[QUOTE=RB33;52443111]When you lower quality to achieve greater profits, it's not a myth. The quality (or maybe rather durability) of what's available now is worse than what was available then. I wanted to end this, but I remembered a thing about our printers after yesterday. We've had 3 of the same model, 2 of them broke after a year of use. It's impressive how low quality you're able to produce.
Well, split people up into different committees in that case. Or simply divide them into groups with their own focus. You don't let them work against each other to achieve one group's focus and slow down the process. Let them all do their best on their own thing instead.[/QUOTE]
You understand that you having bad stuff isn't an argument, correct?
For example, I've had our family printer for going on 8 years. We had to replace it for wifi capability, but it still worked fine. TBH, it sounds like you don't take care of your equipment if this is a problem you're always having.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52443458]You understand that you having bad stuff isn't an argument, correct?
For example, I've had our family printer for going on 8 years. We had to replace it for wifi capability, but it still worked fine. TBH, it sounds like you don't take care of your equipment if this is a problem your always having.[/QUOTE]
Sobotnik linked to the Wiki page for this. It doesn't surprise one bit if this were the case for our shitty printers. They extort huge amounts of money from people for their shitty products. Don't blame this one on me.
[QUOTE=RB33;52443464]Sobotnik linked to the Wiki page for this. It doesn't surprise one bit if this were the case for our shitty printers. They extort huge amounts of money from people for their shitty products. Don't blame this one on me.[/QUOTE]
Planned Obsolescence existing as an idea is not nearly the same thing as establishing that it's how our entire economy works, let alone even a small minority of things.
He didn't even show that they do it with printers. He listed a few theories.
[QUOTE=RB33;52443195]It isn't radical enough, I want direct democracy or the power concetrated to the local governments. I want near-absolute equality and the end of capitalism. Social democrats haven't advocated close to that since before the '20s.[/QUOTE]
Socialism doesn't work with decentralized government. And your equality consists of bringing down everyone to a lower level. This leads to people who want to innovate and invent new things to be demotivated and hindered. You want to get rid of competition which will lead to a technological stagnation.
Why do you consider yourself to be part of the workforce, when you don't even work or have workexperience?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52444693]Planned Obsolescence existing as an idea is not nearly the same thing as establishing that it's how our entire economy works, let alone even a small minority of things.
He didn't even show that they do it with printers. He listed a few theories.[/QUOTE]
Either way capitalism produces shit printers which wouldn't acceptable be in socialism. People would be directly accountable for the shit they produce there.
[editline]8th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52444862]Socialism doesn't work with decentralized government. And your equality consists of bringing down everyone to a lower level. This leads to people who want to innovate and invent new things to be demotivated and hindered. You want to get rid of competition which will lead to a technological stagnation.
Why do you consider yourself to be part of the workforce, when you don't even work or have workexperience?[/QUOTE]
I do work and want to work even more in socialism. Capitalism prevents me from reaching my potential. I want the work oppourtunities that socialism offers me.
And yes, it does work decentralized. Any researchers and inventors would be pooled together and given the resources required, it would be more effective than now.
Edit: And please explain what's so damn funny.
[QUOTE=RB33;52445836]Either way capitalism produces shit printers which wouldn't acceptable be in socialism. People would be directly accountable for the shit they produce there.
[editline]8th July 2017[/editline]
I do work and want to work even more in socialism. Capitalism prevents me from reaching my potential. I want the work oppourtunities that socialism offers me.
And yes, it does work decentralized. Any researchers and inventors would be pooled together and given the resources required, it would be more effective than now.[/QUOTE]
What you want is kinda contradicting, you can't have a planned economy with a decentralized government. You are not only naive but simply uneducated on the subject.
I was studying for my degree in Dresden, which was part of the DDR/GDR (German Democratic Republic). People who lived in these times told me that they were glad that they got out of the soviet union. And not just the whole Gestapo 2.0 called Stasi widely encouraged by the Kreml, but also because of the economy. For example: To get a car, people had to sign their order on an application form and send it to the government. After some time, they get a letter saying when their car will be availlable to them: In 12 years.
