Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

At first, for most of you, this thread probably made you gasp, "What?! Utopian Communism?! You must be crazy!!"

I concede that utopian Communism is not possible today, but merely that it is impossible, indeed, inevitable.

First, I begin with the increase in labor productivity. Labor productivity increases with technological growth. As technology increases, the amount of labor required for production decreases each year. This is empirically grounded and a reasonable assumption, as the entire basis for creating technology in the market is to increase labor productivity.



Under laissez-faire capitalism, this means that unemployment, poverty, and social inequality will increase, marginally, according to a similar path as labor productivity. Because, quite obviously, as each single laborer can do the work of multiple laborers, less jobs exist.

While new markets are opened up by technology, creating more jobs, there is still a net-loss in jobs because there is never a one-to-one transition from "unskilled laborers," to "skilled laborers," as not every unskilled laborer is seemingly capable of becoming a skilled laborer, particularly when education is not freely provided. This is further exacerbated by the fact that, under Capitalism, accumulation of capital is centralized, so that while increasing requirements for education are imposed upon the poor, the overall wealth of the economy is continually concentrated in the hands of the wealthy and their descendants. This is demonstrated in America and other western countries which have a continually increasing excess of unskilled labor and lack of skilled labor, which combined cause increasing unemployment.

But -- because labor required for productivity is continually decreased, as economies grow, the amount of excess value that can be redistributed to the poor increases. As such, economies of today can have "welfare states," which would've been impossible centuries ago. And, as time goes by, the amount of wealth which can be redistributed, without market failure, increases. This is demonstrated in the steady increase in government revenues in the past century, with little consistent change in economic growth.

Now, as I said, labor productivity is heavily dependent upon technology. According to observations of technological growth (see "Moore's law"), technological growth is exponential. According to Moore's law, the efficiency of integrated circuits doubles every two years. Similar observations have been made regarding the predecessor to circuits, vaccuum tubes, and present-day computer technology as well.

Eventually, however, when artificial intelligence is established, so that technological innovation is dependent upon technology itself, Moore's law breaks down to a point referred to as "technological singularity." Instead of circuits doubling in efficiency every two years, they would double in efficiency every year. The following year, circuits would double in efficiency every 6 months, then every 3 months, then every 1.5 months, until we reach a point where technological strength literally doubles every infinitesimal fraction of a second.

Technological singularity's exact date is uncertain, but will likely be reached within the next century, based upon current calculations.

Now, what are the economic implications of technological singularity?

1) The virtual elimination of requiring labor for production.

2) From the previous point, the elimination of the requirement for a division of labor.

3) Again, from the first point, the elimination of scarcity.

Under such a system, Capitalism and "individual property," would be totally unnecessary, making it possible to shed such aside for a voluntary gift-economy. Anarchism is also a distinct possibility, as with the elimination of scarcity, there is no longer any poverty, thus no longer any incentive to steal and no property rights that need to be protected.

Of course, this would also require the (likely violent) disestablishment of Capitalism and, upon reaching technological singularity, the centralization of wealth will likely be very great. Government, too, would also be very large and likely under the control of the wealthy, enacting oppressive security reforms for their own benefit and intervening in the economy to keep capitalism stable.

[cap'n queasy]

Communism is inherently dystopian. All revolutionary movements are, by their very nature.

[Commiebastage]

Utopian communism in a large scale exists in Star Trek because of the replicator. That and advanced energy sources.

You will not see communism work until material goods are devalued to an extreme. If everyone gets the same rewards for whatever sort of labor they do, the drive to have the job you like will become the new goal over money, because money is devalued. Over time society can be convinced that one's job is in direct relation to how much extra effort they put into learning an advanced skill, and you'll have people who want to party and be janitors, and you'll have people who want to study and be engineers.

Either way, I think the highlights I got from your post are the same as my theory on communism: Its inevitable, but it does have conditions to be successfull. The only advice I've taken directly from Marx is simply the order of progression: Capitalism, socialism, communism. You need the progression, you cannot skip a step. Skipping to socialism or communism will result in failure because you don't have the economy to support it.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Nathyn wrote: I concede that utopian Communism is not possible today, but merely that it is impossible, indeed, inevitable.

