Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Velociryx]

But they sure love that internet and stuff....

And I think John hit on the point that I'm trying to get communists to fess up to.

It's all about control.

Centralized control over the economy. Control over me and my life.

The ability to tell me what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.

If I don't do as you say, I am somehow a "threat" to the whole group, in obvious need of re-education in the best case, or simply turning up missing in the worst.

And this is somehow superior to simply letting me by who I am?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, so your entire argument is to be based on what I can tell you about individualism? Which implies then, that you don't have one at this time?

Thought so.

-=Vel=-

We don't have an argument because we aren't talking about the same thing. You have simply placed individualism above the elimination of suffering as your priority. I have no argument with that, although I say its too bad that some people think like that.

[JohnT]

"And this is somehow superior to simply letting me by who I am?"

To them it is. Who gives a shiite what you want?

[Velociryx]

No...there's more to be said about that, and I am genuinely curious.

Everything about your system is about centralized control. You can't believe that it won't bleed over into the day to day life of the people you are ruling.

Which means that the individual IS subverted. He's not an individual, he's just part of the collective. Doesn't matter what he thinks (so long as it's official party dogma), what his preferences are, what he likes. Nothing. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that he continues to speak the party's truth (as dictated to him by the same centrally controlling force) and keep towing the party line.

If he does that....he and his family are good.

If not, he and his family need "re-education."

The system cannot survive with dangerous, individualistic people in it, because they will corrupt and question the mantra being chanted by the party faithful. The are dangerous and subversive.

But they're not.

The only reason they seem to be so is because they reject the notion of totalitarian authority (which has been artifically cast upon them by the "enlightened" regieme you propose.

So why is this superior? Are individuals so dangerous that they cannot be left in peace? Are they so incapable of making the decisions that are best for them that these decisions must instead be handed down by the "benevolent" central controlling agency?

And again, how exactly, is that superior to letting people be who they are? Free to think and act and create as they will (within the bounds of the social contract and in accordance with local law and custom)?

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Why do you think we won't have the internet?

I'm talking in the hypothetical if the 20th Century had been the age of global communism. You yourself said that the pace of change was "inefficient" and "a con for capitalism" - so you've revealed an inbuilt bias against radical change.

Now, tell me, comrade, I need a large talent pool of electronics engineers and applied physicists, communicatins and RF engineers, and billions of rubles to develop technologies that might one day be useful. And just think, if we're successful, we could put a computer in every apartment, and people could communicate all over the world free of government, er, um, scratch that. Oh, we can share porn, er, um, Comrade, what is the party's position on porn? Oh, we could download and share music - oh, but nobody buys from the state music stores since we passed that rule about artistic expression having to advance the goals of socialism and the party.

Central planning (even in a capitalist system - the whole "management by committee" syndrome) always tends towards caution, conservatism, and inertia. The insistence on "efficient" allocation of resources is fundamentally stifling, because "efficient" is often seen as more of what you've already got, not building something new and unproven that might or might not work.

Technology will advance at a rate that we choose for it to advance.

Just like that, huh. So, since we "choose" the rate of advance of technology, how come Captain Kirk ain't already out there chasing after one of every kind of alien woman known?

Developing technology requires risks - risks of failure, risks of "inefficieny" and it requires vision, not inertia.

I just don't see that it is efficient for the system to make so many changes in organization. That is a con for capitalism, not a pro. There are a lot of resources and training wasted in such a dynamic system.

"So many changes" are voluntary. In my office building, there's somebody downstairs still running Win95 on what looks like a 486 or maybe Pentium box. They decided it still works for them, so they're not interested in spending resources to upgrade. Bully for them. I upgrade my non-infrastructural stuff on average every six to nine months. It's more critical to what I do to change. The advantage to lack of central planning is that enterprises are able to pursue strategies tailored to their perceived needs and to their resources.

We won't need any warships in the future

Warships are nothing more than a collection of applied technologies and engineering. I have to hand it to the USSR, though, they had replaced vacuum tubes with transistors for this generation of ship.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


We don't have an argument because we aren't talking about the same thing. You have simply placed individualism above the elimination of suffering as your priority. I have no argument with that, although I say its too bad that some people think like that.

And if you think denial of individualism is a prerequisite to "elimination of suffering," then you've got a real problem, because it simply shows the lack of vision in communism. You can't inspire or encourage beneficial behavior, so you set up a mechanism to coerce behavior for the alleged benefit of "the masses."