So do you want a printer which might work for a long time but you have to wait for it to arrive at your door in 12 years, or do you want to pay a little more money to get a printer which is guarranteed to work longer and isn't using printing cartridges but you are able to directly fill the ink tank, and which is delivered to you in no time?
In capitalism, the market dictates which company with their product bloom. Just vote with your wallet. It is not the fault of capitalism that you are short sighted in financial investments. The cheapest products are certainly not the best products.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52446287]What you want is kinda contradicting, you can't have a planned economy with a decentralized government. You are not only naive but simply uneducated on the subject.[/QUOTE]
Well, then you know nothing. Decentralization doesn't mean anarchy and lack of institutions. I also love the intellectual level you people keep showing, by calling everything naive.
[QUOTE]I was studying for my degree in Dresden, which was part of the DDR/GDR (German Democratic Republic). People who lived in these times told me that they were glad that they got out of the soviet union. And not just the whole Gestapo 2.0 called Stasi widely encouraged by the Kreml, but also because of the economy. For example: To get a car, people had to sign their order on an application form and send it to the government. After some time, they get a letter saying when their car will be availlable to them: In 12 years.[/QUOTE]
An ineffiecent system isn't the same thing as socialism. Despite how much you want to believe that.
[QUOTE]So do you want a printer which might work for a long time but you have to wait for it to arrive at your door in 12 years, or do you want to pay a little more money to get a printer which is guarranteed to work longer and isn't using printing cartridges but you are able to directly fill the ink tank, and which is delivered to you in no time?[/QUOTE]
You have no right to call me naive when you believe in childish political comparisons. What if I say that every form of capitalism is a fascist state exploited by foreign companies that pays you starving wages while bribing your government representatives? That's also a naive childish belief.
Once upon a time an authoritarian failed "socialist" state took 12 years to make a car, so therefore everything can be compared to that. Ridiculous. Not even I was using the printer argument for every product available.
The solution is to once again stop producing bad products and only produce the ones that are affordable and good.
[QUOTE]In capitalism, the market dictates which company with their product bloom. Just vote with your wallet. It is not the fault of capitalism that you are short sighted in financial investments. The cheapest products are certainly not the best products.[/QUOTE]
It's the fault of capitalism that it's selling shit to begin with. I don't want to vote with a wallet when I don't want the wallet to exist.
Local socialist is fucking delusional, more at 8
How do you expect a system where no one has to work to function at all, let alone function efficiently? When will a single one of you people explain this to me?
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52446724]Local socialist is fucking delusional, more at 8[/QUOTE]
Local facepuncher refuses to provide arguments, only calls them delusional instead.
Really, laugh all you want, call me naive, whatever. You're not winning anything by doing it.
[QUOTE=RB33;52446732]Local facepuncher refuses to provide arguments, only calls them delusional instead.
Really, laugh all you want, call me naive, whatever. You're not winning anything by doing it.[/QUOTE]
You are naive, and what's worse is that people like you are nothing short of dangerous. Your ideology has brought nothing but destruction and suffering upon the world, and all of it was for nothing. Every attempt to make a socialist society has ended in a disaster. You can blame it on the capitalists all you want, but what is constantly blaming someone else for your own problems if not delusion?
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52446753]You are naive, and what's worse is that people like you are nothing short of dangerous. Your ideology has brought nothing but destruction and suffering upon the world, and all of it was for nothing. Every attempt to make a socialist society has ended in a disaster. You can blame it on the capitalists all you want, but what is constantly blaming someone else for your own problems if not delusion?[/QUOTE]
I'm not fully blaming capitalists for socialist's failure, they are only a minority to blame for it. People such as Stalin, Mao and their awful and disgusting goons are whose to blame. They ruined the system designed for the advantage of man, for ordinary people's sake. But no, only to enrich themselves while the workers continue to starve and work their asses off. Blaming socalism as a whole is wrong, blaming the reponsible individuals is the right thing to do.