Something is not inevitable if it is impossible. Your typo means this whole sentence is contradictory

Nathyn wrote: Under laissez-faire capitalism, this means that unemployment, poverty, and social inequality will increase, marginally, according to a similar path as labor productivity. Because, quite obviously, as each single laborer can do the work of multiple laborers, less jobs exist.

Technology also creates jobs. Entire sections of the economy wouldn't exist without technology. This is such a blatantly idiotic thing to say.

Nathyn wrote:
Under such a system, Capitalism and "individual property," would be totally unnecessary, making it possible to shed such aside for a voluntary gift-economy. Anarchism is also a distinct possibility, as with the elimination of scarcity, there is no longer any poverty, thus no longer any incentive to steal and no property rights that need to be protected.

Of course, this would also require the (likely violent) disestablishment of Capitalism and, upon reaching technological singularity, the centralization of wealth will likely be very great. Government, too, would also be very large and likely under the control of the wealthy, enacting oppressive security reforms for their own benefit and intervening in the economy to keep capitalism stable.

How you reach your end conclusion from your central argument is entirely illogical. If technology means supply and demand is no longer relevant, then by defintion wealth would not be "highly centralised" because it itself as a concept would no longer mean anything either. There would be no need to violently overthrow anybody when 'rich' and 'poor' as ideas do not exist

It also does not follow that this will see an end of private property. Just because you can click your fingers and get a new house does not mean you have a right to waltz into my house and sleep the night without my permission

[Nathyn]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Nathyn wrote: I concede that utopian Communism is not possible today, but merely that it is impossible, indeed, inevitable.

Something is not inevitable if it is impossible. Your typo means this whole sentence is contradictory
Typo. Merely that it is POSSIBLE, indeed, inevitable.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Nathyn wrote: Under laissez-faire capitalism, this means that unemployment, poverty, and social inequality will increase, marginally, according to a similar path as labor productivity. Because, quite obviously, as each single laborer can do the work of multiple laborers, less jobs exist.
Technology also creates jobs. Entire sections of the economy wouldn't exist without technology. This is such a blatantly idiotic thing to say.
Such industries are largely luxuries for the benefit of the bourgoisie. While these new industries are created, the amount of people who would purchase good from these industries declines each year. And so, despite the existence of the internet, both America and Britain have had increased rates of unemployment since the 1990's. This is largely because these new industries require each worker to be more educated than before, yet only so much is to be expected from the average human being. Do you honestly expect, 20 years from now, that we will all be capable of having Ph. D's?

Here's a graph of U.S. unemployment rate over the past 60 years:

A trendline (not shown) show a small net increase.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Nathyn wrote:
Under such a system, Capitalism and "individual property," would be totally unnecessary, making it possible to shed such aside for a voluntary gift-economy. Anarchism is also a distinct possibility, as with the elimination of scarcity, there is no longer any poverty, thus no longer any incentive to steal and no property rights that need to be protected.

Of course, this would also require the (likely violent) disestablishment of Capitalism and, upon reaching technological singularity, the centralization of wealth will likely be very great. Government, too, would also be very large and likely under the control of the wealthy, enacting oppressive security reforms for their own benefit and intervening in the economy to keep capitalism stable.
How you reach your end conclusion from your central argument is entirely illogical. If technology means supply and demand is no longer relevant, then by defintion wealth would not be "highly centralised" because it itself as a concept would no longer mean anything either. There would be no need to violently overthrow anybody when 'rich' and 'poor' as ideas do not exist

It also does not follow that this will see an end of private property. Just because you can click your fingers and get a new house does not mean you have a right to waltz into my house and sleep the night without my permission
Because though labor is no longer REQUIRED for production, the upper-class still retains control over the means of production. Assuming that wealth distribution is continually increased each year as the economy is de-regulated, yes, Capitalism could transition to Communism. But though government spending has increased, it has been used for the military, rather than social welfare.

A "mixed market," may be stable in a way that laissez-faire capitalism is not, but under the future conditions, Communism would be preferable.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Utopian communism in a large scale exists in Star Trek because of the replicator.