Meanwhile, you have a system that is so bloated and non-responsive that total resources which could be used dealing with "suffering" fail to grow as fast as available resources under a capitalist system.

You also conveniently ignore that a majority of suffering is not caused by economic systems, but as a result of totally different sociopolitical processes - socialist nations in Africa ain't doing much for their people either.

[Velociryx]

MtG beat me to it cos I couldn't get back on 'poly ("server too busy" messages), but I wholeheartedly agree with him.

And where is it written *anywhere* that a person who values the strengths and uniqueness of individuality, shuns suffering when he finds it.

In a society that celebrates individuality, people are free to choose what to think, how to live, and what to do. That freedom extends to the ability to freely ignore suffering if they so choose (not doing anything more than pay their fair share of taxes, a portion of that money being used in turn to help the less fortunate).

It also means that person is free to choose to throw himself and his talents at the problem, and the results can be (and are) astonishing. You get a much more passionate, determined response that way than you do when the order to care for the less fortunate is dictated by the state and backed up by the barrel of a gun. Or would you disagree with that too?

Also, if your revolution began tomorrow, no, you would not have the Internet. You couldn't afford to have the internet. The reason you couldn't afford to have it is because it would provide a nearly untraceable means for all those dangerous subversives to coordinate and plan for your authoritarian system's removal.

On a related topic, much has been made of the resources "wasted" as the capitalist-based economy shifts gears in response to changing conditions.

It is interesting to me, however, that no mention is made of the massive wastage that must occur in order to set up the all-encompassing, monolithic watchdog agency that will churn out party propaganda, and look over everyone's shoulder to ensure that no one is thinking independent ("dangerous") thoughts. To check up on everyone to make sure everything is nice and equal, and to make sure that nobody is persuing any form of evil, corruptive capitalism.

That undertaking would require mass thousands, if not millions of full time "Watchers." State appointed babysitters with the power to make you disappear if you show signs of not towing the party line.

Is that not a waste of resources? Could those resources be spent elsewhere to better effect?

But under the system you propose, it'll never happen, because again, it's about control.

You need it to survive, and the maintenance OF that control will come first. Not the welfare of the masses you claim to represent, but the maintenance of your own position at the top of the food chain.

That comes first, and if there's anything left over, THEN we can give something to the masses.

Tell me....what's wrong with letting people live as they wish? Where is the crime in that? What's wrong with allowing people to make their own choices and accepting the consequences (or rewards) OF those choices? It's called *personal* responsibility, and *personal* empowerment.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

In response to the claim that the recent gains in productivity are beneficial to society I would like to say that people who believe this are not sympathetic to those who pay the heavy cost of these gains in productivity. As MtG pointed out only workers who have the most up to date skills are employable. Even if you are only 5-10 years out of college you may be downsized. Why? Because the corporation you work for has to cut it’s costs due to competition. Probably their competitors have already made these productivity gains. If the company you work for doesn’t cut their costs they will go out of business.

Who pays the cost of this productivity gain? You do. You did what you were suppose to do. You went to college and trained yourself. You worked hard. You didn’t do anything wrong, but now you are unemployed. Your skills are outdated. You can’t get a job, because the kids that just got out of school have better skills than you do. You’re not unskilled. You just don’t have the right skills.

Who gets the benefits of this productivity? The company gets a profit and the consumer gets a cheaper price. Some people think greater profit is a fine objective in itself. Maybe, it is, if you own a company or lots of stock. But what about the consumer surplus. That’s different because that is what closes the sale on productivity for most people. We have been told that productivity advancements will improve the standard of living since at least 1890. That lower prices will stimulate consumer demand for more products and everyone will benefit.

Unfortunately, the recent increases in productivity are having a profound effect on demand. For every new job created for kids just getting out of college with the new skills that are needed to work with the new technology many more jobs are lost. That’s how they cut costs. Their labor costs go way down. The cost of the lost jobs is greater than the benefit of lower prices. That is the cause of permanent technological unemployment.

People who don’t have jobs because of permanent technological unemployment should not be held responsible for their unemployment and should not have to pay the cost of productivity gains while corporations and those lucky enough to have jobs reap all the benefits.

The rate of productivity improvement is accelerating while job creation is falling. Some other social contract must be created to deal with permanent technological unemployment or the system will fail. It’s time for the common man to start reaping the benefits of technology instead of just the rich.

[Velociryx]

Kid, that was among the most lucid posts you have made to date. Congratulations. (and I mean that sincerely).

