NationStates Jolt Archive

It looks as though this is the case. Capitalism was never, in my opinion, a system that could last forever. I believe what's going on in the United States will lead us to a form of democratic socialism, if socialists around the country take the opportunity. The type of socialism being implemented by the Obama Administration is a form of statist socialism that helps only the wealthy. If any of you Americans paid attention to the election last year, you'll have noticed that Ralph Nader and Brian Moore (Socialist Party USA candidate) opposed the bail-outs. The government is supposed to represent the people, not the corporate elite.

Capitalism, though suffering, is not on the way out. Sure, maybe some new laws and practices will be implemented which will seem socialist but in the end capitalism is the dominant economic system because it plays on humanity's nature of greed.

So, capitalism has taken quite a severe knock but its not going anywhere.

What Socialists? You mean that supposed little group over there? That's nice. "Statist Socialism for the wealthy"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You haven't defined Capitalism or Socialism - so this isn't going to go anywhere. This kind of thread has been done before. Isn't going anywhere. Everyone will have a different understanding of the words used ("capitalism", "socialism") - at least, used in this discussion - and so it will go nowhere. And no - the government is supposed to represent the "corporate elite".

Capitalism will only be defeated if those who guard the vans of the proletariat don't wash for a while and become revolting.

As long as people think they have what it takes to become rich, capitalism will stay.

Sadly, no. As people forgot about the excesses of capitalism in the past, so shall they again. It would take something significantly more severe for it to go away.

It looks as though this is the case. Capitalism was never, in my opinion, a system that could last forever. I believe what's going on in the United States will lead us to a form of democratic socialism, if socialists around the country take the opportunity. The type of socialism being implemented by the Obama Administration is a form of statist socialism that helps only the wealthy. If any of you Americans paid attention to the election last year, you'll have noticed that Ralph Nader and Brian Moore (Socialist Party USA candidate) opposed the bail-outs. The government is supposed to represent the people, not the corporate elite.

lol I sincerely wish such a thing were true. But I am not confident that the U.S. government or Americans are willing to give up laissez faire.

As for the government representing and acting on the interests of the people, the U.S. government was bought out a long time ago.

would OP happen to still be in education in a country that has never lived under communism?

and no everyone is in on the bourgeoisie these days so hurrah for capitalism etc etc

Alas, no.

The story of history is not one long path toward justice.

No.

I don't think so, certainly not in the UK/US.

would OP happen to still be in education in a country that has never lived under communism?
You mean Stalinist ideology and a higher degree of centralization.

Nope, US will be capitalistic for the foreseeable future.

You mean Stalinist ideology and a higher degree of centralization.
Yeah or Perfect Up The Arse Marxist Communism?

Both would be shite.

as long as people are greedy, capitalism will reign.

Nyet, Comrade.

Capitalism was never, in my opinion, a system that could last forever.

In the sense that no system lasts forever, I suppose that you're correct. It's managed to last longer than 70 years, though, have to give it that.

The type of socialism being implemented by the Obama Administration is a form of statist socialism that helps only the wealthy.

This isn't going to end well. Not only are you going to have the usual socialist infighting over whatever the hell 'statist socialism' is and whether or not it's actually socialism, you're going to piss off all the Obama fans who'll swear that it's not any kind of socialism, and anyways, it's all GWB's fault.

If any of you Americans paid attention to the election last year, you'll have noticed that Ralph Nader and Brian Moore (Socialist Party USA candidate) opposed the bail-outs. The government is supposed to represent the people, not the corporate elite.

Snotty. Not a good tack to take, especially since you've already got an up-hill battle with regards to your initial posting. With regards to which: less rhetoric, more reasoning.

Yeah or Perfect Up The Arse Marxist Communism?

Both would be shite.

Before speaking, why not actually read the writings of Marx and Stalin?
Even if Yootopia was here right - which I maintain that he isn't - I recommend that no one outright believe him without doing so. You harm yourself and others who does so on that account. Truncated thinking and assumption (and action thereby) don't tend towards results that I think you would likely consider "positive".

Capitalism will disappear as soon as we have something better that works.

Certainly hasn't happened yet.

I'm not sure if will ever be possible (or at least not for a few hundred years) for western countries to consensus orientally and voluntarily move into actual non-capitalism (and I don't mean the inoffensive welfare capitalism of some European countries). It would be such an unimaginable change in the way of life for the vast majority of people, and the vast majority of people do not properly support full blown communism. It would take a humongous shock, or it would have to be forced top down.

I should certainly hope not, otherwise I'd have wasted my time getting that business degree.

I should certainly hope not, otherwise I'd have wasted my time getting that business degree.
I rather doubt such knowledge would be entirely useless under any 'system'.
It would be such an unimaginable change in the way of life for the vast majority of people, and the vast majority of people do not properly support full blown communism. It would take a humongous shock, or it would have to be forced top down.
For anyone who was read any Marx, Communism as is defined therein cannot be forced top-down. It would go against it's own definition.

Bush had crappy economic policies. He only wanted to help the rich and US business. Policy like this is why american companies are so dependent on the US when they should be forced to compete with foreign companies.

For anyone who was read any Marx, Communism as is defined therein cannot be forced top-down. It would go against it's own definition.