The only truly naive thing is believing extremes, that all socialism is perfect, that no socialism is good.
[QUOTE=RB33;52446757]I'm not fully blaming capitalists for socialist's failure, they are only a minority to blame for it. People such as Stalin, Mao and their awful and disgusting goons are whose to blame. They ruined the system designed for the advantage of man, for ordinary people's sake. But no, only to enrich themselves while the workers continue to starve and work their asses off. Blaming socalism as a whole is wrong, blaming the reponsible individuals is the right thing to do.[/QUOTE]
People like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung and everyone else are not infiltrators of the socialist movement with a mission to give it a bad name. They are people, who found themselves having to lead a country that is trying to adopt a system that doesn't work, so they have to commit atrocities like mass murder just to keep shit from falling apart and stay in power.
[QUOTE=RB33;52446757]The only truly naive thing is believing extremes, that all socialism is perfect, that no socialism is good.[/QUOTE]
If there were examples of good socialism, then I'd agree. But you can't just dismiss the experience of entire nations at a whim.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52446799]People like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung and everyone else are not infiltrators of the socialist movement with a mission to give it a bad name. They are people, who found themselves having to lead a country that is trying to adopt a system that doesn't work, so they have to commit atrocities like mass murder just to keep shit from falling apart and stay in power.[/QUOTE]
Not true. They are followers of Leninism, an authoritarian and top-led form of Communism. That's extremely hypocritical and against the core values of socialism in practice. Combine this with psychopaths and you get Stalin and North Korea. It doesn't work because they tried authortarian top-led socialism, when its basic principles rests in democracy and free will.
[QUOTE]If there were examples of good socialism, then I'd agree. But you can't just dismiss the experience of entire nations at a whim.[/QUOTE]
You can't dismiss all of the socialist left because only madmen and their authortarian ideologies were the only ones successful in snatching power. What would happen if a democratically elected socialist government took power? Stalin 2.0?
[QUOTE=RB33;52445836]Either way capitalism produces shit printers which wouldn't acceptable be in socialism. People would be directly accountable for the shit they produce there.[/QUOTE]
This is how the discussion has gone so far:
1) You make some massive claim without even an attempt at a coherent argument.
2) Someone provides a reasoned response.
3) You respond by essentially saying, "Nu uh, capitalism sucks and socialism is great."
You aren't actually making an argument. You're just telling people they're wrong.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52446824]This is how the discussion has gone so far:
1) You make some massive claim without even an attempt at a coherent argument.
2) Someone provides a reasoned response.
3) You respond by essentially saying, "Nu uh, capitalism sucks and socialism is great."
You aren't actually making an argument. You're just telling people they're wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well, making good or shit products is a policy issue. I could be wrong, a socialist government could turn around and say let's just make cheap shit instead. Like the Soviets did. But a proper people-supported and led socialism would care for the standards of the products they themselves use.
[QUOTE=RB33;52446821]Not true. They are followers of Leninism, an authoritarian and top-led form of Communism. That's extremely hypocritical and against the core values of socialism in practice. Combine this with psychopaths and you get Stalin and North Korea. It doesn't work because they tried authortarian top-led socialism, when its basic principles rests in democracy and free will.[/QUOTE]
There's plenty of democratic socialists in the world, but they're not "real" socialists, are they?
[QUOTE=RB33;52446821]You can't dismiss all of the socialist left because only madmen and their authortarian ideologies were the only ones successful in snatching power. What would happen if a democratically elected socialist government took power? Stalin 2.0?[/QUOTE]
Hugo Chavez
[QUOTE=RB33;52446833]Well, making good or shit products is a policy issue. I could be wrong, a socialist government could turn around and say let's just make cheap shit instead. Like the Soviets did. But a proper people-supported and led socialism would care for the standards of the products they themselves use.[/QUOTE]
So what standard is your theoretical state going to use for deciding what is considered "shit" an what is considered "good?"
