Socialism

[dimreepr]

I agree, we should not wait for automation, but it doesn't appear such a thing will be done anytime soon, and automation is coming on strong.

 

 

For automation read immigration... and it is coming on strong... but either way business won’t suffer...

[Sensei]

People need jobs tasks to do. To fill their time, and life.

The better quality tasks, the more valuable for community, the better.

Jobless person, in capitalistic country, desperately needing money, probably will be all happy to get f.e. warehouseman job, picker job etc.

When such stultifying jobs, could be done by robots quite efficiently.

 

Amazon warehouse robots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quWFjS3Ci7A

 

It's hard to find people good, valuable tasks.

It has all start in primary school, college, and university (or lack of them).

Kids since their early days are split to better one, having money for good education, and worser, not being able even to send kids to college.

And their parents every day are struggling with life, because of lack of money. "Bankrupting" every week.

All because of money, in capitalistic country, constant run for money..

That's nothing else than bits on computer disks.

Do you run for virtual credits in games? I don't think so.

 

If one would run "script" to add each bank's account owner +1 bln usd, the next day, every body would quit their jobs.. And whole economy would collapse.

People should have such jobs that even after receiving their +1 bln usd, they would go to their jobs, the next day. They should love their jobs, not because they get money for it.

When it's done, there is no need for money anymore, as everybody do their responsibilities, without being forced to do them.

 

 

Producers are terrified by 3D printers.

One could model anything on computer, and press button, and thing which they would normally have to go and buy in shop, is done within minutes.

If everybody would have 3D printer in home, the most of producers would bankrupt, or have to switch to making highly sophisticated products, above range of 3D printers.

Making even more jobless low educated people, that are hired now to press buttons in the real extruder, packing, advertising, selling.

But 3D printers producers would be improving their products, to higher resolutions, to limitless materials used for printing etc.

One could even make 3D printer next gen, with 3D printer older gen, at home..

 

ps. That's just ramble about capitalistic country approach, rather than socialism..

 

[Willie71]

A very smart prof in 1992 told me a little bit of wisdom. He called it the rule of thirds. One third of people will work hard at whatever they do. They strive for excellence. One third of people will work to be competent. They do what needs to be done. One third of people do the minimum they can to get by.

 

This will never change. Whether we have socialism, capitalism, communism, or whatever, it won't change. Conservatives worry so much about the button 2% that are scammers they will prevent the numerous people who are the hardest workers, who grew up in the least supportive homes from having a chance, so they won't have to pay for the 2%.

[Sensei]

A very smart prof in 1992 told me a little bit of wisdom. He called it the rule of thirds. One third of people will work hard at whatever they do. They strive for excellence. One third of people will work to be competent. They do what needs to be done. One third of people do the minimum they can to get by.

 

Actually, it could be also interpreted as their attitude for "running for money" (or "running for power" for politics, or "running for famous" for artists etc)..

First group is very horny for money, therefor work hard to be successful (greedy for money/power/famous/etc).

You would verify their attitude by telling the first and second group that they will not get any reward for what they do, and see what happens...

To which group you would classify monks, hermits?

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Sensei

[Willie71]

Actually, it could be also interpreted as their attitude for "running for money" (or "running for power" for politics, or "running for famous" for artists etc)..

First group is very horny for money, therefor work hard to be successful (greedy for money/power/famous/etc).

You would verify their attitude by telling the first and second group that they will not get any reward for what they do, and see what happens...

To which group you would classify monks, hermits?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aRor905cCw

Monks are overachievers. Hermits are overachieving libertarians. We equate money with hard work and success, incorrectly. Artists are a good example. Many are extremely devoted, and incredibly skilled, yet they don't often get a monetary reward. People say they don't produce necessary things. In that vein, a trader on a computer doesn't either. It's all just numbers and abstractions, but that person deserves wealth. Why do top athletes make more money than top surgeons or teachers? Surely their value is higher to society than an athlete?

 

I am an overachiever. I have to WORK hard at having boundaries and taking time to relax. It's sad I have to work at relaxing.

[MigL]

Neither extreme is desirable.

Extreme capitalism is essentially 'survival of the fittest/richest', and we aspire to be better than animals.

Extreme socialism ( communism ? ) removes any impetus to better oneself.

