|
Larry Parrish posted:that's why I said markets/money should remain only for stuff you can call luxuries. And when I say luxuries I really mean luxuries, not houses and good food or whatever. That seems workable from a consumption point of view, but how does that work on the production side? Would the "necessary" industries still work under the wage system, or would workers be choosing to work for a "full living" making necessities vs. working for a wage making luxuries? If something makes the transition from luxury to effective necessity, would that industry then be nationalized and socialized piecemeal?
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
namesake posted:I support satiation simply because infinite accumulation is a social construction rather than a material limitation (although that exists too) and so yes people can be satisfied, any extra things distributed without upsetting the overall system, etc. IMO the drive to accumulate endlessly is driven by the existential terror of destitution, even well after you've accumulated enough capital to never realistically lose it all even if you tried. It just nests in your mind like an incubus on the brain. There's the ideological social construction that growth is always good and necessary, and also the real social limitations of the rules established by capitalist market economy. If people feel as though they can't be satiated, it's because they're not allowed to feel satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:but why even keep those when the premise of this hypothetical is that there is an operational framework for non-market organization of distribution of labor & its products. but why produce enough cigarettes for everyone, when we could instead produce enough for people that want them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:but why produce enough cigarettes for everyone, when we could instead produce enough for people that want them. Hmm yes we might overproduce something, let's get markets involved so we can remove all doubt about it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Does Capital volume 1 say whether 20 yards of caviar makes a fish?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Rhukatah posted:Does Capital volume 1 say whether 20 yards of caviar makes a fish? quote:Since the relative form of value of a commodity – the caviar, for example – expresses the value of that commodity, as being something wholly different from its substance and properties, as being, for instance, fish-like, we see that this expression itself indicates that some social relation lies at the bottom of it. With the equivalent form it is just the contrary. The very essence of this form is that the material commodity itself – the fish – just as it is, expresses value, and is endowed with the form of value by Nature itself. Of course this holds good only so long as the value relation exists, in which the fish stands in the position of equivalent to the caviar. Since, however, the properties of a thing are not the result of its relations to other things, but only manifest themselves in such relations, the fish seems to be endowed with its equivalent form, its property of being directly exchangeable, just as much by Nature as it is endowed with the property of being heavy, or the capacity to keep us warm. Hence the enigmatical character of the equivalent form which escapes the notice of the bourgeois political economist, until this form, completely developed, confronts him in the shape of money. He then seeks to explain away the mystical character of gold and silver, by substituting for them less dazzling commodities, and by reciting, with ever renewed satisfaction, the catalogue of all possible commodities which at one time or another have played the part of equivalent. He has not the least suspicion that the most simple expression of value, such as 20 yds of caviar = 1 fish, already propounds the riddle of the equivalent form for our solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
 love the fish that keeps me warm
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:
Lmao I hadn’t seen this smilie
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:That seems workable from a consumption point of view, but how does that work on the production side? Would the "necessary" industries still work under the wage system, or would workers be choosing to work for a "full living" making necessities vs. working for a wage making luxuries? If something makes the transition from luxury to effective necessity, would that industry then be nationalized and socialized piecemeal? It would presumably work the way you would handle the distribution of labor throughout the economy. If people don’t want to do a job, either because it’s dangerous or new or unpleasant or whatever, you would either compel some people to do it forcibly or you would ensure people do it by giving them incentives such as bonus luxuries or effusive state propaganda etc. I mean this is a typical problem of central planning and by no means insurmountable but yeah. You’d get people to work at the cigar factory vs. the weed factory the same way you get them to be underwater welders vs. telephone linemen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:IMO the drive to accumulate endlessly is driven by the existential terror of destitution, even well after you've accumulated enough capital to never realistically lose it all even if you tried. It just nests in your mind like an incubus on the brain. There's the ideological social construction that growth is always good and necessary, and also the real social limitations of the rules established by capitalist market economy. If people feel as though they can't be satiated, it's because they're not allowed to feel satisfied. I'm not a psychologist so I don't really know. That's definitely plausible for some people raised in a particular kind of environment; the treadmill of happiness is pretty well established across lots of communities. But so is imposter syndrome. So is people having a very old favourite shirt or loving terrible car and never getting rid of it. It seems pretty clear that humanities level of comfort with itself can vary massively based on tons of things so assuming an underlying imperative beyond basic reproductive biology is not something I'll really comment on. Even if humanity is endlessly restless and will constantly seek to push boundaries and reinterpret the world around them then that doesn't have to develop into material accumulation anyway, it just merely has in the past. Creative, investigative or simply weird and amusing things are enough to get people mass followings on Youtube and hopefully they get satisfaction from it even if actual physical reward is not forthcoming so ultimately that's the way to structure our society - to focus on the emotional, intellectual, maybe even spiritual if it helps, development over the material.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:but why produce enough cigarettes for everyone, when we could instead produce enough for people that want them. Why do you assume a centrally planned economy can't adjust the output of it's production? Initially you could produce as much cigarettes as the formerly capitalist markets did, then you can review the surplus/shortages at the end of the month/quarter/year and adjust the quota as necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
