It's frustrating to deal with communists.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by CrONoS


??? Your university is on strike?

Oh no, our student union's strike general assembly failed to reach quorum, but the TAs are on strike. Really, really stupid given that any benefits that will come from this strike don't help anyone graduating this year, but we lose out on wages just like veryone else, and worst of all student exams don't get graded. All this because someone thinks $20+ per hour isn't enough money for a teaching assistant position.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

For the second side, what distinction do you make between capitalism "eating itself" and capitalism achieving all it is meant to achieve?

Well, it could end in violence, but it doesn't have to. There are a significant number of people who prefer a hierarchical society, and they may well resist a trend which sees inequality reduced and the power that one person may have over another severely curtailed.

Some degree of Marx's proposed inevitibility of communism seems reasonable to me. Supply and demand seek an equilibrium. American jobs are going to Asia because they will work for less. Now their standards of living - and wages - are increasing so the jobs are moving to other Asian nations. Some day those jobs will leave Asia and move to Africa. The jobs will keep moving around to find the poorest regions with the lowest wages, raise their standard of living, and move again. Till one day, in theory, there won't be any dirt poor and destitute areas of the planet anymore.

We'd all be fairly equal and generally "middle-class".

That's one way of thinking about it. I was convinced by advances in technology, particularly IT, AI and robotics. The ongoing collapse of the recording industry in the face of the internet is an example of the sort of thing I mean. It's becoming less feasible to treat some things as private property, and so alternative non-market forms of economic organization will have to be found for them. The real change occurs when the majority of people simply see the previous system as pointless and inefficient.

Certainly, advances in robotics will eliminate a lot of manual labour. I think Marx was basically right about that, although he couldn't really foresee the increase in knowledge workers. His point was that at some point machine labour would become cheaper and more efficient than large portions of the population, who would simply be incapable of competing. At that point we have to seriously rethink our society, as there will be a lot of people with very little to do.

I don't see why that would be called the collapse of capitalism, it seems to be the triumph of capitalism.

There is a difference in that a communist state would abolish private ownership of the means of production. People could own their own houses and personal goods, but it would no longer be possible for some individuals to get away without working by owning private factories.

But the one thing that bothers me is what to do with the authoritarians. By that I mean the seriously illiberal people in our society, who are absolutely wedded to a hierarchical society. The weak point of democracies is that they seriously underestimate what these people are capable of.

Obviously it is a lot more complex than that, but I think that is a general trend we can observe from today's global capitalism. It may be working too slow for some, too fast for others, but it at least seems to be headed in that direction. Call it capitalism or call it Marxism, it seems to be a good thing either way.

I agree for the most part.

[Arrian]

Wow. A good thread broke out...

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

you jinxed it

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's one way of thinking about it. I was convinced by advances in technology, particularly IT, AI and robotics. The ongoing collapse of the recording industry in the face of the internet is an example of the sort of thing I mean. It's becoming less feasible to treat some things as private property, and so alternative non-market forms of economic organization will have to be found for them. The real change occurs when the majority of people simply see the previous system as pointless and inefficient.

Certainly, advances in robotics will eliminate a lot of manual labour. I think Marx was basically right about that, although he couldn't really foresee the increase in knowledge workers. His point was that at some point machine labour would become cheaper and more efficient than large portions of the population, who would simply be incapable of competing. At that point we have to seriously rethink our society, as there will be a lot of people with very little to do.

There is a difference in that a communist state would abolish private ownership of the means of production. People could own their own houses and personal goods, but it would no longer be possible for some individuals to get away without working by owning private factories.

But the one thing that bothers me is what to do with the authoritarians. By that I mean the seriously illiberal people in our society, who are absolutely wedded to a hierarchical society. The weak point of democracies is that they seriously underestimate what these people are capable of.

I agree that robots will change much. At least for labor and manufacturing. I think, as you noted, that knowledge workers will continue to grow as a share of the economy. We are already in a "post-manufacturing economy" with a very small and shrinking percentage of jobs in this country dealing with manufacturing. Through globalization or technology I could definitely see manufacturing dropping significantly further.

I think that would increase the standard of living and give more need for what you call knowledge workers. Even when all the crap we need is ridiculously cheap there will still be jobs for people to convince us to buy their crap instead of the other guy's.

Your music example is interesting though. Things are definitely moving more and more digital, which means less and less physical crap that needs to be manufactured and sent. That makes a Marxist type (or some would say libertarian type) voluntary exchange system more feasible.

I'm not entirely sure what purpose abolishing ownership of the means of production would serve though. If we have incredibly efficient, automated factories churning out crap for people to buy for extremely cheap, what problem would be solved by stringing the owner from a lamppost (or peacefully nationalizing it)? If there aren't any workers toiling for slave driving upper management, then who is the victim in such a system?

If Fat-Cat Capitalist invested the money to buy a factory full of robots churning out ridiculously cheap zero-emissions flying cars so every poor villager in Africa can afford one, what purpose would it serve to take the factory away from him?

