Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[Velociryx]

In case you're curious, GePap (and I"m sure you don't want to hear this, cos ::gasp:: it runs counter to what you're aruging), there are no less than five private foundations working on building the next generation of reusable space craft, WITH working prototypes.

You raised the bar...space flight is a good bit harder than ice cream. It'll take a bit longer.

Doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.

It's just not workin' out for you, is it?

But that's okay, you can raise the bar again....I don't mind.

-=Vel=-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Temp: I'm not saying that capitalism is perfect. But you must concede that it's a far better race horse than ANY attempt at communism has been do date, yes?

I'm not saying capitalism is a bad thing. It beats the hell out of feudalism and everything that was tried before. It's done a lot to break down nationalism and other negative forces.

But history doesn't end at capitalism, whatever Fukiyama might have believed.

But I'm not a hardline Marxist either. Marx had some good insights. But his insights were mostly a product of his moment in history. Marxism has grown beyond Marx.

I like physics, but that doesn't mean I'm a hardline Newtonian. Physics has advanced beyond Newton.

If you believe in your system, start on a small scale. Start a company run along communist lines.

PROVE it works.

Prove it is scalable.

Then we'll have something to talk about?

Til then, you're comparing a system that works (albiet imperfectly) to a system that looks good on paper, but has failed every practical applications test.

As I've said before, this was probably the same complaint raised against capitalism by feudalists. I'm looking forward, not backwards.

My interest is in a system that promotes innovation and distributive justice above all other concerns. Capitalism will eventually either give way or stifle innovation. Here's why.

Let's say you have a drug company that has a choice between researching a treatment for AIDS and a cure. The treatment will require patients (or their insurance) to continually by the treatment for the rest of their lives. The cure is a one shot deal. What will produce more profit? Probably the treatment (unless the cure is priced in such a way that it costs what the treatment would cost over an average lifetime). SO what will profit dictate that the company research? Now which would you rather have? See, demand and profit motive are out of synch here.

So what about that cure? Given that the treatment is worth more, the company actually has the incentive to research both, and sit on the cure. Nobody else can make it (intellectual property, protecting research investments, and all). Thus people are forced to buy the treatment.

Moreover, capitalism depends on scarcity to work. Let's say I invent some nanomachines that build material items directly from the atoms up. Scaricity of material items is no longer an issue. After I buy my nanokit, I'll never buy another product again. This is the sort of thing that will doom capitalism. Unless of course, capitalists act rationally (as in the treatment/cure case) and enforce scarcity either by cutting off innovation (via the law as in the stem cell case) or just sitting on the nanomachines. Either way, the profit motive logic of capitalism will force a direct conflict between the continuing viablility of capitalism and innovation and distributional juctice. (The technology factor is one of the things Marx actually predicted.)

Hmmm, I guess "The Diamond Age" is one of the texts that helped end my youthful enthusiasm for libertarianism.

[Velociryx]

Temp: And I will RELISH the day when you build the nanoreplicator thingy! Put me down for one of the first!

Till then, I'll stick with what is proven to work. I'm all for free thinking and ideas that will advance humankind, but let's face it, communism has been a train wreck each and every time it has been implemented.

Is that so hard to see? Flip through the pages of history.

Feel free to keep on thinking though.....just don't ask me to support a "revolutionary" system which condemns a lot of folks to die when it is implemented in the real world, and has not proven any significant gains.

Make it work on ANY scale and make it scaleable, and we'll have something. Till then, it's theory. The problem with implementing a poorly designed theory is....what we've see so far with communist experiments.

We don't need more of the same.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
INDIVIDUALS shape society where I live. Individuals define society where I live. Not the other way around.

Not sure where you're living, and if that is untrue where you are, I'm sorry.
-=Vel=-

this from a person who still believes in the old Locke idea of how society comes to be..(and perhaps because of that)

The fact is Vel that individual agency is actually declining with time, not increasing.

