For Ide :P
QuoteWhy Not Utopia?
MARCH 20, 2015
Mark Bittman
SOME quake in terror as we approach the Terminator scenario, in which clever machines take over the world. After all, it isn't sci-fi when Stephen Hawking says things like, "The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."
But before the robots replace us, we face the challenge of decreasing real wages resulting, among other factors, from automation and outsourcing, which will itself be automated before long. Inequality (you don't need more statistics on this, do you?) is the biggest social challenge facing us. (Let's call climate change, which has the potential to be apocalyptic rather than just awful, a scientific challenge.) And since wealthy people don't spend nearly as high a percentage of their incomes as poor people do, much wealth is sitting around not doing its job.
The result is that we're looking at fewer jobs that pay the equivalent of what an autoworker or a teacher made in the '60s and '70s. All but a lucky few will either have the kind of service jobs that are now paying around $9 an hour, or be worse off.
And if robots can think, be creative, teach themselves, beat humans at chess and even Jeopardy, flip burgers, take care of your aging parent, plant, tend and harvest lettuce, drive cars, deliver packages, build iPhones and run warehouses — Amazon's "Kiva" robots can carry 3,000 pounds, stock shelves and select and ship packages — it's hard to imagine what these jobs might be.
Welcome to the Brave New World, one featuring even fewer haves and more have-nots than the current one. The winners and losers are the same, but the polarity is even more extreme.
And although this is morally detestable, as Robert B. Reich, the former secretary of labor and current professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me a couple of weeks ago, it's also "a crass economic issue. Because as you have more and more people who are getting paid relatively little, the question in most economic heads is, where is the aggregate demand going to come from?" If no one can buy, there's very little to sell; again, relative to their income, rich people don't buy much. (A hundred million people with $100 each spend a lot more than one person with $10 billion.)
In other words, almost everyone agrees that income inequality stinks, but what's to stop it from getting worse? (Certainly not this week's proposed budget!) Defeatism will only guarantee defeat, but there are short-term solutions that can come from both top and bottom. The government's role should be to stop corporate handouts, accept that rising tides do not lift all boats and prioritize a decent life for all citizens through a desperately needed enormous public works program, one that would create at least some dignified and well-paying jobs.
Those unable to get those jobs — and, given that one in six Americans qualifies for food stamps, it's clear that there isn't enough good work to go around — can survive only if income distribution is addressed. One way to do this is through the earned-income tax credit, a kind of reverse income tax, similar to Milton Friedman's proposal and therefore acceptable to many Republicans.
But this assumes that people have work that pays a taxable income, and that's not a safe assumption. Better is the Guaranteed Basic Income, which is not universally despised (it's at least as old as Thomas Paine, was endorsed by the economist Friedrich Hayek and was recently considered by Switzerland), because it would simplify matters and help keep the economy moving. How all of this would be financed is of course a question; we could make the income tax look like it did 60 years ago, when the top rate was 91 percent (and, by the way, the economy was just fine), or we could institute a 100 percent tax on wealth over $1 billion, or ... well, there's no dearth of ideas. The way to address income distribution is to redistribute income.
A combination of public works and guaranteed welfare (not, by the way, a dirty word) is the best top-down solution for the short term. But the bottom-up situation has even more potential for a more equitable economic system. What we're seeing, on a small but growing scale, is a world where energy and even power may become increasingly decentralized, and communities are building more on local and regional levels, creating organizations that benefit more of their members. Worker ownership — which, for obvious reasons, combats income inequality directly — is becoming more common, and these organizations are talking to one another locally. Even something as simple as the farm-to-school movement means that economies are becoming more local and communities are supporting their own businesses.
The historian and economist Gar Alperovitz, who details these efforts in his book "What Then Must We Do?" (a Tolstoy quote about, essentially, inequality), recently said to me, "The political game is beginning to resemble a checkerboard strategy: Some of the squares on the board are clearly blocked, but others are open. The goal, of course, is to expand the number of squares that are receptive to democratization efforts — not just to restore economic health and sustainability in struggling communities, but to demonstrate viable alternatives."
NONE of this is short term, but neither are the robots taking over tomorrow, and it's safe to say that nearly all the humans on Earth 20 years from now would prefer an economic system that would guarantee a decent life, whether their "rulers" are heartless robots or merely gazillionaires. We just need to do short-term work with a long view, and remember that few predicted the great changes of our time: the civil rights movement, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Arab Spring. Nineteen years ago, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages blessed by other states — and look what's happened since.
Between the recession (which is only over if you were making real money to begin with) and the crushing of our spirits by death-ray-wielding, 40-foot-high titanium monsters, perhaps there's time to reimagine society.
It's not as if this question hasn't been well considered. There was Karl Marx, whose analysis was largely correct but whose reputation was soiled by the alternatives developed in his name. There was Edward Bellamy, whose popular 1888 book "Looking Backward" anticipated a kind of Internet and the ease with which things are made and delivered, and painted a picture of cooperation instead of competition, describing in sensible detail what was once called a socialist utopia. (We'd have to pitch this differently, of course, as both those words are forbidden in neoliberal society.) And there was even John Maynard Keynes, who suggested that a 15-hour workweek would eventually be considered full-time.
