Another day, another shooting in the US

[MintyTheCat]

The only viable alternative to capitalism is and has always been socialism, not as an embodiment of an abstract principle or idea, but as a consequence of capitalism's development and a practical solution to the contradictions created by it, a socioeconomic model which organizes production, distribution and consumption of social product on the basis of conscious planning and direct resource allocation in contrast to free market's supply/demand balance.

I understand this, but you're assuming a sort of absolute alternative: socialism being the only other current viable contender. But I like to believe some kind of hybrid can exist where virtues of capitalism and socialist ideals can share the same bed. Perhaps that's more ideological thinking than practical, but at this stage I'd rather see the disassembly of corrupting powers in big business as a start, since they're the ones who foster and encourage slavery. Capitalism has always required a hierarchy of exploitation in some form in that some have to have less, but there are examples of it actually working to ensure people lived well even on the lower rungs. 1950s America was a good example of capitalism at least being practiced more fairly, if obviously not flawless (what is?)

I'd argue that both of your viewpoints are assuming that mankind will never live a post-scarcity existinence.
If socialiasm (BIG IF) served to provide all with what they needed and part of what they wanted it would 'in theory' be closer to living in a world closer to post-scarcity.
If capitalism provided what people wanted through demand and indeed that free-market economics was always perfect and ever adapting then sure it would be closer but not as close in theory to that promised by socialism.

The thing is neither work out and indeed socialism falls flatter on its face faster than the free-market capitalism that we have now.
In order to 'predict need' you have to 'invent need', Jonathan. I am sure you are aware of this fallacy if you've spent time in Russia. Indeed, I live in a region that was the former DDR and many will attest to the 'stories' and misinformation dolled out to sustain this fake narrative as to the nature of supply and demand. Socialism fails and has failed and it would be a real stretch to see it working out in the age of scarcity.

But consider how it would function in a post-scarcity age. That whole guessing game as to supply and ensuring that demand was anticipated and then met would be sidestepped. Right now we are on the path to the rudiments to this way of thinking. Think of 3D printing with its on demand model and project as to how nano-technology will be utilised in the near and far future. When we have technology that creates what we need, when we need and in the quantities and timeliness that we need it then we approach an age of post-scarcity.

Eventually, we will find ourselves in this type of age. Already the old notions of having everything in the hand and physical is being surpassed; people now do things virtually where as before it would simply have been impossible for most to envisage but once the concept is seen to work and it gains acceptable mankind as a whole 'progresses' even though it would be seen as "science fiction material", Jonathan, only a generation or two before.

The current and old model has always been based on a lack of resources and different systems have served to doll those resources out. Capitalism in itself is not a problem as SkyKid has raised. Rather it is the by-products of capitalism that are the problem as he alludes to in that they create the glass ceiling, the poverty, the hierarchy and wealth creates wealth and it becomes harder for others to find a higher position within that hierarchy. But these are all based on supply and demand concepts.

This not a bad book to read if you are interested in Hierarchies:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zebras-Dont-Ulc ... get+ulcers

Basically you're a hardline socialist. I don't disagree with the principles of socialism at all, in-fact they're often the only ones that make sense on paper. But at this point I'm not thinking as far ahead as a complete change - some justice being done and moves to alleviate growing poverty would be a good start.

Yes, Russia has an amazing history of socialism not working out, Jonathan.

Justice and poverty and where both fall boils down to social policy and much of that is down to history and the starting conditions of a given society. When there are lots of lawyers running around and they seem to be needed for everything then you can tell that the system doesn't act very socially - e.g. America. When you have many rights as an individual you can talk about social welfare.

But there are many facets that make up a system and how it handles social policies and issues.

[MintyTheCat]

Capitalism is actually not very old at all and most certainly not a system that could be replaced.

I think replacing it is a veritable impossibility and not particularly practical, but augmenting it, certainly. Essentially you need to undo the damage of corporate intervention in government by destroying and punishing corruption, taxing the right people proportionately to their wealth, creating audits that lead to actual enforcement and moderating activities of wealthy institutions. Basically re-introducing all the laws and measures that were created 70 years ago to ensure people were protected, salaries were proportionate to inflation, and everyone had a right to a liveable wage - or simply reinstating the monitoring structures that have been slowly eroded and obfuscated by decades worth of global conspiratorial corruption.

Yes, this goes back to the deregulation that start to take place from the end of the 1950s.
Trade-Unions were very strong once upon a time in America and indeed salaries were more regulated and works had more power. This was dismantled along the way over a number of phases.

Back in the UK, Margaret was very interested in taking away much of the Unions' powers and you may recall all the riots that took place back in the late 70s.

Yes, when companies and banks become deregulated it makes it substantially easier for them and harder for us little guys.
UK banks deregged in the mid to late 90s - I forget but I do remember how charges went up big time with HSBC still being the UK Bank with the highest charges. Once up on a time and not that long ago the government would have stepped in but not any more.

I can foresee a time when our salaries will be paid according to market conditions. There will a system in place that grants you effective pay on the day so you would also be dealing with bank accounts that are keyed to the market but well, it may start out as being only some who have this type of account at first - the poor or the very rich and it may be something offered by employers as an added incentive.