 

A society must find the right balance. That's the tricky part since opinions as to what is the 'right' balance differ.

And the reason democracies have elections.

[Willie71]

Neither extreme is desirable.

Extreme capitalism is essentially 'survival of the fittest/richest', and we aspire to be better than animals.

Extreme socialism ( communism ? ) removes any impetus to better oneself.

 

A society must find the right balance. That's the tricky part since opinions as to what is the 'right' balance differ.

And the reason democracies have elections.

Extreme socialism allows less than 1/3 of people to underachieve. It also allows 1/3 of people to use their creativity and drive to innovate without having to worry about keeping a crappy job to pay bills. That is the idealistic way of seeing it. The problem is people. We are competitive by nature, and we are severely flawed by our cognitive shortcuts. We tend to screw up everything we touch for really stupid reasons.

[Phi for All]

Extreme socialism allows less than 1/3 of people to underachieve. It also allows 1/3 of people to use their creativity and drive to innovate without having to worry about keeping a crappy job to pay bills. That is the idealistic way of seeing it. The problem is people. We are competitive by nature, and we are severely flawed by our cognitive shortcuts. We tend to screw up everything we touch for really stupid reasons.

 

I've often wondered if our biggest problem isn't that we feel everyone has an equal right to weigh in on every issue. While I appreciate perspective when it's rational and reasonable, we often come up with fantastic ways to deal with problems in real, sustainable, truly long-term, wisdom-based ways, only to have them diminished and made less usable because we had to compromise with those who can't see that far into our future.

 

Perhaps there are ways to preserve accountability that let the best ideas flourish without fetters. There are times to step on the gas and get things done, but if someone keeps jabbing the brakes at the wrong time, you don't go very far.

[EdEarl]

 

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Churchill

 

Better to bicker than be enslaved.

[Phi for All]

Better to bicker than be enslaved.

 

And I don't think the dialogues should ever be closed. But in the end, so much good is diminished because someone won't make as much money (or insert your favorite greedy agenda that overrides the good of the People) if they do what's best for all. And for some reason, we let this happen.

[EdEarl]

A benevolent, genius dictator might govern better than democracy, and not make people feel enslaved. However, power corrupts. There is no ideal government AFAIK. Do you have a proposal?

[MigL]

Didn't Napoleon use that same argument in Animal Farm, Phi ?

( yes, I'm being purposefully provocative )

Edited March 16, 2016 by MigL

[Willie71]

I've often wondered if our biggest problem isn't that we feel everyone has an equal right to weigh in on every issue. While I appreciate perspective when it's rational and reasonable, we often come up with fantastic ways to deal with problems in real, sustainable, truly long-term, wisdom-based ways, only to have them diminished and made less usable because we had to compromise with those who can't see that far into our future.

 

Perhaps there are ways to preserve accountability that let the best ideas flourish without fetters. There are times to step on the gas and get things done, but if someone keeps jabbing the brakes at the wrong time, you don't go very far.

We unfortunately deal with 10 year, 20 year, and hundred year problems with four year plans and solutions. Democracy doesn't have a safeguard to deal with the really big problems.

[EdEarl]

We unfortunately deal with 10 year, 20 year, and hundred year problems with four year plans and solutions. Democracy doesn't have a safeguard to deal with the really big problems.

How do you propose to deal with the really big problems?

[Willie71]

How do you propose to deal with the really big problems?

This is the issue isn't it? Putting limits on what can be changed in a democracy results in problems like the gun violence in the states. If climate change was handled with a constitutional amendment, for example, changing it would be harder, but Republicans could kill social security in the same way.

 

If there was a way to respect scientific or economic advisers who are evidence based, it would help, but there is the problem of corruption, people who could be paid to say anything.

 

There aren't any perfect solutions.

 

I'm open to suggestions.

[EdEarl]

Vote or become a politician. I hate that deluded fools get to vote, but it's the best system I know.

Edited March 16, 2016 by EdEarl

[Phi for All]

Didn't Napoleon use that same argument in Animal Farm, Phi ?

( yes, I'm being purposefully provocative )

 

That's exactly why I couched my question as a form of a wary probe, with all those "perhaps" and "I wonder" phrases that one puts in to let folks know it isn't really a stance so much as an observation that one wants to discuss. Try to look at the gray more often, not everything is black and white.