And why not? We need equally big thinkers now, and dreamers, and we need to be acting with them.
We have achieved a level of social equality barely imagined by progressives 50 years ago, but economic equality has gotten much worse. No one knows what the world will look like in 50 years, but if we resign ourselves to dystopia — in which capital has full control, as it nearly does now — we'll surely have one.
Let's resolve to build something better. In the long run we know that we'll make the transition from capitalism to some less destructive and hopefully more just system. Why not begin that transition now? If there is going to be a global market that will further enrich capitalists, there must be guarantees that the rest of the population can at least afford housing and food. And things can be even better than that: We'll have the robots work for us.
:w00t:
I disagree with the notion that the $10-billion-aire's money is "sitting and doing nothing". It's not in a Scrooge McDuck money vault...most of that wealth would be in the form of stocks, which are, essentially, "working".
QuoteAnd why not? We need equally big thinkers now, and dreamers, and we need to be acting with them.
Yeah, you do, but no one ever listens to me, even though I offer a rationalized world free from strife. When civilization collapses, don't blame me.
It's interesting to think of defeating Republican politics as a struggle along the lines of civil rights or the defeat of communism.
That said, why do people always vastly overestimate the import of the Arab Spring? It's not like the Arab Spring was some kind of fundamental change or something. They're the same brutal kleptocracies they always were, it's just the tribes in charge have shuffled a bit.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 24, 2015, 08:08:10 PM
QuoteAnd why not? We need equally big thinkers now, and dreamers, and we need to be acting with them.
Yeah, you do, but no one ever listens to me, even though I offer a rationalized world free from strife. When civilization collapses, don't blame me.
Your society is insufficiently hard on deviants.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 24, 2015, 08:08:10 PM
though I offer a rationalized world free from strife.
So one with no living organisms?
Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2015, 08:18:50 PM
That said, why do people always vastly overestimate the import of the Arab Spring? It's not like the Arab Spring was some kind of fundamental change or something. They're the same brutal kleptocracies they always were, it's just the tribes in charge have shuffled a bit.
I dunno, seems to have increased the influence of broader movements like ISIS.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 24, 2015, 07:55:08 PM
I disagree with the notion that the $10-billion-aire's money is "sitting and doing nothing". It's not in a Scrooge McDuck money vault...most of that wealth would be in the form of stocks, which are, essentially, "working".
It's not spent on booze and luxuries by Ide and his comrades, ergo it is sitting and doing nothing and creating an unparalleled level of social injustice.
In the future we'll all make a living owning huge plantations worked by droids or our own private moons and asteroid mines.
How to transition...free droids for everyone! :P
Because it has been tried before and it doesn't work? Because countries that adopt these so-called utopian policies will be outcompeted by those who don't? Because while capitalism isn't perfect, there are no workable alternatives?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 24, 2015, 08:34:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 24, 2015, 08:08:10 PM
though I offer a rationalized world free from strife.
So one with no living organisms?
Depends. How do you define "life"?
QuoteIt's not as if this question hasn't been well considered. There was Karl Marx, whose analysis was largely correct but whose reputation was soiled by the alternatives developed in his name.
:unsure:
:)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2015, 01:46:27 PM
QuoteIt's not as if this question hasn't been well considered. There was Karl Marx, whose analysis was largely correct but whose reputation was soiled by the alternatives developed in his name.
:unsure:
I thought you studied economics.
At any point you have a point you feel like making Raz, you should go ahead an make it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2015, 02:01:35 PM
At any point you have a point you feel like making Raz, you should go ahead an make it.
IT was my understanding he added quite a bit to the field of economics, things that were useful beyond the idea of communism.
Such as?
Historical materialism.
None of my professors have ever mentioned that term, nor have any of my texts, nor any of the articles assigned in class.
Nor would that mean, even if they had, that "Karl Marx's analysis was largely correct."
Neither would it mean, even if his analysis were largely correct, that the way you tried to raise your point was well mannered or pleasant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2015, 02:01:35 PM
At any point you have a point you feel like making Raz, you should go ahead an make it.
Obviously, the capitalist society was followed by the communist society. :lol:
To be fair, I think Marx was essentially correct that humans don't get as much satisfaction out of work directed by others as they do from work they direct themselves, but that seems pretty self-evident.
I wonder what conclusions Marx would have reached had he just been born 50 years later, and seen the dawn of the Second industrial Revolution. Like Malthus and Ricardo before him, he was projecting from a temporary state of affairs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2015, 06:57:59 PM
None of my professors have ever mentioned that term, nor have any of my texts, nor any of the articles assigned in class.
Nor would that mean, even if they had, that "Karl Marx's analysis was largely correct."
