Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Marcov on April 21, 2011, 08:27:56 am
-
Basically the title says it all.
Who wins?
EDIT: I've modified this thread to make this more specific. It appears that the point of this poll is vague, initially.
Basically, it's "Which system would you like to be applied on your country? Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism"?
Is it clear enough now?
-
isms SUCK
-
Basically it might be "you can buy our products get it here and give us your money" vs. "let us all be equal you have to" vs. "well we like business but well we don't like rich people" vs. "mammoth that can't harm anyone and is far smaller than an elephant".
-
Basically it might be "you can buy our products get it here and give us your money" vs. "let us all be equal you have to" vs. "well we like business but well we don't like rich people" vs. "mammoth that can't harm anyone and is far smaller than an elephant".
You really do not, on a very fundamental level, understand what you are asking here, do you?
First, you do not define terms. What, exactly, is socialism for the purposes of this? What are communism and capitalism?
Second, your post implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how these things work. You can't say "This system is best" globally, you have to ask "which system works best in what situation". For example, any working family is communist in practice, if we use one of communism's catchphrases ("To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities"). However, that system rapidly breaks down the greter the scope it is applied on (which, incidentally, is why there is no communist state in existance). Families orgenized on a capitalist system, conversely, would provavly be pretty horrible, but states run along capitalist lines do seem to work acceptably well.
So yeah.
Pointless poll is pointless.
-
You don't bring these topics up at parties, do you? ;)
-
isms SUCK
QFT
-
Perhaps a more interesting question to ask is:
"If you could design one from scratch, what would be the ideal form of government for a modern western society?"
-
Perhaps a more interesting question to ask is:
"If you could design one from scratch, what would be the ideal form of government for a modern western society?"
Faulty question - no government is ideal, but some is necessary. :P Churchill said it best:
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
On a more serious note, none of the listed "isms" have much to do with governance. Strictly speaking, they're economic systems. Each system can "function" under virtually every form of governance. It's just through bastardization of terms that we refer to China as a Communist country.
Also, snuffy FTW since the poll is pointless.
-
Well, a goverment typicaly enforces a particular economic model and when that is of interest that is the label used.
-
in lieu of Absolute Monarchy I choose Snuffy.
In any case, it becomes painfully obvious that a command economy is made of fail the minute you try to figure out how to make a Big Mac, let alone try to apply it to an entire nation's economy.
-
Snuflepagus wins. Fatality.
-
they all suck
-
the question was which one sucks the least, though that depends largely on the criteria you use to evaluate them by.
-
This thread is retarded. I can't tell if this is asking for a better economic model or a better model for governance. Either way, limiting to three options is simply lazy, and none of the vote represents my truest opinion of which is the best because what I want isn't available. I will take the time to entertain the topic starter and anyone else who reads. For the record, I love America despite the sad position we're in. Alright chums, let's do this:
Capitalism is built upon creative destruction. You take money (M) and use it to be labor power (LP) and means of production (MP) to make a commodity (C). You then use C to more M (M'). So the whole model of capitalism basically sums up to M-C-M' as opposed to C-M-C or C-C. This creates commodities in large numbers and is efficient in the sense that goods are created by specialized and cheap labor. What this also does is that it is naturally inclined to create inequality barring government involvement. And this has been working for around 200 years. Theoretically, this would be an endless process, however, MP is finite, and right now, we're using the last of it: The Earth itself. Capitalism is also violent. Where competition for resources is encouraged, war for land is irresistible. Also, given the growing working class, the proletariats are naturally exploited because the workers are forced to compete against each other. The invisible hand left unchecked creates ignorance, and Ricardo's assumption that comparative advantage is good for the economy because a citizen of the state would be loyal to his own state is wrong. Whatever the case, free trade doesn't work because not only of Ricardo's failed assumption that companies in the US would help the US, but also because Karl Marx's assumption that the government is a committee of capitalists may be true as well. Adam Smith himself criticizes the famous pin factory in the end of Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith envisioned a natural path to development and an unnatural path to development. The latter being what Marx calls Capitalism. The former is what can be called "Market-based" economic system. This is what Adam Smith saw in Imperial China. An economic system where the workers and the land are not exploited. A system that somewhat resembles capitalism but the power ultimately lies in the government. Smith looked at East Asia and saw it to be much greater than Britain at the time. In fact, back 1820, China and Japan combined constituted as over 35% of the world's GDP. US and Britain put together is less than 10%. Consequently since interstate war was uncommon, peace was more common than war, where the opposite was true of Europe. Currently, the PRC is doing something like this, where they have capitalists competing with other capitalists and control the economy. Also, socialism like present-day Europe and the US have some resemblance to this system, though they ultimately are capitalist.
