Socialist Party's policies

alias no.9

Soldie wrote: »

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:

You're ignoring the most basic tenet of computing

Garbage In Garbage Out

alias no.9

karma_ wrote: »

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.

Widespread use of fossil fuel is a very recent phenomenon.

karma_

alias no.9 wrote: »

Widespread use of fossil fuel is a very recent phenomenon.

That's not what I said.

alias no.9

karma_ wrote: »

That's not what I said.

It's what you wrote. I didn't write it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

alias no.9 wrote: »

It's what you wrote. I didn't write it.

Sorry, I thought you had a point.

alias no.9

karma_ wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you had a point.

You wrote

karma_ wrote: »

The difference is that from the very beginning of humanity we have always relied on once source of energy, fossil fuels.

Which is utter tosh, just plain wrong. Humans have been massively reliant on a variety of fossil fuels for the last 100 years, before that they were reliant on coal since the industrial revolution and before that they had little use of and no reliance on fossil fuels.

karma_

alias no.9 wrote: »

You wrote



Which is utter tosh, just plain wrong. Humans have been massively reliant on a variety of fossil fuels for the last 100 years, before that they were reliant on coal since the industrial revolution and before that they had little use of and no reliance on fossil fuels.

We've been using oil for at least 2000 years, probably much much longer. But of course I should have pointed out wood is not technically a fossil fuel. Main thrust is that we will no longer be reliant on these forms of energy.

alias no.9

karma_ wrote: »

We've been using oil for at least 2000 years, probably much much longer.

Maybe so but to describe humanity as reliant on oil for energy in anything other than the last 100 years is nonsense.

The emergence of oil drilling and refining technologies in the last century to make available abundant cheap energy didn't spark the revolution. What makes you think another energy source will?

karma_ wrote: »

But of course I should have pointed out wood is not technically a fossil fuel. Main thrust is that we will no longer be reliant on these forms of energy.

Wood isn't even tenuously a fossil fuel.

karma_

alias no.9 wrote: »

Maybe so but to describe humanity as reliant on oil for energy in anything other than the last 100 years is nonsense.

The emergence of oil drilling and refining technologies in the last century to make available abundant cheap energy didn't spark the revolution. What makes you think another energy source will?



Wood isn't even tenuously a fossil fuel.

What other forms of energy were humans using?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exactly the point.

alias no.9

karma_ wrote: »

What other forms of energy were humans using?

Horse/Ox/Donkey/Camel, wind and human power for transport.
Wood and wood derived products for heat and cooking.
Water and wind power for industry.
Plant and animal derived waxes and oils for light.

alias no.9

karma_ wrote: »

Exactly the point.

The point being, there is no reliance on fossil fuels for all of humanity and an energy revolution has already happened without precipitating a socialist paradise.

karma_

alias no.9 wrote: »

The point being, there is no reliance on fossil fuels for all of humanity and an energy revolution has already happened without precipitating a socialist paradise.

You know what, theres twice now, yourself and Permabear have attributed an argument to me I didn't make. It's fúcking tiresome.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

You know what, theres twice now, yourself and Permabear have attributed an argument to me I didn't make. It's fúcking tiresome.

Well, can you clarify what argument you are making.

I had understood that you were making the argument that there is a coming energy revolution that will change the world and cause problems for capitalism. The evidence presented so far suggests that

(1) There has been an energy revolution all ready
(2) There is no guarantee that the renewable energy revolution will come to pass (as much as many of us want it to)

Beyond that, there is the as yet unaddressed argument that decreased energy costs and increased availability of energy sources will help promote capitalism as it will reduce one of the anti-competitive effects in that access to energy resources currently distorts perfect competition. It can be argued therefore that the removal of this barrier to perfect competition enhances the capitalist model.

I am not necessarily making the latter argument but at least there is a coherent logic to it which is absent from the premise that an energy revolution will somehow advance the end of capitalism and/or usher in a new socialist paradise.

alias no.9

karma_ wrote: »

You know what, theres twice now, yourself and Permabear have attributed an argument to me I didn't make. It's fúcking tiresome.

Not my fault if you cannot articulate that point, care to explain it? Something is going to happen in the field of energy production that's going to change something? What's the change in energy production and what's it going to trigger?

karma_

alias no.9 wrote: »

Not my fault if you cannot articulate that point, care to explain it? Something is going to happen in the field of energy production that's going to change something? What's the change in energy production and what's it going to trigger?

Not going to repeat myself, if you are unclear read back.

