From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 13:32:40 MST
Message...
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 13:39:45 -0800 (PST)
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
Subject: Re: Planned economies (was: Replies to Ron h and John Clark
regarding...)
Now, in "classical" socialism (or communism) of the form I've seen
in Russia, the "goal" seems to be to give everyone an equal share
of the pie. That doesn't work. The really talented people will
become lazy and the less talented people will develop schemes to
milk the "system". It is a good recipe for driving the productivity
of an economy towards its lowest common denominator.
(Reply) No, I don't think that's true at all, because that assumes that
people are too stupid to see beyond the simple threat of starvation by a
master, or beyond the potential reward of becoming a master themselves. I
don't think that's the way that the human mind necessarily works--in fact, I
don't think that's the way the vast majority of scientific discoveries (in
fact, progress itself) in human history have ever been made--because people
thought that making them was important in itself, not because they were
threatened with starvation, or because they desired to became a wealthy
master. And I think that's only natural, really ; I mean, common sense tells
us that if someone desires to wield power other men, that really doesn't
have anything to do with progress for humanity as a whole, and if they
desire progress, it doesn't really have anything to do with such power. Some
capitalists tell us that we can "harness the power of self interest", but
that's really nonsense, as far as I can see. If you're interested in gaining
more power and wealth for yourself, you're going to do that in any way you
can, including ways which are completely detrimental to the interests of
humanity as a whole, like creating a Stalinist dictatorship or pushing
crappy products on uninformed customers. Capitalism therefore assumes that
humanity is necessarily all a bunch of rapid dogs which must be kept in
check by force, and forced to devote themselves reluctantly to progress (by
whom? the rich). I don't believe that, in fact, I think it flys in the face
of virtually every historical example you can name, most obviously, I think,
with regard to science. Essentially, then, capitalism assumes that people
must be coerced (threatened with homelessness, or starvation) by the masters
to work, which is why capitalism and anarchism are inherently opposed to
eachother.
Oh, one other thing. Russia wasn't socialistic. You think Brezhnev was equal
with everybody else?
Message...
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:00:49 -0800
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Bill Gates and the essential un-humanistic nature of capitalism
...
...and still the communes failed. Do you know why?
(Reply) I really don't know enough about the history of communes in the
United States to say for sure. I do remember hearing that the Owenite
communities failed in large part because Owen brought over a
disproportionate amount of people who were not skilled laborers, but rather
the contemporary equivilant of office types. He also enforced strict
guidelines about how things were supposed to work, which is foolish, as of
course we can't know how things are going to work precisely, we have to
experiment. But I think mabye more important is that this is not really an
example of a commune, it's an example of what is essentially a dictatorship.
And that's really the way such "communes", existing inside the context of
capitalism, will probably work, because it will take money to establish
them, and everyone else inside will therefore be subservient to those who
have the money, the people who own the commune in the context of the
capitalist system. I'm not sure how absolute that is, and it might not
necessarily be true in all cases, but that's what would occur to me. The
Shaker communities were somewhat different, in that I think that it was
religious leaders who dictated what went on in the community, but it was
still essentially a dictatorship by certain masters. The Shaker communities
were at least somewhat successful, actually.
Message...
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:17:42 -0500
From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and the essential un-humanistic nature of capitalism
Why not just have a system where instead of anyone *needing* to produce
something, *everyone* just goes off and have whatever kind of fun appeals to
them most, whether that involves producing something or not, and yet nobody
starves and the system doesn't collapse because, well, basically because the
universe they're living in is a nicer place?
(Reply) This isn't what I'm advocating. I mean, I agree with you, certainly
activities--like the growing of food, for example, are absolutely necessary
for the maintience of any sort of society. But if they are really are so
essential, then I think people ought to be able to decide that for
themselves, as opposed to being threatened with immediate, (enforced by
other people, not because physical conditions necessitate it) starvation or
homelessness in the midst of abundance.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:11 MST