18 Jul 09
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm sorry I haven't responded faster to this post, but you should take that as a compliment. Your
The amount of centralization required for a resource-based economy makes that all unfeasible, in my opinion. It's hard enough to do such giant scale projects using monetary incentives, but without them (or force, obviously) I just don't see how it can be done.It's not just about voting over doing a certain project, but the whole implementation of it is not a y to engineering projects which require the physical presence of large amounts of labour.
posts always challenge me. I happen to like that. Keeps me a little more down to earth.
Yes, the administrative aspects of such a society would be tremendously challenging. While we
remove most repetitive and tedious work through efficient usage of technology, and reduce the
work hours to a minimum per person, I just added new problems here. The "voting on issues"
idea means that every little trifle decision must be debated and voted on. "I think we should
remove current energy production and replace it with this kind, for this or that reason." That's a
big issue, and people who will be affected by it (the people who will have to work to see it happen,
the people who will use it, and if there are any environmental aspects on a larger geographical
scale, people in entirely different communities) will need to vote. "I think if we restructure our
working schedule for this hospital we have a larger accommodation for acute cases." This only
affects the people who has to work in that hospital and the people in the local community. Not
everyone needs to even know about it (though if they want to, all information should be publicly
available).
The implementation details should come with the presentation of the project. Since this is not a
proprietary society where you need to keep secrets, there's little reason to keep these aspects of
the project to yourself. You have an idea, and you have a suggestion on how it can be
implemented. You present it, it's debated on and finally voting takes place. During the debating
phase, it's not unlikely that the implementation details changes because new information is added,
or someone else has what's considered a better idea.
Then of course we have the possibility that several projects step on each others toes, which also
needs to be voted on. Yes I see the problems, but I haven't got a fool-proof suggestion on how to
get around them all.
I've ordered the film. Maybe Fresco & Meadows has thought of all these aspects and I'm pondering
for nothing.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettI'm not sure I believe this basic assertion about Jacque Fresco's theory: I don't think resources are so abundant. For instance, I read a couple of years ago that to provide everyone in the world with a computer would require more copper than is known to exist in the earth's crust.
I have long maintained this. We have the capacity to adequately feed, clothe and house every man, woman and child on the earth today. We have the capacity to produce a superabundance of goods... The profit motive is by far the single greatest obstacle toward eradicating hunger and poverty that there is.
It is, surely, capitalists who assume that resources are or can be made limitless. Capitalism assumes that all commodities are interchangeable and that a preference for, say, copper over goosberries is merely arbitrary, rather than being dictated by particular and definite needs.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieWell, even if social security is generous, you get more by working. If you don't get more by working, there is little incentive to work.
I don't think "freeloading" will be much of a problem. It wasn't even that big a problem in Sweden
when we still had a rather generous policy. Most people take pride in being part of something bigger,
and most people want to do their part if they're capable and they don't feel like they're being used.
But consider the possibility that someone think (s)h ...[text shortened]... erything needed to survive, plus an abundance of free time to do as (s)he please with.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Thatcherite 'Dependency Culture' propaganda/theory was debunked by research even before she left office.
Well, even if social security is generous, you get more by working. If you don't get more by working, there is little incentive to work.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFNot really. The Thatcherite idea of squeezing out people on benefits in order to motivate them to get a job obviously is false. That's not the same thing, however. People don't need to earn much more when they have a job, but they sure need more.
The Thatcherite 'Dependency Culture' propaganda/theory was debunked by research even before she left office.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeA shortage of copper is not a problem that is exclusive to a resource driven economy. It is a problem that exists for any economic model that seeks to exploit copper. The current capitalist model of production will deplete copper resources just as surely as any other. It may be that not everyone can have their own computer regardless of the economic model they adopt. But if a replacement for copper can be found, then the problem is moot.
I'm not sure I believe this basic assertion about Jacque Fresco's theory: I don't think resources are so abundant. For instance, I read a couple of years ago that to provide everyone in the world with a computer would require more copper than is known to exist in the earth's crust.
It is, surely, capitalists who assume that resources are or can be made ...[text shortened]... oosberries is merely arbitrary, rather than being dictated by particular and definite needs.
18 Jul 09
1 edit
Who would want to 'feed all the people of the world'? Seriously, who? Take this to the posters of highest socialist motivation is this thread....
Do YOU go up and down your town inviting the homeless back to your house for dinner and TV, to share your resourses and live with you - permenantly?
No you don't; and therein lies the fundamental reason this ridiculous dreamworld has never existed sucessfully anywhere, EVER - and never will.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by divegeesterMatthew 25:44-46
Who would want to 'feed all the people of the world'? Seriously, who? Take this to the posters of highest socialist motivation is this thread....
Do YOU go up and down your town inviting the homeless back to your house for dinner and TV, to share your resourses and live with you - permenantly?
No you don't; and therein lies the fundamental reason this ridiculous dreamworld has never existed sucessfully anywhere, EVER - and never will.
Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettplease spare us the rerun of the 'jesus was a socialist' diatribe.
Matthew 25:44-46
Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
When you believe in jesus, I'll believe in socialism - deal?
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettInspiring you to believe in an imposible utopian fantasy!
Who is the better Christian? The believer who ignores the words of Jesus, or the atheist who finds them inspiring?
'Better' doesn't come into it - it's about common sense and deeds. I refer you back to my original post challenging wether you live it in your town. Do you?
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieWork will be rationed and you think that = individual freedom?
Everything points to the amount of free time (=individual freedom) increasing when work is
distributed equally on all citizens. What you're saying makes little sense, as it provides greater
freedom for people with capital but almost completely takes away the freedom from people without
capital.
Any real democracy (under capitalism, socialism or whate ...[text shortened]... ut all in all it's the state of the democracy that
guarantees/takes away freedom of choice.
Some like to work more than others, some less, that is entirely their business.
Freedom is not measured by the amount of capital one has, it is defined by the absence of force. It is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
You're really struggling with definitions. Democracy has nothing to do with individual freedom and everything to do with the whim of the mob, rights of minorities go down the tubes, and the smallest minority of all is the individual.