Oneiric 3

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall any socialist dancing around with joy at the start of the last crash? However, what the financial crisis did show, is that capitalism is a catastrophic failure. It isn't the first one we've seen, and hardly the last. Basing a particular ideology's success rate on short-lived 'recoveries' betwixt these is far from encouraging.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

Not going to repeat myself, if you are unclear read back.

if so many have requested clarification maybe you are unclear ?

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

if so many have requested clarification maybe you are unclear ?

Just the usual little band of circle jerkers.

K-9

karma_ wrote: »

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

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.

karma_ wrote: »

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_ wrote: »

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

karma_ wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you had a point.

karma_ wrote: »

You know what, theres twice now, yourself and Permabear have attributed an argument to me I didn't make. It's fúcking tiresome.

karma_ wrote: »

Just the usual little band of circle jerkers.

Mod: Comments like the above above don't help to raise the standards that you are concerned about either! You've shown you are capable of more than that so please concentrate on those replies rather than calling others circle jerkers or whatever.

jank

karma_ wrote: »

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

That picture is a perfect illustration of the differences between one system, a command/planned economy much like a communist or socialist economy under the guise of JRG versus a free market economy that has embraced competition, markets and capitalism.

One people, two different systems and they both had their seeds planted at the same time after the Korean Ware. 60 years later the evidence is clear and resounding and what system produces better quality goods, services and who's people are more free. North Koreans are even 3 inches shorter than their southern counterparts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17774210

Just because you do not like the results or the evidence does not make it untrue.

jank

coolemon wrote: »

In fairness though they can walk the streets without masks due to CO2 outsourcing from western countries.

Cavemen were able to walk the earth without pollution but they still died in their 30's and I don't think anyone would think we should go back to live in caves now. Also, that picture is from Communist China

jank

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Reminds me of those evangelical nuts who proclaim in an almost annual basis that the world is going to come to an end because God wills it, only for the date and time to pass and 'eh... why are we still here......well, sure there is always next year..' moment of realisation before going back to wailing and preaching.

karma_

jank wrote: »

Reminds me of those evangelical nuts who proclaim in an almost annual basis that the world is going to come to an end because God wills it, only for the date and time to pass and 'eh... why are we still here......well, sure there is always next year..' moment of realisation before going back to wailing and preaching.

And this is just hyperbole, self congratulatory hyperbole. The same religious comparison could be made about the blind faith placed in the 'free market'.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

And this is just hyperbole, self congratulatory hyperbole. The same religious comparison could be made about the blind faith placed in the 'free market'.

I don't think anybody has blind faith in 'free market', most if not all are well aware of the massive flaws and problems as it currently works .

Our time is better spent addressing those issues instead of wishing for some socialist or anarchist pipe dream that simply is never going to happen ,at least not in a world as we know it.

Just look at what has been put forward in the last number of pages -

that the East Bloc was better for the environment than the west / the mobile phone is environmentally unfriendly/ the trabant was the equal of its western counterparts /a nationalised Dell could do what no other manufacturer could do .

And you talk of 'blind faith' !

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think anybody has blind faith in 'free market', most if not all are well aware of the massive flaws and problems as it currently works .

Our time is better spent addressing those issues instead of wishing for some socialist or anarchist pipe dream that simply is never going to happen ,at least not in a world as we know it.

Just look at what has been put forward in the last number of pages -

that the East Bloc was better for the environment than the west / the mobile phone is environmentally unfriendly/ the trabant was the equal of its western counterparts /a nationalised Dell could do what no other manufacturer could do .

And you talk of 'blind faith' !

That's just completely dishonest. Is it any wonder we always end up at eachothers throats?

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

That's just completely dishonest. Is it any wonder we always end up at eachothers throats?

Speak for yourself. I am interested in the debate and am still waiting for your considered response to the following:

Godge wrote: »

Well, can you clarify what argument you are making.

I had understood that you were making the argument that there is a coming energy revolution that will change the world and cause problems for capitalism. The evidence presented so far suggests that

(1) There has been an energy revolution all ready
(2) There is no guarantee that the renewable energy revolution will come to pass (as much as many of us want it to)

Beyond that, there is the as yet unaddressed argument that decreased energy costs and increased availability of energy sources will help promote capitalism as it will reduce one of the anti-competitive effects in that access to energy resources currently distorts perfect competition. It can be argued therefore that the removal of this barrier to perfect competition enhances the capitalist model.

I am not necessarily making the latter argument but at least there is a coherent logic to it which is absent from the premise that an energy revolution will somehow advance the end of capitalism and/or usher in a new socialist paradise.

karma_

Godge wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I am interested in the debate and am still waiting for your considered response to the following:

There is zero debate going on here. I'd simply be wasting my time by going through that list and showing you exactly why it's dishonest, no matter what I said your opinion would remain unchanged.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

That's just completely dishonest. Is it any wonder we always end up at eachothers throats?