Neither would it mean, even if his analysis were largely correct, that the way you tried to raise your point was well mannered or pleasant.
Whatever you say Yi.
Ossum
Did you ever start?
I wonder whose aggression is more passive?
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2015, 08:35:09 PM
I wonder whose aggression is more passive?
I know. It's like a family event. Say, the funeral of an uncontroversially elderly and distantly loved relative.
Perhaps you could suggest a preferable way to respond to Raz's comment Shelf.
Assuming automation renders a large fraction of the population unemployable, then it seems inevitable that there will be some kind of revolution in the economic basis of society. How it occurs, and whether it more closely resembles a utopia rather than a dystopia is yet to be seen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2015, 08:19:40 PM
Did you ever start?
Well he did say two words.
QuoteAnd why not? We need equally big thinkers now, and dreamers, and we need to be acting with them.
Sounds like we already have them. They are building machines.
QuoteIf there is going to be a global market that will further enrich capitalists, there must be guarantees that the rest of the population can at least afford housing and food. And things can be even better than that: We'll have the robots work for us.
Bah Ide and I came up with the socialism via robots plan way back in 2003.
Humans are weird creatures though. There may be a society where everybody gets everything they need without having to do any work but I wonder just how Utopian it will really be.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2015, 06:57:59 PM
None of my professors have ever mentioned that term, nor have any of my texts, nor any of the articles assigned in class.
Wait a minute, I thought you had an undergraduate degree and some form of graduate education in the field of economics. In all that time you never encountered the words "historical materialism" in any of your course materials? Just how narrow was your education?
Eh it is a bit of an antiquated concept. I mean I didn't hear much about Toynbee's Universal History stuff either.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 10:38:20 AM
Eh it is a bit of an antiquated concept. I mean I didn't hear much about Toynbee's Universal History stuff either.
Given the impact that Marx's writings had in the 20th century one would think that the term would be used at least once in a course which provided some kind of historical overview of the topic.
Besides Yi is, I think, a bit older than I am and so he likely did his undergrad during a time the term was more relevant than it is today.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 10:42:27 AM
Given the impact that Marx's writings had in the 20th century one would think that the term would be used at least once in a course which provided some kind of historical overview of the topic.
Sure. Usually to say that this was a theory that was important but has been shown to be insufficient for blah blah reasons. But lots of other historians and economists also had influential ideas in the 20th century, at least at the level of scholarship.
QuoteBesides Yi is, I think, a bit older than I am and so he likely did his undergrad during a time the term was more relevant than it is today.
Well that's true.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 10:45:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 10:42:27 AM
Given the impact that Marx's writings had in the 20th century one would think that the term would be used at least once in a course which provided some kind of historical overview of the topic.
Sure. Usually to say that this was a theory that was important but has been shown to be insufficient for blah blah reasons. But lots of other historians and economists also had influential ideas in the 20th century, at least at the level of scholarship.
Sure. That is why I think it is odd that Yi was never exposed to the term in his studies - especially in the field of economics.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2015, 07:19:03 PM
And since wealthy people don't spend nearly as high a percentage of their incomes as poor people do, much wealth is sitting around not doing its job.
I stopped reading here.
What a complete tool and uneducated fool.
Are you really tellign me this dude think rich people keep money out of the economy?
Even if rich people do the worst possible thing they can do, which is putting their money in a bank, that money would still be creating wealth by increasing the bank's loan base. Most rich people, however, put their money on profitable investments, and if many of these investments are not job creators, it is a policy issue rather than a purely economic issue, because it is goverments who double tax for using "their" manpower.
He is saying rich people do not use their money consuming. Which an economy needs, in addition to investment. When us poor folks have more money we spend it.
And the purpose of investments is not to create jobs. If to be profitable the investment does not need to create jobs it won't. And that is precisely the point about the brave new world with all its mighty machines.
Quotebecause it is goverments who double tax for using "their" manpower.
Yes I keep forgetting. Economics and supply and demand and labor and all of that matters not at all in how many jobs there are. It is entirely taxes. Economics = taxes.
Cooperation instead of competition?
What a fool, dude.
Capitalism is cooperation with your up and downs (suppliers and customers) and competition with your left and right (other companies in the same market). This is what have created all the wealth that produced the succesfull western liberal democracies. Anything less means 3rd world authocracies/dictatorships.
You are living in "anything less" right now, dumbass.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 11:00:52 AM
Cooperation instead of competition?
What a fool, dude.
He is a commie.
QuoteThis is what have created all the wealth that produced the succesfull western liberal democracies.
I addressed this a bit but the big ideas he is excited about creating this utopia were created by the very system he is cursing. But that is typical. Marx himself said that they would use capitalism to build wealth first and then make the Commie utopia.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 10:58:11 AM
He is saying rich people do not use their money consuming. Which an economy needs, in addition to investment. When us poor folks have more money we spend it.
And the purpose of investments is not to create jobs. If to be profitable the investment does not need to create jobs it won't. And that is precisely the point about the brave new world with all its mighty machines.
