Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Angle]

The USSR had a lot o flaws, but I think the big one was their political system. (Though the centralized economic system did them no favors. They should have adopted a decentralized system of some sort.) Say what you will about America, we do have a political system that's pretty good at tying itself into knots - and that's a feature, not a bug. That's why we do as well as we do, despite having a large population of stupid people who'd like nothing more than to burn our country to the ground and establish a fascist theocratic state. (No, I'm quite serious. Yes, I know it sounds crazy.)

[Cthulhu]

I kind of feel like saying that kind of change is only possible under a system that doesn't require labor is like saying we need to wait for Jesus to come back first.  I don't want to bank on speculative technologies and I kind of feel that we could be moving into that very little work phase already but we've created a lot of bureaucratic jobs to keep people working 40 hours a week, because happy smart people with a lot of free time come up with a lot of ideas harmful to status quo powers and because we've got a cultural stigma against the idea of not working.

[Vgray]

And that's what I get for having multiple tabs open...

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It is possible to "overthrow" capitalism, however, without bloody revolutions.

Personally, I only think a bloody revolution is necessary if you're trying to do it too soon (e.g. USSR). Unlike the cartoon character implies, it's not the global conversion that's the main barrier so much as it is not having achieved a level of technology so far where high standards of living, health, food, decent entertainment, communication, transit, etc. can all be maintained with little or no labor.  We weren't there when the USSR formed, nor are we there today.

But eventually (probably not too long) when we reach that level of technology, then the only purpose of laboring will be propping up a laundry list of unnecessarily stupid luxuries. Like for instance, owning some new kind of oven that cooks stuff in 30 seconds instead of 5 minutes and costs $20,000, or having serpentine green marble tabletops in your kitchen instead of granite, etc.

The USSR took on as its major symbols icons of labor, but I think this actually is an excellent reflection of it's fatal flaw: it shouldn't have been attempted in a world where labor was still necessary to meet needs. Before you try to do something like that, you should already be at the point where LABOR ISN'T NEEDED anymore.

Your defining symbols shouldn't be labor-based, they should be art and learning and leisure-based, because those would be the proper defining characteristics of an actual functional communist society.





As we approach that point, it is likely to become increasingly obvious to people that they don't need to be working as much as they are, and they can slowly just shift to less consumerist behaviors.

We are already seeing examples of this with the surging "sharing economy."  Capitalism tolerates it, because the organizing companies involved are still companies with shareholders, etc. But it still decreases bloat and starts chipping away at assumptions in people's minds about what they actually need to own.

I think it will still be limited by technology for awhile longer, but once it isn't, sharing economy is the sort of trend that can naturally flow right into what is effectively a form of communism, supported by an already-converted culture without really any need for bloodshed. At most, an administrative coup, and if lucky, merely leveraging pre-existing mechanisms for changing laws and constitutions.

I sort of agree.  I don't think a bloody revolution against capitalism is possible for various reasons.  I think a departure from it must occur organically.  There may be violence along the way, and it may even be necessary, but it won't be a major instigator of the change.

The thing I disagree on is I think there is more necessary than just the ability to provide for everyone with a minimum of labor.  As it is, it doesn't matter how much surplus is produced if it takes a minority of people to produce it, and the other minority of people who owns that product refuses to part with it without making a profit.  The majority is pushed out of participation.  This is the situation we're already entering into, and it's quite clear that the owning class knows this and is preparing to defend themselves against the desperation and indignation they're creating.  Relying on bountiful production with a minimum of required labor is waiting for class warfare to explode.

Furthermore, I don't think that it's necessary for a revolutionary change of any sort at all, though it may help.  You may have read this bit from me before, but I think the issue is that society evolved into the most efficient methods of organizing with primitive forms of communication.  De-centralized structures rely on the ability of all participants in that structure to communicate effectively.  Centralized structures only require all participants be able to funnel information up to those immediately above and below them in the hierarchy.  But now mass communications are giving us the capability for all participants in society to communicate and organize with each other efficiently without centralization or hierarchy involved in decision-making or resource allocation.  All we need to do is start making proper use of this capability.  We need to build tools that facilitate and demonstrate de-centralized, egalitarian organization of all aspects of life through the use of mass communications technology.  That's how bloodless revolutions happen.  When you present everyone with a tool that makes their lives easier, and makes existing structures obsolete without confronting them directly.

despite having a large population of stupid people who'd like nothing more than to burn our country to the ground and establish a fascist theocratic state. (No, I'm quite serious. Yes, I know it sounds crazy.)

Nope.  Not at all.