And you continue to skirt the basic reason why Vel; your choices are built upon what you know, and what you know is based on what you are told or what you discover on your own. And who tels you what you know? Soceity? And in a world were most things ahve "been discovered", the opennings for the second part are fewer and fewer all the time. Look att eh wrold or religion. Look how fertile the world was before 1000 in creating new ones. How many new significant relgions have come up since 1000ad? I can only think of Bahai, which is not very big yet. Most new "religions" are variations on an older theme. Very few are variations so strikingly new they become something different.

In case you're curious, GePap (and I"m sure you don't want to hear this, cos ::gasp:: it runs counter to what you're aruging), there are no less than five private foundations working on building the next generation of reusable space craft, WITH working prototypes.

And how many of those private resueable spacecraft have yet to leave the atmosphere? How many of them can get into space on ther own power? The first prvate venture to get into space will porbably be that startup what bought a soyuz from the Russians to send space, not some group that attempts to launch their own devices into space. As of now, space travel is so expensive that only organizations with huge resources can do it (and do it legally). So join those rogs if you want Vel, becuase I can bet you a pretty penny that simply by the sweat of their brows they won't get into space.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Not many games for mac. OS, now are there?

Inferior products get inferior support. Blame Steve Jobs if you must blame anyone.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Temp: And I will RELISH the day when you build the nanoreplicator thingy! Put me down for one of the first!

I assure you I won't be the one to build it. But do hope someone does (minus the grey goo factor of course).

Feel free to keep on thinking though.....just don't ask me to support a "revolutionary" system which condemns a lot of folks to die when it is implemented in the real world, and has not proven any significant gains.

Depends what you mean by 'revolutionary'. If you mean a bloody takeover and pogrom, count me out as well. (if MtG resists violently, we'll just put him in a cell with Bubba) The only revolution worth a damn is at the ballot box. And those tend to be slow and protracted. But there you go.

If 'revolutionary' means radically different, I have no problem. We live in a time when technology advances more quickly then our societal integration of it (David Barash wrote a great book about the disparity between the speeds of technology, culture, and biological evolution).

Radical changes require radical solutions. Consider file trading. The current property regime cannot keep up with the cost of enforcing intellectual property in music. It's gotten to the point where idiots like Orrin Hatch are talking about allowing record companies to bolix people's computers. Another example of capitalism conflicting with innovation - and the politicians attacking the innovation.

Make it work on ANY scale and make it scaleable, and we'll have something. Till then, it's theory. The problem with implementing a poorly designed theory is....what we've see so far with communist experiments.

We don't need more of the same.

-=Vel=-

Agreed, we don't need more of the same. But on either side of the economic divide.

[Odin]

Good posts Templar. Capitalism only innovates when it is profitable, it doesn't reasearch things that don't make a profit, even if it for the good of society (a.k.a. Templar's AIDS example) If you want an example of a working socialist society reed the novel Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

Humans naturally do what is good for society, if we didn't would of quickly when extinct 100,000 years ago. It is only in the last 100 years that consumerism has short-circuted out natural stone-age communal tendancies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you want an example of a working socialist society reed the novel Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

If you want an example of a working Libertarian society read the novel 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Heinlen .

Come on, using novels to prove something that 'works' is kinda silly.

[David Floyd]

Humans naturally do what is good for society,

Then how would you explain, say, the 30 Years War, or WW1, for example? You can't blame those on capitalism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Odin
Humans naturally do what is good for society,

How do you explain the fact that laws predate the existance of capitalism? Why would we need them if people naturally do what is good for society?

[Velociryx]

GePap: I don't buy into any particular philosophy, Locke included.

Your argument is people know what they know.....and that is an argument....how, exactly? ::shakes head:: Give me an argument with a trace of substance to it, and I'll reply, give me "we know what we're told or what we learn on our own" REALLY? How long did that take you to figure out, exactly? Stating the obvious does not a debate make. I could counter just as easily with "the sun will rise tomorrow." For all the substance that the former has, the latter is a perfectly valid answer. :rollseyes:

Capitalism only innovates when it is profitable to do so Which of course, explains why the Genome project occurred in a capitalist system, right? (and the Internet too). Yeah, I know, I know, they were funded by government research dollars. And the government GOT those research dollars from? Show of hands? Could it be.....taxing the fruits of the capitalist system? EUREKA!!