I have read Marx. You're conflating two things, Marx theorises that communism cannot (and will not be) be forced (sort of), but must be a natural transition from capitalism to dictatorship of the proletariat to pure utopian communism without need for a state. Communism itself is merely an economic model, there is no reason why it can't be forced top down, it's just that Marx thinks its wrong (though his Dict of Prols will inevitably lead to top down force anyway IMO), but Marx does not have a monopoly on what communism is and how it should be implemented.

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron...there has never been a single nation with a socialist economic system that had any kind of actual democracy or political freedom.

Now, I suppose it could work on a local scale, but you'd have to address all of the potential problems with the system first before it could really work on any kind of long-term scale, let alone at a level equivalent to the market economy. By the time you achieved the economic and technological (to say nothing of societal) development necessary, there would be no need for the system at all.

Before speaking, why not actually read the writings of Marx and Stalin?
Even if Yootopia was here right - which I maintain that he isn't - I recommend that no one outright believe him without doing so. You harm yourself and others who does so on that account. Truncated thinking and assumption (and action thereby) don't tend towards results that I think you would likely consider "positive".

I do believe you are a puppet. :)

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron...there has never been a single nation with a socialist economic system that had any kind of actual democracy or political freedom.


What do you consider the European countries then?

What do you consider the European countries then?

Market economies? Every single one, actually.

I have read Marx. You're conflating two things, Marx theorises that communism cannot (and will not be) be forced (sort of), but must be a natural transition from capitalism to dictatorship of the proletariat to pure utopian communism without need for a state. Communism itself is merely an economic model, there is no reason why it can't be forced top down, it's just that Marx thinks its wrong (though his Dict of Prols will inevitably lead to top down force anyway IMO), but Marx does not have a monopoly on what communism is and how it should be implemented.
Then you don't understand the "economic model" of Communism as Marx defined it. Communism (at it's later stages) as defined by Marx is not central planning, it is the the individual autonomously maintaining the given system (named as "Communism") through his actions as a result of consciousness. By Marx's definition, central planning - or "dictatorship of the proletariat" is supposed to "die away". The USSR claimed to be "Marxist-Leninist". Marxism defines "Communism" at not having "classes" - which are opposed to each other. Communism is a "harmonious whole" - the opposition has "died away". Individuals acting autonomously as a harmonious whole is not equivalent to central planning. Communism, as defined by Marx, cannot then be forced top-down, as that would require a force continuously oppositional to the "proletariat"(who are supposed to become the majority)! The USSR (initially) claimed to be the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It later claimed itself to have "achieved Communism". The USSR claimed to be Marxist-Leninst - if they are Marxist, their countries are not in a state of "Communism" even by their own definition. You nonetheless seem to believe their claim thereof. Also, circumcision is criminal.

Considering what passes for "capitalism" these days, I wouldn't be sorry to see it go. Of course, there's always the chance it will be replaced by something much worse. I don't even consider myself a "capitalist" anymore. The word has been bastardized beyond belief, just as "communist" was (in the opinion of my communist friends) bastardized by Lenin, Stalin, et. al. (most of my communist friends are Luxemburgists).

i've been coming around to the opinion that if we manage to make through the next 50-75 years alright, we'll have rendered capitalism either obsolete or at least a shadow of its former self. not in any sort of fatalist way, but because of what it will take to deal with the problems we face.

we could, of course, make it through less well. and in that case we'll probably get to live in the cyberpunk future. and if it goes even worse, well, the mad max part should only last a few years...

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron...there has never been a single nation with a socialist economic system that had any kind of actual democracy or political freedom.

That is not the meaning of the word "oxymoron." The lack of examples does not establish a contradiction in terms.

What people who make this argument actually need is an argument for why socialism must be undemocratic. Empirically, they need not the raw correlation, but at the least a case where a socialist party rose to power within the framework of legitimate democratic institutions and then undermined and destroyed them. (This still would not prove causation, but at least it would relate to their intended conclusion that supporting socialism in democratic societies is to oppose the preservation of that democracy.)

What people who make this argument actually need is an argument for why socialism must be undemocratic. Empirically, they need not the raw correlation, but at the least a case where a socialist party rose to power within the framework of legitimate democratic institutions and then undermined and destroyed them. (This still would not prove causation, but at least it would relate to their intended conclusion that supporting socialism in democratic societies is to oppose the preservation of that democracy.)
Democracy is a derivative of the state.

i've been coming around to the opinion that if we manage to make through the next 50-75 years alright, we'll have rendered capitalism either obsolete or at least a shadow of its former self. not in any sort of fatalist way, but because of what it will take to deal with the problems we face.

we could, of course, make it through less well. and in that case we'll probably get to live in the cyberpunk future. and if it goes even worse, well, the mad max part should only last a few years...

Hopefully corporations eat up the governments and we have corporation states.

Hopefully corporations eat up the governments and we have corporation states.
Which would still be called governments and have much of the same function. Except that corporations are (at least the larger ones - and don't smaller ones want to do so?) international - so isn't this somewhat nonsensical?

Which would still be called governments and have much of the same function. Except that corporations are (at least the larger ones - and don't smaller ones want to do so?) international - so this is somewhat nonsensical.

That's why it happens all at once. It creates a world government ran by a dozen or so international corporations. Laws would be base doff of being favorable to buy or sell things.

That's why it happens all at once. It creates a world government ran by a dozen or so international corporations. Laws would be base doff of being favorable to buy or sell things.
Except that it would be done by an entity whose actions are that of accumulation and expansion, which then in turn requires more accumulation.

