Freedom from poverty a human right?

[Michael]

The essays draw from philosophy, economics, law and political science to address what a human right to be free from poverty demands. The moral, human right to be free from severe poverty is not disputed among these authors. A number of compelling themes do emerge, however, as points of departure among the contributors. These include: the origin and nature of the right itself, the consequent duties and obligations such a right imposes, the scope and limits of a human right, mechanisms for achieving the right, the moral and legal effects of the non-attainment of the right.

Book Review (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/reviews/2008/08/freedom-from-poverty-as-human-right-who.html)

Well this little book review (by the American Political Science Association) seems rather topical given our ongoing discussion in the Philosophy section about Human Rights.

[partofme]

I'm not sure. If so then that would mean governments would be morally obligated to at least improve social safety nets to the point in which nobody is in poverty. Of course the definition of poverty is different around the world I would think since I know people with cars, computers, and dvd players that are probably technically in poverty by American standards.

[Michael]

I'm not sure. If so then that would mean governments would be morally obligated to at least improve social safety nets to the point in which nobody is in poverty. Of course the definition of poverty is different around the world I would think since I know people with cars, computers, and dvd players that are probably technically in poverty by American standards.
Indeed, that's my take on the issue. Institutionalized and court-ordered income redistribution is what this requires.

Might as well make "Freedom from hardship" or "Freedom from sadness" human rights. :rolleyes:

[Korimyr the Rat]

Yeah, we'll see how much freedom from poverty is a human right next time the crops-- or the markets-- fail.

Just because it is in society's best interest to alleviate poverty does not mean that it is anybody's right to be free from it.

[Michael]

Just because it is in society's best interest to alleviate poverty does not mean that it is anybody's right to be free from it.
Brilliant point! :)

I might add that I think that it is impossible eliminate or reduce poverty. Humans place way too much importance on 'relative' degrees. Thus, anyone who is less than average can or will claim poverty.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I might add that I think that it is impossible eliminate or reduce poverty. Humans place way too much importance on 'relative' degrees. Thus, anyone who is less than average can or will claim poverty.

I certainly agree with you that as long as inequality of material wealth exists, poverty will exist in one form or another.

But I disagree with the notion that this means it is impossible to abolish poverty-- it just requires that the inequality of material wealth be abolished along with it. This is possible, though there are certainly valid arguments as to why it may or may not be desirable; I lean toward considering it desirable, if only because it would be a side effect of adopting a more rational, efficient system of distribution.

It is possible for every human being on the planet, several times over, to have all of the food and water they need, all of the medicine they need and the doctors to prescribe it, warm and waterproof shelter, a lifetime of education-- and even all of the entertainment that they would ever have time to enjoy.

The only thing that they must give up to enjoy this kind of wealth is their irrational attachment to poverty itself-- their belief that some people must have more than others, and that some must have less.

[Michael]

But I disagree with the notion that this means it is impossible to abolish poverty-- it just requires that the inequality of material wealth be abolished along with it. This is possible, though there are certainly valid arguments as to why it may or may not be desirable; I lean toward considering it desirable, if only because it would be a side effect of adopting a more rational, efficient system of distribution.

It is possible for every human being on the planet, several times over, to have all of the food and water they need, all of the medicine they need and the doctors to prescribe it, warm and waterproof shelter, a lifetime of education-- and even all of the entertainment that they would ever have time to enjoy.
The problem with this assertion is that it is entirely theoretical. It is only possible to even imagine this result if one uses the capitalist system of production. No other system of economic production is capable of producing this much stuff.

And that makes a catch-22. Only capitalism can produce enough stuff to supply everyone with everything - and supplying everyone with everything destroys capitalism.

The only thing that they must give up to enjoy this kind of wealth is their irrational attachment to poverty itself-- their belief that some people must have more than others, and that some must have less.
I disagree. Give up the inequalities and you will likely lose the ability to produce all that stuff you need in sufficient quality/quantity to give away.

The human world is always filled with more parasites then producers. Lucky for humans, capitalism multiplies the productive capacity of the producers to an enormous degree that the parasites think its free. The stuff isn't free. Without profits to drive them, they won't be produced.

