monet should be public property, but you have to recognize the fact that many paintings by famous artist are still in the possession of individuals, and you cannot take that away from them, because it&#39;s theirs, probably Monet gave the piece to that person&#39;s grandparents.

The Mitchel Hedges Crystal Skull is in posession of Anna Mitchel in her home. I&#39;m sure someone would love to take it home with them to study it, paint it with crayons, smash it to pieces to find a prize inside, you name it. It&#39;s possesion trascends all need for monetary value. You could say such articles are priceless, until someone puts a price on them on an auction. The point is you need to guard it, either by locking the door or hiring a security gaurd to watch over it, depending on how valuable it is to you, or to the community, in case we&#39;re talking about a museum. Because you know someone will want to take it, because he will want the article itself, not exactly what he can obtain in exchange.

The same arguments can be used for items that are hard to replicate. If you want an expensive machine from a factory so you can use it in the comfort of your own home, what&#39;s stopping you from taking it? So you need someone to guard it, you can&#39;t always just put a padlock on the door and hope that will solve the problem.

And as I said, vandalism is an ADDITIONAL concern, it might be motivated my many reasons. Anger, boredom, insanity, you name it. The point is it exists, whether you live in a capitalist society or not. Someone will want to break a piece of public property to pieces or spray their name on it.


I believe you forgot to either refute or give a final conclusion to these points, it&#39;s no use if you skip whatever points you choose (Page 3 of this thread)


1. Well I believe someone else in this thread has already done the job of ridiculizing this argument of yours. Just try to put the phrases "Sorry. I was just having so much fun" and " cleaning your dried excrement off the toilet walls" together and try to think if it even makes sense. And allow me once more to remind you about what YOU said regarding "shovelling s**t".



2.Once again I musr repeat, 50 years or more until we get to see a fraction of a possibility of this coming to fruition.

And by the way, I liked the Venus Project, might be good source material for a sci fi novel, but it&#39;s nothing more than another Futurama from the 50&#39;s. Get real.







My friend, it doesn&#39;t matter how much you optimize workflow, even if you just have to spend 3 hours a day just clicking a button, or cruising by unobstructed on your happy go lucky Bob The Builder pick up truck, if you do it for 3 hours or more a day, it&#39;s still going to be repetitive, and it&#39;s still going to be tedious.


You want me to name more dull jobs? Fine. Personal assistants (again, not related to capital), delivery, factory workers, cooking (of the burger flipping kind), I could go on and on.

Firstly, living in a socialist society means you are free to do as you wish. You would not "have" to do anything. Those who work, most I would imagine, as not working is unbearable for most - even under this system - would operate in democratic workplaces. They could rotate their roles if they wished.

My mother for example, works in a warehouse at the most repetitive and dull job imaginable - I cant understand how she has stead 20 odd years in it, I personally wouldnt last a week.

But, she enjoys working. Not the job or what she does, but the social environment that she works in. The social interaction the workplace brings. It gives her something to do, it gives her purpose in life.

Also, I think if you look at some jobs under this system - they dont seem that desirable - yet they are most honoured and looked up too. The army, for example. That can hardly be a nice job to do, or something desirable under other conditions. Being treated like your in school again. Mentally abused. Repetitive work. Work which is undesirable such as scrubbing floors and toilets. Burger flipping for the troops. Looking at a guage all day in the engine room of a warship. Living onboard in cramped quarters on a submarine for months on end not knowing where you are. Being trained to kill. Dieing in war, putting yourself on edge. I mean i could go in.

When you step back and look at this, its not a very nice job to do.

YET, its something people want to do. YET, its something thats looked up to and honoured. YET, those who do it have a sense of "pride" in their job. Its lauded bu society.

The reason, - it directly serves the interests of bourgeois society more than any other occupation. THEY are the ones who protect bourgeois interests.

People are institutionalized to think in such a manner towards the military from a very young age. Through the school system, advertising, toys, computer games, cartoons - kids go around playing "army" theyv been so brainwashed. All because its the most honoured role by the bourgeois that a layman can reach.

The question is, if they can make people think this way towards an otherwise shit job - why not for other ocupations?

You know, give a garbage man a nice uniform and make him honoured for doing this occupation which serves society in such a manner. Give a cleaner utmost respect and laudability for their most necessary role.

Those who are most vital are instead forgotten and made feel subhuman. Unemployed are thought to think they are something lesser that they dont have a job.

What i am trying to say overall - is that we are thought to think in a certain way, by the media, school system, upbringing etc, to suite the interests of certain classes. This can be changed when class interests change.