Except that it would be done by an entity whose actions are that of accumulation and expansion, which then in turn requires more accumulation.

yes, those who are highly productive get bought out into the big corporation.
Giving them a say in the way things are run.

yes, those who are highly productive get bought out into the big corporation.
Giving them a say in the way things are run.
Except that this is an entity whose actions are that of accumulation, which then in turn requires more accumulation.

Except that this is an entity whose actions are that of accumulation, which then in turn requires more accumulation.

Start ups will still exist around innovation specifically. Larger corporations have trouble dealing with new technologies. So they have to absorb smaller companies to get the edge.
Also companies will compete or cooperate in various fields like resource extraction in Africa or the Mideast.

Just think of it as bringing back the British East India company except for everyone.

Start ups will still exist around innovation specifically. Larger corporations have trouble dealing with new technologies. So they have to absorb smaller companies to get the edge.
Also companies will compete or cooperate in various fields like resource extraction in Africa or the Mideast.

Just think of it as bringing back the British East India company except for everyone.
Except that technology would (ultimately) put an end to inequality, thus ending the organization and all others based on that mode. Since their actions are that of accumulation, this is undesirable.

Except that technology would (ultimately) put an end to inequality, thus ending the organization and all others based on that mode. Since their actions are that of accumulation, this is undesirable.

Technology makes the corporation state more feasible not less.
I am certain if the British India Company still had control of India today it would work out so much better.

Technology makes the corporation state more feasible not less.
Sufficient technology puts an end to need.

Communism (at it's later stages) as defined by Marx is not central planning

From this sentence, I can only assume that you flat out did not read what I said.


By Marx's definition, central planning - or "dictatorship of the proletariat" is supposed to "die away".

That's exactly what I said! Did I not present it clear enough to you?


Communism, as defined by Marx

Marx does NOT have a monopoly on the definition of communism


, cannot then be forced top-down, as that would require a force continuously oppositional to the "proletariat"(who are supposed to become the majority)!

Yes but the point is, the prols are NOT the majority any more.


You nonetheless seem to believe their claim thereof.

Epic fail. I never said anything remotely resembling that. This is one of the most blatant strawmans I've ever seen.


Also, circumcision is criminal.

Wut?

Sufficient technology puts an end to need.

the need for profits ? I think not.
The technology makes it far easier to control a population.

Marx does NOT have a monopoly on the definition of communism
We we're talking about the Soviet Union, which claimed to be Marxist.

Yes but the point is, the prols are NOT the majority any more.
I don't really care about classes anyway. It's just modes with category words attached to them.

the need for profits ? I think not.
The technology makes it far easier to control a population.
But the only way to do that is to become more and more static.

We we're talking about the Soviet Union, which claimed to be Marxist.


Errr.. I don't remember mentioning the soviet union,


I don't really care about classes anyway. It's just modes with words attached to them.

Whatever, again, just because something goes against what Marx says, doesn't mean it isn't communist.

But the only way to do that is to become more and more static.

no to become more profitable you become more flexible.
Static is AIG and government. Flexible is BMW and cell phone providers.

Errr.. I don't remember mentioning the soviet union,
Yeah, you're right. This whole time I thought you were Yootopia.

No worries

Not that it really matters - what the hell kind of definition of Communism are you using that can be forced top-down, when the general understanding of the aim of Communism is to mean as per what I have already stated?

Yeah, you're right. This whole time I thought you were Yootopia.

Those Brits all look alike.

no to become more profitable you become more flexible.
Static is AIG and government. Flexible is BMW and cell phone providers.
But technology ultimately puts an end to need.

But technology ultimately puts an end to need.

How does technology put an end to the need for profits ?

How does technology put an end to the need for profits ?
Consumption and purchasing power aren't the same thing, which is my point.
Technology puts an end to the problem of consumption.
It DOESN'T put an end to the need for profits. So the given configuration would have to attempt to induce paralyzation - which is itself contradictory, as that would mean it's own death!

Not that it really matters - what the hell kind of definition of Communism are you using that can be forced top-down, when the general understanding of the aim of Communism is to mean as per what I have already stated?

I don't mean it has to be constantly upheld by top down force, only that it was initially changed into communism by forcefully creating the conditions necessary for these voluntary associations and communes to be depended on, such as by forcefully removing monopolies and businesses and forcefully redistributing the land equally and communally among the people, and then leaving the people to do the rest, for instance. You need force to smash the state. And it's not like the definition of 'communism' really matters, what matters is that I think you'll need force to remove the current mixed market status quo of the west, whether it will end in communism or some other system doesn't really matter.

Consumption and purchasing power aren't the same thing, which is my point.
Technology puts an end to the problem of consumption.
It DOESN'T put an end to the need for profits. So the given configuration would have to attempt to induce paralyzation - which is itself contradictory, as that would mean it's own death!

I assume you mean switching to green energy sources.

That still does not remove consumption. Solar panels and wind mills must be made, maintained and service.

All that this does is shift over what resources and labor become important.

forcefully redistributing the land equally
Are you sure you aren't thinking of "Anarchism"?

I'm thinking banana republic. It's 2/3 the way there now.

I assume you mean switching to green energy sources.

That still does not remove consumption. Solar panels and wind mills must be made, maintained and service.

All that this does is shift over what resources and labor become important.
No, I mean that there is an end to technological expansion/"progress".

Are you sure you aren't thinking of "Anarchism"?

Communism is classless and stateless, and can be considered a form of anarchy, but that doesn't really matter as I said.

