Doesn't the service industry preclude communist revolt?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Change what nature?

There is a reason I always bring up the Star Trek example- imagine people actually had something like a replicator: then in essence human beings would have no hand in the making of anything, and thus have no reason to do anything to harm the commons, yet they certainly would not be "under the control of machines", at least not more significantly than today, and realize that if today we had no mahcines our society would collapse into anarchy.

So the point is that we may reach a point at which all needs will be met, and so will mopst wants, and the economic system will be such that work (toil, labor) will not be necessary-if people which to compete for recognition and fame, they will be able to stick to art and sport as opposed to economic activities like farming or manufacturing.

And short of a magical technology like the replicator natural resources will be conusmed, including those nonreplenishable ones.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
When people start talking about utopia, I cease to take them seriously

Bingo!

[DinoDoc]

Of course they'll have reason to harm the commons. Where do you think Gold-pressed Latinum comes from?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
And short of a magical technology like the replicator natural resources will be conusmed, including those nonreplenishable ones.

The issue here then is distribution.

Imagine a system in which we had fully automated factories capable of making the exact item ordered by a single costumer, then delivered to that costumer promptly, without having to mass produce the item. This could be done with sufficient omputerization (without need for AI). There would be an incentive for companies to build such a system-but of course in such a system, if all is mechanized, again you took out all the human labor (part of that whole mass unemploymeny bit). Even if invariably resources will be used (though most resources sans energy could be recycled) the system would be able to last as long as the total resources of the arth could support the human population-and being capitalist won't save the human species from the limit anymore than any other system will.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Of course they'll have reason to harm the commons. Where do you think Gold-pressed Latinum comes from?

We just kill the Ferangi.

[DinoDoc]

It'd be another Vietnam.

[GePap]

NO, I prefer the Hiroshima and Dresden comparisons.

[DinoDoc]

They have ships and weapons.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap



The issue here then is distribution.

Imagine a system in which we had fully automated factories capable of making the exact item ordered by a single costumer, then delivered to that costumer promptly, without having to mass produce the item. This could be done with sufficient omputerization (without need for AI). There would be an incentive for companies to build such a system-but of course in such a system, if all is mechanized, again you took out all the human labor (part of that whole mass unemploymeny bit). Even if invariably resources will be used (though most resources sans energy could be recycled) the system would be able to last as long as the total resources of the arth could support the human population-and being capitalist won't save the human species from the limit anymore than any other system will.

Yes and that was my point. The benefits you talk to are ones of efficiency and productivity which is what capitalism delivers in spades. It does not talk to collective societal decision to protect the environment from pollution or decision to curtail productions of items endangering critical resources.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Yes and that was my point. The benefits you talk to are ones of efficiency and productivity which is what capitalism delivers in spades. It does not talk to collective societal decision to protect the environment from pollution or decision to curtail productions of items endangering critical resources.

You are confusing me an Agahton-he is the one talking about environmental protection. I am simply talking about how capitalism builds up its own antithesis by reaching the zenith of productivity and efficiency, you no longer need capitalism and in reaching them the problems you built with the outdate propety system bring forth dramatic change. Agahton simply made a useful point that I could use.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They have ships and weapons.

Bah, they can be swept aside-we won't act like pansies in the federation-we will act more like Cardassians.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Sorry, continue on elsewhere then.

I thought you were talking towards the enviro problem of near infinite producitivty in a stateless society.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Need not, but will.

Yet you have given 2 unrealistic circumstances where the utopian can achieve efficiency. (By realistically I mean within our lifetimes)

So you have not satisfied the claims made above
.

You are missing the point. You accused communists of raping the environment just as much as capitalists. I objected that the question was ill thought out.

It is not a question of who "rapes" the environment, but a question of who makes more efficient use of environmental resources. In short, the answer is that because certain environmental "commons" cannot effectively be turned into saleable commodities, capitalism tends to both overpollute the commons (externalizing environmental bads onto everyone else for the profit of a few) and artificially lowers the price of commodities that result from doing so (so that we consume too much of them) - that leads to inefficiency (since we aren't taking into account the "cost" of pollution). Private markets will always do that, by their very nature.

On the other hand, solutions to the problem either involve the state or involve a change of attitude among citizens. Both have happened to some degree. People are more conscious of environment issues than ever before and many people are happy to act responsibly. However, some people free ride on their goodwill, so we have the state with its monopoly on force to enact pollution controls and/or taxes. Now, for example, pollution levels in US cities are a lot lower than they used to be - because of regulation.

If you say that the state cannot effect efficiency promoting pollution controls and environmental policy then you are simply contradicted by the facts - it can if people know what they are doing, and has done so to great effect. These are not capitalist policies, they are counter to what the market would do if left to itself.