This reminds me of an argument I used to have with a bunch of anti-nuke activists during the 1980's. They always wanted to just get rid of nukes. I kept saying that to get rid of nukes means getting rid of the mentality that created them - and that means going back to bows, arrows and wood burning stoves. The same mentality that created nuke weapons was the same mentality that put a man on the moon and cures diseases.

[Korimyr the Rat]

The problem with this assertion is that it is entirely theoretical. It is only possible to even imagine this result if one uses the capitalist system of production. No other system of economic production is capable of producing this much stuff.

Not quite accurate, as economics is not the science of production, it is the science of distribution. Goods are produced the same way, regardless of whether the means of production are owned by capitalists, by the workers, or by the State. And the problem with all of these economic systems is fundamentally the same-- they cannot cope with artificial labor, thus they cannot afford to produce goods at anything resembling full capacity.

You're absolutely correct that the current levels of production and distribution would not have been possible without capitalism. However, to argue that capitalism is the best possible economic system is akin to a gentleman of the 15th Century arguing that feudalism is the best possible economic system-- it discounts the possibility of future developments and refinements.

Our technology has improved since the advent of capitalism; this has both rendered capitalism dangerously obsolete and provided us the means by which to replace it with a more effective system. Capitalism is a system of distribution based on scarcity, trading scarce goods for scarce labor. In a system under which neither goods nor labor is scarce, capitalism can only function by creating artificial demand for goods and labor, and by artificially limiting the supply of both.

Essentially, capitalism only remains feasible through war, massive consumer debt, and the encouragement of conspicuous consumption and deliberate waste. I would argue that there are limits to how far these stopgap measures can carry us, besides the fact that they are undesirable in and of themselves.

However, it is possible to escape this cycle. It would be difficult to implement, and would require both a tremendous act of will and years of sustained effort, but it is possible to transition to a priceless economic system under which there would be no shortages. The most difficult part would be in breaking free from the mindset that the reward for work must be material goods-- and that material goods are something that must be earned.

In case I haven't posted it already, more details can be found at Technocracy Headquarters (http://www.technocracy.org).

I disagree. Give up the inequalities and you will likely lose the ability to produce all that stuff you need in sufficient quality/quantity to give away.

The human world is always filled with more parasites then producers. Lucky for humans, capitalism multiplies the productive capacity of the producers to an enormous degree that the parasites think its free. The stuff isn't free. Without profits to drive them, they won't be produced.

You've said it yourself. We can afford the parasites. We can afford them under capitalism, we could afford them under mercantilism, and we could afford them under feudalism. Under Technocracy, there is the added benefit that with far less onerous work requirements, there would be fewer parasites-- and we would be in an even better position to be able to afford them.

If you don't need profits to survive, you don't need profits as an incentive to be productive. It is human nature to prefer productivity, and this nature can only be suppressed by the prospect of long hours at an unpleasant job with little prospect for advancement. Shorten the hours, make the work environment more amenable, and give people the education and opportunities needed to advance, and the vast majority of people would be happy to work, even if it didn't make them wealthier than their neighbors.

None of this is impossible. It's all a matter of convincing people of the fact.

[Michael]

Not quite accurate, as economics is not the science of production, it is the science of distribution. Goods are produced the same way, regardless of whether the means of production are owned by capitalists, by the workers, or by the State.
Theoretically true, but in practical reality, there is a huge difference in what kind, which technique and how much goods are produced, and the nature of the product cycle. Capitalist production systems are superior to all others in all such respects because they are demand driven, not 'command' driven.

And the problem with all of these economic systems is fundamentally the same-- they cannot cope with artificial labor, thus they cannot afford to produce goods at anything resembling full capacity.
I don't understand this point in itself. For capitalism, full capacity is entirely theoretical (and not profitable).

Ideal capacity is much better than some arbitrarily determed level of 'full' capacity. Capitalism expands or contracts capacity as market or material conditions warrant. "Full capacity" is an arbitrary, subjective, relative or theoretical construct only (specifically under the capitalist system).

I might also add that your point here ignores/confuses the distinction you stated above regarding economics being the art of distribution - your point conflates production and distribution as one.

Personally, I consider your proposed distinction between production and distribution to be an artificial one. Technically speaking, economics is the art of consumption (from the original Greek meaning 'of the home').

