Economic Classes explained - General

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52419525]That's pretty much the exact society that I want, but controlled by the workers and no hierarchies.[/QUOTE] What's to stop the workers from creating their own hierarchies though?

[QUOTE=OvB;52419586]A country like this would be stagnant and still run on coal and horses. Capitalism is the driver of innovation. Look at the Space industry. Government didn't want to touch it after they beat the soviets. It took a capitalist to jump start the entire industry with SpaceX. Now that [I]company[/I] is launching more rockets than any other [I]country[/I] on earth, providing you with better communications by satellites owned by other capitalists. Collectives can't agree on shit. That's why publicly traded businesses are hard in their ways. Investors are only interested in themselves and their own profits. If company A is owned by its workers and someone says hey lets take a huge risk and invest in electric cars that will be great for the environment, most of the people are going to tell him to fuck off because I have a family of 4 to feed and if this idea fails our little thing going here is going to hurt and I won't get my money. It takes risk and guts to produce groundbreaking technology. It takes an entrepreneur every now and then to stick their neck out and take the risk of a huge reward. If everything is owned by everyone, that entrepreneur is going to get snuffed out, and innovation and progress will be slashed to a snails pace. We don't need Teslas when we all drive Corollas, there goes most innovation in battery powered cars. We don't need iphones when we have publicly funded phones all over. Capitalism, entrepreneurship, and reward are the driving factor behind these things. A Marxist world will be a stagnate, beige, boring sad little land. Because most people just want to be comfortable and live their life, which is fine! But it's terrible for making risky decisions. We need that 1/10,000,000 person to really challenge the norm. Which won't happen when the other 99,999,999 just want to stamp out Skoda's and go home after work at factory A, and your third-party research organization wouldn't be interested in making those innovations because material goods are frowned upon in this world. It would be busy making sure we all lived in the same little mass produced house, with the same mass produced and boring cars, while eating the same canned food on the same bland furniture. Good capitalism is the light in a dark house. It is responsible for everything you own. Including things that received government funding.[/QUOTE] Just because capitalist governments haven't touched space after the space race ended, doesn't mean a socalist government will make the same mistake once in power. Efficiency is desired by socialists as well, possibly even more so than capitalists. Because efficiency can be used for higher living standards, something desirable by the people. So the people obviously want investments in making their lives easier and more comfortable, less working hours, more free time. Automation in favour of the workers, not against them. Useless goods are frowned upon, not reasonable quality of life goods and improvements.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52419525]That's pretty much the exact society that I want, but controlled by the workers and no hierarchies.[/QUOTE] Where you don't have hierarchies, you have a power vacuum, and a hierarchy will rebuild itself. That's why you get organized crime providing "protection" where the government can't

[QUOTE=RB33;52419610]Just because capitalist governments haven't touched space after the space race ended, doesn't mean a socalist government will make the same mistake once in power. Efficiency is desired by socialists as well, possibly even more so than capitalists. Because efficiency can be used for higher living standards, something desirable by the people. So the people obviously want investments in making their lives easier and more comfortable, less working hours, more free time. Automation in favour of the workers, not against them. Useless goods are frowned upon, not reasonable quality of life goods and improvements.[/QUOTE] Command economies are awful in regards to efficiency. Production quotas produce deadweight loss. You're literally not allowing the economy to reach an equilibrium.

[QUOTE=OvB;52419633]Command economies are awful in regards to efficiency. Production quotas produce deadweight loss. You're literally not allowing the economy to reach an equilibrium.[/QUOTE] Well, I don't care and neither should anyone. If everyone is fed, have a home and is happy. There is no problem. We get the things we need done, reaching economic perfection beyond that is unnecessary.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419641]Well, I don't care and neither should anyone. If everyone is fed, have a home and is happy. There is no problem. We get the things we need done, reaching economic perfection beyond that is unnecessary.[/QUOTE] Until living standards in other countries surge ahead of you and you realize your meaningless job that exists to keep you busy so that you can live in a tiny tenement is actually a kind of shit life.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419653]Until living standards in other countries surge ahead of you and you realize your meaningless job that exists to keep you busy so that you can live in a tiny tenement is actually a kind of shit life.[/QUOTE] If the job is meaningless, you would be more likely to live on basic income or maybe share work with others, 4 people share a 8 hour job, working 2 hours a day each. All of what you're saying is speculation.

