I thought that the article was rather well thought through until reaching this:
What if the way to achieve the strongest possible economy is to give every citizen more money to spend? For example, what if we gave every citizen of the United States $25,000 to spend? $25,000 sounds impossible the first time you hear it, but consider the possibility.
Putting aside the laugability of the idea of a capitalist government giving each person a years worth of middle income wage for a moment - it would be great if
People are born, live, and die. If you are lucky, you will have the bare essentials of life during that time. We need water, food, and shelter. We also need a host of other "things" which make life bareable, even bring happiness.
When I was younger and more of an idealist, I thought that we were all working towards a higher goal, towards a world where we will solve pressing problems of society, culture, and knowledge. As I've grown older and more jaded. I find that "we" as a whole, really have no goals in mind other than what seems to be personal gratification. This is sad.
I'd like to use science and technology to build a world where the basics of life are essentially free. I would assume the first place to use robots and automation would be in the production of free clean drinking water, and food, then on to shelter, etc.. But what do we use robots for? Vacuming, charming kids with robotic dogs and cats, cell phones for communicating frivilous chit-chat. We as a society seem to have no direction and appear to be going nowhere faster and faster.
Those who do well in the world don't seem to be reaching back to give others a hand. I suppose this is the way its always been. To each his own, and survival of the fittest mentality. I suppose giving creature comforts like food, water, and shelter to every fool on the street might actually make things worse. I don't have the answer to that. But it seems that the entire system could be automated somehow so that those who support the system get the just rewards for free. Hmmm, sounds a bit like open-source eh?
I suppose I long for something like the Star-Trek culture, without the geeky nature that this involves. Can't we all just work towards a future that brings happiness for everyone? Why is there so much hate and personal vengance in the world?
I suppose I long for something like the Star-Trek culture, without the geeky nature that this involves. Can't we all just work towards a future that brings happiness for everyone?
We sure can! You go first, and I'll follow your example.
Well said that man. Thats been my point exactly for a while, and these last few years I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get others to see my viewpoint. (My site [modblog.com].) I'm glad there are more of us in this world.
I am not a Marxist but there are a couple of important background points here. First, Marx hated Marxism for good reason--Marx was a capitalist. His angry missive of the Communist Manifesto was an amazing display of self-masochism and simply at odds with his real beliefs. Marx, like most academics, described the process of his view on the future of capitalism. Once economic and physical security are attained, we can move on to greater needs that benefit everyone. Case in point, the interstate highway s
I am not a Marxist but there are a couple of important background points here. First, Marx hated Marxism for good reason--Marx was a capitalist. His angry missive of the Communist Manifesto was an amazing display of self-masochism and simply at odds with his real beliefs.
I hope your intentions are good. I will elaborate. Marx intended his economic work, i.e. Das Kapital, to reach industrial societies. The minute agricultural Russia declared themselves "Marxist revolutions", the whole project essentially fell off a cliff. Like Democracy, capitalism evolves. Marx wanted to identify the various stages of capitalism and how it related to industrial Europe and America. As I understand it, Marx was kind of unstable (genius and geek.) He felt like nobody was paying attention to his work and decided on the ridiculous marketing stunt of the 50 page Communist Manifesto. The fallout was severe. He attracted lunatics that discredited his entire life. It's much easier to read 50 pages of troll feed than it is to read a well-developed scholarly work like Das Kapital. He never recovered from it and "I am not a Marxist" was his famous statement on his death bed. Definitely look it up if you have the time.
I'm sure they were. I don't believe his *last* words were "I am not a Marxist" but he definitely said it while in the process of dying. My post stands.
I wouldn't call the Manifesto a "ridiculous marketing stunt".
It is directed towards working people (~1850), and was intended to be the program for the comunist league, so obviously couldn't be written in a "aseptic" or "academic" style.
It certainly contains a lot of marketing, but I think that's normal considering the type of document it is.
On the other hand, I makes a great effort in explaining the communist's views in very simple and plain words (and it succeeds, IMO).
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence:
Abolition of private property.
