If there is ever going to be an alternative to capitalism, it's has to be through more government. Not less.
Yeah they've tried that. Both large-scale, the "Communist" countries of the last century everyone knows about, and small-scale too, various "socialist" utopia towns and "communes" and such, in America and various countries in Western Europe, in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Didn't work out so well. None of them worked out in fact.
And most everybody tried near pure capitalism up until after the first World War. It was laden with businesses swindling the individual for work and products. People often only made enough to feed and clothe themselves, and even then, they could only do so by buying food and clothing through their employer.
Pretty sure these 'various socialist utopia towns' you're referring to all happened in the 19th century.
No, some happened in the 20th as well. And they failed.
Totalitarianism with some communist charactaristics is still totalitarianism, not an attempt at communism.
That's a dodge and the typical incredibly weak defense advanced for communism.. The Soviets were certainly not thinking that they weren't striving for communism.
Also more recent attempts, such as Cuba. Which faced an embargo from its enemy, the most powerful country in the world, has managed to create a healthcare system that rivals your own and boasts literacy rates which put yours to shame.
Cuba's healthcare system is garbage, there is one system for the politically connected and the other for the proles. You don't want to be a prole.
American and Cuban literacy rates are basically indistinguishable, what a silly argument to make.
Sure, some of the politics there is pretty shitty at the moment, but it's not easy to have a gloriously functioning government when you've got the most powerful nation in the world looking to replace you as soon as possible with a puppet.
51 years of the Castros ruling Cuba since the Bay of Pigs and 53 years since the Castros took over; do you think there might be something just a little inaccurate with your statement?
Communism or marxism never had a real change Its not 100% fair to judge it based on one badly executed example.
In theory i believe in communism but it seems verry difficult to make it work in reality. In general cooperation is better then competition and should lead to better results, well at least thats what i believe in though it seems we are not ready for it yet. Maybe after a few more 100 years of social evolution.
Class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat to achieve a socialist transitional phase on the way to the utopia of communism are the two pillars of Marxism, why do people think that the examples we have were badly executed? They were executed precisely according to the fundamental principles of Marxism.
Communism was not "not tried right;" it was tried exactly the way Communists believed it should be.
And most everybody tried near pure capitalism up until after the first World War. It was laden with businesses swindling the individual for work and products. People often only made enough to feed and clothe themselves, and even then, they could only do so by buying food and clothing through their employer.
Simply not true. Pure capitalism has never been tried, not that I think pure capitalism is any more desirable than pure socialism.
Laissez-faire capitalism ever being tried is a myth. Government has always played an interventionist and large role in the economy of any nation. Before the concept of social justice as we understand it existed, it was to secure stable production of wealth for taxation to pay for wars and the lifestyle of the nobility.
Man i thought me and deepelemblues kickedall the e-hippies out last night. You people are welcome to leave, and hell it will stop our unemployment and welfare-ism problem too!
Although DeepElem i got to add that free market/ laissez-faire capitalism has been tried and it's called the black market. Its results are pretty predictable like in general lower prices and no regulation. There are pluses and minuses but most african countries operate almost purely on these markets and are responsible for them not starving to death. I found an interesting article on it that i could find if you are interested.
I'd be curious to Deep's opinion on this relating to the topic at hand.
The first of the more than 70 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested Saturday afternoon and evening were arraigned yesterday in Manhattan Criminal Court.
Exhausted by a night and day in jail and shaken by the violence of the police response to Occupy Wall Street's six-month anniversary celebration, many burst into tears of relief when they were finally released to the friendly welcome of the movement's Jail Support team.
Unlike many of the other defendants with whom they shared cells, the protesters could feel confident that they would soon be released -- Occupy posts bail for those arrested during movement actions.
But protesters and their legal advisers were surprised yesterday to learn that the size of their bail was being affected by whether defendants were willing to have the distinctive patterns of their irises photographed and logged into a database.
Police and courts have been photographing irises since 2010, once at booking and once on arraignment. The practice is a response to a couple of instances in which mistaken identity allowed someone facing serious charges to go free by impersonating another defendant up on minor charges.
The idea of the state collecting distinctive biometric information from people who haven't even been charged with a crime yet, much less convicted of one, makes civil libertarians nervous, though, and over the last two years they've pushed back. Unlike fingerprints, they argue, no law was ever passed to require iris photographs -- it's just a policy. And while police regularly tell arrestees that the photographs are mandatory, and that failing to be photographed will prolong their stay in jail, defendants have often refused to comply without serious consequence.
