General Purpose Humanoid Robotics: It begins...

[ofrm1]

Your whole argument is without merit, if you have any common sense.

No rational person feels compelled to create anything if other people are just going to take it away from them. In order for people to know someone has something, you need surveillance, and to take it away you need force.

A completely baseless assertion that is bandied about ad nauseum. It really is a worthless platitude that social critics make in order to avoid having to do the difficult work of actually refuting the claims made by political theorists through physical evidence and reasoned logic. There are artists that are willing to give their material away because they simply enjoy making things. I know some of them. The mere fact that I can demonstrate one example utterly refutes your universal sweeping statement that rational people aren't willing to create something to give away. The phrase "starving artist" says all that needs to be said.

I am not compelled to spend my life writing software to catch fraud and mine statistical information by altruism, but by material gain and survival.

Because capitalism and previous social paradigms have forced you into this particular mental framework to get things done. When things don't need to get done, that framework will no longer be necessary.

The mistaken assumption that socialism relies upon is that all workers are equally vital to an enterprise and thus should be equally rewarded by it's successes. This is completely wrong. People are as valuable as the scarcity of their skills and the efforts they expend to utilize them.

Wrong. Socialism does not assert this at all. The common adage is: "To each according to his contribution". But even assuming what you said is true, your statement in a capitalist system is patently absurd statement as there are complete leeches to society that are thoroughly rich and powerful through no skills of their own and no effort of their own in the current system.

A world in which the guy who sits in the lobby during closed hours and plays video games (security guard) has a defacto ownership in the business he is "guarding" is a twisted world.

Again, "To each according to his contribution".

A world where nothing gets done because there is no point in doing anything.

Thank you for saying that. Now I'm allowed to call you a philistine which I knew you were all along.

Capitalism rewards people that can and are willing to do tedious and difficult things.

Because they know that they will be paid a higher dividend than others and use that leverage to exploit the system further. This system is unsustainable and is destined to reach critical mass because of that contradiction among others.

This is why most all open source software that doesn't have corporations involved in supporting it is a bug-ridden piece of shit. People don't do hard things when there is no reward for it.

And this is where you make a fatal flaw, but attempt to hide it by qualilfying your point with "most all" in order to account for the ones which don't. You're purposefully ignoring the actual reasons for why amateur innovation is not as good as professional innovation. That being because of access to proper resources and access to free time (leisure).

People don't do hard things when they simply can't due to work schedules. The simply matter of fact is that you aren't compelled to spend your life writing software and catching fraud by altruistic means because:

a) you know you can get paid to do it which helps you subsist.
b) because you don't truly love the work enough that without that incentive, you would still do it.

You, personally, don't care enough about the work which is fine. However, you're not satisfied with simply saying that. You decide instead to apply that brush and paint all of humanity as uncaring, greedy individuals who act just as you do. They simply aren't. There are people who act truly because they care about their craft.

http://release.blackmesasource.com/

Say hello to Black Mesa Source which I'm sure you're familiar with. However, if you're not, it's a completely stand-alone mod that recreates all of Half Life 1 under the source engine because Valve did a terrible job with that. A mod that was created back in 2004 and just released around a week ago. It is a stellar mod that costs nothing:

"Black Mesa is a free modification; the developers will never charge you for playing mainly because they wouldn't want to make people pay to play, but also because it would be illegal to do so. As long as you have Steam installed on your computer, Black Mesa will cost you nothing."

I leave it into the hands of everyone here whether you think they're motivated to spend 8 years creating a mod mainly on altruistic means to not require people to play, or because their hands are tied.

In conclusion, in lieu of the common criticisms that no innovation will come from a non-capitalist system and that people will act deviously, all you're effectively doing is making baseless accusations that socialism is untenable. Interestingly enough, you've decided not to address my rebuttal to your main point that you're simply arguing from a capitalist perspective and attempting to base that on a system that vastly different than the one you're arguing from. It's a false equivalency fallacy that you seem intent on committing every time you respond. Further, you provide little concrete evidence to support your assertions and the claims that you do; namely that past systems which called themselves socialist or communist were disastrous; are refuted by an introductory understanding of the theory of socialism and a little 20th century history. You've effectively demonstrated that the only understanding of socialism comes from the histories of regimes which we know, demonstrably, are not socialist under any reasonable criterion.