I'm thinking banana republic. It's 2/3 the way there now.

the world worked so much better then.

There is an end to technological expansion/"progress".

the east India company expanded into India largely to get cotton and opium. So unless someone how clothes will not need to be replaced in your world and people wont need pain killers. I do not see consumption going away.

the world worked so much better then.

Long United Fruit.

Actually, when everywhere is a banana republic the world will be a whole lot poorer. Capital formation and all that jazz. It's really why Africa is not the richest fucking place on the planet.

the east India company expanded into India largely to get cotton and opium. So unless someone how clothes will not need to be replaced in your world and people wont need pain killers. I do not see consumption going away.
Technology ultimately renders the need to have such organizations to make the clothing redundant. Even now - there is an idea/possibility for "printers" which "print" items, you might look it up (unless you want me to do it for you, I don't have it on-hand).

Long United Fruit.

Actually, when everywhere is a banana republic the world will be a whole lot poorer. Capital formation and all that jazz. It's really why Africa is not the richest fucking place on the planet.

The world will have the same amount of wealth, it will just be less uniformly distributed.

Technology ultimately renders the need to have such organizations to make the clothing redundant. Even now - there is an idea/possibility for "printers" which "print" items, you might look it up (unless you want me to do it for you, I don't have it on-hand).

I for one look forward to when robots cater to all our needs and we don't need to work at all. That will be awesome. :)

The world will have the same amount of wealth, it will just be less uniformly distributed.

Nah. That's not true. Just as wealth can be created, it can be flushed down the shitter. The US is in aggregate poorer than it was twelve months ago, no?

Sure banana republics have a few hyper rich individuals - though a lot of that is from outside support - but on the whole they are pretty fucking poor.

I for one look forward to when robots cater to all our needs and we don't need to work at all. That will be awesome. :)

God yes. Why the fuck can't scientists do something useful with their time instead of sucking up grant money investigating slime molds and shit.

Nah. That's not true. Just as wealth can be created, it can be flushed down the shitter. The US is in aggregate poorer than it was twelve months ago, no?

I would say 12 months ago there was more credit so the appearance of wealth dried up with that credit.


Sure banana republics have a few hyper rich individuals - though a lot of that is from outside support - but on the whole they are pretty fucking poor.

And that outside support gets wealthy too. Minor Cooper Keith got very rich.
Those goods and services have to go support someone after all.

I would say 12 months ago there was more credit so the appearance of wealth dried up with that credit.

Wellll, that's part of it. But even unlevered entities have suffered. And the response has introduced a whole set of uncertainties that didn't exist before, which in itself is destructive of asset prices and therefore wealth. Arbitrary enforcement of property rights &c.

Edit: And of course the explosion in credit was caused, in part, by the creeping banana republicanism of the western economies. Regulatory capture, desupervision, all that type of thing.

And that outside support gets wealthy too. Minor Cooper Keith got very rich.
Those goods and services have to go support someone after all.

Sure, but those outsiders need a 'rule of law' base for the capital formation that can't happen internally to the banana republic. If they don't have that they can't raise the funds to play oligarch elsewhere. When the whole world is banana republic the process of capital formation is impeded everywhere. Nobody bothers because it's uncertain who owns what. So the output of goods and services drops along with consumption and in aggregate everyone gets poorer.

And if you don't stick to the rules and favor oligarchs instead, then assets don't pass from the weak (stupid) hands to the strong (capable) hands. So you end up with what is basically a planned economy (the plan being protect the oligarchs). And everyone knows how well they work.

Wellll, that's part of it. But even unlevered entities have suffered. And the response has introduced a whole set of uncertainties that didn't exist before, which in itself is destructive of asset prices and therefore wealth. Arbitrary enforcement of property rights &c.

this all could have been prevented if I had been declared Lord god from birth



Sure, but those outsiders need a 'rule of law' base for the capital formation that can't happen internally to the banana republic. If they don't have that they can't raise the funds to play oligarch elsewhere. When the whole world is banana republic the process of capital formation is impeded everywhere. Nobody bothers because it's uncertain who owns what. So the output of goods and services drops along with consumption and in aggregate everyone gets poorer.

And if you don't stick to the rules and favor oligarchs instead, then assets don't pass from the weak (stupid) hands to the strong (capable) hands. So you end up with what is basically a planned economy (the plan being protect the oligarchs). And everyone knows how well they work.
without an outside "rule of law" it would set up more like the British East India company. They have their own military and make the law as the CEO sees fit.

without an outside "rule of law" it would set up more like the British East India company. They have their own military and make the law as the CEO sees fit.

But I would say that the heyday of the EIC - which was really after it nearly went bankrupt in the 18th century - only happened because it had the UK as a stable state that respected rule of law and property rights from which to raise capital to fund its expansion/operations/opium wars.

The EIC wouldn't have been so successful if it didn't have access to functioning capital markets.

But I would say that the heyday of the EIC - which was really after it nearly went bankrupt in the 18th century - only happened because it had the UK as a stable state that respected rule of law and property rights from which to raise capital to fund its expansion/operations/opium wars.

The EIC wouldn't have been so successful if it didn't have access to functioning capital markets.

That was caused by the Bengal famine which destroyed 1/3 of the EIC work force, which in turn was caused by rice and grain monopolies.

Capitalism shall always prevail economically over the evils of socialism and communism.