If each indivdual owns a replicator unit how can the state own the means of production?

Additionally the "Star Trek universe" is capitalistic, there is private property, businesses, and investments in the Federation.

That is not communism, merely a super advanced technology that eliminates many unpleasant realities that we face today.

This is not likely to actually happen as portrayed on this TV show.

I thought the other comments in that post were interesting, though. But not really relevant seeing as how the premise that "Star Trek" is communistic, which they are based on, is not true. Utopian, yes, Communistic, no.

[THEXRATED]

Quote: If each indivdual owns a replicator unit how can the state own the means of production?

By controlling the energy you can use for replicating. Giving allowance to each individual, for example.

Quote: Additionally the "Star Trek universe" is capitalistic, there is private property, businesses, and investments in the Federation.

Not everyone is a part of the United Federation of Planets.

Quote: That is not communism, merely a super advanced technology that eliminates many unpleasant realities that we face today.

You are right, but it is not capitalism either.

"...by the late 24th century, money in the modern sense is very seldom used in the Federation, and not needed for the life of a typical Federation citizen, as replicators make the need for almost all material goods filled and a pervasive altruistic philosophy of self improvement and helping others provides for most labor, although a monetary unit called the "Credit" exists for some purposes, such as dealing with foreign governments, allotting government budgets, and access to limited resources. Money began to fade from everyday use in the late 22nd century, although it was still in fairly common use by the mid to late 23rd century."

Quote: I thought the other comments in that post were interesting, though. But not really relevant seeing as how the premise that "Star Trek" is communistic, which they are based on, is not true. Utopian, yes, Communistic, no.

Agreed. Utopian is a good word to use.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: You are right, but it is not capitalism either.

There are capitalistic aspects.

But, yeah, I would say they are well beyond the notions we base our ideologies upon.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: By controlling the energy you can use for replicating. Giving allowance to each individual, for example.

That would be pretty difficult to control when one can replicate a generator and any fuel source to power it.
:wink:

[cap'n queasy]

What type of government would a society in a universe where everyone had unlimited magical powers have?

:lol:

[Nathyn]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Utopian communism in a large scale exists in Star Trek because of the replicator.

If each indivdual owns a replicator unit how can the state own the means of production?

Additionally the "Star Trek universe" is capitalistic, there is private property, businesses, and investments in the Federation.

That is not communism, merely a super advanced technology that eliminates many unpleasant realities that we face today.

This is not likely to actually happen as portrayed on this TV show.

I thought the other comments in that post were interesting, though. But not really relevant seeing as how the premise that "Star Trek" is communistic, which they are based on, is not true. Utopian, yes, Communistic, no.
"Property," was abolished sometime in the Star Trek universe. Not sure when, but check the Wiki on Star Trek, as there's a section on it.

In the classic star trek and some of the earlier episodes, they mentioned credits, suggesting a capitalist economy. That was abandoned, though, centuries later, from Next Generation onward. In the movie, Star Trek Generations, Picard suggests that they have a gift-economy. Yes, there's "property," in a way, but not in the capitalist sense. People have personal items, but there's no ownership of capital, except within territories outside of the Federation. If you're looking for utopian Capitalism, look at Ferengi history.

cap'n queasy wrote: What type of government would a society in a universe where everyone had unlimited magical powers have?

:lol:
They might not need one, actually. If they did, upon the disestablishment of capitalism, the government could be entirely laissez-faire, in other words, Communist minarchism.

[Norbert]

where, in real life or in fiction, has there ever been a system that does not "contain elements of communism and capitalism?" The only possible place would be Soveit propaganda films... and I'm afraid I'm not sure hom the above info promotes the fact there everything is scarce...

[RueTheDay]

There's no such thing as "utopia", nor will there ever be. Humans are imperfect beings, with conflicting interests, and all political systems and economic systems represent a compromise of one sort or another.

[Free Thinkr]

RueTheDay wrote: There's no such thing as "utopia", nor will there ever be. Humans are imperfect beings, with conflicting interests, and all political systems and economic systems represent a compromise of one sort or another.
The dismal science indeed! :wink:

Surely there are conditions which are the best possible, at least.