Let me make this perfectly clear. In order to refute my argument, you have to somehow discredit Dialectical Materialism and socialist theory. All I've stated is that if history is any guide of our path as a species living in a civilization, there is no reason to think that we will not progress to the next stage of human society as planned. I don't care whether you make sweeping claims about socialism as that's nothing more than your personal predictions about what is going to happen which end up being baseless without any evidence to support them. And given your apparent ignorance of socialism, I don't imagine that carries much weight.


I also want to leave this by simply stating that it's telling that you're not responding at all to any of the concrete points that I've made and instead are now arguing with sweeping claims like:

I am not compelled to spend my life writing software to catch fraud and mine statistical information by altruism, but by material gain and survival.

All while being oblivious to the fact that this argument I summarily refuted in every response I've made with the exception of the first one. I can only assume that you've conceded the point and abandoned it.

[Marou]

Black Mesa is not an example I would use, since the real hard work, the source engine, the physics engine, the operating system it runs on, the drivers, are all completely private for profit products.

The reason I ignore much of the things you say is that they're so ridiculous I feel as if I'm talking to an over-educated twelve year old, who has never experienced corruption or hardship worse than failing a class, or having a bully steal their lunch money. You are very much in denial about people being evil, ambitious, retarded, destructive, etc. Force is required to keep people under control. Those tasked with using that force then have power. Power corrupts. People who like to control others are drawn to positions of authority. They are not usually what could be called "good people". 5% of your people being rotten fuckups ruin it for everyone else. So, you put someone in charge, your sociopaths lie cheat and steal their way to that position and everyone wins?

"To each according to his contribution" is fucking stupid because it's completely impractical in reality. The reason communism came about is that there is no practical way to quantify what someone's contribution is, other than by mandate, or currency. There is no way to quantify what's a worthy investment of resources either, other than a bureaucratic committee. The people that live in my neighborhood don't have a clue what a good scientific or technology investment would be.

Socialism is a thought construct that doesn't work in reality, and has NEVER been proven to work with large groups of people in spite of many attempts.

[ofrm1]

Black Mesa is not an example I would use, since the real hard work, the source engine, the physics engine, the operating system it runs on, the drivers, are all completely private for profit products.

And yet Valve fucked up their version of Half Life Source and a group of amateurs made a masterpiece. That was my point.

The reason I ignore much of the things you say is that they so ridiculous to me I feel as if I'm talking to an over-educated twelve year old, who has never experienced corruption or hardship worse than failing a class, or having a bully steal their lunch money.

Oh please. Elaborate on how you can divine my life experiences from my posts. I would truly love to hear this rationalized. Nothing like a good distraction from the actual debate to whether I'm "experienced" enough to discuss this with you. You might as well have fucking said "well, you just don't understand. you will when you're older."



AKA: Stop trying to make the discussion about me and focus on the ideas I'm presenting or admit that you're talking out of your ass. My argument is valid or invalid based on the merits of itself and not on whether I've lived a subjectively hard enough life for your tastes.

You are very much in denial about people being evil, ambitious, retarded, destructive, etc.

No, I just understand that these base instincts are the result of a dysfunctional society and I'm not a complete misanthrope.

Over 3000 children die from Malaria every year.
Close to a billion people are starving in the world.
Many African countries like Swaziland have a life expectancy lower than 50 years.

Lester R. Brown on Aids in Africa:

This year began with 24 million Africans infected with the virus. In the absence of a medical miracle, nearly all will die before 2010. Each day, 6,000 Africans die from AIDS. Each day, an additional 11,000 are infected.



Don't assume for a second that I'm some naive yuppie that thinks the world is all sunshine and daffodils. I know how horrible the world is. Oh, and don't fucking forget that capitalism has blood on it's hands for every single person who dies as a result of these easily curable conditions. Gotta love that profit motive that eschews people who are dying of starvation and malaria as people who don't deserve to live.

Force is required to keep people under control. Those tasked with using that force then have power. Power corrupts. People who like to control others are drawn to positions of authority. They are not usually what could be called "good people". 5% of your people being rotten fuckups ruin it for everyone else. So, you put someone in charge, your sociopaths lie cheat and steal their way to that position and everyone wins?