-Jolly Giant specifically stated that a nationalised Dell was a working proposition

- You called into question the environmental benefits of the mobile phone

- coolemon defend the environmental record of the East Bloc

- he also defended the record of the Trabant !

And you despite repeated requests refuse to accept the good faith of other posters and answer their questions re your massive changes coming down the line. That is why we end up at each others throats .

No one is blind to the faults of the current system but the alternatives being proposed will just make the problems worse .

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

-Jolly Giant specifically stated that a nationalised Dell was a working proposition

- You called into question the environmental benefits of the mobile phone

- coolemon defend the environmental record of the East Bloc

- he also defended the record of the Trabant !

And you despite repeated requests refuse to accept the good faith of other posters and answer their questions re your massive changes coming down the line. That is why we end up at each others throats .

No one is blind to the faults of the current system but the alternatives being proposed will just make the problems worse .

It's dishonest because you are massively distorting the points raised, for instance the whole mobile phone/trabant discussion was highlighting planned obsolescence. And not a single one of you ever commented on planned obsolescence, it was completely ignored, whilst posters from your side of the debate insisted on dissecting the minute of the language used or other equally pedantic points. It's completely dishonest marie.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

There is zero debate going on here. I'd simply be wasting my time by going through that list and showing you exactly why it's dishonest, no matter what I said your opinion would remain unchanged.

And you are open to changing your opinion ?

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

And you are open to changing your opinion ?

Of course.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

There is zero debate going on here. I'd simply be wasting my time by going through that list and showing you exactly why it's dishonest, no matter what I said your opinion would remain unchanged.

That is rubbish. If you call debate "unquestioning acceptance of the inevitability and goodness of socialism", then you are correct, there is no debate.

But what we have here are a number of posters prosletysing on the utopian socialist future and reverting to personal attack/topic avoidance/ dissembly/ walking away (delete as appropriate) when a debate starts on the details of their ideas.

It seems to me that you are unable to demonstrate a causal link between a potential green energy revolution and the demise of capitalism leading to socialism. As I have pointed out, there is at least one argument with the appearance of logic that suggests the opposite. Where is your logical argument on the issue?

karma_

Godge wrote: »

That is rubbish. If you call debate "unquestioning acceptance of the inevitability and goodness of socialism", then you are correct, there is no debate.

But what we have here are a number of posters prosletysing on the utopian socialist future and reverting to personal attack/topic avoidance/ dissembly/ walking away (delete as appropriate) when a debate starts on the details of their ideas.

It seems to me that you are unable to demonstrate a causal link between a potential green energy revolution and the demise of capitalism leading to socialism. As I have pointed out, there is at least one argument with the appearance of logic that suggests the opposite. Where is your logical argument on the issue?

Godge, this is just more of the same and I've already answered it, should we just keep repeating ourselves ad nauseam?

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

Godge, this is just more of the same and I've already answered it, should we just keep repeating ourselves ad nauseam?

No you haven't answered it .Surely you accept in any conversation/debate if you make a point and are asked repeatedly for clarification it is just courtesy to provide it ?

Why all the coy and shy **** ?

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

It's dishonest because you are massively distorting the points raised, for instance the whole mobile phone/trabant discussion was highlighting planned obsolescence. And not a single one of you ever commented on planned obsolescence, it was completely ignored, whilst posters from your side of the debate insisted on dissecting the minute of the language used or other equally pedantic points. It's completely dishonest marie.

Planned obsolescence can work in two ways, good and bad.

Good planned obsolescence sees older less-environmentally friendly, less innovate, less efficient products replaced by newer better ones (mobile phones, tablets, computers).

Bad planned obsolescence is when there is little or no innovation between products (say toasters, irons or kettles).

However, if you were to examine the life-cycle of the "good" group, where there are continuous innovations, it is shorter than the life-cycle of the "bad" group where there is little innovation.

This would suggest that capitalism has ensured that the product life cycle of a good is closely related to the potential for innovation. One example of this is in computer tablet technology. Tablet sales growth has slowed dramatically as innovation has slowed and fewer new features are introduced.

On first glance, these trends in planned obsolescence are the opposite of what a critic of capitalism would expect. Given the low level of innovation in kettles, you should see them breaking down every two months to ensure the consumer buys another one, according to the Marxist view of the world. That isn't what happens, our kettle is several years old.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

Godge, this is just more of the same and I've already answered it, should we just keep repeating ourselves ad nauseam?

