Socialist Party's policies

coolemon

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm just wondering...how would products be upgraded if there's no competition? I'd imagine that if every other constructor in F1 bar Mercedes quit after last season, Mercedes probably wouldn't upgrade last season's car.

To the Marxists in this thread, do you still see a place for research into improving existing products in your hypothetical Marxist state?

I think it is human nature to be creative. Inventions and new ideas are both rigorously pursued and also often result from accidental encounters where human ingenuity and creativity build upon an existing knowledge base and environment to produce new knowledge and new ideas.

I could envisage two possible dimensions to this in a socialist society. On the one hand - and as JRG has pointed out - duplication could be removed and knowledge and patents shared. Co-operation instead of competition could potentially produce better results. This approach would be compatible with the rational planning of resources.

On the other hand I think competition is a possibility in a socialist society and not entirely incompatible. I assume "brands" and "firms" would exist. Perhaps working and gaining employment in prestigious "firms" could be difficult - as it is now. Competition between "firms" to satisfy social demand for their products - and in return build and receive "reputation", social prestige and other social values for employees - could produce a competitive environment to overcome perceived failures of a co-operative model.

The difficulty with a socialist economy is the management of scarce resources. Or, indeed, of resources in general. What incentive or motivation is there to use metals efficiently in production when resources are not governed by price mechanisms?

It would require some form of organisational structures and rational planning. Perhaps resource and environmental guidelines could be developed to produce an ethos of efficiency in resource use within the 'competitive sketch' above.

Resource use, it could be expected, would be much less in a socialist economy anyway.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see your point. But on the other hand, the way cars are produced now is environmentally detrimental and not particularly efficient in terms of using material resources.

Synthetic demand is created through the constant modification of styling and superficial model updates. This to create an unnecessary scarcity of values.

This is just a vicious and environmentally damaging circle.

Long production cycles of vehicle models are not exclusive to state-capitalism either. The VW Beetle, Land Rover Defender, 2CV, Mini and DS come to mind. Infact production cylcles were fare longer than they are now for almost all models of cars prior to 1990.

garhjw

How long will it take to introduce a specialised economy? Longer than 1 election term? What happens if the communists only get 1 term and then lose the next election?

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Emmet - with all due respect - I have answered the questions posed - what I have not done is answer the questions the way those opposed to a socialised economy want me to answer them - there is a difference.

I haven't studied economics in an academic fashion and I haven't studied the analysis of Marx on capitalism in detail - it would take years and I find e detailed study of economics drudgery - but that does not mean that I don't have an understanding about the general operation of a capitalist economy, the basis of the Marxist analysis of capitalism and an understanding of the difference between how a capitalist economy and a democratically planned socialised economy would work.

it is and has been necessary to 'mention' capitalism for the simple reason that every question is couched in capitalist terms and the replies are expected with reference to a capitalist context. People ask for the 'numbers' but you cannot take the 'numbers' from a capitalist basis and transfer and extrapolate them into a socialised economy - it doesn't work and is like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.

The contrast comes down to some basic differences -
1. A democratically planned socialised economy creates a stable economy that eliminates cyclical economic activity
2. A socialised economy utilises economic and human resources for e provision of need rather than the production of profit
3. A socialised economy eliminates wasteful expenditure on what are primarily non-productive aspects of the economy (e.g. Advertising)
4. A socialised economy is based on solidarity and cooperation and avoids the duplication caused by competition - it focuses resources on the provision of a need, not on the production of a profit in completion with others attempting to produce the same product or provide the same service for a profit.
5. A socialised economy eliminates speculation (i.e. gambling) and the damage it can and does inflict on the economy.
6. A socialised economy operates in the interest of the 99%
Etc.

The term efficiency does not 'belong' to capitalism. The issues of efficiency do not just disappear in a DPSE, and it's unfair to say that. We don't need to tie efficiency to capitalism to understand the problems that a DPSE would encounter. Of course, I have given the "capitalism" example below, but only as a comparison.