However, a couple of problems with your theory:

1) Who do you think the "consumer" is? Is it not the case that Consumer = Worker (or "common man" as you put it in your post). Thus, given that companies need to have a market for their products....given that companies need to have consumers who can pay for their products, does that not suggest that there is a limit to which they can cut their costs in the manner you describe? Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, companies would see perfect productivity when they can at last utterly eliminate their labor costs (not all of their costs, mind you, because the automation they replace humans with does have costs of its own), and at that moment, the market for whatever they are making dries up to nothing (because no one has a job, no one is making money, and no one can afford whatever it is they're selling).

If you actually believe that this is where the economy is heading....if you believe it in your heart of hearts, then I would put forth that you did not learn what your economics professors were attempting to teach you.

2) Yes, we (the common man) SHARE the burden of the cost of training for new skills. So does the company. If you have ever run a business, you would know that training expense is a big, and rising cost for companies. New systems are developed and implemented, and the employees must be trained to use those new systems effectively. Who pays for that? I have never worked for a company in my life that forced its employees to pay for their own training (there are reimbursement programs sure, if you want to go above and beyond what is required for your job, but that is not the same thing).

3) The point mentioned just above. Most major companies have a vested interest in keeping their employees rather than watching them drift to the competition. Thus, many, if not most companies have programs where you can take classes and get certifications, update your skill set and the company will pay for it. Does that not run counter to what you just said (ie - "You" pay the full burden of the cost of acquiring new skills).

4) Acquiring job skills that the market wants is not a matter of luck. It is a matter of determing what the market wants right now, and acquiring those skills. Where does luck enter the equation in skill acquisition?

5) No comments on the other stuff, I see....

6) Even IF at some point, a new social contract needs to be drawn up, would it not be wiser to simply start from scratch, than rely on a worn out, century old approach that has never had a successful test run in its existence? I think I would rather take my chances on something entirely new but untested, than with the rickety old boat that Communism represents.

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
In response to the claim that the recent gains in productivity are beneficial to society I would like to say that people who believe this are not sympathetic to those who pay the heavy cost of these gains in productivity. As MtG pointed out only workers who have the most up to date skills are employable.

I don't know if this is a reading comprehension issue, or an issue of lack of ethics, but I would appreciate you not distorting or blatantly mischaracterizing statements of mine.

There are people in the work force who specialize in all sorts of things from digging ditches, to flipping burgers, to bolting doors on GM cars. I have never said, and it's an absurdity, that "only workers who have the most up to date skills are employable." If workers want to maximize their value, they need to improve skills and adapt to the market - that does not mean "most up to date" or that everyone is suddenly unemployed and unemployable because of the next new technology.

Even if you are only 5-10 years out of college you may be downsized. Why? Because the corporation you work for has to cut it’s costs due to competition.

Or, on the flip side, you can quit your job and go elsewhere at will. You can also be promoted, or get better jobs for yourself.

Probably their competitors have already made these productivity gains. If the company you work for doesn’t cut their costs they will go out of business.

This is an oversimplification, but inefficiency and stagnation don't work well in a capitalist economy, no?

Who pays the cost of this productivity gain? You do.

Maybe. Or maybe you do something better. The choice is yours.

You did what you were suppose to do. You went to college and trained yourself. You worked hard. You didn’t do anything wrong, but now you are unemployed. Your skills are outdated.

Well, if you decided that four years of college was supposed to be a ticket to lifetime employment without any change in your skills, you were ****ing stupid. There's such a thing as continuing education, there's also the process of acquiring experience in what you do, and there's also the concept of considering the likely future market for what you do. If you're a specialist in repairing black and white vacuum tube TV's, and you don't want to be bothered with that newfangled solid-state stuff, then you're making a choice.

You can’t get a job, because the kids that just got out of school have better skills than you do. You’re not unskilled. You just don’t have the right skills.

(a) My present work (consulting and entrepreneurial) doesn't involve a single specific direct work skill I learned in college or in my early jobs.

(b) Young punks just out of college have no experience, no business sense, and a whole bunch of other limiters. They're so inexperienced with the world, they might even believe in communism.

(c) If a 43 year old like me is trying to compete with a 23 year old for an entry level technology position, there's something really wrong with this picture. They apply for junior level software engineer type stuff. You're right, nobody would hire me for that - and I wouldn't apply for it. If I'm going to hit the pavement, I'm looking at project management, lead software architect, CIO or CTO type positions. And yeah, the kid undoubtedly knows Java and J2EE more than I'll ever care to, or need to.