You're absolutely correct that the current levels of production and distribution would not have been possible without capitalism. However, to argue that capitalism is the best possible economic system is akin to a gentleman of the 15th Century arguing that feudalism is the best possible economic system-- it discounts the possibility of future developments and refinements.
I'm a pragmatic realist. If or when a better system than capitalism becomes available, I'm all for it.

As it stands, capitalism is the most powerful, efficient and effective method of supplying the material needs/wants/demands of the largest number of people that is presently known.

Indeed, I've always been intrigued by Marx's theory of history. I honestly believe that Marx's analysis is basically correct in the overall process. That is to say, capitalism can and will be replaced by a new or better economic system some time in the future. Capitalism itself will make this possible.

Our technology has improved since the advent of capitalism; this has both rendered capitalism dangerously obsolete and provided us the means by which to replace it with a more effective system. Capitalism is a system of distribution based on scarcity, trading scarce goods for scarce labor. In a system under which neither goods nor labor is scarce, capitalism can only function by creating artificial demand for goods and labor, and by artificially limiting the supply of both.
Goods and labor are not scarce precisely because capitalism has made them so. That is a measure of the success of capitalism.

That is similar to the process by which feudalism became mostly obsolete - feudalism succeeded in doing what was needed to be done - provide security and stability. It provided enough security and stability that a middle class was able to rise from the profits of mercantile trade (capitalism). And that middle class used their new economic system to overthrow the old regime and rule in its place (to this day).

According to Marx's theory of history, and I do agree on this point, capitalism is in the process of creating the means of its own replacement. That process is obviously not very advanced because we can't even see what the new system is going to be yet - we can only make guesses at this point in time. But capitalism is clearly nearing the end of its run - the average rate of return on capital is down into single digits now across most of the western world. It is only in 2nd or 3rd world countries that can one see low double-digit return rates on capital investment (with the appropriate higher legal-political-market risk factors that go with investing in the 2nd-3rd world).

(my apologies for the Marxist digression, but I suppose it is relevant and quite 'on-topic' for a thread about poverty & human rights)

Essentially, capitalism only remains feasible through war, massive consumer debt, and the encouragement of conspicuous consumption and deliberate waste. I would argue that there are limits to how far these stopgap measures can carry us, besides the fact that they are undesirable in and of themselves.
These are examples of non-capitalist behavior mascarading as 'capitalism'.

These are actually parasite-like games where a party seeks to profit from control of a resource (such as property or cash) - renting it out to others, rather than using the resource as actual investment capital (hence the term 'rentier').

The key idea to note is that these examples are of economic activity without any actual 'production'. Thus, it is not actual capitalism. Capitalism is a system of production (a 'mode of production' to be precise).

That this type of activity is apparently on the increase, that is a sign of the weakness of actual capitalist process at this time. As capitalism becomes less able to produce massive profits over time, other non-capitalist strategies become comparatively more attractive over time. Rentier type behavior was a notably common one during later feudal times...

However, it is possible to escape this cycle. It would be difficult to implement, and would require both a tremendous act of will and years of sustained effort, but it is possible to transition to a priceless economic system under which there would be no shortages. The most difficult part would be in breaking free from the mindset that the reward for work must be material goods-- and that material goods are something that must be earned.
I strongly disagree that any 'vanguard' can lead the world to some utopia.

The authority needed to 'will' the transition is the authority that shall rule it all and forever. I don't care for human authority systems. They always tend to be nasty and brutish when unchecked, and 'checking' them is very difficult.

I'd rather let capitalism create the means of its own replacement, according to 'invisible-hand' like group actions of large numbers. That process does appear to be functional - though it tends to be a 'slow but sure' one.

In case I haven't posted it already, more details can be found at Technocracy Headquarters (http://www.technocracy.org).
Freshmeat! :D

You may expect my thorough critique to follow (when I have more time) - posted its own thread. :)

You've said it yourself. We can afford the parasites. We can afford them under capitalism, we could afford them under mercantilism, and we could afford them under feudalism. Under Technocracy, there is the added benefit that with far less onerous work requirements, there would be fewer parasites-- and we would be in an even better position to be able to afford them.
I dispute the assumed efficiency of this proposed system of production.