Capitalism shall always prevail economically over the evils of socialism and communism.
Circumcision is criminal. No really, I'm serious. I'm serious.
God dammit I don't think you think I'm serious, but I am.

Capitalism shall always prevail economically over the evils of socialism and communism.

Heheh that is a big claim, how do you know?

What if in the fullness of time the need for money goes, and so the concept of money itself disapears, what of Capitalism then?

Heheh that is a big claim, how do you know?

What if in the fullness of time the need for money goes, and so the concept of money itself disapears, what of Capitalism then?
That's a much bigger claim. It's probably fair to ask what sorts of events would transpire to make exchanges for goods and services ( which is really what capitalism consists of ) an obsolete idea? How would we ever rid ourselves of the need for producers and consumers?

That's a much bigger claim. It's probably fair to ask what sorts of events would transpire to make exchanges for goods and services ( which is really what capitalism consists of ) an obsolete idea? How would we ever rid ourselves of the need for producers and consumers?

Well it's not a claim, more a hyperthetical situation. However, if robots did in fact take over all of our manufcature, and our industry, and our civic jobs, in fact all the jobs that needed doing, if in the fullness of time no human had to work. If we were garenteed to need nothing, and al of our wants where taken care of then what need is there for purchaesing anything?

Well it's not a claim, more a hyperthetical situation. However, if robots did in fact take over all of our manufcature, and our industry, and our civic jobs, in fact all the jobs that needed doing, if in the fullness of time no human had to work. If we were garenteed to need nothing, and al of our wants where taken care of then what need is there for purchaesing anything?
That's way to trekky for me to buy into. But, even if we reached a state where humans were no longer needed for production, we would still consume. That means resources would be used and we would have to have some sort of exchange set up to trade products. The flaw that I see is that resources are never free.

You're a butcher, right? I want a pork chop (or futuristic equivalent) for dinner. I go to the robo-butcher to get one. It just gives it to me? How does it get another from the robo-farmer? How does the robo-pig farmer keep raising hogs? Better yet, when the robo-farmer sells a bushel of corn, how does he get seed for the next crop? Maybe these two could barter back and forth, but how do I get a piece of that pork with nothing to exchange for it?

And how do I get that cottage on the beach? Is robo-carpenter just going to build it for me?

That's way to trekky for me to buy into. But, even if we reached a state where humans were no longer needed for production, we would still consume. That means resources would be used and we would have to have some sort of exchange set up to trade products. The flaw that I see is that resources are never free.

You're a butcher, right? I want a pork chop (or futuristic equivalent) for dinner. I go to the robo-butcher to get one. It just gives it to me? How does it get another from the robo-farmer? How does the robo-pig farmer keep raising hogs? Better yet, when the robo-farmer sells a bushel of corn, how does he get seed for the next crop? Maybe these two could barter back and forth, but how do I get a piece of that pork with nothing to exchange for it?

And how do I get that cottage on the beach? Is robo-carpenter just going to build it for me?

Hehe you are right it is a bit trekkie.

I used to be a butcher yes. Put it another way you go to your robo butchers, and ask for some pork chops, it hands them over, you leave. After you're gone, the robot goes into the back, and loads the genetic blue print for pig into the handy dandy clone machine, and thus replaces his stock.

Before speaking, why not actually read the writings of Marx and Stalin?
Read Marx's work. Can't say I agree with him. Nothing wrong with classes - class war, keeping up with the Jones', whatever you want to call it, is the driving force in the economy. This is a Good Thing. Really quite happy with the quality of life I have at the moment, and it's not like I don't work for it. Anyone who doesn't work as hard can fuck right off tbqh.

Why would I read Stalin's work? He wasn't much of an intellectual. Trotsky is quite interesting, mind. His account of the 1905 Revolution is a good read, if factually dubious.

Capitalism shall always prevail economically over the evils of socialism and communism.
Nothing evil about socialism or communism. The hearts of members of the left are generally in the right place. The problem is that a lot of the ones I know from uni seem to see socialism or communism as an ends instead of a means.

If they managed to produce a form of socialism that didn't nosedive into authoritarianism, that'd likely be rather neat. But it's been a hundred and sixty eyars since the communist manifesto, and we have yet to see a sensible socialist or communist state.

exchanges for goods and services ( which is really what capitalism consists of )

um, small problem. stalinism contained a system for exchanging goods and services.

If they managed to produce a form of socialism that didn't nosedive into authoritarianism, that'd likely be rather neat. But it's been a hundred and sixty eyars since the communist manifesto, and we have yet to see a sensible socialist or communist state.

I think it's extreamly hard to have such a thing without global unilatralism.

Capitalism, though suffering, is not on the way out. Sure, maybe some new laws and practices will be implemented which will seem socialist but in the end capitalism is the dominant economic system because it plays on humanity's nature of greed.

So, capitalism has taken quite a severe knock but its not going anywhere.

Why should it stay forever? Capitalism is a minor detail in the lifespan of human history and it certainly will be replaced by another way of living.

When the environment is changing, maybe capitalism will not survive. By instance some AI experts state that we will have computers which are smarter than humans in 2040 or 2050.
Suppose it would happen, can you imagine what the impact would be on the society? In such world, capitalism has almost no sense anymore.

Why should it stay forever? Capitalism is a minor detail in the lifespan of human history and it certainly will be replaced by another way of living.