Huh. So, uh. We apparently have a nation-wide fast food worker strike going on? Not quite sure about how many numbers, but this notes it's apparently happening in 150 different cities. Also apparently arrests for traffic blocking during the protests

I heard they arrested so many people in Detroit that they ran out of handcuffs.

[GavJ]

Okay, that's fine. So a combination of:

1) Directly growing distributed/sharing enterprises. Everything from the semi-capitalist ridesharing types of things to the completely not capitalist neighborhood gardens, etc.

2) At the same time, for things that don't work well that way (like I don't know, oil refineries or microchip factories), start using tax dollars to buy government owned versions. NOT federal government necessarily. Any level government, depending on the type of production. Capitalists who refuse to sell key machinery will just start hemorrhaging profits (can't compete with people who sell the same product but can charge costs - tax income as the price.), and eventually will be desperate to sell their property, without ever needing any blood or theft.  Then once competition is gone, switch over the industries to not-for-profit mode.

[Angle]

Okay, that's fine. So a combination of:

1) Directly growing distributed/sharing enterprises. Everything from the semi-capitalist ridesharing types of things to the completely not capitalist neighborhood gardens, etc.

2) At the same time, for things that don't work well that way (like I don't know, oil refineries or microchip factories), start using tax dollars to buy government owned versions. NOT federal government necessarily. Any level government, depending on the type of production. Capitalists who refuse to sell key machinery will just start hemorrhaging profits (can't compete with people who sell the same product but can charge costs - tax income as the price.), and eventually will be desperate to sell their property, without ever needing any blood or theft.  Then once competition is gone, switch over the industries to not-for-profit mode.

Yes, Fucking Yes! I've been talking about this or a while now. It's wonderful to see the ideas coming back round.

[Morrigi]

^^ Those.

People crack me up when they act like the US Constitution is holy writ. Or that we're the only country with one. American exceptionalism at its derpiest.

Also:

I would also be entirely unsurprised if Russia decided to arm the rebels for shits 'n giggles.

Morrigi confirmed for Russian-backed separatist. Drone strikes authorized.

Seriously...look back at what you wrote and tell me you don't sound like somebody who should be on an FBI watch list.

I get it, I do. These little Turner Diaries type fantasies of armed overthrow of an elected government are how y'all blow off steam and they're mostly harmless mental masturbation. Mostly. Until you get that McVeigh brand of nut who doesn't realize that this is all just a big joke and actually starts blowing shit up.

Liberals who feel powerless and discontented organize marches and sit-ins.
Conservatives who feel powerless and discontented have communal wet dreams about starting a second American Civil War.

Yet another stream of vaguely offensive non-arguments. How am I not surprised?

[Helgoland]

Okay, that's fine. So a combination of:

1) Directly growing distributed/sharing enterprises. Everything from the semi-capitalist ridesharing types of things to the completely not capitalist neighborhood gardens, etc.

2) At the same time, for things that don't work well that way (like I don't know, oil refineries or microchip factories), start using tax dollars to buy government owned versions. NOT federal government necessarily. Any level government, depending on the type of production. Capitalists who refuse to sell key machinery will just start hemorrhaging profits (can't compete with people who sell the same product but can charge costs - tax income as the price.), and eventually will be desperate to sell their property, without ever needing any blood or theft.  Then once competition is gone, switch over the industries to not-for-profit mode.

Yes, Fucking Yes! I've been talking about this or a while now. It's wonderful to see the ideas coming back round.

And why exactly would a government-owned factory be more productive than a private one? If anything, evidence suggests the opposite.

Unless you're advocating using tax dollars to run those factories, which would be a horrible idea, since there's too little tax money to go around anyway. Plus you could just give that money to people who then can buy stuff with it.

[LordSlowpoke]

yugoslavia helgo

[Sheb]

Yeah, in some industries government can outperform the private sector, like health insurance or railways, but not in all, especially those where you have to react to consumer preferences or innovate a lot.

[Helgoland]

Yeah, in some industries government can outperform the private sector, like health insurance or railways, but not in all, especially those where you have to react to consumer preferences or innovate a lot.

Well, we need to assume the absence of a natural monopoly, of course - monopolies should generally be nationalized or disbanded.
With health insurance I'd be sceptical - it's a market that needs lots of government intervention because everyone should get health insurance, but that doesn't imply that the government does a better job at actually providing health insurance. In the US-UK comparison, the UK wins, but in the UK-Germany comparison I'm not so sure.

What about Yugoslavia, LSP?

[Frumple]

And why exactly would a government-owned factory be more productive than a private one? If anything, evidence suggests the opposite.