It would be a simple (and fair) assumption to make that a DPSE would have issues with being efficient given that there exists almost no incentives to do so for the individual.

Small scale example, there are 12 sheets of leather, 0.5m x 0.5m. Our group requires 12 leather satchels to be created. We can easily just use a single sheet of leather per bag, or if we were worried about wastage, we could spend a little more time and figure out the optimum usage, this might save as much as 4 sheets, depending on shapes etc.

In perfect competition, the firm that reduces wastage of their raw materials (i.e make the most usage of their raw materials) can make a larger profit and therefore there is an incentive to innovate and improve efficiency. Therefore, an innovation might earn an individual a performance bonus.

In a DPSE, what is the incentive to the individual (or anyone!) to innovate and improve standards?

Given that we live in a world of finite resources, does a DPSE not actively dissuade innovation and improved efficiency in the usage of those resources?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

There is no competition in North Korea, I hear its a great place to see the stars, so long you don't mind being hungry all the time and risk being sent to a camp for 're-education'.

Mullicker

karma_ wrote: »

Let me guess you're a fan of planned obsolescence?

I hear this a lot but have rarely been affected. My laptop recently died but I did manage to get 7 years from it with a terrible attitude towards care, I constantly let it overheat and did little in the way of maintenance. I could have gotten longer use with more care but it was getting to the time I wanted a change anyway as modern games and applications need the extra processing power. With any phone I had it was either lost or I decided to replace it before it became useless and I often kept phones for years.

Maybe using an OS would be an example where people are affected by a product becoming dated, but people know upon buying an OS they are not buying a product with infinite shelf life. Besides for over a year or so I have moved over to using the open source OS Linux Mint and encountered the same issue. Open source releases are not supported indefinitely either, so maybe an OS is actually not a good example of the evils of planned obsolescence.

Btw I highly recommend the latest release of Linux Mint(17.1 Rebecca), I actually prefer it to Windows. And if you want a nice alternative to Microsoft Office try Kingsoft Office.

alias no.9

coolemon wrote: »

Long production cycles of vehicle models are not exclusive to state-capitalism either. The VW Beetle, Land Rover Defender, 2CV, Mini and DS come to mind. Infact production cylcles were fare longer than they are now for almost all models of cars prior to 1990.

These days automotive platforms are used across multiple model ranges and brands. Economies of scale are achieved by sharing parts and subsystems across multiple concurrent models rather than keeping an outdated model in production for extended periods, how many parts did the 2CV and DS share considering they were in production side by side for so long?

Take the humble late 1980's Fiat Tipo, its brand new at the time platform spawned it's contemporary Fiat Saloon and Estate models the Tempra and the replacement models for the Tipo and Tempra, the Bravo, Brava and Marea and of course we can't forget the iconic Coupe.

It didn't stop there, Fiats sister company Lancia also developed a saloon model off the platform, the Dedra and subsequently a Delta hatchback model and the replacement for the Dedra, the Lybra which came in saloon and estate models.

Alfa Romeo built it's first car on the Tipo Platform, the 155 in the early '90s and continued using the platform (with updates over the years) right up until 2010 as the underpinning for the 147 and GT models having also been used for the 145, 146, 156 (saloon and estate), GTV and Spyder.

You might see that as superfluous but it is a serious amount of individual models addressing different needs, 3 and 5 door hatches, 4 door saloons, 5 door estates, 2 and 3 door coupes and even a roadster, sporty, luxury, value, utilitarian, all off one platform with updates to include new technologies over the years.

What I've left out to date and possibly the best bit, Fiat have a long history of working with eastern bloc countries on their democratically owned and operated automotive interests, Lada, FSO, Yugo, etc... and true to form they shared this platform with Yugo and the result was the truly terrible Yugo Sana which no doubt we'd all be driving, after 10 years on the waiting list, in the democratically planned economy.

karma_

jank wrote: »

There is no competition in North Korea, I hear its a great place to see the stars, so long you don't mind being hungry all the time and risk being sent to a camp for 're-education'.