I can only accept the principle of technocracy when it is divorced from authoritarianism. Technocracy appears to have merit only if it is anarchistic in its essential form.

If you don't need profits to survive, you don't need profits as an incentive to be productive. It is human nature to prefer productivity, and this nature can only be suppressed by the prospect of long hours at an unpleasant job with little prospect for advancement. Shorten the hours, make the work environment more amenable, and give people the education and opportunities needed to advance, and the vast majority of people would be happy to work, even if it didn't make them wealthier than their neighbors.

None of this is impossible. It's all a matter of convincing people of the fact.
If all you need to do is 'convince people of the fact' then it is impossible.
Facts tend to speak for themselves (figuratively speaking). No one had to 'convince' anyone to adopt the capitalist system. It just got adopted because it worked well and it grew because it kept working really well.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Capitalist production systems are superior to all others in all such respects because they are demand driven, not 'command' driven.

As is Technocracy. "Purchases" are tracked in order to determine how many items of a given nature must be produced, and each administrative department is measured strictly on how well it meets the demands of the consumer-- in both ensuring sufficient quantity to meet demand, and ensuring that excess production is not wasted.

Indeed, I've always been intrigued by Marx's theory of history. I honestly believe that Marx's analysis is basically correct in the overall process. That is to say, capitalism can and will be replaced by a new or better economic system some time in the future. Capitalism itself will make this possible.

I would not disagree with this statement, but I would argue that it has already made its replacement possible and that its replacement is only delayed by lack of popular awareness-- awareness delayed by reactionary forces in society in the same fashion that the adoption of capitalism itself was delayed by the reactionary forces of its day.

Goods and labor are not scarce precisely because capitalism has made them so. That is a measure of the success of capitalism.

Again, I would not argue with this statement. However, now that it is possible for goods and labor to not be scarce, they must be kept artificially so because capitalism is only viable for handling distribution of scarce resources. Where goods and labor are not scarce, capitalism falls apart-- as demonstrated by the Market crash of 1929 and the food shortages of the 1930s and 1940s.

Indeed, it is the same problem that leads to the failure of socialist economies, as they attempt to produce equal distribution of abundance using the same tools as capitalism.

I strongly disagree that any 'vanguard' can lead the world to some utopia.

Any vanguard capable of doing such would either need to be the same owners of capital who are benefitting from the current system, or people who would need to seize control of that capital by revolutionary action-- which would destroy the industrial capacity necessary to build the technate.

When I speak of will, I mean that it would require the will of a much larger group of people-- larger than even would be necessary for a successful revolution. It would require not only a majority, but a supermajority. A supermajority of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie, and then enough owners who are willing to sacrifice their position in the current order for the chance to live in a better one.

I dispute the assumed efficiency of this proposed system of production.

I can only accept the principle of technocracy when it is divorced from authoritarianism. Technocracy appears to have merit only if it is anarchistic in its essential form.

It has no connection to authoritarianism. If I have given that impression, it is carryover from my beliefs over what is necessary under the current system.

Technocracy is apolitical on matters of authority. It only requires authority in matters of how the necessary goods and services are to be provided, and such authority extends only over workers during working hours. It has no such authority over what is to be produced, in what fields people shall work, or what anybody does in their non-working time unless they are interfering with the means of production and distribution.

As for what authority exists over people's free time, that is yet to be determined and many technocrats do indeed favor anarchist-leaning notions. I am not even certain how much of my native authoritarianism would be preserved, since either the necessity or the means of many of my ideal programs would be abolished.

[Michael]

As is Technocracy. "Purchases" are tracked in order to determine how many items of a given nature must be produced, and each administrative department is measured strictly on how well it meets the demands of the consumer-- in both ensuring sufficient quantity to meet demand, and ensuring that excess production is not wasted.
That sounds big-brotherish (tracking) and bureaucratic.

Changing the source of the 'production orders' from an owner-capitalist to some bureaucratic committee doesn't improve anything (far from it - you end up with a 'responsibility' problem).

Btw, any production system that still uses wage-labor production will still be as ugly as capitalism. It doesn't matter who signs the paycheck, it is the paycheck that is demeaning and the source of 'alienation' for the worker.