When the environment is changing, maybe capitalism will not survive. By instance some AI experts state that we will have computers which are smarter than humans in 2040 or 2050.
Suppose it would happen, can you imagine what the impact would be on the society? In such world, capitalism has almost no sense anymore.

Um....can you please explain to me how intelligent computers are going to bring the end of capitalism?


I think capitalism is here to stay. Getting rid of it would be a step backwards IMO.

Um....can you please explain to me how intelligent computers are going to bring the end of capitalism?
Also, how the fuck can you have a smart computer?


I think capitalism is here to stay. Getting rid of it would be a step backwards IMO.

IT'll go.

Also, how the fuck can you have a smart computer?
Algorithms based on past events.

Algorithms based on past events.

That's not intelligence, it can't think.

Um....can you please explain to me how intelligent computers are going to bring the end of capitalism?


I think capitalism is here to stay. Getting rid of it would be a step backwards IMO.

If computers and robots are better, smarter and faster in doing everything, would people still have the need to go out for work?

Probably not. Humanity can go on a lifetime vacation. But who will pay this? People will still need money to buy food, stuff, fun etc...

If you keep capitalism in such environment, humankind would face big poverty. We will not allow this and have to create another way of arranging the society.

Also, how the fuck can you have a smart computer?


It's not a question if it would happen but more likely when it would happen. Some AI experts are even very optimistic (maybe too) and predict a breakthrough in 2030.

I think it will be a mix of real brain cells combined with silicon power.

Computers already perform better on many issues than you or me. And this is only the start.

If computers and robots are better, smarter and faster in doing everything, would people still have the need to go out for work?

Probably not. Humanity can go on a lifetime vacation. But who will pay this? People will still need money to buy food, stuff, fun etc...

If you keep capitalism in such environment, humankind would face big poverty. We will not allow this and have to create another way of arranging the society.

In all honesty I don't foresee any future in which robots would be capable of completing all of the jobs that humanity does.......

I'm still not really seeing the point your trying to make here, could you perhaps clarify/explain further to teh stupid one? :)

It seems as if your trying to say that robots will eventually be able to meet all of our needs, but somehow we have to pay them?

It's not a question if it would happen but more likely when it would happen. Some AI experts are even very optimistic (maybe too) and predict a breakthrough in 2030.

I think it will be a mix of real brain cells combined with silicon power.

Computers already perform better on many issues than you or me. And this is only the start.

Hmm. As far as I can tell I have seen absolutely no evidence (outside of some awesome sci-fi stories) that robots are going to outsmart us or even that this is possible.

I <3 Capitalism

IT'll go.


Should it stay or should it go?

I think there will be less trouble if it stays. :p

Hmm. As far as I can tell I have seen absolutely no evidence (outside of some awesome sci-fi stories) that robots are going to outsmart us or even that this is possible.

things we know:
1) computers can process faster than us already
2) consciousness can be created using matter arranged in particular ways

so in order for it to not be possible for AI to exist, it must be the case that the only possible way to get consciousness from some combination of matter is biologically. and even that wouldn't do it, since i see no reason to deny that biological computers are legitimate possibilities. and once you have artificial consciousness operating in things that process faster than us, it is effectively inevitable that they will outsmart us.

things we know:
1) computers can process faster than us already
2) consciousness can be created using matter arranged in particular ways

so in order for it to not be possible for AI to exist, it must be the case that the only possible way to get consciousness from some combination of matter is biologically. and even that wouldn't do it, since i see no reason to deny that biological computers are legitimate possibilities. and once you have artificial consciousness operating in things that process faster than us, it is effectively inevitable that they will outsmart us.
Fun with charts:
Soo, apparently this chart is to large to be an image. Oh well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg)
Pretty soon, new technological breakthroughs were be happening so quickly, they actually occur in the past. Unless...unless that's already happening. *Ponders.*

Communism is a utopia (in my opinion a dystopia that kills individualism and initiative) so I automatically dismiss it as not being viable. Now, various forms of capitalism and socialism are possible and have been used. All I was implying is that capitalism beats socialism economically speaking.

A capitalistic nation is obviously going to be wealthier than a socialist nation. Just look at the difference in the overall standard of living between North and South Korea.

I'd rather there be social classes than the alternative of everyone being equally poor.

Not really. It's a fairly robust and flexible system, that unlike Soviet Socialism (for instance), is not required to adhere to some set doctrine. It's hard to break something that is flexible. That is, unless you dip it in liquid nitrogen and freeze it, but that's a whole other analogy.

In all honesty I don't foresee any future in which robots would be capable of completing all of the jobs that humanity does.......

I'm still not really seeing the point your trying to make here, could you perhaps clarify/explain further to teh stupid one? :)

It seems as if your trying to say that robots will eventually be able to meet all of our needs, but somehow we have to pay them?



Hmm. As far as I can tell I have seen absolutely no evidence (outside of some awesome sci-fi stories) that robots are going to outsmart us or even that this is possible.

It doesn't matter if you believe or not. It's just a context. Remember, I said 'suppose' it would be like that, what's next? If toast machines are better in working as you, then what will people do? Some futurologist say that we can go on holiday. Still we, humans, need money. And something has to provide us with enough funding to keep alive. In such world, there's no room for capitalism.

things we know:
1) computers can process faster than us already
2) consciousness can be created using matter arranged in particular ways

so in order for it to not be possible for AI to exist, it must be the case that the only possible way to get consciousness from some combination of matter is biologically. and even that wouldn't do it, since i see no reason to deny that biological computers are legitimate possibilities. and once you have artificial consciousness operating in things that process faster than us, it is effectively inevitable that they will outsmart us.