The politics forum was never an ideal forum but jesus has it fallen to shocking depths.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

The term efficiency does not 'belong' to capitalism. The issues of efficiency do not just disappear in a DPSE, and it's unfair to say that. We don't need to tie efficiency to capitalism to understand the problems that a DPSE would encounter. Of course, I have given the "capitalism" example below, but only as a comparison.

It would be a simple (and fair) assumption to make that a DPSE would have issues with being efficient given that there exists almost no incentives to do so for the individual.

Small scale example, there are 12 sheets of leather, 0.5m x 0.5m. Our group requires 12 leather satchels to be created. We can easily just use a single sheet of leather per bag, or if we were worried about wastage, we could spend a little more time and figure out the optimum usage, this might save as much as 4 sheets, depending on shapes etc.

In perfect competition, the firm that reduces wastage of their raw materials (i.e make the most usage of their raw materials) can make a larger profit and therefore there is an incentive to innovate and improve efficiency. Therefore, an innovation might earn an individual a performance bonus.

In a DPSE, what is the incentive to the individual (or anyone!) to innovate and improve standards?

Given that we live in a world of finite resources, does a DPSE not actively dissuade innovation and improved efficiency in the usage of those resources?

You misinterpret my use of the word 'efficiency'

The lack of efficiency under capitalism is not based on the individual enterprise - it is base on the system wide duplication of products and services.

There is no need for 350 brands of toothpaste - there is no need for dozens of different research projects on the same product, all competing with one another - there is no need for several companies supplying electricity, electricity that is produced in the same power station and travels down the same power lines to the same house - the same with communication services - etc etc etc

These 'inefficiencies' occur because of the profit motive - competition does not create efficiency, it creates duplication. Competition leads to companies trying to drive down costs to garner market share, to drive towards a monopoly of the market in order to push up prices and increase profits. Competition leads to the driving down of jobs, wages and working conditions which has a knock-on negative effect on the wider economy and the consequential fall in the rate of profit. And it contributes to the cyclical nature of economic activity under capitalism.

You claim that the only incentive for anyone to do anything is if there is a monetary reward - I reject this - and there is research to show that monetary reward has a very limited impact in terms of incentivising anyone. The implication of your contention is that all individuals are wasteful, are greedy, are self-centred and self-absorbed with their own lives to the detriment of others in society - I reject this - and capitalism fosters this ideal, because that is the basis of capitalism, dog-eat-dog and walk on other human beings to make a quick buck.

The reality is that every individual has the talent and potential to make a contribution to society - under capitalism that talent and potential is ignored and people are used as cogs in the profit making process. The reality is that the vast majority of people are inventive, creative and efficient. Capitalism undermines their inventiveness, their creativity and their efficiency by bringing everything down to one base objective - making profit.

A socialised economy that rejects profit and is based on need fosters creativity and efficiency - and it does this by encouraging individuals to be creative, to be efficient, to fulfill their potential and to operate on fulfilling their needs and the needs of their community in contrast to the current system where all they do is line the pockets of the super rich.

On a society wide basis the democratic planning of a socialised economy would facilitate planning for the efficient use of resources, it would do this by eliminating the duplication of products and services, the waste of resources on non-productive expenditure and by ending speculation.

One specific example - one of the reasons for the property bubble in recent years was because developers and landowners hoarded building land to drive up prices. By doing so they created a dramatic upward drive in property values and ultimately crashed the economy. The warnings of the potential of this have been in place since the 1970s when the Kenny report make recommendations about the supply of building land that would, if implemented, have gone a long way in preventing the property bubble. The report was never implemented because it didn't serve the interests of capitalism and, specifically, the spivs and speculators to do so. Competition turned into its opposite (which is inherent in capitalism), the creation of an effective monopoly in the provision of building land that led to massive speculation, a property bubble and an economic crash. Under a socialised economy, the economic plan would have eliminated all the causes and consequences of the bubble and crash by providing building land on the basis of need rather than to fuel speculation.

Deleted User

I asked what incentives there were in a DPSE, I did not say that there was only monetary incentives.