[mathurin]

Nathyn wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote: Nathyn wrote: Under laissez-faire capitalism, this means that unemployment, poverty, and social inequality will increase, marginally, according to a similar path as labor productivity. Because, quite obviously, as each single laborer can do the work of multiple laborers, less jobs exist.
Technology also creates jobs. Entire sections of the economy wouldn't exist without technology. This is such a blatantly idiotic thing to say.
Such industries are largely luxuries for the benefit of the bourgoisie. While these new industries are created, the amount of people who would purchase good from these industries declines each year. And so, despite the existence of the internet, both America and Britain have had increased rates of unemployment since the 1990's. This is largely because these new industries require each worker to be more educated than before, yet only so much is to be expected from the average human being. Do you honestly expect, 20 years from now, that we will all be capable of having Ph. D's?

Here's a graph of U.S. unemployment rate over the past 60 years:

A trendline (not shown) show a small net increase.


please elaborate on the elitism you imply
i can easily counter it
henry ford, before him cars were the toys of the rich, he actually designed his car for lower income customers, there is a reason why the distance between the front seat and back was the exact same width as the diameter of a milk can

you are concentrating too much on the present, sure the new HD-movies are only for those with money, but the market will grow and soon they will be available to everyone


there is a vast difference between willing to learn and having a Ph D, college is not required for skilled labor

Nathyn wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote: Nathyn wrote:
Under such a system, Capitalism and "individual property," would be totally unnecessary, making it possible to shed such aside for a voluntary gift-economy. Anarchism is also a distinct possibility, as with the elimination of scarcity, there is no longer any poverty, thus no longer any incentive to steal and no property rights that need to be protected.

Of course, this would also require the (likely violent) disestablishment of Capitalism and, upon reaching technological singularity, the centralization of wealth will likely be very great. Government, too, would also be very large and likely under the control of the wealthy, enacting oppressive security reforms for their own benefit and intervening in the economy to keep capitalism stable.
How you reach your end conclusion from your central argument is entirely illogical. If technology means supply and demand is no longer relevant, then by defintion wealth would not be "highly centralised" because it itself as a concept would no longer mean anything either. There would be no need to violently overthrow anybody when 'rich' and 'poor' as ideas do not exist

It also does not follow that this will see an end of private property. Just because you can click your fingers and get a new house does not mean you have a right to waltz into my house and sleep the night without my permission
Because though labor is no longer REQUIRED for production, the upper-class still retains control over the means of production. Assuming that wealth distribution is continually increased each year as the economy is de-regulated, yes, Capitalism could transition to Communism. But though government spending has increased, it has been used for the military, rather than social welfare.

A "mixed market," may be stable in a way that laissez-faire capitalism is not, but under the future conditions, Communism would be preferable.
but if the rich control the means of production, and require no labor inputs, and have no scarcity themselves, why would they withhold it, to what purpose? money, you just said money would be pointless, why gather it, and since production has no cost, where would the money come from

people now obtain all they can because that is the game, the game everybody plays, but assuming the point can be reached then there is no reason to gather things, and even if the majority of the rich felt that way then there would surely be a individual who would release his or her means of production because of philosophical beliefs, then poof, the monopoly held on the means of production is gone (your implication that no labor inputs required means to me that even the creation of the means of production requires no labor input, meaning that the release of just one of these items would allow for the creation of thousands and destroy the monopoly)



now down to here
Nathyn wrote:
Now, what are the economic implications of technological singularity?

1) The virtual elimination of requiring labor for production.

this will never happen, it would mean that AI has advanced beyond the point of needing humanity, making humanity useless, a waste, any AI we build will have distaste for the useless and inefficient, and assuming the speed of development you assert, would quickly outstrip any restrictions we may try to put on us and kill us off

Nathyn wrote:
2) From the previous point, the elimination of the requirement for a division of labor.


eh, no labor and no division, whatever

increased tech created wider divisions of labor, but they are inherent, when nog traded a chunk of mammoth meat to og in return for a new spearpoint it was division of labor, it is just wider now


Nathyn wrote:
3) Again, from the first point, the elimination of scarcity.