Your argument would be significant if we were living in an absolute monarchy. We choose aristocracies and democracies as a hedge against corrupt power. This has been known since antiquity as it was the focus for Plato's "Statesman."

"To each according to his contribution" is fucking stupid because it's completely impractical in reality. The reason communism came about is that there is no practical way to quantify what someone's contribution is, other than by mandate, or currency. There is no way to quantify what's a worthy investment of resources either, other than a bureaucratic committee. The people that live in my neighborhood don't have a clue what a good scientific or technology investment would be.

1) Communism has never come about.
2) "To each according to his contribution" doesn't have anything to do with communism, but socialism. The communistic adage is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
3) The notion that we can't quantify what a worthy investment of resources is is laughable. Marx explained thoroughly in Das Kapital that the cost of materials required to make a good in addition to the cost of labor which is agreed upon in advance produces the value of a good. If we can derive the value of a good, we can derive the value of a person's cost of labor because knowledge of the former requires knowledge of the latter. In addition, unless you're throwing your hat in with Austrian Economics and a subjective theory of value, the majority of economists disagree with you as well.
4) I like how you think that a hypothetical socialist society wouldn't be capable of making a judgment of how much someone contributed to a project or the creation of an idea. Here's a guess. It's based upon the practical usage of the object. Again, unless you're contending that people would be incapable of figuring out that a random widget isn't as big of a contribution as developing the first touch phone; you're wrong.

Socialism is a thought construct that doesn't work in reality, and has NEVER been proven to work with large groups of people in spite of many attempts.

Effectively what you're saying is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence which is absurd and is an argument from ignorance. I've already explained how utterly stupid the claim that socialism doesn't work "in spite of many attempts" is. When you decide to listen to history and reason, come talk to me. Until then, you're just spouting the same talking points which I've already addressed.

[Marou]

And yet Valve fucked up their version of Half Life Source and a group of amateurs made a masterpiece. That was my point.

Oh please. Elaborate on how you can divine my life experiences from my posts. I would truly love to hear this rationalized. Nothing like a good distraction from the actual debate to whether I'm "experienced" enough to discuss this with you. You might as well have fucking said "well, you just don't understand. you will when you're older."

Because no one who has ever dealt with government officials, the police, regulators, or government programs would say giving creating a government with control over all resource allocation is even remotely a good idea.

No, I just understand that these base instincts are the result of a dysfunctional society and I'm not a complete misanthrope.

So, in all of human history we've always had dysfunctional society. As a result we have predatory survival instincts because people have always been mean to each other and not because that's how we are? Seriously?

Over 3000 children die from Malaria every year.
Close to a billion people are starving in the world.
Many African countries like Swaziland have a life expectancy lower than 50 years.

Lester R. Brown on Aids in Africa:

This year began with 24 million Africans infected with the virus. In the absence of a medical miracle, nearly all will die before 2010. Each day, 6,000 Africans die from AIDS. Each day, an additional 11,000 are infected.

I don't care about those people any more than they care about each other, which is to say, not at all. Neither do you, unless you engage in intellectual dishonesty.

Don't assume for a second that I'm some naive yuppie that thinks the world is all sunshine and daffodils. I know how horrible the world is. Oh, and don't fucking forget that capitalism has blood on it's hands for every single person who dies as a result of these easily curable conditions. Gotta love that profit motive that eschews people who are dying of starvation and malaria as people who don't deserve to live.

Apparently you believe humans capable of creating centrally controlled states that aren't evil and corrupt in spite of the mountain of evidence refuting it. So, there are definitely some daffodils in there, maybe a unicorn.

Your argument would be significant if we were living in an absolute monarchy. We choose aristocracies and democracies as a hedge against corrupt power. This has been known since antiquity as it was the focus for Plato's "Statesman."

Democracy is a foolish idea, and is less functional than a benevolent monarchy or dictatorship. Propaganda artists and career politicians serve their own interests, not the people. I'd rather have someone like Marcus Aurelius as emperor than Obama or Romney as president.