Cast your mind back to the late 1980s in the UK when the whole "the right to buy" thing kicked off.
Many people walked along and bought properties well below market value and today those properties are worth a lot more.
After WW2 the UK government brought in a number of schemes to maintain the population: the NHS, welfare, etc.
Over in Germany the biggest landlord is still the government. Social housing is a definite option. What's more landlords are not allowed to increase rent below certain levels and we all pretty much know the going rate for a meter square of space in any given area. It is all above board, we know what we are getting, how much it WILL cost and such. This is social policy in action: the government here in Germany decided that it did not want that type of poverty going on so it regulates the system of housing and accommodation. If a landlord buys property he has to pay 12% in legal fees no matter. If he sells say before 10 years to make a profit - as you see int he UK, he has to pay a fine back to the government - and thereby any benefit someone who owns property has to make money fast and get those who rent (most people here rent) to pay over the odds is cancelled.

It is actually a renters/buyers market over here due to the policies in place, the size of the population for the available area of land.
For Germany to be on the same level of crowding as the UK it is said it would need to multiply its present population by 2.5.

But then, Germany is INCREDIBLY regulated compared to most countries so, it comes back to what you want really

[Skykid]

But then, Germany is INCREDIBLY regulated compared to most countries so, it comes back to what you want really

All industry and financial institutions should be regulated. They should also have to pay tax proportionate to their earnings. These are relatively simple matters: the only reason they have become confusing is because we don't really have a government anymore, we have a governing body it itself governed by corporate interests. The result is clear: the poor pay taxes into the pockets of the wealthy, the wealthy pay little to no tax and continue to exercise power to tighten the screws.

What happens when the interests of your government are actually the interest of banks and big business? You don't have a government anymore, at least not legitimately. So voting is farce, essentially, because the candidates are all pawns of a shadow government you're not actually voting for and whose interests you have no interest in supporting.

Revolution must occur in some form or else none of this can possibly be reversed.

[MintyTheCat]

re: the Kardashev scale, the problem with an abstraction like this is that there are impediments to growth far before we get to energy use. Politics, emotions, technological bottlenecks - all these and more are good examples of where we can't expect to simply ramp up development forever. And in that case, I don't understand the statement that human development processes are "mostly" less than 100% efficient. If you're saying that we have the ability to multiply resource coverage, that's one thing; implying that we have any processes which are 100% energy efficient is another, and is wrong.

Exactly, lots of factors cause things to stagger and in a way rushing headlong into things is usually a bad move - and especially when things are automated and easy to mobilise - the thinking part should take longer the more complex things are but sadly they often aren't and that's going to hit us later.

Let me frame it for you: I am referring to processes that thus far take effort and we convert the output to something that we want and things that we do not want. Right now, for us to produce energy from coal or nuclear power we get things we do not want and it costs us something to handle the things we do not want.

I am focusing on post-scarcity as the means to remove many of these wastes. When a machine can replicate exactly what we need and when we need it we will see that level of efficiency approach a 100% But to make that universal you'd need a pretty large change in the level of technology that we have now. And of course, implicit in that is all the social sanction and other factors - we are long way from it right now but starting on the path.

@ Minty: I have just skimmed your post and I have seen this kind of tired baiting before.

My entire point is that some political regimes assume that societal concerns override individual ones in this case (which seems out of step with penal laws that are quite lax).
In the US, firearms ownership advocates take as granted that individual rights are important enough to not be hastily overthrown. Many are pretty fundamentalist about this notion.
Neither fully and completely covers the human condition.

I understand the fundamentalist aspect for sure

The question is not the how but more over the why of the matter and that's something that I find far too many people simply unable to consider: why do you need guns? And especially why would you need guns and uphold a system whereby this 'right' is shown to be painfully inadequate in its execution? The question many would ask is just how many people need to be shot before you chaps work out that maybe something is wrong and that you live in a more dangerous society than we do. I think the use of guns and the idea that you feel you need guns is a more indicative of the conditions of your society at its present state of development.

I'm personally somewhere in the middle here. I certainly don't take a fundamentalist view of individual rights; I don't think it is completely ridiculous to argue that we should completely ban activities based on an argument about the probability of safety from it. But neither do I think that complete bans have (or are likely to have) very good success in the US, and I also don't think they are necessary.

Not really safely - more over a lack of safety and a lack of people being sane, responsible and such. The big thing here is that you are giving people the means to injure and take life that occurs at a distance and you have kept that as part of your country's system of law.

That, I am afraid is the issue here: you think it is a fine idea to have more guns and to allow any one who is 'sane' to own one and do as they wish.

As for your insinuations about my mental state, fuck off.

I had better be very careful, this sane fellow might shoot me AND he's got the constitutional right to do so - maybe he has more money than me so he can get a better lawyer to prove it was my fault - what a wonderful country you chaps live in

[MintyTheCat]

But then, Germany is INCREDIBLY regulated compared to most countries so, it comes back to what you want really

All industry and financial institutions should be regulated. They should also have to pay tax proportionate to their earnings. These are relatively simple matters: the only reason they have become confusing is because we don't really have a government anymore, we have a governing body it itself governed by corporate interests. The result is clear: the poor pay taxes into the pockets of the wealthy, the wealthy pay little to no tax and continue to exercise power to tighten the screws.

What happens when the interests of your government are actually the interest of banks and big business? You don't have a government anymore, at least not legitimately. So voting is farce, essentially, because the candidates are all pawns of a shadow government you're not actually voting for and whose interests you have no interest in supporting.

Revolution must occur in some form or else none of this can possibly be reversed.

I cannot agree more, Skykid.

Governments become the puppets of the corporations. Cameron and his mates are corporate mascots.

Sadly, it didn't used to be like this

However, you can still vote with your wallet and feet as I always say - again, we see eye to eye on this, Skykid, I think.