I would not disagree with this statement, but I would argue that it has already made its replacement possible and that its replacement is only delayed by lack of popular awareness-- awareness delayed by reactionary forces in society in the same fashion that the adoption of capitalism itself was delayed by the reactionary forces of its day.

The shift from feudalism to capitalism as the dominant mode of production was a slow, steady and evolutionary change that spanned centuries. Sure the established feudal powers tended to try to block the advance of capitalist techniques, but it was always a rear-guard action that only just slowed the process a bit if it didn't fail entirely.

If a new economic production system is better, it will be adopted no matter what. Capitalism didn't need any revolution, no vanguard party, no propaganda, no tricks, no subsidies, no help of any kind to overtake feudalism as the dominant mode of production. It did so because it was better, more efficient and more effective. The ultimate human need for production to occur is the driving force behind improvements in the form or system of production used.

I'll put my money on passive (economic) evolution over active (political) revolution every time.

Again, I would not argue with this statement. However, now that it is possible for goods and labor to not be scarce, they must be kept artificially so because capitalism is only viable for handling distribution of scarce resources. Where goods and labor are not scarce, capitalism falls apart-- as demonstrated by the Market crash of 1929 and the food shortages of the 1930s and 1940s.

Indeed, it is the same problem that leads to the failure of socialist economies, as they attempt to produce equal distribution of abundance using the same tools as capitalism.
There is no known real-world example of any socialist economy producing a material abundance of anything at all. They all have consistently fallen short of capitalist material abundance in comparison.

Ergo, it is entirely theoretical or hypothetical to speak of any socialist system of production actually producing 'abundance'. Only capitalism has a proven track record of actually producing a 'material abundance'.

(It is curious to note that in WW2 that the Soviets defeated the Nazis primarily due to superior strategy. The US/UK defeated the Nazis primarily using their industrial power of material abundance.)

Any vanguard capable of doing such would either need to be the same owners of capital who are benefitting from the current system, or people who would need to seize control of that capital by revolutionary action-- which would destroy the industrial capacity necessary to build the technate.

When I speak of will, I mean that it would require the will of a much larger group of people-- larger than even would be necessary for a successful revolution. It would require not only a majority, but a supermajority. A supermajority of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie, and then enough owners who are willing to sacrifice their position in the current order for the chance to live in a better one.
If technocracy is as superior as you believe, then it will prevail without any active need to push for it.

If it isn't, then it will only come about by authoritarianism.

It has no connection to authoritarianism. If I have given that impression, it is carryover from my beliefs over what is necessary under the current system.
It has a connection with authoritarianism because that's what will ultimately be needed to install the program. That's the weakspot of all socialist systems. Authoritarianism is needed to keep the natural human inclination for freedom, competition and selfish un-cooperation from spoiling the show.

Capitalism has proven itself remarkably able to adapt to (and work with) socialism, cooperativism, collectivism, communitarianism and whatnot. None of them has ever posed any real threat to the system of capitalist dominance. Capitalism works. That's a powerful argument in its favor.

Capitalism as a system of production may in the future be replaced, but only by a system of production that works better, given the conditions of the future. Subjectively choosing a system of production that one admires and then seeking to install that one as the dominant mode of production doesn't strike me as very effective. Seems like politics (cart) is driving the economy (horse) there and that's ass backwards. Production is the base component. Politics is what is built on top of the production system (using the surplus generated by the production system).

Technocracy is apolitical on matters of authority. It only requires authority in matters of how the necessary goods and services are to be provided, and such authority extends only over workers during working hours. It has no such authority over what is to be produced, in what fields people shall work, or what anybody does in their non-working time unless they are interfering with the means of production and distribution.
I work in custom manufacturing. "How" is the same as "what". They are one and the same. The process of 'how' determines 'what'. Or the desired 'what' determines the process of 'how'.

Just like 'production' and 'distribution' are one and the same. They can only be separated in the abstract. In reality, they are intimately and integrally connected to each other.

Production of food that can't be distributed in a timely fashion is useless and wasteful since food production can rot away to nothing very quickly - even if it is produced to the finest art and specification.