Effectively what you're saying is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence which is absurd and is an argument from ignorance. I've already explained how utterly stupid the claim that socialism doesn't work "in spite of many attempts" is. When you decide to listen to history and reason, come talk to me. Until then, you're just spouting the same talking points which I've already addressed.

I'm saying failed attempts are failed attempts, you can deny that they were attempts, that those people weren't real christians, err, socialists, but they were.

3) The notion that we can't quantify what a worthy investment of resources is is laughable. Marx explained thoroughly in Das Kapital that the cost of materials required to make a good in addition to the cost of labor which is agreed upon in advance produces the value of a good. If we can derive the value of a good, we can derive the value of a person's cost of labor because knowledge of the former requires knowledge of the latter. In addition, unless you're throwing your hat in with Austrian Economics and a subjective theory of value, the majority of economists disagree with you as well.

Most products in the world right now have zero value to me, but enough people want them for them to exist.

4) I like how you think that a hypothetical socialist society wouldn't be capable of making a judgment of how much someone contributed to a project or the creation of an idea. Here's a guess. It's based upon the practical usage of the object. Again, unless you're contending that people would be incapable of figuring out that a random widget isn't as big of a contribution as developing the first touch phone; you're wrong.

Ok, a high tech sex swing? A new AAA video game based on a fictional setting nobody has ever heard of that may suck? It'll take hundreds of people, tons of man hours, and lots of expensive equipment. A new cutting edge video game console?

I don't see how you can't realize you're full of crap. First, a collectivist society would never allocate resources to things like porn, ipods, touch phones, sex toys, or video games. Second, since you are here, you play video games, which means you spend a very significant portion of your life IMAGINING KILLING SHIT AND KILLING SHIT IN SIMULATIONS. I guess "dysfunctional" society is responsible for the enjoyment you derive from killing shit in video games. To bad it's been "dysfunctional" since the dawn of humanity. Humans were born to kill, it's in our DNA. We kill other animals, each other, whatever stands between us and survival. Drop 10 people on an island with enough food to feed 2 and see how quick they start killing each other. We're biological organisms, we're wired up the same as all the other animals.

[ofrm1]

Because no one who has ever dealt with government officials, the police, regulators, or government programs would say giving creating a government with control over all resource allocation is even remotely a good idea.

Sweeping statement with no evidence supporting it whatsoever.

So, in all of human history we've always had dysfunctional society. As a result we have predatory survival instincts because people have always been mean to each other and not because that's how we are? Seriously?

Yes. Resource allocation breeds corruption and dysfunction. This is evident as tribes and bands are communes and do not have the same dysfunction that modern societies do.

I don't care about those people any more than they care about each other, which is to say, not at all. Neither do you, unless you engage in intellectual dishonesty.

If you think an uneducated population that has a corrupt government and no access to proper medicine simply doesn't care about each other, you're full of shit.

Apparently you believe humans capable of creating centrally controlled states that aren't evil and corrupt in spite of the mountain of evidence refuting it. So, there are definitely some daffodils in there, maybe a unicorn.

Except you're full of bullshit and completely ignoring the fact that I've refuted that tired canard several times now. Intellectual dishonesty. Pot, meet kettle.


[quote=Marou[Democracy is a foolish idea, and is less functional than a benevolent monarchy or dictatorship. Propaganda artists and career politicians serve their own interests, not the people. I'd rather have someone like Marcus Aurelius as emperor than Obama or Romney as president.[/quote]

Congratulations on being a moron. Go read the statesman to understand why that's a moronic position to take.

I'm saying failed attempts are failed attempts, you can deny that they were attempts, that those people weren't real christians, err, socialists, but they were.

No, and that's a horrible attempt at wordplay to make your argument seem more valid than it is. Under your warped logic, appointing a grand chancellor and having him build a cabinet is the same as attempting to build a liberal state because I called it the Democratic Republic of Tyrannia, which is controlled by the Democracy party. If you haven't attempted to build a state based upon the dictatorship of the proletariat and the means of common ownership, you haven't attempted to build a socialist state.

Most products in the world right now have zero value to me, but enough people want them for them to exist.

What a sophomoric response. They still have an objective value, you're simply not acknowledging it. Sounds like someone needs to take a macroeconomics course.