Why would it need to be more productive than a private one? There's literal metric fucktons of waste in a lot of sectors as is, which suggests t'me that overproduction is already happening in a lot of areas and there's plenty of room for reduced production if it means better other things. Like price for the consumer, better accessibility to the general population, hopefully better treatment of employees, etc.

Regardless, the point being made above is that producers operating without or with reduced profit motive (and something of a subsidy, if they're offsetting costs with tax money) are very much likely to be able to undercut the prices of profit-minded producers* and put the exploitative bastards out of business. Even if they're not making as many gewgaws. After all, to win the local economic race, you don't need to make the most, you just need to make enough, and do so at a price your competitors can't sustain.

*Hell, this is basically how several for-profit businesses (walmart being a notable example) already work -- use overall resources to sell near or below cost in a local area to put other businesses into the dirt.

[LordSlowpoke]

What about Yugoslavia, LSP?

state-ran regional powerhouse until the 70s oil crisis combined with isolation from both major blocs in the area ran it into the ground

the government can run things, but not directly, it simply does not have the time to do so

[RedKing]

^^ Those.

People crack me up when they act like the US Constitution is holy writ. Or that we're the only country with one. American exceptionalism at its derpiest.

Also:

I would also be entirely unsurprised if Russia decided to arm the rebels for shits 'n giggles.

Morrigi confirmed for Russian-backed separatist. Drone strikes authorized.

Seriously...look back at what you wrote and tell me you don't sound like somebody who should be on an FBI watch list.

I get it, I do. These little Turner Diaries type fantasies of armed overthrow of an elected government are how y'all blow off steam and they're mostly harmless mental masturbation. Mostly. Until you get that McVeigh brand of nut who doesn't realize that this is all just a big joke and actually starts blowing shit up.

Liberals who feel powerless and discontented organize marches and sit-ins.
Conservatives who feel powerless and discontented have communal wet dreams about starting a second American Civil War.

Yet another stream of vaguely offensive non-arguments. How am I not surprised?

Two questions for you:

1. Are you seriously considering armed rebellion against the government of the Unites States?
a. If so, expect a visit from your friendly local FBI.
b. If not, then why so butthurt that I don't take it seriously?

2. Do you not see the comic irony that you're holding out hope for the viability of a hypothetical armed rebellion through Russian support? You guys call Obama a socialist and a tyrant, imply that that assertion alone gives you some kind of moral authority to usurp the democratic process through force of arms, and then you're looking for help from a guy like Putin (who actually *is* a Communist and a tyrant)??

I'll give you a well-reasoned, respectful argument when you can provide a talking point that deserves one.

[GavJ]

And why exactly would a government-owned factory be more productive than a private one? If anything, evidence suggests the opposite.

It's not SUPPOSED to be more productive.
The reason it outcompetes is because it's being subsidized.
And the reason we want it is because it breaks the capitalist consumption cycle of encouraging people to be obligated to buy uselessly more luxurious crap forever and continue working 60 hour weeks for no reason. Not because it makes a widget for 10% less resources than the old company (or old ownership if they just sold it).  Notice also that it doesn't have to be MUCH tax money. Hell, probably just the taxes paid by that company itself would be sufficient to subsidize its own government competitor to the point of it being hopelessly one-sided.

Also I would predict that in most cases, the capitalist factory owners would simply see the writing on the wall as soon as/if the relevant laws were passed, and merely sell their stuff instantly, versus losing a bunch of money and then selling it for pennies on the dollar later. So you might not have to even spend many tax dollars.

Having maximum efficiency as your goal is a capitalist thought process in the first place. We just want to be happy and have needs met without having to break ourselves, which is different. That doesn't require maximum efficiency. It only requires efficiency above some absolute threshold based on human biological and psychological basic needs. So even if government is always 25% less efficient than private sector, at some point, when private sector is >25% more efficient than what is needed for our needs, then we can switch to government.

If you want above basic needs luxuries for yourself, then you can get together with folks to make nicer things and voluntarily work hours to own them. But you don't have to.

state-ran regional powerhouse until the 70s oil crisis combined with isolation from both major blocs in the area ran it into the ground

This only happens if you foolishly try to start this system before your technology is at a level where you don't need very many imports anymore.

Part of the "waiting for sufficient technology" is things like local self-sustaining technologies, including renewable energies locally and powerful recycling tech, etc.

the government can run things, but not directly, it simply does not have the time to do so

The other main part of the technology to wait for is robotics and mass computerization. It can make its own time at some point, with only occasional human maintenance.

This might be a ways off, but we are already seeing google robotic cars, for instance, and a computer driving around on highways with kids running around in the street etc. much more safely than humans do is a lot more challenging sounding than a computer doing some accounting for a cement factory...