Who gets the benefits of this productivity? The company gets a profit and the consumer gets a cheaper price. Some people think greater profit is a fine objective in itself. Maybe, it is, if you own a company or lots of stock. But what about the consumer surplus. That’s different because that is what closes the sale on productivity for most people. We have been told that productivity advancements will improve the standard of living since at least 1890. That lower prices will stimulate consumer demand for more products and everyone will benefit.

Are you denying that standards of living in the capitalist world have risen across the board since 1890?

Unfortunately, the recent increases in productivity are having a profound effect on demand. For every new job created for kids just getting out of college with the new skills that are needed to work with the new technology many more jobs are lost. That’s how they cut costs. Their labor costs go way down. The cost of the lost jobs is greater than the benefit of lower prices. That is the cause of permanent technological unemployment.

Yeah, boy, damn that Jethro Tull and Eli Whitney straight away to hell.

OK, so you're an admitted Luddite.

BTW, if every new job coming in is eliminating several jobs, and leaving people permanently unemployable, why do we have an unemployment rate in the sixes in a recession, as opposed to in the 20-30% range?

Ooops, seems there's not quite as many job eliminations or permanent unemployed.

People who don’t have jobs because of permanent technological unemployment should not be held responsible for their unemployment and should not have to pay the cost of productivity gains while corporations and those lucky enough to have jobs reap all the benefits.

Oooh, now you're lucky enough to have jobs. Ooooh.
And yes, let's help the working man by doubling the price of everything and prohibiting productivity improvements that reduce the number of jobs. The USSR tried it, BTW.

The rate of productivity improvement is accelerating while job creation is falling. Some other social contract must be created to deal with permanent technological unemployment or the system will fail. It’s time for the common man to start reaping the benefits of technology instead of just the rich.

Do you have evidence of long-term trends, or is this just from the Marxist Book of Common Cant?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, companies would see perfect productivity when they can at last utterly eliminate their labor costs (not all of their costs, mind you, because the automation they replace humans with does have costs of its own), and at that moment, the market for whatever they are making dries up to nothing (because no one has a job, no one is making money, and no one can afford whatever it is they're selling).

The ball is in your court to counter this.


MtG,

The long run trend for unemployment is upward. Of course, we have been lucky to have job creation due to specifics, like military build up. The job creation during the 90s was due to the production of capital goods, computers etc.. So the low unemployment during the 90s is going to mean very high unemployment for this decade as corporations continue learning how to make the best use of the new technologies. If you look at the long run trend since the 60s and project that into the next decade we will see unemployment rates at about 7-8% on average for the decade.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even if you are only 5-10 years out of college you may be downsized. Why? Because the corporation you work for has to cut it’s costs due to competition. Probably their competitors have already made these productivity gains. If the company you work for doesn’t cut their costs they will go out of business.

If you came out of college with an English degree and then are complaining that your software company folded, then yah, you'll be downsized. If you get something that actually is in demand and makes decent money, then you'll have a job because you have marketable skills. Your company folds, so what, get a job with another company! Things can't work out for you all the time! If you got decent skills and a good work ethic, you'll get hired.

If you look at the long run trend since the 60s and project that into the next decade we will see unemployment rates at about 7-8% on average for the decade.

He asked for evidence, not more spouting off on things without evidence .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Even if you are only 5-10 years out of college you may be downsized. Why? Because the corporation you work for has to cut it’s costs due to competition. Probably their competitors have already made these productivity gains. If the company you work for doesn’t cut their costs they will go out of business.

If you came out of college with an English degree and then are complaining that your software company folded, then yah, you'll be downsized. If you get something that actually is in demand and makes decent money, then you'll have a job because you have marketable skills. Your company folds, so what, get a job with another company! Things can't work out for you all the time! If you got decent skills and a good work ethic, you'll get hired.

The worse situation would be if everyone studied to get the same marketable skills. Then wages would be even lower and it follows that the unemployment rate would be even higher.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He asked for evidence, not more spouting off on things without evidence .

You wouldn't know eveidence if it hit you in the face.

[Velociryx]

No, the ball is not in my court to disprove it, Kid, because it won't happen. It's so far beyond the realm of possibility that it's.....right up there with functioning, flourishing Communism, actually....

Don't feel up to tackling my "authoritarian" posts tonight, eh? 'k....

-=Vel=-