Hierarchies are absolutely necessary and it's entirely absurd to think of a nation wide economy without hierarchies. The need for a hierarchy is directly apparent [I]because[/I] of efficiency, efficiency implies specialisation, specialisation brings the need for cooperation as individuals become economically reliant on one another, which brings the need for strategy and oversight to maintain communication between all parts. A lack of oversight implies waste.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419659]If the job is meaningless, you would be more likely to live on basic income or maybe share work with other, 4 people share a 8 hour job, working 2 hours a day each. All of what you're saying is speculation.[/QUOTE] But I was quite literally citing what happened in the USSR, the centrally planned economy. In the warsaw pact nations unemployment wasn't a problem because they would find you a job, whatever it was. This led to jobs that existed for the sake of having jobs. Grocery stores would be grossly overstocked with employees who just sat around doing nothing, factories overstaffed, etc.. [QUOTE=Big Bang;52419663]Hierarchies are absolutely necessary and it's entirely absurd to think of a nation wide economy without hierarchies. The need for a hierarchy is directly apparent [I]because[/I] of efficiency, efficiency implies specialisation, specialisation brings the need for cooperation as individuals become economically reliant on one another, which brings the need for strategy and oversight to maintain communication between all parts. A lack of oversight implies waste.[/QUOTE] Even anarchist writers like Bakunin typically acknowledge that some hierarchy is fine. If a child steps onto the street without looking both ways with a car coming and I grab him and yank him back I've placed my authority onto that child, making a hierarchy of power. But that's permissible because it saves a kid's life. Even in the workplace, you can't democratically vote on EVERYTHING so you will have to delegate authority. Black Ukraine had military officers which were elected for example. Shit they even had conscription and justified it as necessary to protect their way of life.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419285]This is very subjective. What is a benefit? Making useless toys which nobody really wanted until they were hyped up in viral market campaign? Wearing expensive diamonds and driving overpriced supercars? It only benefits the few people with vasts amounts of money to spend, not benefiting the community as a whole. Things like water access, electricity and healthcare benefits everyone. [/QUOTE] Any system that says my profession or what I do with my own time has to contribute to some greater good because there are bad things going on in the world, or because "Trust me, you don't really want this" or some such idea is not acceptable. Any system that says I have to spend money I have gained on X thing to benefit anyone but myself is ill-thought out. If I want to spend my time creating 100% trivial things that there is a demand for that aren't necessary to live, I should be able to pursue that wholly for my own satisfaction or gain, it's that simple. If I happen to make it big, no one should come knocking forcing me to put my money into the bag for the guy down the street. If I want to help that guy, it should be on my own volition. Because there are other problems in the world is not a reason to force me to work on them. Anything similar is (and I hate to use a buzzword like this) Statist trash that should be opposed at all costs. It is so incredibly easy for "The People" or the "Greater Good" op the "Community" to become an overreaching organization that will stand out against all it idealistically started out to oppose. It has happened too many times to count with your particular ideology.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419664]But I was quite literally citing what happened in the USSR, the centrally planned economy. In the warsaw pact nations unemployment wasn't a problem because they would find you a job, whatever it was. This led to jobs that existed for the sake of having jobs. Grocery stores would be grossly overstocked with employees who just sat around doing nothing, factories overstaffed, etc..[/QUOTE] So live on basic income until you're needed or split the work, just as I said. The USSR and the Warsaw pact nations aren't the end all of socialism, things can be done differently.

[QUOTE=OvB;52419598]In what regards do you mean small? How can a small company make a multi billion dollar infrastructure decision to build a factory to produce ships or cars? Does that mean every state or locality is going to need a factory that builds cars? How am I going to source parts for my car if I get my Texas Cars vehicle and move to Vermont and then it breaks down, but the only people in that state are Vermont Cars and they don't use the same part? Now I have to have it shipped to me, but that would involve high prices because the third party logistics company in Vermont is going to have a hard time shipping the product through multiple companies because there's no national carrier. It's going to be all kinds of expensive when you forbid economies of scale.[/QUOTE] small in the relative sense this isn't hard. you can allow some room for somewhat bigger ones depending on circumstances too economies of scale have loads of hidden problems that might not be apparently obvious smaller companies are also more innovative as well and tend to be more flexible