Deleted User wrote:

In a DPSE, what is the incentive to the individual (or anyone!) to innovate and improve standards?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

....
A socialised economy that rejects profit and is based on need fosters creativity and efficiency - and it does this by encouraging individuals to be creative, to be efficient, to fulfill their potential and to operate on fulfilling their needs and the needs of their community in contrast to the current system where all they do is line the pockets of the super rich...

Once again, I'm left asking "how" does it encourage it? What is the incentive? It evades me.
---
Can we just deal with the simple example that I've given? It's a pretty fair and straightforward scenario/example and should be easy enough to discuss. If you don't agree, I'm happy for you to give a different framework for us to consider.

Here's some things that I'd like to understand further.

• In the 12 bag example, if an individual worker has an innovative idea, how does he pursue it?
• Failure could be catastrophic, if in trying to find the optimum usage, the worker has several failures which mean that from the 12 panels, only 9 satchels are produced. How do we cater for the lack of finished product? If 3 of us must do without, which 3?
• Is he permitted to continue innovating (next production cycle) until he can recover that lost usage? (At what point is this practice stopped and we return to previous system?)
• Do we have a meeting between the 12 of us every time someone has an innovative idea and authorise it?

Secondarily, completely away from the questions I have asked of a DPSE, I'd be very happy to explain the benefits of competition and competitive-driven innovation to you in a perfect competition framework.

You may believe that the costs outweigh these benefits, but I believe you'd need to quantify that somewhat in order to make a convincing argument. I would absolutely agree with you that there are a great many individual innovations and improvements when the costs are far, far, far higher than the benefits. But as a whole, I'm unsure I could support the claim.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

The politics forum was never an ideal forum but jesus has it fallen to shocking depths.

Any more insight as to how society will change dramatically 10 to 15 years such that "A lot of the nonsense we know today will be irrelevant pretty soon." I've been waiting with bated breath.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Any more insight as to how society will change dramatically 10 to 15 years such that "A lot of the nonsense we know today will be irrelevant pretty soon." I've been waiting with bated breath.

Well I was, but to be fair things are pretty far off track as it is... better discussion for a science thread perhaps.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Well I was, but to be fair things are pretty far off track as it is... better discussion for a science thread perhaps.

The political implicatons of advancements in technology are relevant here, especially if those implications are socialist.

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You misinterpret my use of the word 'efficiency'

The lack of efficiency under capitalism is not based on the individual enterprise - it is base on the system wide duplication of products and services.

There is no need for 350 brands of toothpaste - there is no need for dozens of different research projects on the same product, all competing with one another - there is no need for several companies supplying electricity, electricity that is produced in the same power station and travels down the same power lines to the same house - the same with communication services - etc etc etc

These 'inefficiencies' occur because of the profit motive - competition does not create efficiency, it creates duplication. Competition leads to companies trying to drive down costs to garner market share, to drive towards a monopoly of the market in order to push up prices and increase profits. Competition leads to the driving down of jobs, wages and working conditions which has a knock-on negative effect on the wider economy and the consequential fall in the rate of profit. And it contributes to the cyclical nature of economic activity under capitalism.


.

Actually you are way way wrong in that. Without Apple, we would still be living in the 1970s IBM view of the world. Without the competing research, innovation would have been stifled, conformity the norm and stagnation as a result.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I never disputed that capitalism allowed for such innovations.

Capitalist society was enabled by pre-capitalist discoveries. Of the scientific method and the scientific revolution, of printing techniques and new ways of thinking developed during the Renaissance. These culminated, along with other advances, in the Age of Enlightenment.

Previous to the printing press information and the means to communicate ideas efficiently were guarded and unavailable to the broad mass of people. So even it were human nature to be creative - the ability to conceive of new forms of thought and ideas were heavily constrained.

Capitalism became a particular and suitable vehicle which allowed for further developments of an existing knowledge base.

But that is not to say that it is the only social configuration capable of innovation.

When market forces are curbed, innovation stalls.

Theology.

coolemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

These days automotive platforms are used across multiple model ranges and brands.