So your mom works in the most dull job imaginable you say? And you say YOU wouldn&#39;t last a week huh? I think you just refuted your own argument. Some people will have different reasons to perform a task, say Forest Gump mowing the lawn for free because he enjoyed it. That is, because HE enjoyed it. You say your mother enjoys her work environment, but you are forgetting the fact that she may have become used to it after all these years, and the fact that it&#39;s her job, if she misses too many days she gets fired.

So what if she were not forced to show up? Suppose she might end up attending 3 days a week, take a week long vacation every month, work 7 days straight for two weeks, maybe attend one week just for the chitchat and not move a finger for productivity. This would definetly not bode well for the factory or wherever it is she works, even if you brought in twice the amount of manpower. You take away the pressure, you will start seeing productivity fall way below the bar.


The point is you cannot predict how often a person will work if he is not under pressure. You seem to be convinced that so many people work just for the pleasure of feeling useful, what you are not considering is that when most people are in this situation they hardly ever make an effort that would yield the necessary results. It&#39;s the same as offering yourself voluntarily every saturday morning on an asylum. Just if you attend for one hour every two weekends would be enough to make a person feel like a good samaritan. If you took all the nurses out of the asylum and started relying exclusively on the effort of good hearted folks, we all know in what conditions such a place would end up in. Not considering the added burden this would place on the volunteers since they would know the place is falling appart, start feeling guiltly about it, begin attending dutifully every day for a month perhaps, with much more frequency since they would have to substitute the regular workers, and suddenly begin to think that they would only continue doing it in exchange for some compensation because it would stop feeling like a balm for the soul and more like a pain in the ass.


As to embellishing the value of everyday gruntwork in the face of society, do you really think it&#39;s possible to FEEL that respect? I mean you can surely grant a nominal badge of value to gruntwork, but that badge will probably end up as nothing more than a sticker of meaningless propaganda, and lets face it, who will most likely end up doing it? Those who aced in math? And what is exactly the job that only a few are capable to perform, math or scrubbing floors? Is it because of their higher intelect or because of their stupidity? What is more lauded naturally by man, intelligence or stupidity?

You may put a golden star on a billion garbage men that hardly have the ability to do high school algebra, but a billion badges of honor will start to look ridiculous because you will need far too many of them. First because practically every human being will be capable of performing such a job, only not willingly, and second because honor equally spread accross the common denominator will equal itself to no honor at all beyond mere respect for basic human rights and dignity; and it&#39;s hard to heartfeltly admire a job that usually the worst slacker in school ends up performing. You just can&#39;t afford to give equal honor to more repetitive work.

And this is not a result of the media, it is a result of the plain logic of human nature. You can try to promote the hell out of sewer pest control, either for the benefit of the burgoisie or society as a whole, but you won&#39;t convince folks out of their true inherent merit. Just picture yourself trying to cram space on the headlines for yet another day of shit being scraped off the sidewalk.






Go to ANY job and youll find the types of people who are lacky&#39;s for the bosses and managers, thinking theyr getting somewhere by doing jobs and running about for them.

These people are looking for recognition - or if I could even say "praise" - particularly from the bosses and managers who are using them.

Why not flip it around?......workers would seek praise and recognition from fellow workers who would actually recognise and respect a persons contribution.

Your example is devoid from reality. I have often did things without getting paid, digging gardens, helping throw stuff into skips, help someone remove their furniture or help a blind man cross the road. You couldnt say any are enjoyable, but what matters is that I feel like im contributing, or helping - and thats certainly enjoyable.

Staying at home watching the "box" isnt rewarding or enjoyable. Its usually depressed people who&#39;d do that. As I said - people like to work.





Why not flip it around? Right? Why don&#39;t we? I&#39;ll grant you the opportunity for the sake of experimentation, and try to see for once for how long you can convince yourself of the fact. As I said, try to cover the headlines for yet another day of bottle capping done well, or a new broken record of bottle capping. Yes, people will be surely fighting for that title&#33;

And like I said, you may enjoy being the good samaritan every once in a while, but mind the fact that this is only EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE. People like to work you say? This coming from someone who just said he would never last a week on his mother&#39;s job. Maybe that&#39;s only YOUR case, you might be right, but I would bet my life that YOUR case is equal to more than 80% of the population. And I already illustrated this case a few paragraphs above and elaborated a lot more on it, so feel free to reread it.

Try to get that into your head. One thing is good samaritanism or "helping out" and another one is HARD LABOR. Things that need to be done every single day of the week.




wont reply to the rest of your post. All it requires is a little flexing of the mind to see how these problems you speak of could be resolved. Think back to your childhood and how you did things for others, not for material reward, but simply for recognition. That is, before you enter the workplace or have been institutionalized to think otherwise.