As for what authority exists over people's free time, that is yet to be determined and many technocrats do indeed favor anarchist-leaning notions. I am not even certain how much of my native authoritarianism would be preserved, since either the necessity or the means of many of my ideal programs would be abolished.
Glad to hear that you are 'migrating' over to technocracy from authoritarianism. That's progress! :)

Maybe with a few hundred more of these long-winded thread arguments, I might drag you over to the side of liberty and classical liberalism! :D

P.S. I haven't yet reviewed the Technocracy website. I'll post a tread on it when I do.

[Korimyr the Rat]

That sounds big-brotherish (tracking) and bureaucratic.

It is no more onerous than the point-of-sale tracking performed by big box stores, noting which items have been purchased in which quantities, and simultaneously with which other items. It is not even necessary to track by whom the items are received, like grocery stores do with their discount cards and which credit cards do automatically.

There is no bureaucracy required here-- other functions may require it-- and really, nothing more than a technician to monitor the process for errors.

Changing the source of the 'production orders' from an owner-capitalist to some bureaucratic committee doesn't improve anything (far from it - you end up with a 'responsibility' problem).

The errors in command economies derive from attempting to dictate what the population will require, instead of monitoring what they use and modifying production accordingly. Technocracy requires nothing more than the same toolkit that Wal-Mart uses to keep its shelves stocked, and the Wal-Mart manager has no more motivation or incentive to perform his job adequately than the shopping facility manager within the technate does.

Btw, any production system that still uses wage-labor production will still be as ugly as capitalism. It doesn't matter who signs the paycheck, it is the paycheck that is demeaning and the source of 'alienation' for the worker.

Hence the desire to abolish wage-labor entirely, and reduce both the incidence of soul-grinding work and the amount of time that people must spend at necessary work. My entire point, and the argument of Technocracy, is that socialism failed partially because it maintained the same system of wage-labor that created the problems it was invented to solve.

Material security, shorter work hours, and the feeling of doing necessary work is a recipe for job satisfaction.

There is no known real-world example of any socialist economy producing a material abundance of anything at all. They all have consistently fallen short of capitalist material abundance in comparison.

That is because socialism is nothing more than State-owned capitalism. It is no surprise that when the means of production are subverted for political ends, they will become less efficient at either supplying needs or turning profit than if they are allowed to operate for profit-- especially when turning a profit is still necessary.

However, it is the necessity for profit that makes capitalism less efficient than Technocracy. Capitalism is most effective, first and foremost, at making profit; supplying the wants and needs of the population is a secondary objective.

Socialism measures economic success based on politics, and it is most effective at supporting political figures. Capitalism measures it based on profit, and it is most effective at earning profits. Technocracy measures economic success on the degree to which every product desired is available, and every product available is consumed, and it sets the issue of accomplishing this goal outside of the demands of either politics or profit. The focus of Technocracy is strictly on ensuring that the people get everything they need and that production is not wasted.

Ergo, it is entirely theoretical or hypothetical to speak of any socialist system of production actually producing 'abundance'. Only capitalism has a proven track record of actually producing a 'material abundance'.

Capitalism is more than capable of producing material abundance, but it is not capable of sustaining this state. It produces until labor becomes too cheap, and then it implodes. The history of the past seventy years has been one of industrialized countries doing everything in their power to keep their price of labor artificially high-- and then suffering economic losses at the hands of countries who had yet to achieve a brief period of abundance.

Authoritarianism is needed to keep the natural human inclination for freedom, competition and selfish un-cooperation from spoiling the show.

There is nothing within Technocracy that opposes freedom. There is nothing in it to stop a man from working in the field he desires, relocate as he pleases, or to leave employment he considers unsuitable. Indeed, this is more freedom than the same man would possess in either a capitalist or socialist society. Only anarchism offers more freedom, and it offers much less in the way of security.

There is also plenty of room for competition, as departments producing similar goods would certainly prefer that their product is the more successful-- that is, the one more desired and more consumed by the population. There is competition within one's department for performance awards and for promotion, and within one's field for recognition and prestige.

And there is little to be selfish about, both when one has more access to wealth than one desires, and when noone else requires that you share with them. Certainly, one could be selfish with one's time... but when there is less time demanded of you, and no other way to earn esteem than by working for the benefit of all, it is a pointless endeavor.