Quotebecause it is goverments who double tax for using "their" manpower.
Yes I keep forgetting. Economics and supply and demand and labor and all of that matters not at all in how many jobs there are. It is entirely taxes. Economics = taxes.
Rich should be free to use their money however they want.
If they consume it all, then natural selection will select them out of the rich pool of people, as have happened to so many trust fund kids.
If they are smart and invest it all, they will create taxable wealth and more economic opportunities.
Business create more business, as wealth creates more wealth.
It is very simple.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2015, 11:01:41 AM
You are living in "anything less" right now, dumbass.
Yes. The west became wealthy and succesfull using free market principles, then decided to become a wellfare state and squander all the advantages they had, and now China has catched up.
So yes, I do realize we don't have a free market economy, and we will eventually become a 3rd world hellhole.
And fuck yo bitvch.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 10:58:11 AM
Quotebecause it is goverments who double tax for using "their" manpower.
Yes I keep forgetting. Economics and supply and demand and labor and all of that matters not at all in how many jobs there are. It is entirely taxes. Economics = taxes.
Supply and demand of labor is HIGHLY impacted, I would say defined, by whatever tax code applies to it.
The more expensive labor is the more dificult for companies employing large numbers of workers to make a profit, and the more investments will tend to move towards businesses who are less labor intense.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 11:08:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2015, 11:01:41 AM
You are living in "anything less" right now, dumbass.
Yes. The west became wealthy and succesfull using free market principles, then decided to become a wellfare state and squander all the advantages they had, and now China has catched up.
So yes, I do realize we don't have a free market economy, and we will eventually become a 3rd world hellhole.
And fuck yo bitvch.
We have *never* had the "free market" economy you are babbling about. Not ever.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 10:47:14 AM
Sure. That is why I think it is odd that Yi was never exposed to the term in his studies - especially in the field of economics.
I can't recall any of my economics professors using the term, either. We did a lot of Marxism, but "political economy' is the phrase used for what he described as historical materialism. the latter term may be important to you lawyers but not, i think, to economists. Yi also could have heard the term once or twice as an obsolete term and just not remembered it. Much like a history student may hear the term filibuster and never associate it with pirates.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 11:19:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 10:47:14 AM
Sure. That is why I think it is odd that Yi was never exposed to the term in his studies - especially in the field of economics.
I can't recall any of my economics professors using the term, either. We did a lot of Marxism, but "political economy' is the phrase used for what he described as historical materialism. the latter term may be important to you lawyers but not, i think, to economists. Yi also could have heard the term once or twice as an obsolete term and just not remembered it. Much like a history student may hear the term filibuster and never associate it with pirates.
I am not sure how one can do "a lot of Marxism" and not have "used" the term. Were Americans so fearful of communism that the universities refused to use the terms Marx used in his writings?
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2015, 11:13:58 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 11:08:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2015, 11:01:41 AM
You are living in "anything less" right now, dumbass.
Yes. The west became wealthy and succesfull using free market principles, then decided to become a wellfare state and squander all the advantages they had, and now China has catched up.
So yes, I do realize we don't have a free market economy, and we will eventually become a 3rd world hellhole.
And fuck yo bitvch.
We have *never* had the "free market" economy you are babbling about. Not ever.
Now it is you falling for his shtick?
Anyone who has studied history knows that the pre-welfare-state "West" was a bitter hellhole marred by two grotesque world wars, and that it wasn't until the middle class established its political ascendancy in the late 40s that peace and social welfare marked the West. And anyone who has studied world events knows that China has by no means "caught up" with the West in any meaningful sense. A stern chase is a long chase.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 11:27:48 AM
I am not sure how one can do "a lot of Marxism" and not have "used" the term. Were Americans so fearful of communism that the universities refused to use the terms Marx used in his writings?
Americans are not so fearful of communism that they pretend that Marxism is one term.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 11:37:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 11:27:48 AM
I am not sure how one can do "a lot of Marxism" and not have "used" the term. Were Americans so fearful of communism that the universities refused to use the terms Marx used in his writings?
Americans are not so fearful of communism that they pretend that Marxism is one term.
Seriously, you don't understand that concept of historical materialism is a key concept in the writings of Marx?
edit: I guess that is unfair since you never encountered the phrase.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 11:35:48 AM
Now it is you falling for his shtick?
Anyone who has studied history knows that the pre-welfare-state "West" was a bitter hellhole marred by two grotesque world wars, and that it wasn't until the middle class established its political ascendancy in the late 40s that peace and social welfare marked the West. And anyone who has studied world events knows that China has by no means "caught up" with the West in any meaningful sense. A stern chase is a long chase.
How do you know that Siege has studied history? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 11:38:58 AM
Seriously, you don't understand that concept of historical materialism is a key concept in the writings of Marx?
edit: I guess that is unfair since you never encountered the phrase.