Well if my unreplied arguments are so easily refuted then be my guest. If there&#39;s anybody you need to convince it&#39;s people like me. Someone who&#39;s on the other side, that&#39;s the whole point of this forum IMO, to help capitalists realize the logic and benefit of communism. There&#39;s no need to convince your comrades, they&#39;re already on your side.


I&#39;m sure eager to witness this "flexing of the mind" of yours.

[Journeyman]

Ok it&#39;s been almost two weeks since my last reply and NO ONE has answered since. I realize now it&#39;s customary here to closet an important topic without a conclusion to do nothing more than gather dust. It&#39;s the second time this has happened to me.

I don&#39;t see how the leftists here are to gain any more credibility in the face of their detractors without providing solid and conclusive arguments to the discussions they participate in, let alone by leaving an important topic unanswered.

I thus ask of you to please keep furthering the topic to help it arrive at a suitable conclusion.

[Lynx]

There are several threads hashing this out to no avail. In the end, people agree to disagree.

Profit is an indicator, after the fact, that an action was successful.

Income is an indicator of individual effort.

Leftists wish to change how profit is measured. This in turn will change how profit is evaluated. They also wish to change the motivations regarding the pursuit of personal income. So on one hand you have structural arguments regarding the role of profit, and sociological arguments regarding human behavior in a particular socio-economic system.

[Journeyman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:28 pm
There are several threads hashing this out to no avail. In the end, people agree to disagree.

Profit is an indicator, after the fact, that an action was successful.

Income is an indicator of individual effort.

Leftists wish to change how profit is measured. This in turn will change how profit is evaluated. They also wish to change the motivations regarding the pursuit of personal income. So on one hand you have structural arguments regarding the role of profit, and sociological arguments regarding human behavior in a particular socio-economic system.


Of course I know the wish to change the motivations. The question is HOW. Would you please enlighten me? I&#39;ve been waiting for years for an answer to this question. Because most certainly you CANNOT start a revolution before the motivations have changed.

If you have no plan to change motivation, a REAL plan, a plan that factors the time this will take into account, the logistics, the actual arguments you will use to change those minds, how will you maintain that motivation, then you have NO REVOLUTION.

So PLEASE, I ask you to describe me this plan in most detail so that I can assess it&#39;s viability.

[Lynx]

I don&#39;t have a plan&#33;
Others may have a plan, from tinkering with capitalism to technocracy. On the &#39;tinkering with capitalism&#39; side, I started a thought experiment on what would happen if wealth were redistributed on a fixed date. Reset Capitalism, for lack of a better term. What would happen? Would it work? I cannot answer those questions by myself.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73732

Tinkering with capitalism leaves intact the effort / reward mechanism that we are familiar with. Perhaps that is a better way to discuss changes, piece by piece, instead of looking at a new system radically different from our existing one.

Right now I&#39;m considering the functioning of the military. This appears to be an organization that functions on hierarchy instead of property relations. The &#39;means of destruction&#39; are shared, with ownership and profit largely ignored.

Edit: these links were given earlier, now I realize they can be considered as pieces of a plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_councils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy

I&#39;m still learning. My position is that our present socio-economic system is NOT "as good as it gets".

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 02:13 pm



One can certainly identify wealthy individuals, like children of movie stars or oil barons, who do not work, yes, but you can identify many poor who do not work.


Ahem...The worker in this scenario, doesn&#39;t work because the capitalist gains profit from keeping him unemployed, because this allows him to lower wages.

[Journeyman]

I don&#39;t have a plan&#33;
Others may have a plan, from tinkering with capitalism to technocracy. On the &#39;tinkering with capitalism&#39; side, I started a thought experiment on what would happen if wealth were redistributed on a fixed date. Reset Capitalism, for lack of a better term. What would happen? Would it work? I cannot answer those questions by myself.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73732

Tinkering with capitalism leaves intact the effort / reward mechanism that we are familiar with. Perhaps that is a better way to discuss changes, piece by piece, instead of looking at a new system radically different from our existing one.

Right now I&#39;m considering the functioning of the military. This appears to be an organization that functions on hierarchy instead of property relations. The &#39;means of destruction&#39; are shared, with ownership and profit largely ignored.

Edit: these links were given earlier, now I realize they can be considered as pieces of a plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_councils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy

I&#39;m still learning. My position is that our present socio-economic system is NOT "as good as it gets".