You're right, that IS very simple and plain, and I'm a westerner and, yes, I reject the entire idea based upon that one, single sentence. I know, I'm shallow... But I'm also paying property taxes so don't say we westerners wouldn't accept it. WE HAVE! You see, here in the U.S. we don't actually OWN our property, we rent it like good serfs a
Marx believed that capitalism was better than feudalism and a necessary stage in human progress. But he was not a capitalist by any means at all.
Instead of just quoting an anecdote you've read somewhere, I suggest you actually study the career of Marx in the First International. In fact, it was there that the seeds of the dogmatism and rigidity that would make Stalinism possible may have first been sown.
You may be thinking of Engels, who did own a factory, wrote much of the material that we call "Marx's,"
"Once economic and physical security are attained, we can move on to greater needs that benefit everyone."
Yes, I think this is close to the essence of Marx's reasoning - which I've always taken to be "man can make the material conditions of his own existence, out of his will and reason." Let the markets run their course, and create all of the things that we need, and then we'll take those things and shape the society we want. Of course, between the lines in this essay you read Class Conflict. The uber-gre
This, a post that describes what the rich do for the poor (finance building a house they couldn't build, making museums and libraries they would never think to make, and then helping them enjoy all three), and why the poor are the way they are, stays at 0, and the parent, a piece of trash that explains that life is shit with an end goal to work toward of death and maybe reproducing is modded to 5? What the fuck? Man, I used to think that all those morons posting that shit on Slashdot were the minority, turn
The Prime Directive is an excuse to let 3rd world planets / countries wallow in their own filth. What sane group of people wouldn't make available (even for trade!) a cure for cancer pill just because they haven't invented a vacuum cleaner yet? Heck, their yardstick for advancement isn't even an idea, it's a physical invention. It's just sad.
But it seems that the entire system could be automated somehow so that those who support the system get the just rewards for free.
If they support the system then they will not be getting anything free. A "re-ward" is something given in exchange for something else. If they worked for the system they could be simply... gasp... paid! So, what are you smoking my dear friend? I know, I know, this Slashdot and there is no work tomorrow...
There is an important concept I learned in psychology recently. A human's intelligence is partially based on their environment. And since shelter and the proper environment cost money, our intelligence is based on money. As was discovered by someone looking at racial demographics, poverty levels and SAT scores.
But it won't ever sink in. Nobody cares.
No matter how many times you repeat it. We'll still let people live in the streets. We won't be their friend or care for them won't get them good qualit
What the hell are you talking about? People aren't living in the streets because the lack of money is making them stupid. They're living in the streets because the tend to have mental problems.
We have MANY social programs, and anyone who has their act together can pull themselves up and off the streets.
On giving back, in 2003, individuals gave $180 billion to charity, and all charitable giving (including corporations and foundations) was $240 billion.
Uh, but what you're talking about is Communism and it's inherently eeeevil. Surely you see that a society which aims for a good and secure life for all it's citizens instead of amassing wealth to a few old, hopelessly white and male Republican assholes, is truly a Domain of Evil!
Well, seriously... I think humanity has already passed the technical milestone after which it could ensure life and liberty to everyone. But sadly it's not in the best interest of those in power. So, no Star Trek utopia for the tim
"To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat." -- Friedrick Engels, Communism: Utopian and Scientific
I suppose you're saying that communism doesn't aim to benefit the bourgeoisie or the capitalist. You're partly right - but the point is, that if political power and means of production are under collective control, the privileged class simply disappears. If they, as individuals, do not have greater privileges, they essentially become proletariat - who
Collective control? How does that work? Does everyone get to vote on how things will be run?
Like a democracy?:-)
Anyway, this won't work. People will get tired of being bugged about every little decision. They will appoint others to be in charge of certain aspects of society. All of a sudden, we have a priviliged class again.
I can see communism working for a primitive society, not for a complex modern one.
Yes, democracy. By the way, it was socialists who won democracy for the masses in Europe.