You have never explained the causal link between a green energy revolution and the onset of socialism, you just say one follows the other.

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

No you haven't answered it .Surely you accept in any conversation/debate if you make a point and are asked repeatedly for clarification it is just courtesy to provide it ?

Why all the coy and shy **** ?

Allow me to make a point.

That is rubbish. If you call debate "unquestioning acceptance of the inevitability and goodness of capitalism", then you are correct, there is no debate.

But what we have here are a number of posters prosletysing on the utopian libertarian future and reverting to personal attack/topic avoidance/ dissembly/ walking away (delete as appropriate) when a debate starts on the details of their ideas.

This was a post you thanked so I assume you agree with it. Except it's absolute nonsense and empty rhetoric. Absolutely nothing of substance was said here.

A second point. Still silence about planned obsolescence. OK i get it, you don't want to talk about it so I'll let it go, but yeah I'd be more than willing to have a civil discussion but let us also be honest, you're not interested.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

Allow me to make a point.



This was a post you thanked so I assume you agree with it. Except it's absolute nonsense and empty rhetoric. Absolutely nothing of substance was said here.

A second point. Still silence about planned obsolescence. OK i get it, you don't want to talk about it so I'll let it go, but yeah I'd be more than willing to have a civil discussion but let us also be honest, you're not interested.

This is getting silly now, that post of mine you criticised for lack of substance?

You left out a whole paragraph that was a condensed version of a much longer post that you also refused to answer. Are you going to get off the fence and tell us how a green revolution will lead to a socialist utopia?

Godge wrote: »

It seems to me that you are unable to demonstrate a causal link between a potential green energy revolution and the demise of capitalism leading to socialism. As I have pointed out, there is at least one argument with the appearance of logic that suggests the opposite. Where is your logical argument on the issue?

karma_

Godge wrote: »

Planned obsolescence can work in two ways, good and bad.

Good planned obsolescence sees older less-environmentally friendly, less innovate, less efficient products replaced by newer better ones (mobile phones, tablets, computers).

Bad planned obsolescence is when there is little or no innovation between products (say toasters, irons or kettles).

However, if you were to examine the life-cycle of the "good" group, where there are continuous innovations, it is shorter than the life-cycle of the "bad" group where there is little innovation.

This would suggest that capitalism has ensured that the product life cycle of a good is closely related to the potential for innovation. One example of this is in computer tablet technology. Tablet sales growth has slowed dramatically as innovation has slowed and fewer new features are introduced.

On first glance, these trends in planned obsolescence are the opposite of what a critic of capitalism would expect. Given the low level of innovation in kettles, you should see them breaking down every two months to ensure the consumer buys another one, according to the Marxist view of the world. That isn't what happens, our kettle is several years old.

Well thank you for finally addressing it, I appreciate the answer. And secondly, I don't think the coming energy revolution will lead to 'socialism' I've already stated this, but it will have a major impact on capitalism, perhaps this is why there is a push for more intellectual properties rather than commodities as means of production will be in the hands the individual. One thing for sure, it's going to be very interesting.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

Well thank you for finally addressing it, I appreciate the answer. And secondly, I don't think the coming energy revolution will lead to 'socialism' I've already stated this, but it will have a major impact on capitalism, perhaps this is why there is a push for more intellectual properties rather than commodities as means of production will be in the hands the individual. One thing for sure, it's going to be very interesting.

If, a big if, the energy revolution happens, it will have an effect on society, and I am sure it will affect capitalism as well, but capitalism as currently practiced isn't pure, so couldn't it improve capitalism and further cement it as the dominant form on the planet?

karma_

Godge wrote: »

If, a big if, the energy revolution happens, it will have an effect on society, and I am sure it will affect capitalism as well, but capitalism as currently practiced isn't pure, so couldn't it improve capitalism and further cement it as the dominant form on the planet?

It will definitely come. My own opinion is that it will lead to a fairer world, which definitely appeals to the lefty in me. And you know, modern socialists aren't violently opposed to capitalism, we are more interested in things like the scandinavian model which is a nice blend of the two.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

Allow me to make a point.



This was a post you thanked so I assume you agree with it. Except it's absolute nonsense and empty rhetoric. Absolutely nothing of substance was said here.

A second point. Still silence about planned obsolescence. OK i get it, you don't want to talk about it so I'll let it go, but yeah I'd be more than willing to have a civil discussion but let us also be honest, you're not interested.

Sure I'll talk about planned obsolescence if you like ,I don't think anyone was deliberately ignoring it . It really is just a minor part of the whole manufacturing process and not the trump card you seem to think it is.