Oh, so that clears things up a great deal. You have done me a great favor by recognizing that you don&#39;t have a plan for solving the problem of motivation. From this follows that:

No Plan = NO REVOLUTION

That&#39;s it. There&#39;s no other way to put it. Therefore you CANNOT start a revolution until you have solved the problem of motivation. Therefore you probably won&#39;t be starting a revolution in the next few decades or even more. Not until we as humans have evolved beyond our individual egocentric way of thinking. Therefore this proves what I have been preaching from the start: HUMANS ARE NOT YET READY FOR COMMUNISM.

Make all the thought experiments you want. Computer simulations, mathematical models of hybrid economies, knock yourselves out. And it helps that you do because the solution will be needed eventually. Sooner or later. And people like you will have probably arrived at a solution.

But until then, don&#39;t ever dare to jump prematurely into any sort of system devoid of even the slightest trace of capitalism, or else you&#39;ll be stuck with a half baked theory in a country that needs to support itself, all the while waiting for "THE PLAN" to magically spring out of nowhere.

If there is anything that I expect from you now is simply an acknowledgement of this fact, so that I can be safe in knowing that you won&#39;t go "taking over the meat plant" with your "compadres" anytime soon. And that you won&#39;t be supporting brainless outbursts of stupidity from the local Banana Republic (Case in point: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, where I live, RIGHT NOW).

[Lynx]

I would like to see a plan (or plans) before a revolution. But events rarely play out as one would want them to.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don&#39;t recall Leftists advocating a small minority of individuals seizing the government and eliminating money overnight; it would be like an early European democrat seizing power from the feudal lords and declaring universal suffrage. The system would collapse on itself without large-scale support and a feudal hierarchy would be rushed back onto the throne. Even Leninists believe in a popular revolt.

You question our plan when it&#39;s right before your fingers. One of the purposes for RevLeft is to change people&#39;s opinions. The idea social motivation can not be a substitute for profit motivation is fundamentally flawed. It bypasses historical evidence of different cultures responding to their situations in different ways according to their habitats. Why were the Native Americans and Europeans so fundamentally different? If you reject racism, the logical conclusion is their environment.


(Case in point: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, where I live, RIGHT NOW).

If you want stupid outbursts, we have the grandaddy of them all right here. (http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/wanted.jpg)

[Journeyman]

Yes, I see Revleft is an effort to change people&#39;s minds, but it&#39;s not enough. You have to go out there and make a difference. In that case I hope you guys are doing so outside the limits of this forum. Not by promoting communism itself, but by promoting social conciousness, and supporting slow but steady and INDIRECT transitions toward communist economies. This process cannot be hurried for the transition to occur smoothly. This requires people to change their interests willingly. Making people develop an interest in the arts and sciences is a great start, as it tends to shift people&#39;s motivations away from materialism and more toward intellectual enrichment. Thus, great strides in education and culture should be made. But I must be adamant in insisting that this CANNOT be forced.

You cannot take a third world country where people can barely read and suddenly hope for them to start being motivated in the same way as Einstein. It&#39;s too much to ask of them. They&#39;re still mesmerized by shiny colors and dancing lights, not by the process that goes on behind them. They want the shiny colors and the dancing lights in their bedrooms so they can play with them, they don&#39;t want to learn how they work. Making them develop an interest in that is our job, and giving them the tools and the knowledge.

In any case, my point is clear. That you should admit that people are not yet ready for communism. That now is not yet the time.

[Lynx]

Some leftists believe that capitalism will collapse. By extension, that may lead them to believe in the possibility of an opportunistic revolution. Plan or no plan, Marxian conditions met or unmet, such an event will be the signal for action. Judging from history, that may be how it plays out yet again :(

It is rare for a society to plan ahead, and then take action to mitigate a crisis.

[Journeyman]

Well, judging by your replies, I will assume that most of you agree with me. Since you haven&#39;t countered my arguments I thus assume we arrived at a reasonable conclusion.

I therefore ask a favour of you, to help me bring this discussion to the Venezuelan forums so the Chavez supporters (as few as the english speaking ones may be) can post their thoughts on the matter, and since Venezuela is one such country facing a possible descent into unrelenting orthodox socialism, threatening to extinguish all trace of capitalism in it&#39;s wake, in a country that does not nearly meet even the minimum marxist conditions, I believe this to be a most urgent case.

I am certain that this is a matter of importance to you as we are dealing with a real world crisis that puts the reputation of marxist ideals in the balance, and you should do your best to clarify and distance yourselves from the opportunists, the fanatics and the shortsighted claiming to follow the true precepts of your ideals.

I would try this myself but seeing as I belong to the right wing, I would be met with scorn at the outset.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:24 pm
Yes, I see Revleft is an effort to change people&#39;s minds, but it&#39;s not enough. You have to go out there and make a difference. In that case I hope you guys are doing so outside the limits of this forum. Not by promoting communism itself, but by promoting social conciousness, and supporting slow but steady and INDIRECT transitions toward communist economies. This process cannot be hurried for the transition to occur smoothly. This requires people to change their interests willingly. Making people develop an interest in the arts and sciences is a great start, as it tends to shift people&#39;s motivations away from materialism and more toward intellectual enrichment. Thus, great strides in education and culture should be made. But I must be adamant in insisting that this CANNOT be forced.

You cannot take a third world country where people can barely read and suddenly hope for them to start being motivated in the same way as Einstein. It&#39;s too much to ask of them. They&#39;re still mesmerized by shiny colors and dancing lights, not by the process that goes on behind them. They want the shiny colors and the dancing lights in their bedrooms so they can play with them, they don&#39;t want to learn how they work. Making them develop an interest in that is our job, and giving them the tools and the knowledge.

In any case, my point is clear. That you should admit that people are not yet ready for communism. That now is not yet the time.
Of course. There are plenty of socialists past and present whose work helps answer these particular concerns you raise. For example, After Capitalism by David Schweickart not only details his idea of true market socialism being the first stage of socialism, but also how to get there if large-scale revolution doesn&#39;t occur. Although it&#39;s debatable whether his theory is defunct, Lenin at least saw the inherent problems in pushing an unindustrialized, anti-republican country into socialism in What is to be Done? The Greening of Marxism by Ted Benton tells how the Leftist movement has come to form a strong bond with the environmental movement. Such alliances mean only the growth and development of Leftist theory.

I don&#39;t think anyone here denies your statement that most people aren&#39;t ready for communism. If they were, we wouldn&#39;t be living under a neoliberal system of pillage and conquest.

[Journeyman]

Great, then I need the help of all of you in bringing this message to the people who are trying to force socialism into countries that do not meet the necessary conditions. People who either think all of us are ready or that being ready is not important.

One of the forums is in:

http://www.aporrealos.com/forum/viewforum....ff3f99ba766aa55 (http://www.aporrealos.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=3bb9c82652386834bff3f99ba766aa55)

That one is in english. I think you should provide a link to this thread so we don&#39;t have to go over the same discussion again.

I will also try to find other forums strongly supportive of Chavez to bring the message to them.

[Juche96]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:26 am
That you may still have inventors in socialism and people who contribute selflessly does not cover the fact that it does not compare to the amount of motivation it creates in capitalist societites, competition creates motivation in people who are not directly interested in cotributing to society, and creates an "urge" to do it faster.

Your argument is theoretical rather than empirical. First of all, before China, Korea DPR, Albania, USSR etc. were socialist, few, if any people were inventing ANYTHING in these oppressed nations because they did not have the capacity (not to mention education) to do so.

Secondly, when you talk about "capitalist countries", you are only referring to your biased sample of imperialist nations that control most of the world&#39;s wealth (i.e., Britain, USA, and Japan). In these countries, people tend to have plenty of leisure time as well as the education to spend their time inventing things. You fail to consider the vast majority of oppressed capitalist nations like Indonesia, Sierra Leone, Cameroon ... where minds with great potential are wasting away in diamond mines, sweat shops, brothels, or worse.

Third, if anything, capitalism hampers the ability to invent things that are useful and that benefit the masses. Many, if not the majority of inventions you see advertise on television are useless crap meant for leisure. Large sums of money are spent on developing and inventing video games, &#39;boner pills&#39;, and new kinds of door knobs rather than on things like malaria drugs that can benefit the masses and improve the quality of life for the world&#39;s majority.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:33 am
I therefore ask a favour of you, to help me bring this discussion to the Venezuelan forums so the Chavez supporters (as few as the english speaking ones may be) can post their thoughts on the matter, and since Venezuela is one such country facing a possible descent into unrelenting orthodox socialism, threatening to extinguish all trace of capitalism in it&#39;s wake, in a country that does not nearly meet even the minimum marxist conditions, I believe this to be a most urgent case.

I am certain that this is a matter of importance to you as we are dealing with a real world crisis that puts the reputation of marxist ideals in the balance, and you should do your best to clarify and distance yourselves from the opportunists, the fanatics and the shortsighted claiming to follow the true precepts of your ideals.
Venezuela&#39;s experiment with Marxism indicates that capitalism was not working all that wonderfully.