Also, if, through the advances of AI and robotics we have a truly automated, robot driven economy, have we really advanced to a new plane of human existence? Or are we just recycling the old concept of slavery by building an underclass of intelligent mechanical slaves to do our bidding?

Before you laugh or dismiss this, to entirely replace humans in manufacturing you'd need robots with some degree of intelligence. Otherwise you'd still need humans to manage and maintain and direct the unthinking automatons. The more intelligent and self-aware robots become the better producers they are and the more efficient they are, so I'd think it'd be inevitable at some point for them to become self-aware.

Then what?

They struggle for recognition of their rights and citizenship as many sci-fi novels have predicted. Or exterminate humanity as other sci-fi novels have predicted. Then we go back to square one and whatever utopia we had created on the backs of robot slaves is undone.

[Kc7mxo]

They struggle for recognition of their rights and citizenship as many sci-fi novels have predicted. Or exterminate humanity as other sci-fi novels have predicted. Then we go back to square one and whatever utopia we had created on the backs of robot slaves is undone.

Thats why you make all your intelligent robots without legs. And bolted to the floor.

Besides, slave revolts only occur in the capital, and if you just take the -2 pop hit its only a 1 turn anarchy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
Wow. A good thread broke out...

-Arrian

I know.

What's more is that Oerdin started it.

It's a sign!! Maybe Boshko's baby is the second coming.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

I agree that robots will change much. At least for labor and manufacturing. I think, as you noted, that knowledge workers will continue to grow as a share of the economy. We are already in a "post-manufacturing economy" with a very small and shrinking percentage of jobs in this country dealing with manufacturing. Through globalization or technology I could definitely see manufacturing dropping significantly further.

I think that would increase the standard of living and give more need for what you call knowledge workers. Even when all the crap we need is ridiculously cheap there will still be jobs for people to convince us to buy their crap instead of the other guy's.

That's true, and would be a continuation of a process that has been going on in advanced countries since the end of WWII. However, I think there are limits, because some people clearly lack the aptitude for it. With advances in AI, much of the service industry would be automated as well.

One could argue, a la Ray Kurzweil, that we could implant ourselves with stuff to make us brighter. I agree that could happen, but in that case the tech would be such that everyone would probably want to buy a robot to do their work for them.

Your music example is interesting though. Things are definitely moving more and more digital, which means less and less physical crap that needs to be manufactured and sent. That makes a Marxist type (or some would say libertarian type) voluntary exchange system more feasible.

Some tariff on domestic internet accounts seems the reasonable move, at least for now.

I'm not entirely sure what purpose abolishing ownership of the means of production would serve though. If we have incredibly efficient, automated factories churning out crap for people to buy for extremely cheap, what problem would be solved by stringing the owner from a lamppost (or peacefully nationalizing it)? If there aren't any workers toiling for slave driving upper management, then who is the victim in such a system?

It has to do with the reasons we allow private ownership of such things in our capitalist society. To cut a long story short, we want resources to go to those people who make the best use of them for everyone. A capitalist who owns a factory, but does not work, contributes nothing to society and lives off of the back of his workers. There's no reason for letting him own the factory, since anyone else could own it and the result would be exactly the same. Pure capitalists are parasitical. The sensible option is to have nobody own it.

If Fat-Cat Capitalist invested the money to buy a factory full of robots churning out ridiculously cheap zero-emissions flying cars so every poor villager in Africa can afford one, what purpose would it serve to take the factory away from him?

A more efficient allocation of resources. Marx's point is that capitalism ends up paying some people (capitalists) too much for very little in return. At present, we can only plan efficiently enough to have removed the capitalists from about 1/3 of the economy. But if that improves people will start wondering why we are paying the capitalists. It would seem as irrational as giving any random person a million dollars for no reason.

Also, if, through the advances of AI and robotics we have a truly automated, robot driven economy, have we really advanced to a new plane of human existence? Or are we just recycling the old concept of slavery by building an underclass of intelligent mechanical slaves to do our bidding?

Before you laugh or dismiss this, to entirely replace humans in manufacturing you'd need robots with some degree of intelligence. Otherwise you'd still need humans to manage and maintain and direct the unthinking automatons. The more intelligent and self-aware robots become the better producers they are and the more efficient they are, so I'd think it'd be inevitable at some point for them to become self-aware.

Then what?

They struggle for recognition of their rights and citizenship as many sci-fi novels have predicted. Or exterminate humanity as other sci-fi novels have predicted. Then we go back to square one and whatever utopia we had created on the backs of robot slaves is undone.

I wouldn't dismiss it at all. On the other hand, just because a thing is intelligent, does not mean it is conscious. A swarm of ants, taken as a collective, acts as an intelligent being, but the swarm, qua swarm, is not a conscious being.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Oh no, our student union's strike general assembly failed to reach quorum, but the TAs are on strike. Really, really stupid given that any benefits that will come from this strike don't help anyone graduating this year, but we lose out on wages just like veryone else, and worst of all student exams don't get graded. All this because someone thinks $20+ per hour isn't enough money for a teaching assistant position.