I understand that real democracy is hard to achieve, one of the reasons being that not all people will be interested in participating, let alone informed enough to make reasonable decisions. The point is, that if those who do participate don't represent those who don't, they always have the option to begin participating. Nice safeguard. Also, taking as much of decision-making to local level can greatly boost people's i
Huh?! Just about every "ideal" form of government pretends to aim for a good and secure life for all of its citizens, even many dictatorships. Communism pays more lip service to this than most.
On the other hand, just about every government in history & in existence has had problems with implementation. I'd argue that there hasn't been anything approaching a "true" form of communism ever implemented on a country-sized scale. That doesn't mean that the ideal form of communism wasn't intended to provide a
Those who do well in the world don't seem to be reaching back to give others a hand. I suppose this is the way its always been.
No. There are two reasons to reach back: justice, and charity. Now, those two things have varied throughout history. Sometimes there's more of it, and sometimes there's less of it.
But let me postulate for you a couple of things:
(1) You are always going to have a bell curve distribution of wealth. You can't get around it. A few people will have almost nothing; a few people
You are always going to have a bell curve distribution of wealth. You can't get around it.
Well, no. In fact, the only way to have this outcome is to model the economy on some pretty idealistic assumptions - things like low friction transactions, some small delta away from reasonable information flows, lack of monopolies (to maintain positive eigenvalues in the demand-supply equations), at least a reasonable need for labor, all of which seem to be disappearing under the control of the new gov-corp hegemony
[on 3rd world countries; feudal societies] Sorry, that's probably true. In the case of the third world countries, where you have what is essentially apartheid, you'll probably see a double bell curve, not a single one. That is, one bell curve for the whites of South Africa, and another for the blacks. Same thing in the South American countries, different people.
In the case of a feudal society, your sample sizes were always small. A bell curve is never an exact thing, it is an entropic approximation of
Goals and meaning in life have to flow from you. Looking around you and bemoaning the lack of goals and seeming self-gratification of society also serves little purpose.
If you have a dream you have a duty to follow it - no matter what. If you don't, there are plenty of others who will - and many times their goals are far darker than anything their peers ever imagined (Hitler, Saddam, BinLadin, the WTO, Mafia, Drug Lords, etc...).
If you are a counterbalance, get out there and start doing what you were me
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others.
-- Berry Kercheval
Almost insightful.. (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the way to achieve the strongest possible economy is to give every citizen more money to spend? For example, what if we gave every citizen of the United States $25,000 to spend? $25,000 sounds impossible the first time you hear it, but consider the possibility.
Putting aside the laugability of the idea of a capitalist government giving each person a years worth of middle income wage for a moment - it would be great if
Goal-less productivity... (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was younger and more of an idealist, I thought that we were all working towards a higher goal, towards a world where we will solve pressing problems of society, culture, and knowledge. As I've grown older and more jaded. I find that "we" as a whole, really have no goals in mind other than what seems to be personal gratification. This is sad.
I'd like to use science and technology to build a world where the basics of life are essentially free. I would assume the first place to use robots and automation would be in the production of free clean drinking water, and food, then on to shelter, etc.. But what do we use robots for? Vacuming, charming kids with robotic dogs and cats, cell phones for communicating frivilous chit-chat. We as a society seem to have no direction and appear to be going nowhere faster and faster.
Those who do well in the world don't seem to be reaching back to give others a hand. I suppose this is the way its always been. To each his own, and survival of the fittest mentality. I suppose giving creature comforts like food, water, and shelter to every fool on the street might actually make things worse. I don't have the answer to that. But it seems that the entire system could be automated somehow so that those who support the system get the just rewards for free. Hmmm, sounds a bit like open-source eh?
I suppose I long for something like the Star-Trek culture, without the geeky nature that this involves. Can't we all just work towards a future that brings happiness for everyone? Why is there so much hate and personal vengance in the world?
-2 -2 +3 +1
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
We sure can! You go first, and I'll follow your example.
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
Really?? Can you elaborate on that point?
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
Actually, his last words were:
"Out, out, last words are for people who have nothing to say."
Or I guess it would be:
"Raus, raus! Letzte woerter sind fure Leute, die nichts zu sagen haben."