And so what is the point of the rest of your post?

Permabear referred to a period of Soviet/Eastern Bloc cars prior to 1990 as having had long production runs. The same can be said of various western made cars.

I really don't see the point of the rest of your post other than as an opportunity for you to display knowledge on something marginally relevant.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

Well I was, but to be fair things are pretty far off track as it is... better discussion for a science thread perhaps.

You made a pretty far-reaching statement here.

karma_ wrote: »

It's called science, computing power will start to drop off within 10 years but our ability to harness energy other than fossil fuels is going to start increasing exponentially. Make no mistake, the world we know is going to change very rapidly.

This is very interesting. It won't be nuclear fusion, the research won't lead to anything that quickly.

While there are huge advances envisaged and possible in both solar and wind-generating capacity, the big question-mark hanging over such technologies is the battery question, how do we store enough of that electricity to use when there is no sun or wind?

coolemon

jank wrote: »

There is no competition in North Korea, I hear its a great place to see the stars, so long you don't mind being hungry all the time and risk being sent to a camp for 're-education'.

In fairness though they can walk the streets without masks due to CO2 outsourcing from western countries. Fireworks look great until they blow up in your face. And that's what is happening to the environment due to capitalism. "Oh look at all the lights".

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

1. A democratically planned socialised economy creates a stable economy that eliminates cyclical economic activity

How? Also, can you provide a proper explanation as to how and why capitalist economies are cyclical in nature?

2. A socialised economy utilises economic and human resources for e provision of need rather than the production of profit

How? Several times now I've asked how scare resources would be allocated efficiently in your system and you seem incapable of answering. Please answer.

3. A socialised economy eliminates wasteful expenditure on what are primarily non-productive aspects of the economy (e.g. Advertising)

Do you see any value in advertising? Surely raising peoples' awareness of better products, lower prices etc. is a good thing?

4. A socialised economy is based on solidarity and cooperation and avoids the duplication caused by competition - it focuses resources on the provision of a need, not on the production of a profit in completion with others attempting to produce the same product or provide the same service for a profit.

How can you ignore the benefits that result from competition? The countless examples of technological innovation evident in market economies? The technological stagnation that is evident in planned economies?

5. A socialised economy eliminates speculation (i.e. gambling) and the damage it can and does inflict on the economy.

What you call speculation and gambling is what others would call investing. Entrepreneurs who invest provide a valuable service to society.

6. A socialised economy operates in the interest of the 99%

This is why I consider the Socialist Party populist. What does this even mean?

JRG, before you pounce on whichever line above you feel is most deserving of another bout of regurgitated rhetoric please consider that the question I really want you to answer is #2. You keep talking about how your proposed world would see rid of all the evil things about capitalism (AKA things you have zero understanding of) but you seem incapable of explaining how major obstacles such as economic calculation will be overcome. You can ignore it, but it's not going away. How can scarce resources be allocated efficiently without a price mechanism? Can you please answer this properly instead of resorting to unsubstantial sound bites?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

coolemon wrote: »

In fairness though they can walk the streets without masks due to CO2 outsourcing from western countries. Fireworks look great until they blow up in your face. And that's what is happening to the environment due to capitalism. "Oh look at all the lights".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253723/

Sounds like a prelapsarian paradise alright.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The political implicatons of advancements in technology are relevant here, especially if those implications are socialist.

Well we are just about at the limit of chip sizes and will hit it within this decade, they will also become dirt cheap. Couple this with cheaper and cleaner energy as we rely less and less on coal and oil and existing technologies improve (something like 30% more efficiency gained yearly).

Now say what you like, this scenario will massively challenge all forms of traditional capitalism. And it IS going to happen, it's actually pretty revolutionary but like none we have ever witnessed before. Right/Left Capitalist/Socialist just isn't really going to matter much.

alias no.9

Godge wrote: »

Actually you are way way wrong in that. Without Apple, we would still be living in the 1970s IBM view of the world. Without the competing research, innovation would have been stifled, conformity the norm and stagnation as a result.

c:\_

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And what is your point?