Ok, a high tech sex swing? A new AAA video game based on a fictional setting nobody has ever heard of that may suck? It'll take hundreds of people, tons of man hours, and lots of expensive equipment. A new cutting edge video game console?

You missed the entire point. The contribution is determined after the fact. Thus, it doesn't matter how obscure the innovation is, the people who contributed to it will receive a portion of the value it determines.

I don't see how you can't realize you're full of crap. First, a collectivist society would never allocate resources to things like porn, ipods, touch phones, sex toys, or video games.

Bullshit claim that you provide no evidence for. It's also a particularly stupid claim as the health of a society is irrevocably linked to the happiness of a society.

Second, since you are here, you play video games, which means you spend a very significant portion of your life IMAGINING KILLING SHIT AND KILLING SHIT IN SIMULATIONS. I guess "dysfunctional" society is responsible for the enjoyment you derive from killing shit in video games. To bad it's been "dysfunctional" since the dawn of humanity. Humans were born to kill, it's in our DNA. We kill other animals, each other, whatever stands between us and survival. Drop 10 people on an island with enough food to feed 2 and see how quick they start killing each other. We're biological organisms, we're wired up the same as all the other animals.

How does this even fucking relate to what we're talking about?

The simple matter is is that you're arguing from a strawman because you clearly don't know jack shit about actual socialism. You're far more content with arguing from marxism-leninism which I've already explained ad nauseum is not remotely socialist at all. What's more is that EVERY. SINGLE. RESPONSE. you make is nothing more than a false equivalency because you think the world will be precisely the same as it is now which is patently stupid. We're talking about a state of affairs where there isn't a need to work hard for virtually everything. People's entire psychology and outlook on life will change because of this. Of course, to you, this is just more evidence that it will never work because it won't work now. Because it will never work. because it won't work now.....

[Sillywilly]

A completely baseless assertion that is bandied about ad nauseum. It really is a worthless platitude that social critics make in order to avoid having to do the difficult work of actually refuting the claims made by political theorists through physical evidence and reasoned logic. There are artists that are willing to give their material away because they simply enjoy making things. I know some of them. The mere fact that I can demonstrate one example utterly refutes your universal sweeping statement that rational people aren't willing to create something to give away. The phrase "starving artist" says all that needs to be said.

In my experience that's because the artist sucked or because most art things aren't valuable until they are rare, meaning the artist died without producing a lot of work. When most artist give away their shit it's because they're trying to get their name out there or because it's valueless anyway.



Because capitalism and previous social paradigms have forced you into this particular mental framework to get things done. When things don't need to get done, that framework will no longer be necessary.




Wrong. Socialism does not assert this at all. The common adage is: "To each according to his contribution". But even assuming what you said is true, your statement in a capitalist system is patently absurd statement as there are complete leeches to society that are thoroughly rich and powerful through no skills of their own and no effort of their own in the current system.

Where do you live? Have you ever lived in a socialist society?

too short and stuff

Apparently you believe humans capable of creating centrally controlled states that aren't evil and corrupt in spite of the mountain of evidence refuting it. So, there are definitely some daffodils in there, maybe a unicorn.

Has a specific example of a non-corrupt centrally controlled state been given?

[dr.wang]

Wouldn't a society run by computers and all that shit be in effect run by who ever runs/does maintenance on them? I think this was in one of the early parts of The Foundation.

[Marou]

You missed the entire point. The contribution is determined after the fact. Thus, it doesn't matter how obscure the innovation is, the people who contributed to it will receive a portion of the value it determines.

No, you missed the entire point. It requires a fuckload of resources to make most things and/or implement some ideas. You can't determine after the fact if giving some one large amounts of raw materials and control over part of the presumably automated production resources was a good idea. Not all product ideas are going to pan out and find demand. The more grand an idea (space elevator, commercial spaceport, game console) the more engineering, manufacturing, materials, and manpower resources it takes to make it exist.