Communism is a system that has never actually occurred in the way the thread poster has described it. In fact, there has always been a central governing authority, so unless proven otherwise, total equality does not exist as an economic model for governing a state.
Whatever happened to political economy? Separation of economics from governance (political science) would have made the great thinkers cry.
-
They're all corrupt in their own way. Apply the 'good' principles found in all three and you might just approach a near-perfect system of government and (possibly) economics--not to say that a 'perfect' economic system means that it will never decline (because even the best economies fail once in a while), but of course you get the point.
-
i know blanket statements should be avoided but all economic systems have a fundamental flaw, human greed
-
It is my personal opinion that the first nation to go Frankenstein on all save the innocent mammal wins.
I wholly support sigtau's sentiment.
-
i say we just nuke everything and create a society where humans have to eat eachother to survive.
-
i say we just nuke everything and create a society where humans have to eat eachother to survive.
That's actually a really good idea, it's simply a pity people haven't given it more consideration.
-
Instead of just directly going back to the stone age or whatever... maybe we should skip back a few thousand years at first.
-
i say we just nuke everything and create a society where humans have to eat eachother to survive.
You have been watching or reading 'The Road' too much :P.
-
Dumb question. I voted hairy elephant.
-
i say we just nuke everything and create a society where humans have to eat eachother to survive.
You have been watching or reading 'The Road' too much :P.
Just carrying the torch.
-
i say we just nuke everything and create a society where humans have to eat eachother to survive.
You have been watching or reading 'The Road' too much :P.
the what?
-
i say we just nuke everything and create a society where humans have to eat eachother to survive.
You have been watching or reading 'The Road' too much :P.
the what?
The Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road) a book and later movie about a post apocalyptic journey on a near dead Earth. It even had roving bands of cannibals, probably right up your alley.
-
It was a movie nobody saw :tosh:
-
make a point to watch it then (im too lazy to read).
-
I saw it.... and completely forgot about it. :lol:
-
I watched it. Never even heard that it was in theaters despite seeing the release date after reading the book.
-
It was a movie nobody saw :tosh:
I saw it
It was bubbly.
-
I've only read the book.
-
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/gortef/Harbl/Recettear-Capitalism_HO.png)
'nuff said....
-
Reccettear?
-
Yep
-
Communism like in Star Trek - there the theory works out perfectly. But in real life...snuffle...
-
Yep
Internets for you.
Great, now I'm gonna go home and play Recettear/Chantelise when I finish this lab class.
-
I prefer a system where resources aren't scarce anymore...
-
I prefer a system where resources aren't scarce anymore...
Renewableism?
-
I prefer a system where resources aren't scarce anymore...
Then to find that system, find out why the resources are scarce...?
-
at some point in the distant future they are gonna execute people for exceeding their entropy quota. its liek a law of physics or something.
-
Great, now I'm gonna go home and play Recettear
I should continue my game aswell one day. But I've kept Recettear as my laptop game so far. Meaning that when I'm somewhere with it (and not on my main pc) I play it then.
-
So since Snuffy wins the poll by quite a margin, I have to conclude that we would prefer our economy to be run by hairy elephant things.
I, for one, welcome our hairy elephant thing-y overlords.
-
What would that be like anyway?
Nomadic lifestyle where males are cast out the moment they hit adulthood?
-
Also, more hair. And longer noses.
-
I prefer a system where resources aren't scarce anymore...
Renewableism?
No. Post-Scarceism. It's the kind of feeling you sometimes have in the internetz when you first find out that you got your free email service upgraded from 2MB to more than a gigabyte. Or when you got your internet service upgraded for "free" from 640KB to 6MB. Imagine that kind of feeling for material needs.
-
I prefer a system where resources aren't scarce anymore...
Renewableism?
No. Post-Scarceism. It's the kind of feeling you sometimes have in the internetz when you first find out that you got your free email service upgraded from 2MB to more than a gigabyte. Or when you got your internet service upgraded for "free" from 640KB to 6MB. Imagine that kind of feeling for material needs.
Tthat would mean that resources can somehow grow with the technology.
-
I prefer a system where resources aren't scarce anymore...
Renewableism?
No. Post-Scarceism. It's the kind of feeling you sometimes have in the internetz when you first find out that you got your free email service upgraded from 2MB to more than a gigabyte. Or when you got your internet service upgraded for "free" from 640KB to 6MB. Imagine that kind of feeling for material needs.
Tthat would mean that resources can somehow grow with the technology.
Think of resources as not being that fundamental at all. What are fundamental are needs. People do not need petroleum. They need mobility. People do not need agriculture. They need food, etc. Technology is basically what allows these needs to be answered with the minimum resources used. The better the tech, the less resources per "need" you need.
