We are the 53%

Kinkajou · 2011-10-16 01:12:14

The american dream is, IMHO, unsustainable anyway. There may be a solution out there, but I don't see it.

Considering creating prosperity for everyone with only finite resources is unsustainable, yeah, you have a point there.

Also, is it just me or does this thing smack of slacktivism again?

Schitzo · 2011-10-16 04:46:10

@ Bowling For Soup:

... I really don't like the sound of pop punk all that much, but as for the lyrics themselves... THAT FEEL, BRO. THAT FUCKING FEEL.

MadassAlex · 2011-10-16 05:03:54

:C

dude

who do you think can even make them in mass amounts

modern industrial might

MadassAlex · 2011-10-16 05:10:26

And to elaborate in a different post because putting a line at the end of my last one was a dumb idea:

Industrial production being tied to capitalism is unnecessary. In a system where so much wealth is owned by so few, it seems logical, but it doesn't have to be that way. Remember that technology and knowledge don't require capitalism to exist. They require the physical facilities and tools that enable them, and those can be made and produced under any system. Russia's post WWI revolution turned the country, for a time, genuinely socialist and it worked. A coup by Stalin put the country in his hands and set the scene for the perversion of socialist ideals that persists today, but the socialist population continued to run industrial production.

In fact, the biggest flaw in socialism throughout history seems to be its period of instability following the political, economic and social change. This is a prime opportunity for neighbouring nations and powers to take advantage of the fledgling socialist state and impose their own power.

To answer the question in short, though, industrial production would be put in the hands of the local community.

Nova · 2011-10-16 05:19:02

No, actually. You need to pay for several things- you need to pay for the electricity, the wear on the machines (specially the high demands on the machines caused by the initial startup), the labour for the parts of the production process that can't be automated, etcetera. And that's not to mention the initial costs of actually building all the parts of the machines.

As it is, corporations are so huge simply because of the sheer amount of materials they have to process. Consider a car manufactering plant. Give it, say, 400 kilograms of metal (an inaccurate figure, but whatever) to make a car. You then need to push these parts through shapers, to make the general car parts; you need to make wires and such, to make everything go; you need to fit all the pieces together; and so on. It's a very intensive process. The reason it's done so easily nowadays is that everything is mass-produced, meaning that many initial costs are lessened greatly (and thus, why it's cheaper to buy stuff in bulk).

You can't move this stuff from the big guy to the little guy without making everything a lot more expensive, intensive and time-consuming.

MadassAlex · 2011-10-16 05:30:01

You're interpreting everything under the auspice of capitalism, though, which is exactly what the system is against. Production costs are a non-issue, since currency is devalued or even gone under socialist systems. We can still have experienced experts running what they need to, or teachings others what they need to know, so labour isn't a concern.

As I said before, production can be altered for the sake of human consumption rather than capital interest, therefore cutting down on resource-wasting surpluses like in the case of, say, toasters. Lots of toasters are produced. Many sit on shelves forever. But that's plastic, steel and wiring that could've been used elsewhere or kept in a resource surplus rather than a product surplus. So even if money remains something of a concern, the cutting down on capital production for product surplus saves a lot of money. Since there's no corporation, there's no competition as the product is their for public benefit.

Socialism is all about providing the requirements of living to every human being via the government at no expense to the citizenry under a democratic political system. Unfortunately, producing artificial scarcity is something corporations do for cash. A well-known example is Disney DVDs. Every once in a while, Disney will recall a certain movie off shelves only to rerelease it years later, entirely to generate scarcity and hype. This is a minor case, being only a DVD, mind, but it's still an example of what corporations can and will do. For instance, BP is currently investing in renewable energy. This sounds good until you realise that they could monopolise it within Australia, thereby being able to enforce artificial scarcity on an unlimited resource.

Corporations want your money. That doesn't make them evil. What makes some corporations awful is how they go about getting it, and if BP were to, as above, enforce artificial scarcity of an unlimited resource, then I would consider that evil. Because it's unlimited. Even under capitalist theory, it makes no sense to restrict it since no conflict can be fought in any way over an unlimited resource.

Unless you impose artificial scarcity for business purposes.

Socialism is the direct reverse of that, using industrial production to cater towards known human need with no concept of charge for basic living requirements.

Nova · 2011-10-16 06:14:24

Yah. I'm interpreting everything under the guise of capitalism, quite simply because it works. Scarcity (also, the scarcity does not need to be artificial :x Things can become scarce quite easily on their own) is not all that bad a thing when it's not essentials.

Plus, things like money provide incentive for people to do things :x

MillerCross · 2011-10-16 06:22:39

I'm interpreting everything under the guise of capitalism, quite simply because it works

But the situation propose does not work under the guise and rules of capitalism. The only way of invalidating Alex argument would be if you proved that the characteristics inherent to socialsim don't work the way he's proposing they work.

may i suggest a training montage?