the biggest mistake in the entire post


scarcity is a given, there will always be some kind of scarcity

dont believe me?
how many pieces of land are exactly like the one you stand on?
none, land is unique
how many original mona lisas

and how long is your life?
time is always a scarcity, even if technological advances make lifetimes last for a thousand years it is still limited, and therefore scarce


your theory reminds me of another, decreasing returns to scale, basically it states that a business adding personell or equipment will increase returns to scale for a certain portion, and then begin decreasing returns, until eventually the business will begin to lose money. this theory reminds me of yours because it also takes a good basic idea, and expands it to the point of stupidity, it will ever exist only in theory, such it is with yours

[mathurin]

i also have a question, how will the "oppressed majority" manage to violently overthrow capitalism if the rich (being the ones who like capitalism) own all the means of production, at this point which you describe we have basically made machines that do things better than humans, it would be easy to direct them to become their own security force as well as military force would would outpace anything humans would be able to do

therefore you should fear this "technological singularity" far more than capitalism, for it would ensure that the upper class remain the upper class forever

[RueTheDay]

mathurin wrote: your theory reminds me of another, decreasing returns to scale, basically it states that a business adding personell or equipment will increase returns to scale for a certain portion, and then begin decreasing returns, until eventually the business will begin to lose money. this theory reminds me of yours because it also takes a good basic idea, and expands it to the point of stupidity, it will ever exist only in theory, such it is with yours

What you are describing here is not decreasing returns to scale, but rather diminishing marginal returns. They are two different things, though many people get them mixed up.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Nathyn wrote: At first, for most of you, this thread probably made you gasp, "What?! Utopian Communism?! You must be crazy!!"

I concede that utopian Communism is not possible today, but merely that it is impossible, indeed, inevitable.

First, I begin with the increase in labor productivity. Labor productivity increases with technological growth. As technology increases, the amount of labor required for production decreases each year. This is empirically grounded and a reasonable assumption, as the entire basis for creating technology in the market is to increase labor productivity.



Under laissez-faire capitalism, this means that unemployment, poverty, and social inequality will increase, marginally, according to a similar path as labor productivity. Because, quite obviously, as each single laborer can do the work of multiple laborers, less jobs exist.
if it cerebis paribus, then you are right. But you are failing to take into account that when things are made cheaper, the standard of living goes up. When the standard of living goes up, people can (and do) buy more things, when people buy (and want to buy) more things, that creates a demand. A demand makes it profitable for new buisnessess to enter.

You are practically assuming that the amount of wealth on the earth is always the same.

Quote: While new markets are opened up by technology, creating more jobs, there is still a net-loss in jobs because there is never a one-to-one transition from "unskilled laborers," to "skilled laborers," as not every unskilled laborer is seemingly capable of becoming a skilled laborer, particularly when education is not freely provided.
for a certain price, I'm sure that buisnesses would be willing to open buisnesses for even the most unskilled labor. They would be paid very very little, but becuase all the prices would be so low, they would easily be able to make a living.
But this cannot happen due to minimum wage.

Quote: This is further exacerbated by the fact that, under Capitalism, accumulation of capital is centralized, so that while increasing requirements for education are imposed upon the poor, the overall wealth of the economy is continually concentrated in the hands of the wealthy and their descendants
1. You are ignoring that there is more wealth
2. You are ignoring that it is not profitable for buisnessmen to have a pool of stupid people from which to draw the "educated" they need. Thus, it is my prediction that buisnesses would give ALOT of free or reduced cost education to potentiol employees. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Quote: This is demonstrated in America and other western countries which have a continually increasing excess of unskilled labor and lack of skilled labor, which combined cause increasing unemployment.
the cause of the unemplyment is minimum wage laws. Do not blame capitalism for the faults of government intervention into capitliasm (i.e. the mixed ecconomy)

Quote: But -- because labor required for productivity is continually decreased, as economies grow, the amount of excess value that can be redistributed to the poor increases. As such, economies of today can have "welfare states," which would've been impossible centuries ago.
for a limited time, this is true.
Quote: And, as time goes by, the amount of wealth which can be redistributed, without market failure, increases. This is demonstrated in the steady increase in government revenues in the past century, with little consistent change in economic growth.
this doesn't mean the whole system wont just collapse on ourselves. For instance, as the welfare state has increased, so has the national debt.