I never disputed what you said.

alias no.9

karma_ wrote: »

Well we are just about at the limit of chip sizes and will hit it within this decade, they will also become dirt cheap. Couple this with cheaper and cleaner energy as we rely less and less on coal and oil and existing technologies improve (something like 30% more efficiency gained yearly).

Now say what you like, this scenario will massively challenge all forms of traditional capitalism. And it IS going to happen, it's actually pretty revolutionary but like none we have ever witnessed before. Right/Left Capitalist/Socialist just isn't really going to matter much.

That's only for current transistor based chip design, there are already technologies being commercialized that will push the boundaries further.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Well we are just about at the limit of chip sizes and will hit it within this decade, they will also become dirt cheap. Couple this with cheaper and cleaner energy as we rely less and less on coal and oil and existing technologies improve (something like 30% more efficiency gained yearly).

Renewable sources of energy are improving but they're still waay less efficient than traditional fossil fuels. I don't see them becoming cheaper and producing more energy for less work than fossil fuels within 10 years.

Now say what you like, this scenario will massively challenge all forms of traditional capitalism. And it IS going to happen, it's actually pretty revolutionary but like none we have ever witnessed before. Right/Left Capitalist/Socialist just isn't really going to matter much.

Why? How? I'm genuinely interested how more efficient renewable energy will challenge capitalism?

coolemon

Soldie wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253723/

Sounds like a prelapsarian paradise alright.

But the destruction caused by market capitalism is all right so long as you can point to North Korea all the same.

karma_

Godge wrote: »

You made a pretty far-reaching statement here.



This is very interesting. It won't be nuclear fusion, the research won't lead to anything that quickly.

While there are huge advances envisaged and possible in both solar and wind-generating capacity, the big question-mark hanging over such technologies is the battery question, how do we store enough of that electricity to use when there is no sun or wind?

Well there are other methods, geothermal, hydro but yeah good question on storage. Perhaps it will not be as important as our ability to produce energy will just keep increasing.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

Well there are other methods, geothermal, hydro but yeah good question on storage. Perhaps it will not be as important as our ability to produce energy will just keep increasing.

You can increase the efficiency and capacity of solar and wind-powered energy (which I favour) but until you solve the storage issue, what are you going to do on a dark windless night?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Renewable sources of energy are improving but they're still waay less efficient than traditional fossil fuels. I don't see them becoming cheaper and producing more energy for less work than fossil fuels within 10 years.


Why? How? I'm genuinely interested how more efficient renewable energy will challenge capitalism?

Currently, yes less efficient but we are literally almost right at the break-point. And when that happens then things will take off, it will be an exponential increase.

How will it effect things? It's going to be a paradigm shift, power and influence will be stripped from large corporations and placed into the hands of the many. Everyone will have access to the most powerful computing hardware, energy will be cheap and easily produced at home as will means of production.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Godge wrote: »

You can increase the efficiency and capacity of solar and wind-powered energy (which I favour) but until you solve the storage issue, what are you going to do on a dark windless night?

Wouldn't it be ironic if we all sat around at night burning coal out of nostalgia?

Soldie

coolemon wrote: »

But the destruction caused by market capitalism is all right so long as you can point to North Korea all the same.

It was you who brought up the West to deflect attention away from the economic and technological stagnation in North Korea. Ironically, the metric you chose is one in which North Korea also comes out worse.

Communist countries have an absolutely horrific track record with the respect to environmental protection.

Soldie

karma_ wrote: »

Well we are just about at the limit of chip sizes and will hit it within this decade, they will also become dirt cheap. Couple this with cheaper and cleaner energy as we rely less and less on coal and oil and existing technologies improve (something like 30% more efficiency gained yearly).

Now say what you like, this scenario will massively challenge all forms of traditional capitalism. And it IS going to happen, it's actually pretty revolutionary but like none we have ever witnessed before. Right/Left Capitalist/Socialist just isn't really going to matter much.