You are speaking WAY too generically. Be concrete and realistic about how someone's idea for a grand new product would find people to work on it, get the resources and equipment for it, determine value relative to other endeavors, and then produce (efficiently) in the correct quantity. It probably takes more resources than the world has to even get some of these things into the hands of everyone, even if everyone wants one, so do you just not make things like helicopters since not everyone can have one? No? Then how do you decide who gets one? Who makes the best arguments at a collectivist committee? How do you decide who gets things like a tablet computer if everyone wants one? Nobody *NEEDS* one. Who is the arbiter of what people need?

Not everyone can live in nice location or a good sized home. So, who gets one? Party officials? The most charismatic speaker? No one? Who decides what's a good sized home? Committee?

[ofrm1]

In my experience that's because the artist sucked or because most art things aren't valuable until they are rare, meaning the artist died without producing a lot of work. When most artist give away their shit it's because they're trying to get their name out there or because it's valueless anyway.

The point is that they could be in a position that is lucrative and they're personally choosing to do what they enjoy doing and not charging for their time.

Has a specific example of a non-corrupt centrally controlled state been given?

No, and the reasons for this I have outlined in earlier posts.

No, you missed the entire point. It requires a fuckload of resources to make most things and/or implement some ideas. You can't determine after the fact if giving some one large amounts of raw materials and control over part of the presumably automated production resources was a good idea. Not all product ideas are going to pan out and find demand. The more grand an idea (space elevator, commercial spaceport, game console) the more engineering, manufacturing, materials, and manpower resources it takes to make it exist.

Wow. You're simply just not getting it. Whatever demand comes from products, the workers share in those profits. If there is no demand, they don't share in it. It's as simple as that.

You are speaking WAY too generically. Be concrete and realistic about how someone's idea for a grand new product would find people to work on it, get the resources and equipment for it, determine value relative to other endeavors, and then produce (efficiently) in the correct quantity. It probably takes more resources than the world has to even get some of these things into the hands of everyone, even if everyone wants one, so do you just not make things like helicopters since not everyone can have one? No? Then how do you decide who gets one? Who makes the best arguments at a collectivist committee? How do you decide who gets things like a tablet computer if everyone wants one? Nobody *NEEDS* one. Who is the arbiter of what people need?

Not everyone can live in nice location or a good sized home. So, who gets one? Party officials? The most charismatic speaker? No one? Who decides what's a good sized home? Committee?

This critique is moot as you're still referring to an economy burdened by scarcity.

Marx Himself:

"Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought obviously to read their "conversion into the common property"; but this is only passing.

What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of production consumed?

"Proceeds of labor" is a loose notion which Lassalle has put in the place of definite economic conceptions.

What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?

To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

After reading this again, it is powerfully clear why this method of society was doomed to failure in Russia, pre marketization.

Wouldn't a society run by computers and all that shit be in effect run by who ever runs/does maintenance on them? I think this was in one of the early parts of The Foundation.

There has been talk about computers handling the bureaucratic end of calculating value. I don't know how close we are to this type of technology.

[Marou]

Wow. You're simply just not getting it. Whatever demand comes from products, the workers share in those profits. If there is no demand, they don't share in it. It's as simple as that.

No, you're simply not getting it. Whether we have money or not resources don't come out of thin air to enable large efforts.

[ofrm1]

No, you're simply not getting it. Whether we have money or not resources don't come out of thin air to enable large efforts.

Which again is a critique of capitalism and not of a post-scarcity society.

But of course, This will fall on deaf ears as I've said this numerous times and you simply ignore it because you haven't bothered to do a cursory investigation of what scarcity is.

[Marou]

Which again is a critique of capitalism and not of a post-scarcity society.

But of course, This will fall on deaf ears as I've said this numerous times and you simply ignore it because you haven't bothered to do a cursory investigation of what scarcity is.

Dude, even if robots do all the manual labor we have FINITE materials, manpower, and manufacturing capacity. We haven't invented replicators yet. I don't see how you can fail to understand that. I can't create a fusion reactor in my basement and *then* get the billions of dollars worth of commodity and labor needed to make it. If you remove money, commodities and time fill the same place as resource units. So, who is doling out the resource units on things bigger than what a handful of people with zero resources can accomplish?

[ofrm1]

Dude, even if robots do all the manual labor we have FINITE materials, manpower, and manufacturing capacity. We haven't invented replicators yet. I don't see how you can fail to understand that. I can't create a fusion reactor in my basement and *then* get the billions of dollars worth of commodity and labor needed to make it. If you remove money, commodities and time fill the same place as resource units. So, who is doling out the resource units on things bigger than what a handful of people with zero resources can accomplish?