I'm not belittling the notions that communists are putting forth, so please don't think that I am.

What I AM belittling is the notion that communism will work "next time" when no one has laid out a comprehensive action plan that is ANY different from previous efforts.

One of the surest signs of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again the same way and expecting different results.

It didn't work. It hasn't worked.

And I still haven't heard from the communist crowd about why nobody has bothered to set up a company along communist lines (that is to say, start a company, and pay each employee the full measure of his productivity....you know, so there's no exploitation. See how it works.

I know of no such efforts, and no one here has corrected me on it, so I'll assume that there are none. If you guys can't even be arsed to do THAT, then why should we turn you loose on the whole economy?!

As for GePap and those who feel that "individual agency" is on the way out the door....just keep repeating that to yourself, and when the next Uncle Joe or Big Brother comes along to tell you what to do and how to live, be a good little lamb and blindly comply, 'k?

I'm off to pack some more boxes....I've been exploiting Nancy long enough, sitting here jawing with you guys while she does the work....back in a while....

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Vagabond -

You are letting the etymology of the word 'exploitation' interfere with your judgement. Yes, he's exploiting you, merely because he gets a profit from you.

But I'm getting a profit from him. Before he offered me the job I was twiddling my thumbs without an income, now I'm making money and buying stuff. Could I make that money without him? No, he had the infrastructure that allowed me to produce enough to turn my time/labor into value. Exploitation is a one way street where one party profits at the expense of another, not where two parties come together and both profit.

This doesn't necessarily imply anything bad about him, you, or the situation as a whole. Most certainly, it is even very good: he helped you, you did something for him, everyone content.

Which is kind of the point, there is something distasteful about being told I'm exploited when I agreed to the contract and want to fulfill my obligations by people who think they have some superior insight into my needs and desires.

However, by definition, it's exploitation. Anyone (and commies too) is free to introduce whatever definitions they are pleased with.

That's another problem, using definitions we each find "pleasing". I'd rather use the actual definitions, and "exploitation" does not refer to a situation where two parties agree to exchange wealth/value for the perceived betterment of both. These people who say I am "exploited" don't care if I disagree, my views and values are irrelevant to these self-appointed defenders of my time. But we know how they'd react if some socially conservative do-gooder walked up and started dictating how they live...

[Velociryx]

Berserker!

Well said!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Templar
We can't help but do so. Again, should prference formation be left to advertisers out to maximize profits by selling useless ****?

We still have to determine what new products and services we will produce. We don't have to make profit to do it. We can use surveys and things like that. However, I agree that some subjectivity is required by the planners. When a new product is created we should advertize to put out the information about it. Otherwise the product will sit on the shelves and we will get no use from it. Really I think that new products and services should be kept to a minimum until the later stages of the system.

[Berzerker]

Odin -

Good posts Templar. Capitalism only innovates when it is profitable, it doesn't reasearch things that don't make a profit, even if it for the good of society (a.k.a. Templar's AIDS example)

Do you know why government funds NASA? Because, we are told, private industry wouldn't fund space exploration because of concerns for profit, i.e., only government can fund such endeavors. What does this really mean? It means private industry wouldn't fund space exploration because it's a waste of billions of dollars, so only government can "afford" to waste that money. Do you consider that a diversion of resources from more efficient activities to the less efficient? Btw, most medical advances result from inquiries into tangential or unrelated areas. I doubt we'll find a cure for cancer because somebody spent years looking for that cure, but because someone stumbled upon it while looking for a way to prevent hair loss or something.

Humans naturally do what is good for society, if we didn't would of quickly when extinct 100,000 years ago. It is only in the last 100 years that consumerism has short-circuted out natural stone-age communal tendancies.

If the first part was true, why have communists slaughtered so many people for non-conformity? As for the second, would you like to swap life spans and standard of living with those cavemen?

Thx Vel