That appears to be changing. Yesterday, a defense lawyer had told Judge Abraham Clott she was under the impression that her client -- not affiliated with Occupy Wall Street, facing charges of marijuana possession -- was not legally bound to submit to an iris photograph. Clott responded in no uncertain terms: Iris photographs may be optional in the sense that the court can proceed without them if it has to, he said, for example if the photographic equipment breaks down. But they are not optional for defendants.
Judge Clott wasn't going it alone in this strict interpretation. National Lawyers Guild NYC President Gideon Oliver said that a memo, presumably from the Office of Court Administration has been circulated to judges, instructing them that iris photographs are mandatory.
Even if iris photographs could be made mandatory, though, they should never be used in setting bail, said Moira Meltzer-Cohen, a third-year law student who helps run Occupy Wall Street's bail services. "In New York, bail can only legally be set for a single purpose: to ensure that defendants appear at their next hearing," she said.
The first of the more than 70 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested Saturday afternoon and evening were arraigned yesterday in Manhattan Criminal Court.
Exhausted by a night and day in jail and shaken by the violence of the police response to Occupy Wall Street's six-month anniversary celebration, many burst into tears of relief when they were finally released to the friendly welcome of the movement's Jail Support team.
Unlike many of the other defendants with whom they shared cells, the protesters could feel confident that they would soon be released -- Occupy posts bail for those arrested during movement actions.
But protesters and their legal advisers were surprised yesterday to learn that the size of their bail was being affected by whether defendants were willing to have the distinctive patterns of their irises photographed and logged into a database.
Police and courts have been photographing irises since 2010, once at booking and once on arraignment. The practice is a response to a couple of instances in which mistaken identity allowed someone facing serious charges to go free by impersonating another defendant up on minor charges.
The idea of the state collecting distinctive biometric information from people who haven't even been charged with a crime yet, much less convicted of one, makes civil libertarians nervous, though, and over the last two years they've pushed back. Unlike fingerprints, they argue, no law was ever passed to require iris photographs -- it's just a policy. And while police regularly tell arrestees that the photographs are mandatory, and that failing to be photographed will prolong their stay in jail, defendants have often refused to comply without serious consequence.
That appears to be changing. Yesterday, a defense lawyer had told Judge Abraham Clott she was under the impression that her client -- not affiliated with Occupy Wall Street, facing charges of marijuana possession -- was not legally bound to submit to an iris photograph. Clott responded in no uncertain terms: Iris photographs may be optional in the sense that the court can proceed without them if it has to, he said, for example if the photographic equipment breaks down. But they are not optional for defendants.
Judge Clott wasn't going it alone in this strict interpretation. National Lawyers Guild NYC President Gideon Oliver said that a memo, presumably from the Office of Court Administration has been circulated to judges, instructing them that iris photographs are mandatory.
Even if iris photographs could be made mandatory, though, they should never be used in setting bail, said Moira Meltzer-Cohen, a third-year law student who helps run Occupy Wall Street's bail services. "In New York, bail can only legally be set for a single purpose: to ensure that defendants appear at their next hearing," she said.
You mean like fingerprints? O. M. G. THE TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO BURY US.
And that law student is retarded. Having biometrics is information that makes it more likely the defendant shows up for the hearing. Knowing the cops can find you again is an incentive to return.
What U.S.A has accomplished in the 20th century is truly extraordinary, the living standards of people around the world has shoot though the roof and it`s largely because of the States.
"However, just like Athens will never again be the cradle of life, Rome will never again rule the world, U.S.A will not be AS dominant as it has been in the past century." -Charlie Munger(he and warrent buffet built Berkshire Hathaway)
I have no clue or even guess what will happen in EU, America or Japan but, I really belive Asia is going to get the "torch". Sure there are alot of problems even here, but there are so many things that speaks for Asia that it doesnt really matter if China is communist.
China will at some point change and that by a whole friggin lot, but the underlying facts are that even if a chinese person gets the same amount of pay as an englishman, the chinese will still work twice as hard.
I guess I`m just rambling here but I love to speculate about it and even though alot of people like those protesting against Wall Street are suffering alot, I think these times are indeed very interesting to live in.
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p
On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote: I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p
On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote: I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p
Thats because people are cheaper than machines.
How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7.
On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote: I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p
And that time will not come until we find a cheap but extremely powerful power source and develop some incredible life sustaining technologies similar to replicators from Star Trek.
On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote: I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p
Thats because people are cheaper than machines.
How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7.
And your point is?
Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks.
I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits...
On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote: I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p
Thats because people are cheaper than machines.
How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7.
And your point is?
Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks.
I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits...
Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare.
On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote: I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p
Thats because people are cheaper than machines.
How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7.
And your point is?
Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks.
I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits...
Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare.
As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is.
EPT