[QUOTE=RB33;52419688]So live on basic income until you're needed or split the work, just as I said. The USSR and the Warsaw pact nations aren't the end all of socialism, things can be done differently.[/QUOTE] They're the data-set we have. If people are just living off of basic income(because these countries can afford this) and/or have too much free time people might actually realize just how shitty their centrally planned authoritarian society is. Maybe they realize it watching those movies they keep buying off the black market.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419720]They're the data-set we have. If people are just living off of basic income(because these countries can afford this) and/or have too much free time people might actually realize just how shitty their centrally planned authoritarian society is. Maybe they realize it watching those movies they keep buying off the black market.[/QUOTE] How is it shitty? Is free time, less work shitty? You're not going hungry despite not working, that you're taken care of. I think they feel pity for the poor bastards in those foreign films, having to work in order to surive, sometimes more than 1 job. While they enjoy their 2 hour work days.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419765]How is it shitty? Is free time, less work shitty? You're not going hungry despite not working, that you're taken care of. I think they feel pity for the poor bastards in those foreign films, having to work in order to surive, sometimes more than 1 job. While they enjoy their 2 hour work days.[/QUOTE] I think you may want to experience lack of purpose for yourself before you start acting like there's no downsides to not having a job. Your ideas don't mesh with reality dude.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52419776]I think you may want to experience lack of purpose for yourself before you start acting like there's no downsides to not having a job. Your ideas don't mesh with reality dude.[/QUOTE] You make your own purpose and don't have a job forced down on you. Become an artist, write a book, explore the world. Compete in sports, play games, study and expand your knowledge.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419799]You make your own purpose and don't have a job forced down on you. Become an artist, write a book, explore the world. Compete in sports, play games, study and expand your knowledge.[/QUOTE] I have a job that requires me to work 40 hours a week. I'm still able to do those things. Having spent months unemployeed before, having a job is actually not at all how you phrased it here [QUOTE]I think they feel pity for the poor bastards in those foreign films,[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RB33;52419799]You make your own purpose and don't have a job forced down on you. Become an artist, write a book, explore the world. Compete in sports, play games, study and expand your knowledge.[/QUOTE] That's great until nobody works and the whole system collapses and everyone starves because there's no food or means to put what little food there is on the table. People don't do shitty jobs because it's good for everyone. What you propose will result in a bystander effect of unemployment. "someone has to pick veggies/unclog sewers/hose down windows, but it's not going to be me, I want to work in the X industry." Then some people take charge in the group and force everyone to work, and you end up in a familiar situation.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419765]How is it shitty? Is free time, less work shitty? You're not going hungry despite not working, that you're taken care of. I think they feel pity for the poor bastards in those foreign films, having to work in order to surive, sometimes more than 1 job. While they enjoy their 2 hour work days.[/QUOTE] The tiny shit tenaments, the cheap crappy food if you have any, your shit clothes (adidas tracksuits were a status symbol lol,) the inability to pursue a lot of things you want to do because you don't have access to what you need, etc. That's what's shitty.

[QUOTE=OvB;52419826]That's great until nobody works and the whole system collapses and everyone starves because there's no food or means to put what little food there is on the table. People don't do shitty jobs because it's good for everyone. What you propose will result in a bystander effect of unemployment. "someone has to pick veggies/unclog sewers/hose down windows, but it's not going to be me, I want to work in the X industry." Then some people take charge in the group and force everyone to work, and you end up in a familiar situation.[/QUOTE] That's why you reward people for their work, living only on basic income won't pay for luxaries. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419840]The tiny shit tenaments, the cheap crappy food if you have any, your shit clothes (adidas tracksuits were a status symbol lol,) the inability to pursue a lot of things you want to do because you don't have access to what you need, etc. That's what's shitty.[/QUOTE] And why would this happen in a western industrialized country with higher standards of living? People have higher standards and won't tolerate such decreases in living quality.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419869] And why would this happen in a western industrialized country with higher standards of living? People have higher standards and won't tolerate such decreases in living quality.[/QUOTE] And now you know why we aren't socialist and aren't going to be in the foreseeable future, people won't tolerate it and instead they overwhelmingly prefer some form of liberalism.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419898]And now you know why we aren't socialist and aren't going to be in the foreseeable future, people won't tolerate it and instead they overwhelmingly prefer some form of liberalism.[/QUOTE] No, that was an argument for proper socialism, not the watered down east bloc variety which fails in basic socalist principles.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419937]No, that was an argument for proper socialism, not the watered down east bloc variety which fails in basic socalist principles.[/QUOTE] Okay but the situation is nowhere near the case where people will be willing to try your PERFECT TRUE SOCIALISM THAT'LL TOTALLY WORK. Most people see the problems in our society as being resolvable within the current system while keeping the positives. Hell people get polled on whether they're socialists or not and like 30% of young people say yes, but I honestly suspect the real amount of socialists is much less because to many people socialism means "the government does some things."

[QUOTE=RB33;52419937]No, that was an argument for proper socialism, not the watered down east bloc variety which fails in basic socalist principles.[/QUOTE] it fails in many other ways too but maybe you should go do some extra reading or go wander out in the world or something if you wanna understand why

[QUOTE=sgman91;52418735]Armchair communists who think they're extremely informed while spouting mountains of simplistic ignorant crap is like an internet pass time.[/QUOTE] Not any worse than armchair originalists imo

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52419486]public research organisations don't produce innovation (well, much of it) the vast bulk of it comes around completely by accident usually, often in small businesses where amateurs tinker with things[/QUOTE] I find this hard to believe considering the whole 'war is great for technological development' adage (i.e: the government massively invests in RnD during war). Got any recommendations of texts discussing this stuff?