Apparently you're under the assumption that to live a life of leisure, we would have to consume all of the necessary resources the planet has for us.

The main resources that we will have a serious shortage of in the future are water, electricity and food. We have technologies already that help solve these problems but are not cost effective.

Because you won't make a fusion reactor in your basement on your own or with a handful of people, you'd be making it with a corporation which already has the resources to do so and compensates you for your contribution.

When Marx says the workers own the means of production, that doesn't imply that corporations don't exist.

[Marou]

So, WHERE DID THE CORPORATION COME FROM? WHO APPROVED THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO GET IT OFF THE GROUND? If anyone can have anything they want we will use rare earth and alot of different metals quicker than we mine them. Who prioritizes?

Say I want to start a new corporation manufacturing platinum sex toys, who gives me all the platinum and robot workforce to make it happen?

[ofrm1]

So, WHERE DID THE CORPORATION COME FROM? WHO APPROVED THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO GET IT OFF THE GROUND? If anyone can have anything they want we will use rare earth and alot of different metals quicker than we mine them. Who prioritizes?

Corporations already exist. The entire point of progressing from a capitalist society is that capital is already abundant within the current system.

[quote]What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

Say I want to start a new corporation manufacturing platinum sex toys, who gives me all the platinum and robot workforce to make it happen?

It would likely based on the demand for the product in question. This could be as easy as filing official petitions to gauge demand for a product and subsequently receive the resources needed. In the same way you are required to pitch a concept to a producer for a new product, you have to be able to provide a proof of concept not simply for the thing in question's usage, but it's demand as well.

[Marou]

Corporations already exist. The entire point of progressing from a capitalist society is that capital is already abundant within the current system.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

Corporations don't exist without a profit motive.

It would likely based on the demand for the product in question. This could be as easy as filing official petitions to gauge demand for a product and subsequently receive the resources needed. In the same way you are required to pitch a concept to a producer for a new product, you have to be able to provide a proof of concept not simply for the thing in question's usage, but it's demand as well.

As determined by who? The state? A select group of laymen? Right now you pitch your idea to investors, your friends and family pool savings, and/or you take out loans. Probably a combination of all 3. That is how businesses get off the ground right now. How do you propose that change?

[Dumah]

Haven't really followed the ins and outs of this exchange - not like something as riveting as free will is being discussed or anything, but all I know from my 13 year stint of working full time is the more useless and frivolous my duties become, the more I get paid for them - and I have grown absolutely okay with this.

[ofrm1]

Corporations don't exist without a profit motive.

As they currently exist now, sure.

And more importantly, organizations do exist without a profit motive. All they demand is results in whatever innovation they are persuing.

As determined by who? The state? A select group of laymen? Right now you pitch your idea to investors, your friends and family pool savings, and/or you take out loans. Probably a combination of all 3. That is how businesses get off the ground right now. How do you propose that change?

While this is up for discussion as different flavors of socialism disagree about how this goes about, the general agreement is that a bureaucratic system belonging to the state determines which projects and businesses are funded according to demand. Anarchists reject the notion of a worker's state in favor of a more autonomous system, but I don't accept this.

[Marou]

While this is up for discussion as different flavors of socialism disagree about how this goes about, the general agreement is that a bureaucratic system belonging to the state determines which projects and businesses are funded according to demand. Anarchists reject the notion of a worker's state in favor of a more autonomous system, but I don't accept this.

Right, so a centrally planned economy. It doesn't work. It requires too much information to make decisions, and has far too much power.

[ofrm1]

Right, so a centrally planned economy. It doesn't work. It requires too much information to make decisions, and has far too much power.

You don't know this.

[Sillywilly]

You don't know this.

Pretty sure history gives us a few good examples kiddo.

[Esfires]

This thread is a textbook example of the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

[ofrm1]

Pretty sure history gives us a few good examples kiddo.

I've already responded to this point earlier. The jacobin tradition is nothing remotely resembling a socialist state; and to pretend that it is is a false equivalency.