 

I'm reminded of the discussions we had when the Republican Congress didn't get everything they wanted in legal, procedural ways, so they chose to blackmail the White House by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, lying that all they want to do is discuss some problems and the White House won't even talk to them (which they shouldn't; at that point, the talking had already been done), and using obfuscation to make their base believe they were doing it to keep from spending more, which was complete BS since it's only approving what we've already voted to spend.

 

The media chooses to give both sides of this matter equal time every time it happens. This is the type of situation I'm talking about, where procedures are misused that cause all kinds of problems, don't fix what the Republicans say it will fix, and in general mess with the overall effectiveness of our government. I know it's a slippery slope to want more control over the things our representatives spend their time on, but in instances like these, so much harm comes when we give equal weight to marginal objections.

 

Maybe this is just a media matter. Frankly, some of the more liberal news sites, like Huffington Post, are making no bones about calling Trump a pathological liar and rampant racist. They have it as an editor's note at the bottom of most Trump stories. The first time I saw this, I didn't think it was their place to allow such judgement into an article that's meant to inform, not persuade. Now I'm starting to wonder if they aren't trying to avoid giving so much power to Trump by the seeming necessity to give all candidates equal time. Trump, like serial killers, rapists, and terrorists, makes money for the media, so they probably feel like they can't avoid him as much as morality and integrity demand.

 

I don't know if this is a good answer, to somehow place a judgement on how representative some of these political stances really are. Do we need to make sure when informing the People that the media let us know where these stances actually stack up to reality or not, and how marginal or mainstream, effective or obfuscating, and whether or not the stance is taking more backward than forward steps?

[overtone]

Perhaps there are ways to preserve accountability that let the best ideas flourish without fetters. There are times to step on the gas and get things done, but if someone keeps jabbing the brakes at the wrong time, you don't go very far.

The problem we have is not too much bickering.

 

The current difficulty we are having with argument is that there is a huge thumb on the scales of the media of public discourse, namely the centralization brought by corporate money. Entire fields of bickering have been excluded, sound dismissal of the dysfunctional depends on financing, and so the well-financed dysfunctional stuff has no relevant opposition and never goes away.

 

The US had, at one time, controls on the centralization of media: the government had control of the commons - the electromagnetic bandwidth - and explicitly and overtly managed it to prevent profiteering by degradation of the resource. No one person or corporation, no matter how wealthy, could gain financial control of all the major media in a given town.

 

That went away with the Telecommunications Act in 1996, following on the heels of the discard of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 - 1991 (Reagan, the gift that keeps on giving) which had required at least a formality of presenting opposing views, giving opposing political candidates equivalent airtime, etc. The net effect was plutocratic control of the media in most places by vested interests under no obligation to present any views of anything contrary to those interests, or even cease repeating demonstrated falsehoods (much less correct them).

 

And that's how you get a majority of the Republican base switching between Obama the acolyte of the fundamentalist Protestant firebrand Wright, Obama the sworn brother of the atheistic communist Ayers (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/03/12/violence-at-chicago-trump-rally-led-by-known-ally-of-obama/),and Obama the secret Muslim born in Kenya, on cue as needed, sometimes all three simultaneously.

 

The upside is that we know how this situation was successfully handled in the past: a government managing the commons of the airwaves and satellite bounce restores the ban on market control across various platforms in a given area, and restores the basics of the Fairness Doctrine for all who use and profit by these public airwaves.

 

Maybe even a restoration of socialist provision of a public news source.

Edited March 17, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Money is far more than just a representation of resources. In the minds of many there is almost a religious like quality to money; where it is responsible for the motivation and character of people. A person with lots of money is thought to be very smart, have strong character, and work very hard. A person without money is thought to be stupid, weak willed, and lazy. When debating capitalism, socialism, or anytype of economic/political concept it is often that religious spirit of money that is being discussed. The greatness bestow onto one with money by society vs the failure preceived by those without is what's being discussed 9 times out of 10.

 

Socialism, in my opinion, seeks to treat money purely as a resource. It also seeks to share key resources. However feelings like ego, pride, greed, thirst, and etc are antithetical to sharing. The U.S. will need a long term philisophical shift before Socialism can be understood and experienced as a form of economic/political management of the countries resources.