Quote: Now, as I said, labor productivity is heavily dependent upon technology. According to observations of technological growth (see "Moore's law"), technological growth is exponential. According to Moore's law, the efficiency of integrated circuits doubles every two years. Similar observations have been made regarding the predecessor to circuits, vaccuum tubes, and present-day computer technology as well.
and you think this is done 'naturally', i.e. not by the inteligence of man? It is just a natural phenominon?

Quote: Eventually, however, when artificial intelligence is established, so that technological innovation is dependent upon technology itself, Moore's law breaks down to a point referred to as "technological singularity." Instead of circuits doubling in efficiency every two years, they would double in efficiency every year. The following year, circuits would double in efficiency every 6 months, then every 3 months, then every 1.5 months, until we reach a point where technological strength literally doubles every infinitesimal fraction of a second.
the singularity is an interesting point in human history. If we ever reach it, then the cost of living will consist of sunlight hitting your photovoltic nanoskin.

Quote: Technological singularity's exact date is uncertain, but will likely be reached within the next century, based upon current calculations.
calculations by Ray Kurzwell?

Quote: Now, what are the economic implications of technological singularity?

1) The virtual elimination of requiring labor for production.

2) From the previous point, the elimination of the requirement for a division of labor.

3) Again, from the first point, the elimination of scarcity.
this is almost laughable. If you think you can even begin to imagine the implications of a singularity (keep in mind, during the singularity it is predicted that in one second, a computer will be able to think all of the thoughts of every human who has ever existed.) then you will be sorely mistaken. When a singularity happens, the very identity of man will be changed and all ethics will be changed.
Quote: Under such a system, Capitalism and "individual property," would be totally unnecessary, making it possible to shed such aside for a voluntary gift-economy. Anarchism is also a distinct possibility, as with the elimination of scarcity, there is no longer any poverty, thus no longer any incentive to steal and no property rights that need to be protected.
what about the right to life? Again, this is all absoultely impossible to predict (unless you are a super computer who can think all the thoughts of every man in history in a single second.), but, wouldn't you have rights over the computer chips which compose your conciousness? Assumedly, from those chips you could explore any virtual reality that you could dream, but still.

[/quote]Of course, this would also require the (likely violent) disestablishment of Capitalism and, upon reaching technological singularity, the centralization of wealth will likely be very great. Government, too, would also be very large and likely under the control of the wealthy, enacting oppressive security reforms for their own benefit and intervening in the economy to keep capitalism [/quote]
like I said, this is laughable. Nobody can make predictions of a time when all humans are gods of the universe. A government? this is almost laughable. I would hope that when men can think as clearly as Kurzwell predicts, that a government won't be needed.

[mathurin]

RueTheDay wrote: mathurin wrote: your theory reminds me of another, decreasing returns to scale, basically it states that a business adding personell or equipment will increase returns to scale for a certain portion, and then begin decreasing returns, until eventually the business will begin to lose money. this theory reminds me of yours because it also takes a good basic idea, and expands it to the point of stupidity, it will ever exist only in theory, such it is with yours

What you are describing here is not decreasing returns to scale, but rather diminishing marginal returns. They are two different things, though many people get them mixed up.

ah yes, they are very similar, besides, it was just an example of a good idea taken too far, and i am not looking at my textbook this moment
not important

[Harbinger]

Many years ago I read a magazine article about how AI researchers were trying to "bootstrap" AI in a fashion similar to the way compilers were "bootstrapped" back in the late 60's, early 70's. For instance, the first C compiler was written in assembly but it was used to compile the C source code for a better C compiler. Thus, the new C compiler was able to compile it's own source code. In AI, the idea was to design an AI program that could design smarter AI programs so that, in theory, it would create a family tree of progressively smarter and more sophisticated AI programs and might eventually give rise to programs that are smarter and more creative than any human being. So far, the process has fizzled because human programmers apparently aren't creative or intelligent enough to create an initial AI program that is creative or intelligent enough to create more creative and intelligent child programs. :roll: