Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by GePap


Do you have some sort of crystal ball to back this assertion of yours? or maybe a mind reader? Or maybe you see alternate universes now?

We have the Soviet Union and China to base this on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you have some sort of crystal ball to back this assertion of yours? or maybe a mind reader? Or maybe you see alternate universes now?

Common sense and obviousness. After all even with the great successes of the USSR, how many consumer goods did they focus on and invent? Not many, if any, at all.

While you may complain it isn't real communism, well neither is the US real capitalism, though that stops no one. And besides, communism, which focuses on society rather than the individual, would not focus on little consumer good inventions, and if they did create them, they'd stop there. What need is there to improve them, when there are other things to fix in society? After all, some of our best inventions are improvements on other inventions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
How can waiters and lawers jobs be automated??

Not every job needs to be automated for automation to have a profound effect on consumer purchasing power. Lawyers are using new technology to become more productive. Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity. As far as waiters go, I wouldn't be suprized to see greater productivity gains in fast food due to automation, but there will still be waiters. However, there will be less jobs there too and we can't all be waiters.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity.

The productivity increases will actually lead to more jobs, because while you are paying your staff the same amount of money, they are getting more done, therefore making more money for you. With that extra cash, maybe you could hire someone else, who'll make you more money that a hiree ten years would have made you. Or instead of hiring someone else give the people who are already working for you some raises.

Few businessness are going to fire people for being more productive.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Not every job needs to be automated for automation to have a profound effect on consumer purchasing power. Lawyers are using new technology to become more productive. Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity. As far as waiters go, I wouldn't be suprized to see greater productivity gains in fast food due to automation, but there will still be waiters. However, there will be less jobs there too and we can't all be waiters.

If people are using computers, there has to be people to repair the computers, make the computers, program the computers, and tech support for the computers. That is why IT and other computer fields have grown over the years. Automation does not equall job loss.
Also how does this have anything to do with communism?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Productivity works against the standard of living by supressing wages.

Because the more productive countries have lower wages than the less productive countries... and as countries have gotten more productive, the SoL has fallen?!

Higher wages stimulate productivity improvements. You remember that from college don't you?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Common sense and obviousness. After all even with the great successes of the USSR, how many consumer goods did they focus on and invent? Not many, if any, at all.

ou miss the point Imran. My point of innovation is that it is inherently human, and not tied directly to any srt of economic system. You countered by giving the example of edison, who stated the only reason he did anything was to make money. My pointwas that had edison not done it, given the nature of the "breakthroughs" he porduces, not long after some other individua, perhaps doing it for no greater reason than most inventors, which is to invent and make somehting new they can call their own, would have created machines that did similar things, and then started the whole porcess. So my crystal ball comment addresses this. Are you telling me that in the US in 1894 (hardly the capitalist model you or anyone lese here is pushing) had there been to Thomas Alva Edison no other human ebing would have thought up of a new moving picture machine? or sound recording machine?

JohnT: I meant the rest of the comment, as in the sentence right after the one you quoted, which explans the first.

And If you can point to me where in the Communist manifesto Marx says anything about a single party controlling politics after the proleteriat revolution, you get a cookie.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity.

The productivity increases will actually lead to more jobs, because while you are paying your staff the same amount of money, they are getting more done, therefore making more money for you. With that extra cash, maybe you could hire someone else, who'll make you more money that a hiree ten years would have made you. Or instead of hiring someone else give the people who are already working for you some raises.

Few businessness are going to fire people for being more productive.

I want you to look up the Law of Diminishing Returns and write it down on a post it. Then post it on your monitor. Joking

[JohnT]

Oh, OK. The second half of what you typed that is not the second half.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
If people are using computers, there has to be people to repair the computers, make the computers, program the computers, and tech support for the computers. That is why IT and other computer fields have grown over the years. Automation does not equall job loss.
Also how does this have anything to do with communism?