Are you shorting energy stocks? Which renewable energy companies have you invested in?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Currently, yes less efficient but we are literally almost right at the break-point. And when that happens then things will take off, it will be an exponential increase.

This is the part I'm having problems with. I just don't see the efficiency of renewable energy sources increasing exponentially, and certainly not wthin10 years. Nuclear fusion is where I place my bets but again that won't be done within 10 years.

How will it effect things? It's going to be a paradigm shift, power and influence will be stripped from large corporations and placed into the hands of the many. Everyone will have access to the most powerful computing hardware, energy will be cheap and easily produced at home as will means of production.

As Permabear has already pointed out computing power is no where near finishing up, quantum computing which doesn't rely on binary codes will far outpace any modern computer.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How could changes of that scale not change everything?

Soldie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Does this mean economic planning will be possible in the future? Just think about how fast all the data and its near-infinite permutations will be computed. Nevermind how the data will be fed into the system, your needs will be dictated by the executive committee. Praise Marx! :pac:

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

How could changes of that scale not change everything?

How could changes of that scale inevitably lead to socialism?

Going from one electronic computer in the world in the 1970s to billions of them today is a change of such magnitude that it should have changed everything according to your worldview yet it didn't.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is the part I'm having problems with. I just don't see the efficiency of renewable energy sources increasing exponentially, and certainly not wthin10 years. Nuclear fusion is where I place my bets but again that won't be done within 10 years.


As Permabear has already pointed out computing power is no where near finishing up, quantum computing which doesn't rely on binary codes will far outpace any modern computer.

Computing power is not the problem, we will have all the power that we need and yes quantum computers will be made, and before they are 3D chips will become the new norm.

You just don't see it? Well that's just not my problem now is it, but is IS going to happen. There's half a dozen forms of energy you could place you bets with but I'd put mine on solar.

karma_

Godge wrote: »

How could changes of that scale inevitably lead to socialism?

Going from one electronic computer in the world in the 1970s to billions of them today is a change of such magnitude that it should have changed everything according to your worldview yet it didn't.

I'm saying that this old debate is irrelevant. I do think it will lead to a better world for everyone, which soothes my socialist heart, but it's not going to be 'Socialism' or 'Capitalism'

Soldie

I suppose we'll have to take your word for it, karma_. Despite the massive technological changes seen over the last century not derailing capitalism, an as-of-yet unspecific energy revolution in the next ten years will surely provide the sucker punch. Why? Just because, that's why. Seriously, how does this constitute debate considering the OP? It's just unsubstantiated wishful thinking on your part.

FreudianSlippers

Soldie wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to take your word for it, karma_. Despite the massive technological changes seen over the last century not derailing capitalism, an as-of-yet unspecific energy revolution in the next ten years will surely provide the sucker punch. Why? Just because, that's why. Seriously, how does this constitute debate considering the OP? It's just unsubstantiated wishful thinking on your part.

The only way it would work is interaction with a "warp civilisation" a la Star Trek; even that is a fairly utopian view on how such a possible interaction would look. I'm betting it'd be more like Firefly.

karma_

Soldie wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to take your word for it, karma_. Despite the massive technological changes seen over the last century not derailing capitalism, an as-of-yet unspecific energy revolution in the next ten years will surely provide the sucker punch. Why? Just because, that's why. Seriously, how does this constitute debate considering the OP? It's just unsubstantiated wishful thinking on your part.

The difference is that from the very beginning of humanity we have always relied on once source of energy, fossil fuels. That's coming to an end.

And I already tried to put this to bed because I also believe this is too off topic.

karma_

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The only way it would work is interaction with a "warp civilisation" a la Star Trek; even that is a fairly utopian view on how such a possible interaction would look. I'm betting it'd be more like Firefly.

Stephen Hawking is working on that....

Radiosonde

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The only way it would work is interaction with a "warp civilisation" a la Star Trek; even that is a fairly utopian view on how such a possible interaction would look. I'm betting it'd be more like Firefly.

What, cancelled after half a season? I wouldn't want a society that is cancelled that quickly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Honestly, I have to ask, but can you not read?