[Satan]

Government never at any time served any of us, there is only the illusion of democracy. The Regan and Thatcher, Chicago school narrative is just that, a narrative to manage the perception of the increasingly few people who actually give a fuck about anything beyond TV and dinner, later. We've all been had, the British are going to wish the IRA still existed to protect them from their government and the US will probably allow itself to be disarmed because laziness aside, one of our major failings as a species is the need to appear 'cool' to our peers, to prop up whatever nonsense we've constructed our egos with, when the likes of Bill Maher are sold to us as Liberal, when today's Liberal is more right wing than fucking Thatcher or Nixon and happily parrots Maher in an effort to appear informed. People need to get off their arses, but they wont so I guess it's time for the boot to the face forever that Orwell tried to alert us to. That's if we aren't starved to death first in another 'Great Leap.'

[Jonathan Ingram]

Either way from the description of your personal income it also sounds as though your survival habits are contradictory to your ideologies.

Nothing contradictory. The class character of your politics is determined by the content of the politics, not by your position on the social ladder. Engels was a factory-owning capitalist, Kropotkin was a high-level aristocrat, Marx and Lenin didn't exactly work the assembly line either.

A hardline Marxist then.

I'm not sure if 'hardline' is necessary as a descriptive here considering one of the focal points of Marx's politics was the call for a radical social change through violent revolution, not to mention that common ownership of the means of production was a historical socialist goal since before Marx.

The ultimate expression of political freedom would be a type of anarchy I dare say in that each individual makes their own path and decisions.

An individual is not an abstraction, but an accumulation of all social relations and processes. Every step he takes, every decision he makes reflects the material conditions of his existence. The concept of will, freedom and choice being independent entities divorced from the material world is an idealistic one.

I am unsure as to why you seem to reject the idea of analysing a group's level of technological and social development when this is EXACTLY what countries and organisations do often

You are unsure why some would be hesitant to employ ideas pertaining to astrophysics for the purpose of measuring the level of development on Earth? Really? When we have a more practical tool called social sciences?

Socialism fails and has failed and it would be a real stretch to see it working out in the age of scarcity.

"Paris Commune only lasted 70 days!" - every anti-socialist before 1917. This is a weak, intellectually virgin argument already parroted to death by a million of philistines before you. What you see as failure, I see as a valuable experience which proved several Marxist hypotheses on practice and left a massive amount of empirical data which needs to be studied and analyzed if socialism is to be a thing in the future.

The only thing that truly fails, Minty, is the eclectic mess of ideas that occupies the confines of your cranium.

[Skykid]

Either way from the description of your personal income it also sounds as though your survival habits are contradictory to your ideologies.

Nothing contradictory. The class character of your politics is determined by the content of the politics, not by your position on the social ladder. Engels was a factory-owning capitalist, Kropotkin was a high-level aristocrat, Marx and Lenin didn't exactly work the assembly line either.

Yes, which is why it befuddles me that you bothered to point out the basis of my own employment rather than just focus on the politics in the first place.

All said and done I appreciate talking to you about these things, and find your knowledge on the subject insightful. It always makes for interesting and enjoyable discussion.

I'm not sure if 'hardline' is necessary as a descriptive here considering one of the focal points of Marx's politics was the call for a radical social change through violent revolution, not to mention that common ownership of the means of production was a historical socialist goal since before Marx.

As you can probably tell from the tone of my posts thus far, I'm at the point where I don't believe radical social change can occur without violent revolution.

[MintyTheCat]

I am unsure as to why you seem to reject the idea of analysing a group's level of technological and social development when this is EXACTLY what countries and organisations do often

You are unsure why some would be hesitant to employ ideas pertaining to astrophysics for the purpose of measuring the level of development on Earth? Really? When we have a more practical tool called social sciences?

I knew it! We have ourselves one of those sociology majors here! One of those overly intellectual types that needs a note from 'his department' to take a leak - bravo for coming out.

This is a weak, intellectually virgin argument already parroted to death by a million of philistines before you

Perfect example of the University, convoluted wankery, Jonathan. My goodness, I bet they have you as the class mascot. Parrot fashion - the works! I'd be proud of you, I really would!

It has very little to do with Astrophysics and is more over a measure of technological development and lends itself to the methods by which energy is harnessed and utilised. Did you pass Calculus, Jonathan?

The only thing that truly fails, Minty, is the eclectic mess of ideas that occupies the confines of your cranium

That might sound cool in your debating class, my man, and it's very clever but I think I'll pass, thanks
I have spent a great deal of time around pseudo-intellectuals and usually quite enjoy watching your type fall flat on your faces.
You got enough of a budget for your departmental teabags, Jonathan?

[Jonathan Ingram]

I knew it! We have ourselves one of those sociology majors here!

Hardly. This is basic school program.

It has very little to do with Astrophysics and is more over a measure of technological development and lends itself to the methods by which energy is harnessed and utilised. Did you pass Calculus, Jonathan?

It's not an effective means of measuring a society's level of social, economic and technological development, which is what you suggested a few posts before. It's pretty telling that despite being coined in the Soviet Union, the scale was never employed or even suggested to be employed in such a way with backward Marxist scholars opting for a more down-to-earth(pun intended) method called social sciences and historical materialism.

That might sound cool in your debating class, my man, and it's very clever but I think I'll pass, thanks
I have spent a great deal of time around pseudo-intellectuals and usually quite enjoy watching your type fall flat on your faces.

I don't fancy myself as any kind of intellectual, real or pseudo. There isn't anything I could contribute that wouldn't be a half-assed, abridged version of something that was already said elsewhere. And no one's debating with you. A debate with an idealist who allows multiple contradictory notions to co-exist in his head and fills every single of his posts with abstract, incoherent fluff is about as fruitful as an attempt to reason with a Jehova Witness. With your bullshit about Kardashev's scale, post-scarcity capitalism and free will anarchist singularity, I wouldn't even know from which angle to approach the discussion(a psychiatrist might, though). Sort out the mess, first. Materialist conception of history would be a good start. Thank me later.

Yes, which is why it befuddles me that you bothered to point out the basis of my own employment rather than just focus on the politics in the first place.

But that's not what happened. I pointed at your politics(the impracticality of capitalism's replacement) as being derivative of your social standing.

All said and done I appreciate talking to you about these things, and find your knowledge on the subject insightful. It always makes for interesting and enjoyable discussion.

Likewise. Regarding my insight, as I've already said above, there isn't anything I could contribute that wouldn't be a half-assed, abridged version of something that was already said elsewhere.

As you can probably tell from the tone of my posts thus far, I'm at the point where I don't believe radical social change can occur without violent revolution.

Well, it certainly never did in the past.

[Skykid]

All said and done I appreciate talking to you about these things, and find your knowledge on the subject insightful. It always makes for interesting and enjoyable discussion.

Likewise. Regarding my insight, as I've already said above, there isn't anything I could contribute that wouldn't be a half-assed, abridged version of something that was already said elsewhere.

Well it's good enough for me.

As you can probably tell from the tone of my posts thus far, I'm at the point where I don't believe radical social change can occur without violent revolution.

Well, it certainly never did in the past.

No. I feel as though I'm being realistic when I talk about violent revolution; it's certainly not my preferred method. This being an anti-gun thread, I certainly don't advocate killing people to get things done. The unfortunate thing is, I just can't see the opportunity for meaningful change occurring any other way.

[Jonathan Ingram]

On post-scarcity:

If socialiasm (BIG IF) served to provide all with what they needed and part of what they wanted it would 'in theory' be closer to living in a world closer to post-scarcity.

The concept of post-scarcity society is not new. It goes back a few centuries and was a recurring subject in the writings of Utopian socialists Thomas More, Tomasso Campanella and Gracchus Babeuf who believed, and not without a good reason, that scarcity could be overcome with the abolition of inequality. And really, if we take a closer look at the capitalist economy, it's hard not to notice that much of the scarcity is man-made. The cause of famines is not the scarcity of food supplies, but the for-profit orientation of food producers. The cause of homelessness is not the lack of housing(there are how many vacant houses in the US and Europe?), but housing being a for-sale commodity.

The transition from a for-profit production(capitalism) to a for-use production(socialism) guarantees to overcome this type of scarcity and provide everyone with food, water, clothing and accommodation, as well as meet the population's demand for most of goods and services. What it doesn't guarantee, or even promise, is the elusive pipe dream of absolute post-scarcity. The improvement of production techniques and the appearance of new types of machine-tools will help us in eliminating the scarcity of the existing nomenclature of items while giving a way to new more complex products. 3D printing and the hypothetical use of nanotechnology to produce objects out of energy are unlikely to be a factor towards post-scarcity. By the time 3D printers have learned how to print a combustion engine, our factories will be pumping out warp drives.

Already the old notions of having everything in the hand and physical is being surpassed; people now do things virtually

No doubt, you and your upstanding post-industrial middle class office lice brethren do things virtually, Minty, but not before being provided with the not-so-virtual food, closing, furniture and merchandise.

[MintyTheCat]

You appear to be very good at making judgments about our backgrounds and status, Jonathan. Be that mine or SkyKid's.

I say that you're a pseudo-intellectual as pretty everything you have said has been only references. I have not actually heard 'you' say anything yet. It is very easy to fall into this guise and I think most of us who've spent any length of time in Education can recognise this trap.

It matters not if the ideas are old or new what matters is to be able to apply the ideas, Jonathan. For you that may prove to be rather difficult given your intellectual bent and almost voyeuristic stance. The manner by which you seem to dismiss ideas and concepts supports this claim.

Keep in mind that often most people will not appreciate references given and indeed some intellectuals, such as yourself, often try to wrap debate and discussion in lofty references that have little to no relevance to the subject at hand but serve to hide true meaning. I can surmise that you are quite used to addressing some in crowd (which is why I asked you about your University department) or perhaps you just like the chance to speak.

I think most of us have learned a little more about socialism here but I have not really witnessed you come up with some ideas that can be applied. The nature of the topic pertains to why people shoot one another in the US and from that a number of avenues and suggestions have been put forward.

Do you think you could possibly put something forward without needing to use references to philosophy or indeed you beloved socialism?

[MintyTheCat]

By the time 3D printers have learned how to print a combustion engine, our factories will be pumping out warp drives.

I think that you are missing the concept here. It is possible to replicate things and we have made a step towards broadening this over the last fifty or so year.

"Researchers create world's first 3D-printed jet engines":

http://www.gizmag.com/3d-printed-jet-engine/36273/

You might want to take a look outside of your lectures on socialism and pay attention to Science and Engineering every once in a while.

No doubt, you and your upstanding post-industrial middle class office lice brethren do things virtually, Minty, but not before being provided with the not-so-virtual food, closing, furniture and merchandise.

If we can replicate proteins, if we can grow human organs, if we can organise matter how much of a leap of the imagination would it be for us to envisage a time where we can replicate many things quickly and efficiently? What new phenomena will we find? What keys in our knowledge will permit us to effect this?

As I said, I think you need to look around you more often and not dismiss Science, Science-Fiction or ideas as being "old". I would use the word fundamental more often than old.

[BryanM]

That's quite true. National Healthcare is only considered socialist or communist by Americans who fear it as such.

It's just semantics. If his True Scottsman version of socialism are communes where we all eat rice crackers (very efficient) and wear grey polyester robes (much comfort) and rationing tokens don't exist, that's fine.

Market socialism and democratic socialism are other schools of thought. IMO, when the purpose of a society is to provide a basis of safety and security for everyone, that's enough for me to call it a true post capitalist age. It's not like trade and exploitation didn't exist rampantly in the feudal or tribal eras.

The age of a "stateless" society where everyone is truly equal, ye olde communism, can only be realized in a Star Trekesque utopia/dystopia where the value of a human in economic terms is truly $0 a year.

(As an aside, Star Trek The Next Generation only makes sense if you think of Picard as a deviant who's decided to allow himself to age and live out his life isolated in a holodeck fantasy world where he gets to play as an explorer. What's difficult to ascertain is if any of the other characters are friends of his from the real world who drop in to cosplay with their mentally ill friend or not.)

I am focusing on post-scarcity as the means to remove many of these wastes. When a machine can replicate exactly what we need and when we need it we will see that level of efficiency approach a 100% But to make that universal you'd need a pretty large change in the level of technology that we have now. And of course, implicit in that is all the social sanction and other factors - we are long way from it right now but starting on the path.

We're already post scarcity with a lot of products. Corn and wheat specifically has been automated down to one guy in the entire country driving over a field a few times a year. Such crops that can be machine harvested have government subsidies in place to make it economically worth using the land that way, instead of renting it out for homeless people banks won't allow to live in their houses for the actual $rate or whatever.

The idea that everyone NEEDS and can have a job is part and parcel to the what kind of creatures we've become. Maybe people will be begin to see that's not going to be viable going forward as over ten million drivers get replaced by machines.

Yes, Russia has an amazing history of socialism not working out, Jonathan.

Good 'ole USSR. The epitome of "everyone should have a job." So much pretend make-work, makes modern day corporate bureaucracies look like amateurs in comparison.

The weirdest thing is when people compare the USSR to the left. "Everyone needs to work"... DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING A HIPPY WOULD SAY TO YOU.

3D printing and the hypothetical use of nanotechnology to produce objects out of energy are unlikely to be a factor towards post-scarcity.

It does get kind of exhausting listening to the moonbats who think this stuff is the next! Big! Thing! (Like the Ouya or Oculus Rift.) I guess they're kind of cute in some ways.

These things aren't magic. Gotta have the specific atoms on hand, and anything to do with metal or plastic already has industrial processes in place for them. 3d printed houses and moonbases have really been the only labor saving applications I've heard proposed; for the most part it's just going to be used to pirate Game's Workshop's gaming pieces amongst hobbyists.

Nanomachines especially get the "this! is! totally! magic!" woo.

Bill Maher

That's not his last name. The last name is Moyers of the person you're thinking about.

[BulletMagnet]

This being an anti-gun thread, I certainly don't advocate killing people to get things done. The unfortunate thing is, I just can't see the opportunity for meaningful change occurring any other way.

If you want to stretch a bit (or more), I'd say that something like this happened after the Depression here in the US - not only did the plutocrats screw up royally (which certainly hasn't changed), but certain fed-up members of the upper classes, a well-organized opposition movement from below, and a non-lapdog press (none of which exist to any significant extent today) actually got off their asses and made the case of "these people and the policies they support are not acting in your interest and are not to be revered", and managed to persuade the public, which in turn forced the government to do its job, step in and fill the gap left by the "let them eat cake" corporate class (another missing element in the modern day). What followed were much-needed progressive regulatory and tax reforms with major public support behind them, which in turn led to the most productive and prosperous (though by no means perfect, still a lot better than the Gilded Age-caliber economic mess we've got now) era in the nation's history.

The big caveat, of course, is that the biggest single contributor to the government's step-up effort to include everyone in the economy was World War II, but I like to think that a concerted effort to change the nation's mindset (first and foremost, convincing people that the private sector is just as prone to corruption and decay as the public one is if you let it run rampant, which really shouldn't be very hard to do considering the enormous and ever-growing mountain of evidence) could still do a lot of good - just recently (I'll need to find a link) the US government put out a report criticizing a particular new cancer drug for its high price versus unimpressive results compared to existing drugs, and after years of "we only charge what we absolutely need to cover costs" responses they immediately slashed the price in half. Heck, you could even point to Apple's lightning-quick revision of its royalty policy when Taylor Swift complained as further evidence of just how little it takes to send all-powerful CEOs scrambling under their desks, pants damp.

Maybe I'm just too hopeful, but I tend to think that a lot of the individuals doing the most harm to the most people in this part of the world are reliant on such a precarious and volatile state of affairs to maintain their status that it will take much less than bullets to topple them. The whole idea of both democracy and the free market are that they need an informed and empowered electorate/consumer base to keep the powers that be from getting too big for their britches - the reason that both are in such a shambles is that this part of the equation has been largely cut out. The more it starts to reassert itself, the more the self-appointed gods and kings will be forced to retreat, tails between their legs.

[Jonathan Ingram]

You appear to be very good at making judgments about our backgrounds and status, Jonathan.

How much deduction do you think it takes to figure out that a first-world dweller babbling about virtual work, post-scarcity and 3D printing on the internet is unlikely to be a prole?

"Researchers create world's first 3D-printed jet engines":

I was talking about general use consumer model 3D printers. The one in the article actually works against your post-scarcity argument as ultimately it's just an alternative way of producing a highly-expensive piece of equipment. Call me when I can perform something like that with dirt and mold.

If we can replicate proteins, if we can grow human organs, if we can organise matter how much of a leap of the imagination would it be for us to envisage a time where we can replicate many things quickly and efficiently? What new phenomena will we find? What keys in our knowledge will permit us to effect this?

None of this is of any relevance to millions of people doing hard manual labor for $40 a month in a world with a rapidly deteriorating economic situation, accelerated capital accumulation, social degradation, worsening ecology and anti-enlightenment ideas on the march.

Good 'ole USSR. The epitome of "everyone should have a job." So much pretend make-work, makes modern day corporate bureaucracies look like amateurs in comparison.

This is not true at all and in a way even insulting. USSR's level of industrial development in 1923 stood at just 9% of the US level, by the second half of the 60s it grew to 70% of the US level despite the major destruction caused by the Nazi invasion which nullified much of the industrial effort of the 30s having wiped out over 1,700 cities, 70 thousand villages and towns, 32 thousand industrial enterprises, 103 thousand state and collective farms and 65 thousand kilometers of railways. That's just to give you some idea of how much "pretend make-work" it took to recover. Workers literally had to work multiple shifts for food stamps and no pay in a collective endeavor to get it all up and running again. Labor productivity grew for the entirety of the USSR's existence slowing down significantly by 1980s due to the lack of structural changes in the central planning model which remained largely unchanged since its inception in the 1930s. The conversion to free-market capitalism predictably didn't address any of the problems causing instead a catastrophic drop in labor productivity and a 85% loss of manufacturing capacity. By 1999, Ukraine's GDP was 40% of the 1990 level. That's when pretend make-work became an actual thing, with workers, engineers and scientists being replaced by marketers, lawyers and estate agents.

[Wenchang]

I'm not interested in much of the silliness in this thread, but this paragraph I will respond to.

This is not true at all and in a way even insulting. USSR's level of industrial development in 1923 stood at just 9% of the US level,

First thing, Soviet Union industrial development in 1923 was not even at its 1913 level, thanks partly to the Russian Revolution and Civil War. So it's a bit funny to be citing #s from 1923 that are lower partly because of the Bolsheviks. And it's not like industry was in decline because the economy went more agrarian either. Agricultural production was also down during that time period, famines have a way of doing that. Unproductive agriculture incidentally(and famines too) was a constant problem in the Soviet Union. Collective agriculture fucked a lot of things up.

But back to industry: Observe the huge decline in Soviet industrial output from 1913-1921 for example on page 6: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6021.pdf

by the second half of the 60s it grew to 70% of the US level despite the major destruction caused by the Nazi invasion which nullified much of the industrial effort of the 30s having wiped out over 1,700 cities, 70 thousand villages and towns, 32 thousand industrial enterprises, 103 thousand state and collective farms and 65 thousand kilometers of railways. That's just to give you some idea of how much "pretend make-work" it took to recover. Workers literally had to work multiple shifts for food stamps and no pay in a collective endeavor to get it all up and running again.

Just about every country saw increased industrial development during and after WW2, what you're describing is not particularly extraordinary - a country at a low level of development had significant increases, big deal. None of that actually means Soviet industry was efficient(it wasn't, nor was agriculture). The world economy as a whole was growing massively in the post WW2 era, then price shocks in the 1970s(caused essentially by the U.S. abandoning the Bretton Woods system) caused stagnation and decline and the Soviet Union proved to be little different than the rest of the third world.

South Korea was an even more primitive country than the Soviet Union, had lower levels of development than sub-Saharan African countries at the time, been invaded multiple times, been in a civil war, and guess what, their growth in all respects blew that of the Soviet Union out of the water. The industries they do specialize in are competitive with the best America, Japanese, German, etc. industries. I'm not sure to what extent one could say that about Soviet industry(and seriously, I can't emphasize enough how much they fucked up agriculture). And it didn't even take 40 years. No "collectivization" (which is really a bad term btw for the sort of forced labor practices the Soviets and their imitators practiced), no outlawing of trade, no killing of millions, yet somehow they managed to do pretty good.

The Soviet Union stagnated massively and in its later days the economy was totally reliant on oil and gas, kind of like Russia today! Heck, even before that, with all the hype about Sputnik and the like, the Soviet Union was a primitive economy reliant on raw materials, minerals, oil, gas, coal. All that industrial development didn't keep the Soviet Union from becoming a technologically backwards country in most respects. Also let's not pretend like the Soviet Union didn't gain from territorial expansion and the ability to "transfer skills and resources" (I hope the quotes make clear I'm being euphemistic) from Eastern Europe after WW2.

I mean seriously, you could make the same sorts of arguments for North Korea.

None of this even gets into the real problems with Soviet planning. Like for example, trying to create cities from nothing which no one wanted to live in far in the east of Siberia which were never capable of any kind of serious productivity beyond what could be done in forced labor camps. Taking nomadic pastoralists, "collectivizing" them, and forcing them to live in permanent settlements in places(like Yakutsk for example) where it makes no fucking sense to establish permanent settlements. Places were even today it's too cold to have electricity. Building cities without building networks of roads.

Labor productivity grew for the entirety of the USSR's existence slowing down significantly by 1980s due to the lack of structural changes in the central planning model which remained largely unchanged since its inception in the 1930s.

What good is labor productivity if income and consumption aren't increasing? I really get a kick out of seeing leftists rant and rave about income inequality in developed Western countries but then go on about productivity in the Soviet Union. Hey guess what, the United States has been extremely productive for a long time, like it's whole history, just about. Why aren't you celebrating that? No, instead people will saw how workers aren't being paid any more for that productivity, etc(although no one can argue that Americans for example are suffering from a lack of consumption). But when talking about the Soviet Union you seem to go straight to fetishizing productivity(which of course started out from a low base anyway).

The conversion to free-market capitalism predictably didn't address any of the problems causing instead a catastrophic drop in labor productivity and a 85% loss of manufacturing capacity. By 1999, Ukraine's GDP was 40% of the 1990 level. That's when pretend make-work became an actual thing, with workers, engineers and scientists being replaced by marketers, lawyers and estate agents.

No one would ever say you can't take a fucked up situation and make it even worse. The "Western consensus" IMF style policies certainly didn't help much of the former Soviet countries, however, let's not pretend like those countries had major corruption and monopolization problems. Suggesting marketers, lawyers, and estate agents replaced workers, engineers, and scientists, is an optimistic take on what happened. It's more like oligarchs and organized criminals took over. The power of the state declined(this sentence is for all the populists in the thread). Employment was low, probably even for a lot of those lawyers and marketers(those who didn't move somewhere else anyway). Things were bad.

But let's also not pretend like low energy prices didn't hurt Russia and were a big part of the economic problems. We see the same pattern today in fact, during periods of high oil prices, Russia's economy under Putin showed good growth. But with oil prices recently down, they have seen inflation, declining growth, etc. None of this surprising. They're a commodity based economy. All this hype about Soviet industrialization doesn't change that. The Soviet Union economy(and the Russian economy today) was basically Saudi Arabia without the benefit of having foreigners do all the work. They can make good tanks though, I'll give them that.

Incidentally, while Ukraine is indeed a corrupt clusterfuck of a country(part of the problem being that half the country doesn't agree with the other half on anything), it is not as if many of the post-Soviet economies have not recovered. Poland and Kazakhstan for example have much better living standards now than they ever did in the Soviet days.

[BryanM]

The world economy as a whole was growing massively in the post WW2 era

Right. Starting from ruins along with the new invention of the internal combustion engine (and the earliest versions of serious computation machines), the world is a new place compared to what it was before the war.

A completely ludicrous change of life compared to the thousands of years that came before. Yet we still have a lot of those pre 1920's attitudes about things. Because... that was just a single human lifetime ago.

I wasn't saying that competently executed central planning (like, for instance, incentives and safeguards for accurate data) isn't intrinsically more efficient or that an entire country starved to death because the government made 100% of everyone elevator girls, who subsequently broke their uteri and prostates from having to bow so much and then everyone went extinct and China moved into the empty land and took the place over. That would be stupid.

[MintyTheCat]

You appear to be very good at making judgments about our backgrounds and status, Jonathan.

How much deduction do you think it takes to figure out that a first-world dweller babbling about virtual work, post-scarcity and 3D printing on the internet is unlikely to be a prole?

No doubt, you and your upstanding post-industrial middle class office lice brethren do things virtually, Minty, but not before being provided with the not-so-virtual food, closing, furniture and merchandise.

Yes, Jonathan: "middle class office lice" AND a "prole". I think you need to make your mind up instead of grasping at straws, me laddo. You can't have it both ways and that goes especially for your take on soviet 'efficiency'. I wonder why so many of you guys emigrate and end up in Europe when the system you have is just so darn good that anyone with an ounce of your conviction and ideals would be truly mad to want to leave it. The soviet system failed spectacularly. It had to be bailed out. You can have your nationalism and your military parades - as all backward cultures require, you can teach your kids only the good parts of soviet history but that doesn't change anything, it merely provides a useful and convenient narrative for the state to peddle to you guys.

"Researchers create world's first 3D-printed jet engines":

I was talking about general use consumer model 3D printers. The one in the article actually works against your post-scarcity argument as ultimately it's just an alternative way of producing a highly-expensive piece of equipment. Call me when I can perform something like that with dirt and mold.

If we can replicate proteins, if we can grow human organs, if we can organise matter how much of a leap of the imagination would it be for us to envisage a time where we can replicate many things quickly and efficiently? What new phenomena will we find? What keys in our knowledge will permit us to effect this?

Again, and it has been raised earlier but you are missing the CONCEPT here. You are dismissing anything and everything that doesn't yield an 'instant' benefit to be enjoyed by you and your factory working socialist mates. If we had adopted that approach in the past we would never have developed flying machines and all manner of other machines. You have to understand that there are few instant improvements and it takes effort and work to realise new technologies. I think back to the development of semiconductor technology and its inception. It combined a number of disciplines and some key insights into the phenomena BEFORE any real use could be made. It isn't all placed into our laps, Jonathan but then it might be harder for you to understand this if you and your mates are nose to the factory floor working for that $40 a week pay cheque to appreciate higher concepts.

I see you as being a dog with a bone to chew and your bone being socialism. Everything for you traces back to this and I find you reluctant to appreciate other notions. You are ever dismissive and incapable. I think you should expand your horizons and work out that to a large extent the technology of the day influences how people live and work. You may keep harping on about millions without work or what not and no real social policy is going to be able to provide for millions to gain employment in the light of automated manufacture without there being some kind of "put on" initiative by the government which goes back to social policies. I agree with some in this thread that many will be working as elevator girls and such. The challenge is to adapt to the situation at hand and to learn how to utilise processes and technology as opposed to "saving the millions who work for $40 a week", Jonathan.

Again, your ability to use only references and indeed to use references that have little relevance confirms my take that you are this type who over intellectualises things.

Also, and it is good that we have had some other perspectives examine economic and social ideas I have not as yet seen much discussion on gun crime - and that's the nature of this thread

[Jonathan Ingram]

You can have your nationalism and your military parades - as all backward cultures require

I'm very obviously against any form of nationalism, my first involvement with left politics being precisely on the basis of a campaign against nationalism and racial intolerance. Nor do I give a fuck about any military parades, least of all Russian. But nice of you to have stuck around long enough to fully expose your reactionary tendencies(or partially, who knows what other skeletons your closet might hold) - backward cultures. Suddenly, your stance makes a lot more sense than before. Conviction in your or your group's superiority over others is the first, most basic moral pretext to justify economic exploitation. Amazing coming out.

if you and your mates are nose to the factory floor working for that $40 a week pay cheque to appreciate higher concepts.

When my mates "working for $40 paychecks" start revolting globally and multiply your social-racist ass by zero at the nearest wall, they just might find themselves in a position of having more free time to start appreciating the higher concepts fancied by the creative hipster-class.

I really get a kick out of seeing leftists rant and rave about income inequality in developed Western countries but then go on about productivity in the Soviet Union. Hey guess what, the United States has been extremely productive for a long time, like it's whole history, just about. Why aren't you celebrating that?

Raising labor productivity and production output serves a different purpose in capitalism and socialism. In capitalism, it's a pre-condition for further accumulation of capital. In socialism, it's a means towards growing the totality of equally distributed social product. High LP in the United States does nothing to improve the fortunes of tent city dwellers or thousands of Detroit families who have had their water cut.

[ZacharyB]

It really is "another day, another shooting" here in the US recently.

3 dead (including gunman, by self-inflicted gunshot), 7 wounded in a theater in Lafayette, Louisiana. Gunman was older this time, I think the age was 56 or 58. No motive known at present.

[Bloodreign]

It really is "another day, another shooting" here in the US recently.

3 dead (including gunman, by self-inflicted gunshot), 7 wounded in a theater in Lafayette, Louisiana. Gunman was older this time, I think the age was 56 or 58. No motive known at present.

News updated here to 9 injured, one right now is not doing well in the hospital, so the toll could hit 4, hopefully not though. Happened about half a mile from my work place. Saw a ton of cops heading their way towards the theater, but didn't know where they were going, found out about 15 minutes later. 2 of the bodies are still in the theater as part of the investigation, the 3rd died at the hospital. One victim has been treated and released.

There were 100 people in the theater at the time watching various movies, someone pulled the fire alarm to alert others.

[MintyTheCat]

"President Barack Obama has admitted that his failure to pass "common sense gun safety laws" in the US is the greatest frustration of his presidency."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704

From the boss man himself.

[Bloodreign]

They identified the guy as a drifter/loner from Alabama who hid disguises in his hotel room. Two young ladies died because of him, one 21, the other 33. Shooter's name is John Russell Houser.

[BryanM]

Houser was said to have maintained an online presence, in which he espoused his views on immigration, free speech, and the future of the U.S

Oh boy....

The US heavily censors. Why wouldn't they twist.You say there is no censorship? Tell me how I can read any of the 30 newspapers printed in Iran.How to find White rights groups on the internet.What your computer gives you when you type AMERICA CENSORS INTERNET, or censors anything.

And so on and so forth. The same canard that because we have a national debt (necessary to help ensure inflation happens and therefore cajoling production to continue), we should "fix" it with a nationalist white power group analogous to Golden Dawn.

Actually pretty mild stuff compared to reading the stuff Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger wrote, not distinguishable from any other post by a staunch USA conservative. Maybe a bit on the liberal side of that, even.

Didn't want to pass judgment earlier based on the movie in question, which I think advocates boning lots of different people? Maybe it was relevant.

[Skykid]

America does have a white rights group. They're called policemen, and at the moment they're regularly executing unarmed black people on an almost daily basis (or at least punching them in the head, arresting them for the charge of bleeding on them, and then planting drugs in the boot of the car while accidentally filming themselves doing so.)

[Lord Satori]

"White rights"? How do you have a civil rights group for the dominant ethnic group in a country?

[BulletMagnet]

"White rights"? How do you have a civil rights group for the dominant ethnic group in a country?

Because if you're male, heterosexual, and Protestant you're automatically EXTRA oppressed. An endangered species, even!

[BryanM]

"White rights"? How do you have a civil rights group for the dominant ethnic group in a country?

Well they're not really civil rights groups, unless you want to count all the money they send to help out guys who're accused of murdering someone with a tan. For the most part they seem more like Klan rallies were people bitch and moan that they have to be reminded of the whole slavery* thing that lasted until the mid 1950's (or 2010's, depending on your yardstick) every February.


* Isn't it really weird how... I don't know the term to use, flanderized? Neutered? Weak? How weak of an emotional response to the word "slavery" we have? Every time the word is said, we should be reminded of guys like Ariel Castro. In our minds we should think of images of rape, torture and murder when it is spoken, but instead we think of a simple economic system of paying your employees $0 an hour that happened in the distant past, instead.