The concept is important, the term is not. I guess I have to go back and unremember encountering the term, now that you have informed me that, much to my surprise, I "never encountered the phrase." Not sure how i will manage that, but the only alternative is to realize that you are wrong again/still.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 11:49:16 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 11:38:58 AM
Seriously, you don't understand that concept of historical materialism is a key concept in the writings of Marx?
edit: I guess that is unfair since you never encountered the phrase.
The concept is important, the term is not. I guess I have to go back and unremember encountering the term, now that you have informed me that, much to my surprise, I "never encountered the phrase." Not sure how i will manage that, but the only alternative is to realize that you are wrong again/still.
I see. So it was a phrase you encountered but your professors were ever so diligent in avoiding the use of the phrase.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 11:52:11 AM
I see. So it was a phrase you encountered but your professors were ever so diligent in avoiding the use of the phrase.
This smells like a strawman. Why don't you beat it up and then tell me more about what I have and haven't encountered? That's always fun and useful.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 12:02:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 11:52:11 AM
I see. So it was a phrase you encountered but your professors were ever so diligent in avoiding the use of the phrase.
This smells like a strawman. Why don't you beat it up and then tell me more about what I have and haven't encountered? That's always fun and useful.
Feels more like you retreating from a statement that none of your professors used the phrase historical materialism even though you claim you "did a lot of Marxism".
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcnsnews.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fmedium%2Fimages%2FAMERITOPIA-IMAGE-cropped.jpg&hash=0f6afe821290a9008eeea9e463aeeda8b175ad19)
https://ronloneysbooks.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ameritopia-the-unmaking-of-america-by-mark-r-levin4.pdf
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
PART I—ON UTOPIANISM ........................................................................ 2
CHAPTER ONE—THE TYRANNY OF UTOPIA ....................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER TWO—PLATO'S REPUBLIC AND THE PERFECT SOCIETY .............................................. 5
CHAPTER THREE—THOMAS MORE'S UTOPIA AND POWERFUL STATE ........................................ 6
CHAPTER FOUR—THOMAS HOBBE'S LEVIATHAN AND THE ALL-POWERFUL STATE .................. 8
CHAPTER FIVE—KARL MARX'S COMMUNIST MANIFESTO AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE ............ 9
PART II—ON AMERICANISM .................................................................. 11
CHAPTER SIX—JOHN LOCKE AND THE NATURE OF MAN .............................................................. 11
CHAPTER SEVEN—THE INFLUENCE OF LOCKE ON THE FOUNDERS .......................................... 14
CHAPTER EIGHT—CHARLES DE MONTESQUIEU AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ................ 16
CHAPTER NINE—THE INFLUENCE OF MONTESQUIEU ON THE FRAMERS .................................. 18
CHAPTER TEN—ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE AND DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA ............................... 19
PART III—ON UTOPIANISM AND AMERICANISM ................................. 20
CHAPTER ELEVEN—POST-CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA ................................................................ 20
CHAPTER TWELVE—AMERITOPIA ... 24
EPILOGUE ............................................................................................... 34
. . . Utopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism. While utopianism
and statism or utopian and statist are often used interchangeably, the undertaking here is to
probe more deeply into what motivates and animates the tyranny of statism. Indeed, the
modern arguments about the necessities and virtues of government control over the individual
are but malign echoes of utopian prescriptions through the ages, which attempted to define
subjugation as the most transcendent state of man. Utopianism has long promoted the idea of
a paradisiacal existence and advanced concepts of pseudo "ideal" societies in which a heroic
despot, a benevolent sovereign, or an enlightened oligarchy claims the ability and authority to
provide for all the needs and fulfill all the wants of the individual—in exchange for his abject
servitude.
Levin, Mark R. (2012-01-17). Ameritopia . Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/upload/Docs/Ameritopiach1.pdf
You should be exiled to Somalia. When your superior, State-given training leads you to be crowned king of the Somalis, you will know in your heart that you've become exactly what you hate: an African with authority.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 11:04:40 AM
Rich should be free to use their money however they want.
True. Did I somewhere propose they should not have that freedom?
QuoteIf they consume it all, then natural selection will select them out of the rich pool of people, as have happened to so many trust fund kids.
Yes but then goods and services are not consumed. Kind of a bummer for the economy.
QuoteIf they are smart and invest it all, they will create taxable wealth and more economic opportunities.
Yes more opportunities to produce goods and services. But you need consumers or those investments will not pay off.
QuoteBusiness create more business, as wealth creates more wealth.
It is very simple.
If it is so simple why aren't you a billionaire? It is not simple.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 01:28:40 PM
. . . Utopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism. While utopianism
and statism or utopian and statist are often used interchangeably, the undertaking here is to
probe more deeply into what motivates and animates the tyranny of statism.
I am not sure what Utopianism is an ideology. But I have seen plenty of non-statist utopian ideas out there. Well actually all non-statist ideas are utopian.
As for what motivates statism: we are human beings and no bears or something. We are social. If you love non-statism so much make it work someplace. I am a practical man.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 12:35:23 PM
Feels more like you retreating from a statement that none of your professors used the phrase historical materialism even though you claim you "did a lot of Marxism".
When you work with your clients, do you translate a statement along the lines of that someone "can't recall any of my economics professors using the term" to tell the judge that they made "a statement that none of your professors used the phrase?' If not, why are you honest with them and dishonest here? if so, why are you dishonest in general?
Also, when you learned (because i told you) that modern economics professors (at London School of Economics, mind) used a more modern term than "historical materialism," why do you insist that it is somehow astonishing that they didn't use the older term that Marx coined?
How many economics courses did you take at Georgetown or LSE, anyway?
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 01:42:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 12:35:23 PM
Feels more like you retreating from a statement that none of your professors used the phrase historical materialism even though you claim you "did a lot of Marxism".
When you work with your clients, do you translate a statement along the lines of that someone "can't recall any of my economics professors using the term" to tell the judge that they made "a statement that none of your professors used the phrase?' If not, why are you honest with them and dishonest here? if so, why are you dishonest in general?
Also, when you learned (because i told you) that modern economics professors (at London School of Economics, mind) used a more modern term than "historical materialism," why do you insist that it is somehow astonishing that they didn't use the older term that Marx coined?
How many economics courses did you take at Georgetown or LSE, anyway?
Lol, the terms historical materialism and political economy are well known. And have been well known for some time. One does not need to go to Georgetown or LSE to have heard those phrases uttered by professors, but according to you, for some strange reason, your economics professors did not use the term historical materialism when referring to the writings of Marx even though that was the tem he coined. Odd.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 01:33:05 PM
If it is so simple why aren't you a billionaire? It is not simple.
You are so consumed with consumerism...
When Henry Ford began producing the T model there was not a market for it, yet he wildly succeded.
That's the beauty of the free market system. Do not worry about consume.
If your product is attractive to consumers, it will be bought and traded and consumed.
All statists like you worry about the most unseemely things, like a Soviet economical comissar would.
"If we make million pencil, who will consume million pencil?"
It does not work that way, comrade.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 01:53:00 PM
Lol, the terms historical materialism and political economy are well known. And have been well known for some time. One does not need to go to Georgetown or LSE to have heard those phrases uttered by professors, but according to you, for some strange reason, your economics professors did not use the term historical materialism when referring to the writings of Marx even though that was the tem he coined. Odd.
Lol, the guy who has taken no economics courses at either place claims that it is "odd" that modern professors at those places use modern terms. :lol:
At least you seem willing to back off from the specific lies to more vague, and so merely incorrect, statements.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 01:33:05 PM
If it is so simple why aren't you a billionaire? It is not simple.
You are so consumed with consumerism...
When Henry Ford began producing the T model there was not a market for it, yet he wildly succeded.
That's the beauty of the free market system. Do not worry about consume.
If your product is attractive to consumers, it will be bought and traded and consumed.
All statists like you worry about the most unseemely things, like a Soviet economical comissar would.
"If we make million pencil, who will consume million pencil?"
It does not work that way, comrade.
Wasn't one of the huge problems with central planning misallocation of resources based on incorrect or biased estimations of demand, sometimes tantamount to production for its own sake?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 28, 2015, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 01:33:05 PM
If it is so simple why aren't you a billionaire? It is not simple.
You are so consumed with consumerism...
When Henry Ford began producing the T model there was not a market for it, yet he wildly succeded.
That's the beauty of the free market system. Do not worry about consume.
If your product is attractive to consumers, it will be bought and traded and consumed.
All statists like you worry about the most unseemely things, like a Soviet economical comissar would.
"If we make million pencil, who will consume million pencil?"
It does not work that way, comrade.
Wasn't one of the huge problems with central planning misallocation of resources based on incorrect or biased estimations of demand, sometimes tantamount to production for its own sake?
Siege's economic theory: "To make a small fortune in business, start with a large fortune and use my methods."
Quote from: Ideologue on April 28, 2015, 02:17:34 PM
Wasn't one of the huge problems with central planning misallocation of resources based on incorrect or biased estimations of demand, sometimes tantamount to production for its own sake?
That's a very generous characterization. I think it's more accurate to say they were indifferent to demand.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 01:59:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 01:53:00 PM
Lol, the terms historical materialism and political economy are well known. And have been well known for some time. One does not need to go to Georgetown or LSE to have heard those phrases uttered by professors, but according to you, for some strange reason, your economics professors did not use the term historical materialism when referring to the writings of Marx even though that was the tem he coined. Odd.
Lol, the guy who has taken no economics courses
Who hasn't taken any economics courses?
You are really getting desperate now aren't you?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 02:51:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 01:59:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 01:53:00 PM
Lol, the terms historical materialism and political economy are well known. And have been well known for some time. One does not need to go to Georgetown or LSE to have heard those phrases uttered by professors, but according to you, for some strange reason, your economics professors did not use the term historical materialism when referring to the writings of Marx even though that was the tem he coined. Odd.