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
It is directed towards working people (~1850), and was intended to be the program for the comunist league, so obviously couldn't be written in a "aseptic" or "academic" style.
It certainly contains a lot of marketing, but I think that's normal considering the type of document it is.
On the other hand, I makes a great effort in explaining the communist's views in very simple and plain words (and it succeeds, IMO).
Of course the great majority
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
You're right, that IS very simple and plain, and I'm a westerner and, yes, I reject the entire idea based upon that one, single sentence. I know, I'm shallow... But I'm also paying property taxes so don't say we westerners wouldn't accept it. WE HAVE! You see, here in the U.S. we don't actually OWN our property, we rent it like good serfs a
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of just quoting an anecdote you've read somewhere, I suggest you actually study the career of Marx in the First International. In fact, it was there that the seeds of the dogmatism and rigidity that would make Stalinism possible may have first been sown.
You may be thinking of Engels, who did own a factory, wrote much of the material that we call "Marx's,"
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
especially when it's bareable...
rd
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
This, a post that describes what the rich do for the poor (finance building a house they couldn't build, making museums and libraries they would never think to make, and then helping them enjoy all three), and why the poor are the way they are, stays at 0, and the parent, a piece of trash that explains that life is shit with an end goal to work toward of death and maybe reproducing is modded to 5? What the fuck? Man, I used to think that all those morons posting that shit on Slashdot were the minority, turn
The Prime Directive is for suckers (Score:1)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:3, Insightful)
But it won't ever sink in. Nobody cares.
No matter how many times you repeat it. We'll still let people live in the streets. We won't be their friend or care for them won't get them good qualit
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2, Troll)
We have MANY social programs, and anyone who has their act together can pull themselves up and off the streets.
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
Well, seriously... I think humanity has already passed the technical milestone after which it could ensure life and liberty to everyone. But sadly it's not in the best interest of those in power. So, no Star Trek utopia for the tim
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
-- Friedrick Engels, Communism: Utopian and Scientific
I suppose you're saying that communism doesn't aim to benefit the bourgeoisie or the capitalist. You're partly right - but the point is, that if political power and means of production are under collective control, the privileged class simply disappears. If they, as individuals, do not have greater privileges, they essentially become proletariat - who
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
Like a democracy?
Anyway, this won't work. People will get tired of being bugged about every little decision. They will appoint others to be in charge of certain aspects of society. All of a sudden, we have a priviliged class again.
I can see communism working for a primitive society, not for a complex modern one.
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
I understand that real democracy is hard to achieve, one of the reasons being that not all people will be interested in participating, let alone informed enough to make reasonable decisions. The point is, that if those who do participate don't represent those who don't, they always have the option to begin participating. Nice safeguard. Also, taking as much of decision-making to local level can greatly boost people's i
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:1)
On the other hand, just about every government in history & in existence has had problems with implementation. I'd argue that there hasn't been anything approaching a "true" form of communism ever implemented on a country-sized scale. That doesn't mean that the ideal form of communism wasn't intended to provide a
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
No. There are two reasons to reach back: justice, and charity. Now, those two things have varied throughout history. Sometimes there's more of it, and sometimes there's less of it.
But let me postulate for you a couple of things:
(1) You are always going to have a bell curve distribution of wealth. You can't get around it. A few people will have almost nothing; a few people
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
Well, no. In fact, the only way to have this outcome is to model the economy on some pretty idealistic assumptions - things like low friction transactions, some small delta away from reasonable information flows, lack of monopolies (to maintain positive eigenvalues in the demand-supply equations), at least a reasonable need for labor, all of which seem to be disappearing under the control of the new gov-corp hegemony
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
In the case of a feudal society, your sample sizes were always small. A bell curve is never an exact thing, it is an entropic approximation of
Re:Goal-less productivity... (Score:2)
If you have a dream you have a duty to follow it - no matter what. If you don't, there are plenty of others who will - and many times their goals are far darker than anything their peers ever imagined (Hitler, Saddam, BinLadin, the WTO, Mafia, Drug Lords, etc...).
If you are a counterbalance, get out there and start doing what you were me