The repair costs of the equipment is going down too. They are building things so that they don't break as much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So my crystal ball comment addresses this. Are you telling me that in the US in 1894 (hardly the capitalist model you or anyone lese here is pushing) had there been to Thomas Alva Edison no other human ebing would have thought up of a new moving picture machine? or sound recording machine?

Ah, I thought the 'crystal ball' comment refered to the second part...

As for the question, I think it might have been a while for someone to invent the moving picture or sound recording machine if the incentive of gobs of money was not there. And even then... after all they were pretty big leaps in invention.

The incentive for the money is required for the constant leaps in technology. You merely have to look at technological progress throughout history and see how it has grown exponentially in the capitalist world. Technology and capitalism drive each other.

Higher wages stimulate productivity improvements.

Not necessarily. Higher wages come from productivity improvments. I don't think that giving someone a higher wage is magically going to make them more productive, but more capital investments might. Productivity improvements also increase profit and revenue.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not necessarily. Higher wages come from productivity improvments. I don't think that giving someone a higher wage is magically going to make them more productive, but more capital investments might. Productivity improvements also increase profit and revenue.

Ayayay! Higher wages encourage firms to increase expenditures on machines to lower overall costs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Higher wages encourage firms to increase expenditures on machines to lower overall costs.

Because they wouldn't do this even with lower wages?

[Velociryx]

GePap: You are absolutely correct. It makes no sense to discuss communism WITHOUT also discussing the centralized, authoritarian government that comes with it for a couple of reasons:

1) EVERY SINGLE TIME that "communism" (put in quotes to soothe your soul) has been implemented, what came with that was????? Anyone? If you said: "Centralized, Authoritarian Government," YOU get a cookie!

Why?

2) The principle tenent of communism is centralized planning of the economy to ensure that everybody gets their "fair share."

And guess who is best positioned to handle that centralized economy?

Again, if you said "A centralized, authoritarian government" you get a second cookie! (but no more than that, cos after all, if you have a surpluss of cookies, you might start thinking boorish capitalist thoughts and try to exploit the rest of us poor schmucks!

Innovation:
Driven by three things, chiefly:
1) Man's inherent curiosity (communism doesn't like that, cos a curious mind, while it may invent something cool and useful for "the whole group" might also start thinking subversive thoughts, and that's a no-no.

2) The desire for profits: Make something groovy and sell it to other people who think it's groovy (communism doesn't like that either, cos it's capitalism....rather than profit from your somethinggroovy, you should give it to society like a good little lamb)

3) Proper environment: if an environment discourages curiosity and free thinking, the predictable result will be less overall innovation. If it's a crime to think freely, not many will take the chance (why risk your neck to make a "somethinggroovy" if the only reward you can expect is to have your invention coopted by the state, and possibly be made to disappear for inventing it in the first place.

Thus, is it no surprise that the greater bulk of innovation has occured in places that fostered such innovation?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

A correction to the above before you get nit-picky:

The central tenent to communism AS IT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY IMPLEMENTED (which, here in the real world is what matters) has been centralized planning of the economy (by a centralized, authoritarian government).

The theory doesn't matter, any more than it matters for capitalism.

What counts are the results in the real world where we have to live day to day, and IN that world....in THIS world, communism has always come with centralized, authoritarian governments (to administer their planned economy).

Why is that important to the debate? Because arguing from the POV of "pure communism" (since nobody can point to an example of it) is immaterial to the world that we live in (just as if we on the other side, were arguing from a "purely capitalist" POV).

Historical prescedent is of vital importance, since there are no purestrains of either system in existence. So the question becomes "how have they been implemented in the past" and "which has worked better for the largest number of people"

The folks here currently aruging the communist position would have us believe that they have learned from the past and now know a "kinder, gentler" way of implementing their social agenda on us.

When asked about specifics (how will they handle dissent, how they will prevent the formation of an authoritarian government)....well, that's when we just have to trust them and the benelovent state they will form to look out for us. Obviously the state knows what we need better than we do (individually...and there's that word again), so when the revolution comes, we should just trust big brother to do right by us and it'll all be okay.

No thanks.

-=Vel=-