rudatron's hypothesis that demand is functionally infinite is stupid as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
i go through a pair of shoes every year. so just have factories make 7.5 billion shoes annually, maybe a few thousand extra in case of lost shoes or accidents why is this loving hard
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1007680326934585344
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Yandat posted:i go through a pair of shoes every year. so just have factories make 7.5 billion shoes annually, maybe a few thousand extra in case of lost shoes or accidents lmao if you dont get a new pair every week like me
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 22:47
|
|
Yandat posted:i go through a pair of shoes every year. so just have factories make 7.5 billion shoes annually, maybe a few thousand extra in case of lost shoes or accidents First off, thats a lot of shoes. Its really hard to make that many shoes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
if every man needs a pair of shoes we could have every man make a pair of shoes. problem solved bing bang boom
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
alternatively, carpet the entire planet
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Yandat posted:alternatively, carpet the entire planet americans would still need shoes though
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
new thread title https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1007752686878388224
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
I would like to go the rest of my life without hearing about elon musk, unless he died in a funny way
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
his companies are about to die in a funny way
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Matt Lindland posted:First off, thats a lot of shoes. Its really hard to make that many shoes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8ssUHT5AqQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:I would like to go the rest of my life without hearing about elon musk, unless he died in a funny way
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1007758296336330753?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1007665949044928517
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
when "never read a book" goes too far
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Tired: Never read a book. Wired: Never write a book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
drat how’d I miss Krinkle vs. Getfiscal on Tito earlier
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
Should've read more Iain M. Banks though didn't he name some of his space doodads after his books?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
so how about Participatory Economics
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
just implement War Communism and be done with it
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:new thread title He's setting up socialists to be pigeonholed as either uncredentialed, unaccomplished state school nobodies or credentialed intellectual elitists who can't understand the common people so that he doesn't have to argue against ideas on their merits. "But X is funny and (s)he's a socialist" wouldn't be available as a rebuttal, either, because odds are such a readily available famous example would be rich. Someone could put forward a socialist who they think is funny, but isn't rich, and he'd probably fall into "then why wasn't he or she credentialed by being rich and famous" self-contradiction galenanorth fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jun 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:He's setting up socialists to be pigeonholed as either uncredentialed, unaccomplished state school nobodies or credentialed intellectual elitists who can't understand the common people so that he doesn't have to argue against ideas on their merits. "But X is funny and (s)he's a socialist" wouldn't be available as a rebuttal, either, because odds are such a readily available famous example would be rich. Someone could put forward a socialist who they think is funny, but isn't rich, and he'd probably fall into "then why wasn't he or she credentialed by being rich and famous" self-contradiction 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:If I am going to spend X money now, save Y now and spend Y+Z money later, how is advertising making me spend X+Y money now and never spending Z (and maybe having to reduce my future spending even more due to debt & interest) increasing my expected expenditures? they would actually keep that money and end up not spending it. now they go into massive credit card debt this behavior ranges from poor people to couples making six figures
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:new thread title Projection.txt
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:so how about Participatory Economics I checked that out a while back and it seemed like a needless step back from "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities" while being just as difficult to implement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Satiation is impossible because that's not how the brain works, the object of desire can only exist as an object so long as it is unattainable - once attained, it loses its mystical character, and transitions into just another thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vydwrn_TQow
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
 Okay, which one of you is Elon Musk?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
What prompted this stupid poo poo from musk anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:33
|
|