Tell them they can either get their graduate degrees or they can have more money but they can't have both.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian
Wow. A good thread broke out...

-Arrian

All of my threads are good.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

All this because someone thinks $20+ per hour isn't enough money for a teaching assistant position.

It isn't. That is very low. No wonder they are on strike.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon
Some tariff on domestic internet accounts seems the reasonable move, at least for now.

How would that work?

Originally posted by Agathon
It has to do with the reasons we allow private ownership of such things in our capitalist society. To cut a long story short, we want resources to go to those people who make the best use of them for everyone. A capitalist who owns a factory, but does not work, contributes nothing to society and lives off of the back of his workers. There's no reason for letting him own the factory, since anyone else could own it and the result would be exactly the same. Pure capitalists are parasitical. The sensible option is to have nobody own it.

A more efficient allocation of resources. Marx's point is that capitalism ends up paying some people (capitalists) too much for very little in return. At present, we can only plan efficiently enough to have removed the capitalists from about 1/3 of the economy. But if that improves people will start wondering why we are paying the capitalists. It would seem as irrational as giving any random person a million dollars for no reason.

Capitalists certainly contribute more to society than people on welfare. I don't think it is quite accurate to say your objection to capitalists owning the means of production is that they make money for not working. Under communist/socialist/welfare state programs that you no doubt support there are far more people getting money for not working.

The investment of capital is actually an extremely important part of any economy. You can't get that factory of robots together if no one can afford to buy the robots and the land they are sitting on. Your argument of course is that the government should do that. But if there is some government manager doing that job and getting paid for it, how is he any more productive than the capitalist? Most of those fat cat capitalists actually work quite hard (their kids however - like Paris Hilton - not necessarily). But they aren't doing physical labor or working on a factory floor so you discount the work they do.

In this scenario the capitalist lives off the backs of his robots - kinda like everyone else in society. I don't see how that is any more abusive than some small family with a robot maid cooking & cleaning for them.

Originally posted by Agathon
I wouldn't dismiss it at all. On the other hand, just because a thing is intelligent, does not mean it is conscious. A swarm of ants, taken as a collective, acts as an intelligent being, but the swarm, qua swarm, is not a conscious being.

No one would want a swarm of ants washing their dishes though. Or rather, if they had a swarm of ants washing their dishes they'd try to upgrade once company X puts out a conscious version of their robot that would perform far better. Technology will continue to develop until we reach that point because there are tangible benefits to doing so.

[Heraclitus]

You don't need human level intelligence to wash the dishes. 70% of manufacturing can be automated without even touching chim-level AI.

The remaining 30% can be done by humans, but how do we make a system in which that 30% of employees are better off than they were when all of the stuff was done manually (by *all* I mean what is done by humas today)?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


How would that work?



Capitalists certainly contribute more to society than people on welfare. I don't think it is quite accurate to say your objection to capitalists owning the means of production is that they make money for not working. Under communist/socialist/welfare state programs that you no doubt support there are far more people getting money for not working.

The investment of capital is actually an extremely important part of any economy. You can't get that factory of robots together if no one can afford to buy the robots and the land they are sitting on. Your argument of course is that the government should do that. But if there is some government manager doing that job and getting paid for it, how is he any more productive than the capitalist? Most of those fat cat capitalists actually work quite hard (their kids however - like Paris Hilton - not necessarily). But they aren't doing physical labor or working on a factory floor so you discount the work they do.

In this scenario the capitalist lives off the backs of his robots - kinda like everyone else in society. I don't see how that is any more abusive than some small family with a robot maid cooking & cleaning for them.

Yes but a "pure capitalist" as the one Agathon refers to, can hire someone to invest his money for him. Imagine old Hilton dies and leaves his assets to Paris. She can hire a guy to manage her daddys assets while she continues her parasitic existance.

You may argue that most rich people are productive. But have you recently checked soical mobility statistics? The whole "American dream" of hard work bringining rewards seems farcical once you do. People mostly stay in the class they are born into, almost regardles of how (un)productive they are. It has been show that welfare states (at least those in Europe) have higher social mobility than countries like the US.



Also lumping together the welfare state with communism is just silly.

[OzzyKP]

Did I lump together the welfare state and communism? I only mentioned the idea of paying people for not working, which is present in both.

How is it parasitic to make lots of money through hard work and ingenuity, pass that money on to your kids (who admittedly didn't work for it) but have that money continue to benefit the economy, charity, and the lives of people. Very rich people aren't Scrooge McDuck, they don't have a giant money bin that they put all their money so they can swim around in it. They invest it, they give it to charity, they use it to benefit people. Their capital is the fuel that keeps the economy growing. Even if they don't work, their money does, and that shouldn't be discounted.

Plus even if you have a more jaded view of the rich (or are willfully ignorant of investment and philanthropy), their spending on fancy toys, expensive paintings, and butlers still employs people. That manager that Paris Hilton hires now has a job from it. Even this worst case scenario doesn't seem very parasitic.