If you say that people will always be so selfish that a stateless solution is impossible, then while that may be true, you need an argument for it.

The fact remains that our only hope for preventing inefficient use of environmental resources is not the free market. The most successful (but not perfect) solution (so far) is state regulation. All that is really saying is that when a "commons" is involved collective decision making is the only thing that will work.

The fact is that your question was ill formed. It has nothing to do with any real dispute between communists of any stripe and capitalists. The difference lies elsewhere.

As for my taking shots at capitalism - that is entirely justifiable since there is no form of workable free market which will solve these sorts of problems. On the other hand some form of collective solutions may work, some not. But that is a separate argument. You haven't given an argument against all of them because you didn't understand the issue properly to start with.

[Agathon]

DP

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


You are missing the point. You accused communists of raping the environment just as much as capitalists. I objected that the question was ill thought out.

To clarify, I accused utopian communists of raping the environment as much as capitalists. Primarily of two reasons. ( By the by were you following the thread you would have realized it was following posts describing utopian marxism as the stateless variety )
1) In order to achieve the productivity required it was to be completed via capitalism (the folks who beleive this. Their words not mine) Only when capitalism reached that zenith was utopian communism a reality. Hence environemnetal damage at rate x, pre conversion to communsim hence envrionemtnal damage at rate x after conversion to stateless society. It would likely stand to reason that since capitalism was the engine to drive towards that level of producivity it would be increasing it enviro damage to sustain those levels of production.
2) As there is no outside influence (i.e. state) to force environ responsibility there is no reason to think that once the transition is made the situation would improve. (And no I don't buy the sudden shift in peoples nature or robotic mind control.)

It is not a question of who "rapes" the environment, but a question of who makes more efficient use of environmental resources. In short, the answer is that because certain environmental "commons" cannot effectively be turned into saleable commodities, capitalism tends to both overpollute the commons (externalizing environmental bads onto everyone else for the profit of a few) and artificially lowers the price of commodities that result from doing so (so that we consume too much of them) - that leads to inefficiency (since we aren't taking into account the "cost" of pollution). Private markets will always do that, by their very nature.

Without turning to cliched examples of the dull and lazy unsinspired drones of communism past, your post assumes too much. Since we both agree no true version of communism or capitalsim exist why suggest the one over the other as being more efficeint wrt use of resources and pollution creation. Neither side will accept the other examples other than to say they are examples of mixed economies.

And truth be told, unless shown you'll pardon me if I don't believe it.

On the other hand, solutions to the problem either involve the state or involve a change of attitude among citizens. Both have happened to some degree. People are more conscious of environment issues than ever before and many people are happy to act responsibly. However, some people free ride on their goodwill, so we have the state with its monopoly on force to enact pollution controls and/or taxes. Now, for example, pollution levels in US cities are a lot lower than they used to be - because of regulation.

Example of mixed economy, yes.

If you say that the state cannot effect efficiency promoting pollution controls and environmental policy then you are simply contradicted by the facts - it can if people know what they are doing, and has done so to great effect. These are not capitalist policies, they are counter to what the market would do if left to itself.

In our current global situation the more likely examples tho' are of regulation and outsourcing, thus simply enacting a huge shell game of pollution. Only when the regulations offer incentives in forms do we see teh effects you ascribe to. Incentives being defined as means to improve efficeiny via yield improvments, less energy use, etc. Or when offered a means to incorporate pollution credit trading so that large polluters have incentives to reduce pollution levels further than required quota with reducing quota levels as legitamitely required (but thats a free market aspect to a state control that I'm sure you oppose )

If you say that people will always be so selfish that a stateless solution is impossible, then while that may be true, you need an argument for it.

I have my doubts yes, based upon my opinion of society.
My real reason tho' is that no organized entity will enact change or provide any oversight/regulation and given this state, individuals will allow status quo at best descent into chaos more likely.

The fact remains that our only hope for preventing inefficient use of environmental resources is not the free market. The most successful (but not perfect) solution (so far) is state regulation. All that is really saying is that when a "commons" is involved collective decision making is the only thing that will work.

I don't argue this. I do think state regulation has more effective means to effect these changes but on the surface I agree.

The fact is that your question was ill formed. It has nothing to do with any real dispute between communists of any stripe and capitalists. The difference lies elsewhere.

The fact is you were spoiling for a fight regarding polluting capitalism and took the bait and ran half cocked.

As for my taking shots at capitalism - that is entirely justifiable since there is no form of workable free market which will solve these sorts of problems. On the other hand some form of collective solutions may work, some not. But that is a separate argument. You haven't given an argument against all of them because you didn't understand the issue properly to start with.

And since there is no real world example of capitalism this means not much.