Nova · 2011-10-16 06:33:04

okay

easy

how are you going to provide incentive for people to work on all this? at the moment we just pay people to do it. if you have no incentive, you'll be lucky to get anywhere near enough people to do all the things that are currently done using this incentive.

so you'd need to find a way to provide incentive that doesn't boil down to 'we'll give you this stuff that you can't get if you don't do this work' because that's then enforcing scarcity again thus turning the incentive offered into basically another form of currency

and you need to find a way to do this for every single job out there, because just about all of them are necessary even under the guise of a socialist society :x

MadassAlex · 2011-10-16 07:02:32

Supporting the community. I'm not going to argue that it would be easily to alter social incentives to place value on work, but it has to start with something universal. That is, "If you work, our emulation of post-scarcity society can continue to run". It helps that making industry more efficient could cut down on work hours quite a lot; some suggest that the average work day could be made into four hours via the efficiency of supplying for consumption rather than capital.

Nova · 2011-10-16 07:05:54

Someone else's job :x

How many times have you heard people say "If I didn't have to go work to pay the bills, I would stay home all day and play video games" or some variation thereof? Quite a lot of people purely go out and work to earn money :x

MillerCross · 2011-10-16 07:57:56

How many times have you heard people say "If I didn't have to go work to pay the bills, I would stay home all day and play video games" or some variation thereof? Quite a lot of people purely go out and work to earn money :x

Normally such work is enforced either via force or law when the money incentive is out.

Either that or get a reward for your work that is not necessarily money. Like the capability to buy videogames. Everybody gets the basics, but the luxuries come with work.

Nova · 2011-10-16 08:04:31

so instead

instead of capitalism

it's basically "Go to work or we'll make you go to work"

That's not free :c

And as to

Either that or get a reward for your work that is not necessarily money. Like the capability to buy videogames. Everybody gets the basics, but the luxuries come with work.

As I said just before

That's basically just enforcing scarcity again

Which is what socialism is all about getting rid of, IIRC

MadassAlex · 2011-10-16 08:15:00

I think you take too dull a perspective on human nature. Besides, plenty of people do jobs they don't have to or feel a duty towards; consider military service. People do want to fill up their time with things that interest them. For some, that's endless consumption. For others, there's a contribution involved.

To be fair, socialism is meant to be a bridge between capitalism and true post-scarcity, the latter of which eliminates pretty much all non-professional human work.

Nova · 2011-10-16 08:26:14

I think you take too dull a perspective on human nature.

I like to call it a realist approach, but it may be considered a cynical approach.

However, a lot of the things that interest people aren't involved in the jobs that need to be done. For example, serving people at a fast-food checkout.

MadassAlex · 2011-10-16 08:32:27

I'm not sure how fast food fits into socialism, given the waste of resources involved.

Nova · 2011-10-16 08:35:47

It's possible, although unlikely to happen in our current economy, to absolutely minimize their waste and still keep up their efficiency

It would just take a lot of money and effort, is the thing

captainbrass · 2011-10-16 09:06:13

Here are some of my thoughts on this vexed question:-

1. This campaign or whatever it is should just be renamed "We vote Republican" and be done with it. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out these "ordinary people" were all actors and that the whole thing was funded by a Texan oil billionaire.

2. If you're struggling as much as some of these people claim, you probably aren't really middle class anyway. A lot of people are basically working class but in denial because they think that it means "men in boiler suits who work in factories" as opposed to "members of the lower socio-economic strata."

3. Nobody since Horatio Alger has genuinely believed that the solution to poverty is for poor people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It's just a convenient excuse for the rich and their apologists.

4. In spite of the complete wrongness of her opinions, that blonde girl is hot.

Kinkajou · 2011-10-16 09:08:53

4. In spite of the complete wrongness of her opinions, that blonde girl is hot.

Glad I'm not alone then.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-10-16 14:09:42

> that picture
> taxes and regulations and fees

Some people think that government can kill economy. Maybe.

But I have yet to meet economy that can exist without demand.

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-10-16 21:38:04

Yeah, the guy that has to work three jobs. Blogging, television, and radio.

You know, it would be nice if Chagen actually replied to my counterpoint about goods being made by cheap foreign labour.

Chagen · 2011-10-16 21:40:19

"You know, it would be nice if Chagen actually replied to my counterpoint about goods being made by cheap foreign labour."

It's not exactly the focus of what I was saying.

These good are being produced for a corporation. The same corporations people pour hate onto....while using the services built by said corporations.

The entire platform of Occupy Wall Street is built on selfishness, hypocrisy, and hedonism.

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-10-16 21:42:04

"These good are being produced for a corporation. The same corporations people pour hate onto....while using the services built by said corporations."

And who are the foundation that actually carry out the services or build the goods?

glennmagusharvey · 2011-10-16 22:12:17

lol personhood of corporations

Malkavian · 2011-10-16 22:19:27

Like I said Chagen, these people are not against corporations. They're against corporations acting unethically and immorally. Two very different things.

Besides the company that made their iphones isn't actually one of the ones they're protesting.