Lol, the guy who has taken no economics courses
Who hasn't taken any economics courses?
You are really getting desperate now aren't you?
What the fuck? You snip my quote to
change its meaning completely so as to accuse ME of being desperate? Hell, you didn't even put ellipses to show you were snipping!
That's it. I won't debate any further with anyone so intellectually dishonest. I'm out.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 02:51:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 01:59:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 01:53:00 PM
Lol, the terms historical materialism and political economy are well known. And have been well known for some time. One does not need to go to Georgetown or LSE to have heard those phrases uttered by professors, but according to you, for some strange reason, your economics professors did not use the term historical materialism when referring to the writings of Marx even though that was the tem he coined. Odd.
Lol, the guy who has taken no economics courses
Who hasn't taken any economics courses?
You are really getting desperate now aren't you?
What the fuck? You snip my quote to change its meaning completely so as to accuse ME of being desperate? Hell, you didn't even put ellipses to show you were snipping!
That's it. I won't debate any further with anyone so intellectually dishonest. I'm out.
That's ok Grumbles. The change only makes a difference if you assume you know my full educational background. But I suppose the subtlety was lost on you as you attempted to puff out your academic chest. Your attempt to back away from the comment that not one of your professors used the term historical materialism even though you claim, I forget exactly how you elegantly put it, but something like, "done lots of Marxism" is the usual Grumbler attack style and so should surprise no one here. We have seen it many times before.
Am I correctly understanding the basic argument here - that Admiral Yi said he had never heard of a term, and CC insisted that it was not possible that Yi could have the education Yi claims without having heard said term?
So CC is arguing that Yi *must* be lying about whether he heard the term, or whether he has the education he claimed?
Is that...really...what is being debated?
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2015, 04:14:03 PM
Am I correctly understanding the basic argument here -
No.
But don't let the facts get in the way Berky.
Like a lawyer who hasn't heard of chris rea.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 01:33:05 PM
If it is so simple why aren't you a billionaire? It is not simple.
You are so consumed with consumerism...
When Henry Ford began producing the T model there was not a market for it, yet he wildly succeded.
That's the beauty of the free market system. Do not worry about consume.
If your product is attractive to consumers, it will be bought and traded and consumed.
All statists like you worry about the most unseemely things, like a Soviet economical comissar would.
"If we make million pencil, who will consume million pencil?"
It does not work that way, comrade.
"If we make million gallon blueberry, who will consume million gallon blueberry?"
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 03:57:48 PM
That's ok Grumbles. The change only makes a difference if you assume you know my full educational background. But I suppose the subtlety was lost on you as you attempted to puff out your academic chest. Your attempt to back away from the comment that not one of your professors used the term historical materialism even though you claim, I forget exactly how you elegantly put it, but something like, "done lots of Marxism" is the usual Grumbler attack style and so should surprise no one here. We have seen it many times before.
Um, dude, you intentionally quoted someone grossly out of context. Mid-sentence out of context. You don't get to do victory laps after doing something so transparently childish.
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2015, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 01:33:05 PM
If it is so simple why aren't you a billionaire? It is not simple.
You are so consumed with consumerism...
When Henry Ford began producing the T model there was not a market for it, yet he wildly succeded.
That's the beauty of the free market system. Do not worry about consume.
If your product is attractive to consumers, it will be bought and traded and consumed.
All statists like you worry about the most unseemely things, like a Soviet economical comissar would.
"If we make million pencil, who will consume million pencil?"
It does not work that way, comrade.
"If we make million gallon blueberry, who will consume million gallon blueberry?"
:blush:
Well, if you did a victory lap every time you show Grumbler to be wrong you'd quickly find yourself to be running marathons.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2015, 05:48:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 03:57:48 PM
That's ok Grumbles. The change only makes a difference if you assume you know my full educational background. But I suppose the subtlety was lost on you as you attempted to puff out your academic chest. Your attempt to back away from the comment that not one of your professors used the term historical materialism even though you claim, I forget exactly how you elegantly put it, but something like, "done lots of Marxism" is the usual Grumbler attack style and so should surprise no one here. We have seen it many times before.
Um, dude, you intentionally quoted someone grossly out of context. Mid-sentence out of context. You don't get to do victory laps after doing something so transparently childish.
I will mark you down as someone who didn't understand the contextual take down either. Some talents are lost on this place.
:lol: I propose we create a grumbler/cc megathread.
:lol: Even without the Oval Office?
:mad:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 06:16:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2015, 05:48:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2015, 03:57:48 PM
That's ok Grumbles. The change only makes a difference if you assume you know my full educational background. But I suppose the subtlety was lost on you as you attempted to puff out your academic chest. Your attempt to back away from the comment that not one of your professors used the term historical materialism even though you claim, I forget exactly how you elegantly put it, but something like, "done lots of Marxism" is the usual Grumbler attack style and so should surprise no one here. We have seen it many times before.