They process some things better than us humans. But they still have by instance a weak pattern recognition system. But this field is improving every day.

It doesn't matter if you believe or not. It's just a context. Remember, I said 'suppose' it would be like that, what's next? If toast machines are better in working as you, then what will people do? Some futurologist say that we can go on holiday. Still we, humans, need money. And something has to provide us with enough funding to keep alive. In such world, there's no room for capitalism.

Ah, but it does matter on whether or not I believe it. You said suppose it would be like that and I say I don't think it's possible.

Umm....toast machines are better in working....I can't toast anything for the life of me.

Why do we need money? So we can pay the robots for the goods they produce? Won't one of the robots that I own that I have to do my job for me get me money?

things we know:
1) computers can process faster than us already
2) consciousness can be created using matter arranged in particular ways

so in order for it to not be possible for AI to exist, it must be the case that the only possible way to get consciousness from some combination of matter is biologically. and even that wouldn't do it, since i see no reason to deny that biological computers are legitimate possibilities. and once you have artificial consciousness operating in things that process faster than us, it is effectively inevitable that they will outsmart us.

How do we know this? Who proved that consciousness can be created by rearranging matter?

How do we know this? Who proved that consciousness can be created by rearranging matter?

The universe, by constructing our brains.

Ah, but it does matter on whether or not I believe it. You said suppose it would be like that and I say I don't think it's possible.

Umm....toast machines are better in working....I can't toast anything for the life of me.

Why do we need money? So we can pay the robots for the goods they produce? Won't one of the robots that I own that I have to do my job for me get me money?

Or a government is serving in most of your needs and desires...

A Ferrari for all ! ;)

How do we know this? Who proved that consciousness can be created by rearranging matter?

The universe, by constructing our brains.

Touché! :)

How do we know this? Who proved that consciousness can be created by rearranging matter?
The universe, by constructing our brains.

exactly

The universe, by constructing our brains.

I suppose what I meant is that many believe it is not just matter that goes into the construction of a consciousness, and even if it was how would we be capable of creating it?

Or a government is serving in most of your needs and desires...

A Ferrari for all ! ;)

I don't like Ferrari. :mad:

I don't like Ferrari. :mad:

In 2050 Fiat will rule the world. ;)

I suppose what I meant is that many believe it is not just matter that goes into the construction of a consciousness, and even if it was how would we be capable of creating it?

people who believe that are just grasping at straws for no good reason. brains are made of matter, and when we rearrange that matter we can change and even destroy consciousness. no spooky stuff in evidence, nor is it needed.

and what sort of thing would in principle prevent us from being able to create additional consciousnesses? i mean, we do it all the time using the one method we understand pretty well, just by fucking without protection. when we figure out what exactly it is that makes consciousness work, what could stop us from making it via alternate means?

people who believe that are just grasping at straws for no good reason. brains are made of matter, and when we rearrange that matter we can change and even destroy consciousness. no spooky stuff in evidence, nor is it needed.

and what sort of thing would in principle prevent us from being able to create additional consciousnesses? i mean, we do it all the time using the one method we understand pretty well, just by fucking without protection. when we figure out what exactly it is that makes consciousness work, what could stop us from making it via alternate means?

Grasping for straws how? I still haven't seen your proof that consciousness is merely matter or even that it's contained in the brain.

Dualism ftw!

I suppose what I meant is that many believe it is not just matter that goes into the construction of a consciousness, and even if it was how would we be capable of creating it?

The problem is that souls (which is what I'm assuming your talking about) are in no way proven or observed. They are, so far, purely supernatural constructs that have no natural evidence.

Grasping for straws how? I still haven't seen your proof that consciousness is merely matter or even that it's contained in the brain.

The brain is where thoughts and such happen, so it's reasonable to assume that consciousness is somehow related to it. You were 'grasping at straws' in the sense that you had moved firmly out of the natural into the supernatural. We have no power to predict (and no evidence for) the supernatural.

things we know:
1) computers can process faster than us already
2) consciousness can be created using matter arranged in particular ways



The problem is that souls (which is what I'm assuming your talking about) are in no way proven or observed. They are, so far, purely supernatural constructs that have no natural evidence.



The brain is where thoughts and such happen, so it's reasonable to assume that consciousness is somehow related to it. You were 'grasping at straws' in the sense that you had moved firmly out of the natural into the supernatural. We have no power to predict (and no evidence for) the supernatural.

But we don't "know" that consciousness can be created by merely rearranging just matter, since we have never done it before. It may or may not be supernatural at all...perhaps consciousness also uses some perfectly-explained-through-science natural energy or material of sorts.

But we don't "know" that consciousness can be created by merely rearranging just matter, since we have never done it before. It may or may not be supernatural at all...perhaps consciousness also uses some perfectly-explained-through-science natural energy or material of sorts.

Well, some AI experts say that one day computers could build it on their own. At that point they are not yet as smart as humans, but by using their advantages they could reach the goal.

Present times, very complicated integrated circuits are already designed by other computers. It's too complicated for humans.

But we don't "know" that consciousness can be created by merely rearranging just matter, since we have never done it before. It may or may not be supernatural at all...perhaps consciousness also uses some perfectly-explained-through-science natural energy or material of sorts.