For example, let's say it costs $100, or the equivalent in resources and labor, to make a printer that will last 5 years and $1000 to make a printer that lasts 10 years. Would your state spend 10x the amount of resources and labor to make it last twice as long? How will you decide what payoff is correct?
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52446845]There's plenty of democratic socialists in the world, but they're not "real" socialists, are they?[/QUOTE]
I'm not on the central commitee for determing true socialist allegiances.
[QUOTE]Hugo Chavez[/QUOTE]
One guy who represented a corrupt and oil-dependent country? What would happen if it happened in the US or in Western Europe? Countries with ideal conditions for socialism?
[editline]8th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;52446850]So what standard is your theoretical state going to use for deciding what is considered "shit" an what is considered "good?"
For example, let's say it costs $100, or the equivalent in resources and labor, to make a printer that will last 5 years and $1000 to make a printer that lasts 10 years. Would your state spend 10x the amount of resources and labor to make it last twice as long? How will you decide what payoff is correct?[/QUOTE]
That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. What the hell could ever take 10 times the time to just make it last twice as long? It would have ridiculously good durability to begin with in that case.
Please come with a example question more based in reality. The answer would be weighted against the need vs production capacity. If the need is low, then we can use the time on more time-consuming products.
[QUOTE=RB33;52446862]I'm not on the central commitee for determing true socialist allegiances.[/QUOTE]
Way to dodge the question. I'm asking your opinion here
[QUOTE=RB33;52446862]One guy who represented a corrupt and oil-dependent country? What would happen if it happened in the US or in Western Europe? Countries with ideal conditions for socialism?[/QUOTE]
Then those countries would no longer have ideal conditions for anything, if the history books are anything to go by.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52446869]Way to dodge the question. I'm asking your opinion here[/QUOTE]
That was my way of saying that I don't want to determine that. A large amount of political correctness would be required to enforce a "true" socialist definition.
[QUOTE]Then those countries would no longer have ideal conditions for anything, if the history books are anything to go by.[/QUOTE]
Or they would evolve humanity into the next stage of our history. Who knows? Countries like Russia and China were never ideal places for socialism. Those who believe so are tricking themselves.
[QUOTE=RB33;52446862]That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. What the hell could ever take 10 times the time to just make it last twice as long? It would have ridiculously good durability to begin with in that case.
Please come with a example question more based in reality. The answer would be weighted against the need vs production capacity. If the need is low, then we can use the time on more time-consuming products.[/QUOTE]
It's called a thought experiment. It's a relevant question because there's never a clear and obvious point at which something isn't worth making better. You can almost always spend more to make a product high quality, but it's often not worth the gains.
In a capitalist system, a variety of products across the spectrum are available, and customers are able to pick the point that they find best. Some might want a lower quality product for a cheaper price, and some might want a higher quality product at a more expensive point. The combination of all the people in society making these decisions give information to companies, based on profits, what they should make in order to fulfill the type of demand across the entirety of society. So if a company makes a super expensive, but very high quality product, and it fails to make a profit, then they know to stop making that product. If it, on the other hand, makes them a ton of profit, then they know to continue making that product because people want it.
In your theoretical socialist system none of this profit information exists. So how are you going to decide the correct point of cost and quality?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52446893]It's called a thought experiment. It's a relevant question because there's never a clear and obvious point at which something isn't worth making better. You can almost always spend more to make a product high quality, but it's often not worth the gains.
In a capitalist system, a variety of products across the spectrum are available, and customers are able to pick the point that they find best. Some might want a lower quality product for a cheaper price, and some might want a higher quality product at a more expensive point. The combination of all the people in society making these decisions give information to companies, based on profits, what they should make in order to fulfill the type of demand across the entirety of society. So if a company makes a super expensive, but very high quality product, and it fails to make a profit, then they know to stop making that product. If it, on the other hand, makes them a ton of profit, then they know to continue making that product because people want it.