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419840]The tiny shit tenaments, the cheap crappy food if you have any, your shit clothes (adidas tracksuits were a status symbol lol,) the inability to pursue a lot of things you want to do because you don't have access to what you need, etc. That's what's shitty.[/QUOTE] tbh it's better than not having any of those things as much as i believe capitalism is a good thing once it comes down to whether someone lives or dies it can fuck right off it's not like we can't have both, give basic survival needs to those who won't work, debt free, and everybody else who does work gets to buy their iphone it'd be better if it was "work for a better life" rather than "work or die"

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419949]Okay but the situation is nowhere near the case where people will be willing to try your PERFECT TRUE SOCIALISM THAT'LL TOTALLY WORK. Most people see the problems in our society as being resolvable within the current system while keeping the positives. Hell people get polled on whether they're socialists or not and like 30% of young people say yes, but I honestly suspect the real amount of socialists is much less because to many people socialism means "the government does some things."[/QUOTE] The current system is broken, due to market speculation, the economy regularly crashes. People lose jobs and stability in their lives. Workers are oppressed in the third world, making luxary products while working 10+ hours a day under horrible conditions, even comitting suicide to escape their hellhole. Westerens aren't the primary benefiters of socialism anymore, the third world are. They certainly deserve better than what they have now. When you have authortarian "communist" governments exploiting their people to sell profits for western businesses, change doesn't just come through reform. Someone need to be exploited in order for the system to work. Socialism require no such thing.

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;52420410]tbh it's better than not having any of those things as much as i believe capitalism is a good thing once it comes down to whether someone lives or dies it can fuck right off it's not like we can't have both, give basic survival needs to those who won't work, debt free, and everybody else who does work gets to buy their iphone it'd be better if it was "work for a better life" rather than "work or die"[/QUOTE] Never said you can't have a suitable welfare state to cover basic needs so yeh. [QUOTE=RB33;52420783]The current system is broken, due to market speculation, the economy regularly crashes. People lose jobs and stability in their lives. Workers are oppressed in the third world, making luxary products while working 10+ hours a day under horrible conditions, even comitting suicide to escape their hellhole. Westerens aren't the primary benefiters of socialism anymore, the third world are. They certainly deserve better than what they have now. When you have authortarian "communist" governments exploiting their people to sell profits for western businesses, change doesn't just come through reform. Someone need to be exploited in order for the system to work. Socialism require no such thing.[/QUOTE] That's nice and emotional but it ties into why capitalism is a net good thing. These countries are DEVELOPING, and unfortunately, grueling early phases development is how it has historically always happened. Even in the west things were hell, most cities for the longest time didn't grow naturally because you'd die from work related illness, starvation, general illness, etc. so the only reason the population grew is because rural people moved in. And in the USSR? Well, Holodomor and the other two massive famines speak for themselves. You can't just point at problems and say that they mean the system needs to be abandoned. You have to prove that an alternative is feasible and ideal. Also if westerners won't benefit from socialism (which i greatly disagree on, if it worked,) and socialism in third world countries doesn't work as you also said before, does this mean socialism is for nobody?

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52420285]I find this hard to believe considering the whole 'war is great for technological development' adage (i.e: the government massively invests in RnD during war). Got any recommendations of texts discussing this stuff?[/QUOTE] Mostly those of Nassim Nicolas Taleb, a levantine philosopher who talks a lot about risk. I suggest you read him. As a cursory example, look at the biggest companies around today and the biggest inventions of the industrial revolution. Google, Apple, facebook, and Microsoft were founded by a handful of college dropouts with barely any capital and then grew explosively to change the world. Most of the internet in its present form was created largely by companies which more or less popped out of nowhere and grew to global prominence (sometimes without barely having gotten funding or official support at all). The steam engine wasn't invented by academics, but by Cornish miners who wanted a way to get water out of their mines. Some of the first steam locomotives and the first railways were built by George Stevenson, a semiliterate man who started out of pretty much nothing. the vast majority of inventions from the industrial revolution (ranging from automated looms to sheet metal presses) were not developed by some public research organisation, but largely more by amateurs working in the field (or one closely related) that often came upon innovations largely by accident. government research (such as during war) only creates innovation as an accidental byproduct too usually. Most of their research is never actually used, and only occasionally do you find something (accidentally) that does useful work (mostly by an amateur working there who draws the threads), such as pretty much everything NASA has done.