You haven't found anything that is not matter. The burden of proof is upon you. We so far have no evidence that the brain is anything more then a lump of neurons that interact in certain ways. We also have no evidence that consciousness is anything other then the natural result of the interactions of these neurons.

As for the original topic, no it's probably not on the way out. Pity though.

As for the original topic, no it's probably not on the way out. Pity though.

I don't see the fall of capitalism as being a good thing. Yes, it revolves around greed, but it has succeeded where other systems have failed.

No, I'm afraid the burden of proof is still on free soviets.
He stated that consciousness can be created just by manipulating matter. I want to know how he knows this to be fact. Has this been observed? Has this been tested? Who ran the experiment? You can't just say the "universe did it" unless you can prove that the universe only manipulated matter.

You can use the arguement "well we only found matter" but this doesn't mean that only matter is there.

The burden of proof is never on the person who is trying to disprove something. It's always on the person trying to prove said something.

The burden of proof is never on the person who is trying to disprove something. It's always on the person trying to prove said something.

That's why I say the burden is on him. He is the one who made the initial claim that we know that consciousness can be created by just altering matter; I say proof please.

That's why I say the burden is on him. He is the one who made the initial claim that we know that consciousness can be created by just altering matter; I say proof please.

Yes, he has the burden of proof for that. But you are proposing that another source for consciousness exists. Prove that.

My penis is telling me that the water is that way. To the North East, I mean.

He stated that consciousness can be created just by manipulating matter. I want to know how he knows this to be fact. Has this been observed? Has this been tested? Who ran the experiment? You can't just say the "universe did it" unless you can prove that the universe only manipulated matter.

You can use the arguement "well we only found matter" but this doesn't mean that only matter is there.

we looked, and it turns out that the brain is made up of matter. nobody has proposed any reasonable way for there to be anything else there that has held up under examination. and when we mess with the matter involved, we observably mess with the consciousness. which basically means that nobody can find this non-matter stuff that allegedly constitutes the mind...except for a blow to the head, which non-physically fucks it right up.

we don't have any evidence for it and we have no reason to think that the properties it would have to have are even possible. and believe me, we've looked. thus, we know that consciousness has to do with the arrangement of matter.

Yes, he has the burden of proof for that. But you are proposing that another source for consciousness exists. Prove that.

I'm still not ultimately convinced that we have proven conclusively that it is matter, and only matter that makes up consciousness.

To clarify my position I say that we do not know for a fact consciousness is only matter, not that consciousness is matter and something else.

we looked, and it turns out that the brain is made up of matter. nobody has proposed any reasonable way for there to be anything else there that has held up under examination. and when we mess with the matter involved, we observably mess with the consciousness. which basically means that nobody can find this non-matter stuff that allegedly constitutes the mind...except for a blow to the head, which non-physically fucks it right up.

we don't have any evidence for it and we have no reason to think that the properties it would have to have are even possible. and believe me, we've looked. thus, we know that consciousness has to do with the arrangement of matter.

If your claim is that we have already done conclusive testing I would like to know more details. When was this testing done, by whom, and what were the procedures done? Until I'm made aware of these tests I'm going to remain in doubt of your statement.

I hope Capitalism is on the way out. What we need is a nice non-polarised hybrid system which keeps everyone equally unhappy. Is that too pithy. I like pithy. Pithy is so empty of words and so full of meaning.

Here's something pithy from Sir Winston Churchill......

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

....and here's some not so pithy from me.....

Capitalism - a political/economic system requiring central regulation to protect individual wealth from misappropriation by commercial interests while centrally appropriating as much individual and commercial wealth as possible for politically motivated distribution.
Socialism - a political/economic system requiring central regulation to protect social wealth from misappropriation by commercial and individual interests while centrally appropriating as much individual and commercial wealth as possible for politically motivated distribution.
Communism - a political/economic system requiring central regulation to protect social wealth from misappropriation by individual interests while centrally appropriating as much commercial wealth as possible for socially motivated distribution.

That's not intelligence, it can't think.

Is that then the only measure by which we can claim that something is intelegent? What about the ability to learn?

How do we know this? Who proved that consciousness can be created by rearranging matter?

Umm is it because every beast that can lay claim to a 'conciousness' can only do so because of the grey 'matter' in their heads?

Can you not envisage a time when we have worked out exactly how a brain works, and then that coupled with genetic engineering we can then change or even create a brain?

Grasping for straws how? I still haven't seen your proof that consciousness is merely matter or even that it's contained in the brain.

There is plenty of proof. Have you not heard of any cases where a person who recives head trauma undergoes changes in their personality? What about Alzimers, or that bloke that had a knock on the head and work up speaking in a differant accent?

If you doubt this were else should we look for conciousnes?

We have no power to predict (and no evidence for) the supernatural.


Except of course we do have powers of prediction, and there is plenty of evidance for the 'supernatural'.:D

No, I'm afraid the burden of proof is still on free soviets.
He stated that consciousness can be created just by manipulating matter. I want to know how he knows this to be fact. Has this been observed? Has this been tested? Who ran the experiment? You can't just say the "universe did it" unless you can prove that the universe only manipulated matter.

You can use the arguement "well we only found matter" but this doesn't mean that only matter is there.

The fact is we have already manipulated matter to create. Dolly the sheep anybody? I understand that even a sheep has conciousness.

Can you not envisage a time when we have worked out exactly how a brain works, and then that coupled with genetic engineering we can then change or even create a brain?

exactly. these things are certainly complex, but they aren't magic.