In your theoretical socialist system none of this profit information exists. So how are you going to decide the correct point of cost and quality?[/QUOTE]
By conducting surveys and see how many complaints have been submitted. Also the people may voice their opinion at the next resource allocation meeting. They may say "Stop giving resources to that company, only bad products comes from there."
[QUOTE=RB33;52446925]By conducting surveys and see how many complaints have been submitted. Also the people may voice their opinion at the next resource allocation meeting. They may say "Stop giving resources to that company, only bad products comes from there."[/QUOTE]
Why should people care about that? I thought there is no money involved, so people get their printer for free. If the current one breaks down, they simply order a new one.
Do you want to have a resource allocation meeting for every thing that exists right now? Because there is a shit load of stuff that we produce right now.
Who even works at those factories, when there is no money to gain. Just for fun? What about storehouses? Who the fuck wants to work for free in a storehouse?
What about all the other jobs that people don't want to do? Cleaning toilets? clearing up sewers? Any other dirty job? Nobody would do these jobs in our society unless there was something to gain like money.
And the company you wrote about, there has to be someone who manages the production, then another one who manages the shifts of people, and then someone else who manages something else. Isn't that the same kinda thing you complained about, how someone is sitting up there, forcing people to work?
[QUOTE=RB33;52446925]By conducting surveys and see how many complaints have been submitted. Also the people may voice their opinion at the next resource allocation meeting. They may say "Stop giving resources to that company, only bad products comes from there."[/QUOTE]
If it wasn't coming from you, I might think that you're being purposefully satirical.
So you're going to have meetings on how to spend resources on the literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individual products? Who's going to go through the billions of complaints? How are you going to take into account that everyone wants different things from their products. So one person will complain about something that another person likes. How do you pick which to go with?
Also remember that the possible variety of a product is massive. Just because I say a product is bad doesn't mean you now know how to make it good. It just means you know that that one single version isn't good. Are you going to try version after version after version after version until you get something that people don't complain about? (Hint, that will never happen)
[QUOTE=sgman91;52446948]If it wasn't coming from you, I might think that you're being purposefully satirical.
So you're going to have meetings on how to spend resources on the literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individual products? Who's going to go through the billions of complaints? How are you going to take into account that everyone wants different things from their products. So one person will complain about something that another person likes. How do you pick which to go with?[/QUOTE]
Probably someone who loves reading letters. Someone who does this as a hobby and for fun.
I can imagine that they will implement a like/dislike button, and then decide that whoever has the most supporters gets it their way.
Most people won't care anyway, as this process will take a shit load of time which may even make the Trabi production of the GDR seem lightning fast.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52446958]Probably someone who loves reading letters. Someone who does this as a hobby and for fun.[/QUOTE]
Are you being serious? People can love it all they want, but it wouldn't be physically possible to read, record, and act out every complaint on a personal level.
I also doubt that anyone would love to read inane complaints all day.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52446959]Are you being serious? People can love it all they want, but it wouldn't be physically possible to read, record, and act out every complaint on a personal level.
I also doubt that anyone would love to read inane complaints all day.[/QUOTE]
Poes law. Sorry about that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52446948]So you're going to have meetings on how to spend resources on the literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individual products?[/QUOTE]
Hopefully, there wouldn't be so many products. Instead of having 110 kinds of flavoured icecream, it will probably be enough with 20. So many useless different kinds that could and should be done away with.
[QUOTE]Who's going to go through the billions of complaints?[/QUOTE]
Well, any group of people assigned to that task, wheather they are professionals or have a civic duty to help counting.
[QUOTE]How are you going to take into account that everyone wants different things from their products. So one person will complain about something that another person likes. How do you pick which to go with?[/QUOTE]
Either go with majority, or split them up into 2 or more products.