Um, dude, you intentionally quoted someone grossly out of context. Mid-sentence out of context. You don't get to do victory laps after doing something so transparently childish.
I will mark you down as someone who didn't understand the contextual take down either. Some talents are lost on this place.
Amazing how nobody else understands how you are totally right when you are totally wrong. Again.
QuoteUtopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism. While utopianism
and statism or utopian and statist are often used interchangeably, the undertaking here is to
probe more deeply into what motivates and animates the tyranny of statism. Indeed, the
modern arguments about the necessities and virtues of government control over the individual
are but malign echoes of utopian prescriptions through the ages, which attempted to define
subjugation as the most transcendent state of man. Utopianism has long promoted the idea of
a paradisiacal existence and advanced concepts of pseudo "ideal" societies in which a heroic
despot, a benevolent sovereign, or an enlightened oligarchy claims the ability and authority to
provide for all the needs and fulfill all the wants of the individual—in exchange for his abject
servitude.
I think this is an interesting view, perhaps truth to that argument. Who is going to create a utopian society? Is it going to happen as a result of people's choices and a free marketplace of ideas and economy, or will it be done more so by government as society and economy change if the OP article comes to fruition? I'd have to think government, many of the leaders and politicians, would push such an idea as it gives government a great amount of control over all of society. It's what they try and do now with ever larger government and control. It would seem similar to communism which just turned into totalitarianism because after all, someone had to control and regulate the system and be the elites in charge, which in communism's case is extreme control. So would utopia come about the same way, and devolve into another form of authoritarian or totalitarian, strong arm rule by a government? Or even pretty much start out that way?
I thought I would check Grumbler's claim that historical materialism is a term that wasn't used at the London School of Economics. Interestingly there was a Journal started at the London School of Economics which was called Historical Materialism. It is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal which started as a project at the London School of Economics from 1995 to 1998 :hmm:
Quote from: KRonn on April 29, 2015, 12:18:02 PM
QuoteUtopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism. While utopianism
and statism or utopian and statist are often used interchangeably, the undertaking here is to
probe more deeply into what motivates and animates the tyranny of statism. Indeed, the
modern arguments about the necessities and virtues of government control over the individual
are but malign echoes of utopian prescriptions through the ages, which attempted to define
subjugation as the most transcendent state of man. Utopianism has long promoted the idea of
a paradisiacal existence and advanced concepts of pseudo "ideal" societies in which a heroic
despot, a benevolent sovereign, or an enlightened oligarchy claims the ability and authority to
provide for all the needs and fulfill all the wants of the individual—in exchange for his abject
servitude.
I think this is an interesting view, perhaps truth to that argument. Who is going to create a utopian society? Is it going to happen as a result of people's choices and a free marketplace of ideas and economy, or will it be done more so by government as society and economy change if the OP article comes to fruition? I'd have to think government, many of the leaders and politicians, would push such an idea as it gives government a great amount of control over all of society. It's what they try and do now with ever larger government and control. It would seem similar to communism which just turned into totalitarianism because after all, someone had to control and regulate the system and be the elites in charge, which in communism's case is extreme control. So would utopia come about the same way, and devolve into another form of authoritarian or totalitarian, strong arm rule by a government? Or even pretty much start out that way?
No, I think the problem with utopia is not that it requires servitude, but that each person's idea of the ideal is different. One man's utopia is another man's hell.
I mean, maybe you could make 75 different utopias in different places and let everyone choose which one to live in, but beyond the extremely impractical it's not possible.
You can have wars over whose idea of utopia is correct. That would eventually settle the question.
Quote from: DGuller on May 01, 2015, 03:45:18 PM
You can have wars over whose idea of utopia is correct. That would eventually settle the question.
We already did.
Command/planned economy lost, free market economy won.
I think that was the joke he was making.
Anyway the platonic Free Market economy did not win since people have assured me we have never had one.
If Plato ever talked about a free market economy, I don't think he wrote it down.
The Hayekias
The mixed economy won; the "free market" systems were wiped out in the series of Panics from the 1870s through the 1930s.
Marx didn't really contribute anything to economics as such; he was essentially a Ricardian who got confused with algebra. His theories of historical evolution are really political theory (using present day academic categories). I suppose he could be seen as a contributor to what eventually becomes public choice theory.
I'm not sure why, but I'm mildly fascinated by Trotsky and find him to be an interesting writer. But yesterday I stumbled across this piece he wrote in 1934 about how perfectly communism would work in the US. Just... wow.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm
Quote from: derspiess on May 06, 2015, 02:42:37 PM
I'm not sure why, but I'm mildly fascinated by Trotsky and find him to be an interesting writer. But yesterday I stumbled across this piece he wrote in 1934 about how perfectly communism would work in the US. Just... wow.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm
QuoteOne final prophecy: in the 3rd year of the Soviet rule in America you will no longer chew gum!
Well, that's oddly specific. :lol:
The American People's Eugenics Department will purify the race. Fear not!