The fact of the matter is in any competitive environment there will be obsolescence anyway and without it, in for example your socialist world ,you will end up with absolutely minimal innovation and not just in the product itself but in the manufacturing process ,supply chain,delivery process ,everything.

So accepting it is a fact of life in this completive world of ours it is better to have planned for it ( if that is actually possible) than not.

The commonly held notion that your fridge or freezer of phone is built to last a set time just to get you to buy another is just unmanageable . Your competition would just build their fridge to last 3 years to your 2 .

It is the competitive environment that drives such obsolescence and if you don't you go out of business .

To give you a specific example , just 20 years ago the following companies were the giants of the computer industry in Ireland , Digital Equipment Corp.Wang Laboratories , Prime Computers , evey one of them had a viable PC in the market place before Michael Dell even built his first computer in his garage .

All of them failed to see the PC revolution and the day of the mini computer was dead. Where are they now.

If you don't plan for obsolescence you will be obsolete yourself .

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

Sure I'll talk about planned obsolescence if you like ,I don't think anyone was deliberately ignoring it . It really is just a minor part of the whole manufacturing process and not the trump card you seem to think it is.

The fact of the matter is in any competitive environment there will be obsolescence anyway and without it, in for example your socialist world ,you will end up with absolutely minimal innovation and not just in the product itself but in the manufacturing process ,supply chain,delivery process ,everything.

So accepting it is a fact of life in this completive world of ours it is better to have planned for it ( if that is actually possible) than not.

The commonly held notion that your fridge or freezer of phone is built to last a set time just to get you to buy another is just unmanageable . Your competition would just build their fridge to last 3 years to your 2 .

It is the competitive environment that drives such obsolescence and if you don't you go out of business .

To give you a specific example , just 20 years ago the following companies were the giants of the computer industry in Ireland , Digital Equipment Corp.Wang Laboratories , Prime Computers , evey one of them had a viable PC in the market place before Michael Dell even built his first computer in his garage .

All of them failed to see the PC revolution and the day of the mini computer was dead. Where are they now.

If you don't plan for obsolescence you will be obsolete yourself .

Thank you for taking teh time to write about it. I think PO is probably one of those things that could do with a thread of it's own and I agree there are good and bad elements to it like Godge pointed out in his reply. There are also some shadier aspects to it which are strictly in the pursuit of profit. Anyway, I only wanted it acknowledged and it's a shame it took this long to get here.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

All of them failed to see the PC revolution and the day of the mini computer was dead. Where are they now.

If you don't plan for obsolescence you will be obsolete yourself .

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term planned obsolescence.

It is not where a company "plans" for the obsolescence of its own product range and technology in anticipation of future improvements.

It is where a company engineers a product to have a predictable lifecycle that is deliberately made to fail after a given amount of time.

Producing long lasting and reliable products without the deliberate engineering of a product to fail is not necessarily incompatible with same company "planning" for future trends in technology.

You don't seem to understand the term.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term planned obsolescence.

It is not where a company "plans" for the obsolescence of its own product range and technology in anticipation of future improvements.

It is where a company engineers a product to have a predictable lifecycle that is deliberately made to fail after a given amount of time.

Producing long lasting and reliable products without the deliberate engineering of a product to fail is not necessarily incompatible with same company "planning" for future trends in technology.

You don't seem to understand the term.

Amazing I managed to live and work with it for decades ,but there you go.

Can you give some examples of such companies and products or is it just more unsubstantiated point scoring ?

By the way can I ask what model of mobile phone you have ?

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

Thank you for taking teh time to write about it. I think PO is probably one of those things that could do with a thread of it's own and I agree there are good and bad elements to it like Godge pointed out in his reply. There are also some shadier aspects to it which are strictly in the pursuit of profit. Anyway, I only wanted it acknowledged and it's a shame it took this long to get here.

I don't think anyone was avoiding the issue karma , it just wasn't seen as a big deal .

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Can you give some examples of such companies and products or is it just more unsubstantiated point scoring ?

My previous post was somewhat simplistic. Planned obsolescence takes many forms beyond deliberately engineering something to fail. There are various ways to engineer planned obsolescence. Through the deliberate engineering of a reduced lifecycle so that the product fails, the stylistic obsolescence of a product and the engineering of generational incompatibility.

An example which I came across most recently of planned obsolescence would be the slight changing of the plastic mould on the newer Canon HF G30 camcorder so that the (otherwise identical) batteries from previous HF G20 and HF G10 camcorders no longer work. In addition, the batteries are chipped. Thus the consumer is forced to buy highly expensive battery packs from Canon and third party batteries may not be available.

By the way can I ask what model of mobile phone you have ?

Why?