I shouldn't have to be telling you this, it's basic stuff on how you agree with others.
RB33, you are from Sweden, is it not possible for you to attend university or higher education of some kind? Please don't make a mistake, I'm not calling you stupid, but from the things you've said in this thread it appears that it may benefit you to be in an environment where not only could you study and perhaps work towards making your ideal society appear, but also to learn about the failings of past socialist societies and the difficulties a society like that would face.
You claim to not be naive, but then you post things such as these:
[quote]The solution is to once again stop producing bad products and only produce the ones that are affordable and good.[/quote]
[quote]One guy who represented a corrupt and oil-dependent country? What would happen if it happened in the US or in Western Europe? Countries with ideal conditions for socialism?[/quote]
These things are so much deeper and more complex than you seem to realize. It isn't as simple as "well put the people in charge of their own stuff and they'll only make good stuff that is durable and lasts forever!". Not every company practices planned obsolescence. Not even a majority of them. It is often simple difficult to make a product which performs optimally in every category.
I personally believe in the same optimal society that you do, but I don't think it will be achieved until we have achieved post-scarcity, and most likely it will be governed not by the people, but by some kind of automated machine intelligence or system to reduce the corruption of human influence.
I can't find the post where you described your personal situation, although I seem to recall you posting it in this thread a few pages ago. But honestly you seem to be using this dream of a perfect socialist utopia as some kind of escape from your personal reality, blaming all the shortfalls of your immediate situation on some kind of capitalist boogeyman.
All you've said throughout this thread is 'capitalism is bad because it is a system in which the strong exploit the weak'. However, when you're confronted with the argument which people in this thread are presenting, which is that every 'pure' socialist state that has existed up until now has done exactly that, to a degree which is far worse than existing capitalist systems, you simply claim that they weren't 'real' socialism, or that their leaders were faulted. If socialism is truly so perfect, shouldn't it be able to overcome the faults of just one leader? A failed state comes about from far more reasons than simply one man being corrupt. Sure, these states may not apply to your arguments because you're arguing for a different kind of socialism, but lessons can be learned and we can look back at history, even if they aren't a perfect match. Disregarding them out of hand is an excellent way to make sure these mistakes are repeated.
Also, previously in this thread you've said that you would 'prefer to remain an activist'. Well, as it's said, you have to be the change you want to see in the world. What better way is there to remain an activist for your ideal society if not through attending university, becoming accredited in the field, and then working to make that dream a reality. How is 'activism' via attempting to spread the fervor of socialism on online forums and social media more of being an activist than actually attempting to bring it to bear?
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52446947]Why should people care about that? I thought there is no money involved, so people get their printer for free. If the current one breaks down, they simply order a new one.[/QUOTE]
It's a waste of labour, time and resources to make something that breaks easily.
[QUOTE]Do you want to have a resource allocation meeting for every thing that exists right now? Because there is a shit load of stuff that we produce right now.[/QUOTE]
At different levels, yes. I'm sure companies have meetings on what to focus their attention on.
[QUOTE]Who even works at those factories, when there is no money to gain. Just for fun? What about storehouses? Who the fuck wants to work for free in a storehouse?[/QUOTE]
Here's someone who doesn't even understand basic moneyless society. Because work's need to get done and people want something to do. And you can even throw in some benefits for those doing more (that is not money).
[QUOTE]What about all the other jobs that people don't want to do? Cleaning toilets? clearing up sewers? Any other dirty job? Nobody would do these jobs in our society unless there was something to gain like money.[/QUOTE]
Automate it with machines or reward people for it. Worst case, have a civic duty for it.
[QUOTE]And the company you wrote about, there has to be someone who manages the production, then another one who manages the shifts of people, and then someone else who manages something else. Isn't that the same kinda thing you complained about, how someone is sitting up there, forcing people to work?[/QUOTE]
They are not forcing, managers are also workers, just with different duties. If they are paid the same and even choosen by the company staff (for the ones without special education required).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