Technology is, by far, our best resource.
-
A post-scarcity economy depends on having an unfailingly efficient, completely self-contained ressource delivery/production/product delivery/recycling pipeline, which isn't on the cards as long as humans are involved (sorry, humans!).
There's a reason why the Culture has its Minds.
-
You might be able to achieve post-scarcity by uploading everyone (and praying you don't have any lag issues).
-
Modern economic scarcity is more about status competition than bodily needs. You solve the problem of physical resources and people will find something else to compete over.
-
Only in the western world, my friend, only there.
And given that poverty rates in the first world are nowhere near zero, it doesn't even apply there.
-
A post-scarcity economy depends on having an unfailingly efficient, completely self-contained ressource delivery/production/product delivery/recycling pipeline, which isn't on the cards as long as humans are involved (sorry, humans!).
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there exist a huge number of factories almost completely automated. And this didn't happen with culture's minds. This has been the whole technological process for a long time now, so unless very nasty stuff happens (ecological disasters, etc) we will eventually automate most products in the self-contained manner you describe. irrespective of mr. Ian Banks' fantasy comes to fruition or not.
-
You might be able to achieve post-scarcity by uploading everyone (and praying you don't have any lag issues).
Who takes care of the machines then?
-
You might be able to achieve post-scarcity by uploading everyone (and praying you don't have any lag issues).
Who takes care of the machines then?
(http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/100greatestcharacters/photos/63.jpg)
-
You might be able to achieve post-scarcity by uploading everyone (and praying you don't have any lag issues).
Who takes care of the machines then?
The machines, natch
-
You might be able to achieve post-scarcity by uploading everyone (and praying you don't have any lag issues).
Who takes care of the machines then?
The machines, natch
Ah I see. And what happens when they figure out they can save power if they disconnect these silly flamboyant and wasteful programs called homo sapiens in their hard drives?
-
I guess you're in deep **** then.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there exist a huge number of factories almost completely automated. And this didn't happen with culture's minds. This has been the whole technological process for a long time now, so unless very nasty stuff happens (ecological disasters, etc) we will eventually automate most products in the self-contained manner you describe. irrespective of mr. Ian Banks' fantasy comes to fruition or not.
Well, but those factories exist in a system that is administrated by humans. Humans are involved everywhere, and that leads to inefficiency.
-
You might be able to achieve post-scarcity by uploading everyone (and praying you don't have any lag issues).
Who takes care of the machines then?
The machines, natch
Ah I see. And what happens when they figure out they can save power if they disconnect these silly flamboyant and wasteful programs called homo sapiens in their hard drives?
Well that depends on them wanting to save power as some kind of essential good. I'm not convinced the strongly alarmist view towards autonomous machines is necessarily any more valid than the strongly alarmist view towards human nature.
-
Well, but those factories exist in a system that is administrated by humans. Humans are involved everywhere, and that leads to inefficiency.
There's an assumption there that systems where humans aren't involved are more efficient. But it's not the absence of humans that is the solution. It's the presence of an automated system, which is always invented by humans.
-
Well that depends on them wanting to save power as some kind of essential good. I'm not convinced the strongly alarmist view towards autonomous machines is necessarily any more valid than the strongly alarmist view towards human nature.
If there's nothing stopping said machines to think that way, say in a crysis, why shouldn't we consider it beforehand?
-
Well that depends on them wanting to save power as some kind of essential good. I'm not convinced the strongly alarmist view towards autonomous machines is necessarily any more valid than the strongly alarmist view towards human nature.
If there's nothing stopping said machines to think that way, say in a crysis, why shouldn't we consider it beforehand?
'crisis' (crysis is the game), and yeah, I have absolutely no doubt it would be considered beforehand.
-
'crisis' (crysis is the game), and yeah, I have absolutely no doubt it would be considered beforehand.
It's the kind of thing that an "ooops, I miscalculated, sorrybouthat" won't exactly do...
-
Well, but those factories exist in a system that is administrated by humans. Humans are involved everywhere, and that leads to inefficiency.
There's an assumption there that systems where humans aren't involved are more efficient. But it's not the absence of humans that is the solution. It's the presence of an automated system, which is always invented by humans.
Of course it is.
But, considering that we as humans aren't wired correctly to take care of the needs of an entire society (in fact, Humans in general have trouble caring about more than their immediate social circle, which is usually in the 100- to 150 people range), which is why a system that is actively administrated by humans cannot be guaranteed to be as efficient as an algorithmically controlled one. Which also means that, once you switch on your turnkey economy, you have to leave it alone. Once humans get involved in the decision-making, you will get inefficiency.
-
That's very Hayekian.