No authoritarianism is required to transition to such a system, and indeed, an authoritarian system could not perform the task without the active participation of the people who actually perform all of the jobs that are needed by the technate. Without the consent of the workers, the engineers, the supervisors, and the managers, the technate cannot be built.

That is the purpose behind promoting Technocracy; it is not to create a political movement, or to demand an autocratic change, but to inform people so that they can create the technate when the impetus gains enough momentum.

Glad to hear that you are 'migrating' over to technocracy from authoritarianism. That's progress! :)

I'm not migrating; I hold the two belief systems concurrently, one for the practical considerations of today and the other for the better world that can be created tomorrow. The fact that Technocracy would abolish the means of my authoritarianism is just a price I am willing to pay.

Besides, four hours a day would still leave me plenty of time with which to convince people to align themselves with strict moral principles and chain their will to a sense of obligation.

Maybe with a few hundred more of these long-winded thread arguments, I might drag you over to the side of liberty and classical liberalism! :D

Highly doubtful, given that my rejection of liberalism isn't a matter of political allegiance-- I side with the liberals, more often than not-- but a matter of rejecting and repudiating the philosophical premises that liberal political thought is based upon. I object to liberalism for the same reason that I object to anarchism; the human animal requires strict rules and hierarchy to maintain both internal and social order.

We need the arbitrary rules of society, that liberal thought declares voluntary, in order to maintain our understanding of ourselves and our understanding of our place in society.

But that is a topic for another thread. ;)

[dilettante]

There is nothing within Technocracy that opposes freedom. There is nothing in it to stop a man from working in the field he desires, relocate as he pleases, or to leave employment he considers unsuitable. Indeed, this is more freedom than the same man would possess in either a capitalist or socialist society. Only anarchism offers more freedom, and it offers much less in the way of security.


I'm curious as to how this would work wrt to the fact that some fields are more popular than others. What if everyone wants to be a food critic and no one wants to be a garbage man?
In a capitalist system, the market would ensure there were not too many food critics or too few garbage men.
In a (state-run) socialist system, the state would forcibly do the same by assigning people to particular tasks.
How, precisely, would the Technocracy solve the problem different? Some jobs are so odious that people would not momentarily work at them (even for four hours a day) unless doing so was necessary.

[Korimyr the Rat]

How, precisely, would the Technocracy solve the problem different? Some jobs are so odious that people would not momentarily work at them (even for four hours a day) unless doing so was necessary.

Make the jobs less odious. Automate them as much as possible. Make less pleasant jobs part of the career/training path for more desirable positions. Give special recognition for people who volunteer for nasty jobs.

[dilettante]

Make the jobs less odious. Automate them as much as possible. Make less pleasant jobs part of the career/training path for more desirable positions. Give special recognition for people who volunteer for nasty jobs.

So does technocracy assume that it is possible to establish a system in which everyone wanted to work and, moreover, that just enough people wanted to work at the appropriate occupations so that everything balances out?
I mean, again, what if you have 1000 people who really want to be food critics (or movie stars) and only 2 who want to work with garbage, even after garbage work has been made more "pleasant"?

And who would have the power/authority/motivation to make the positions more desirable, to arrange for the special recognition or to insert those sorts of jobs into career tracks?

I suppose I'm not quite certain what technocracy really looks like, how it would handle a diversity of social visions or human pride and selfishness.

[Michael]

It is no more onerous than the point-of-sale tracking performed by big box stores, noting which items have been purchased in which quantities, and simultaneously with which other items. It is not even necessary to track by whom the items are received, like grocery stores do with their discount cards and which credit cards do automatically.

There is no bureaucracy required here-- other functions may require it-- and really, nothing more than a technician to monitor the process for errors.
Systems that envision human beings operating like cogs in a smoothly run machine scare me.

The errors in command economies derive from attempting to dictate what the population will require, instead of monitoring what they use and modifying production accordingly. Technocracy requires nothing more than the same toolkit that Wal-Mart uses to keep its shelves stocked, and the Wal-Mart manager has no more motivation or incentive to perform his job adequately than the shopping facility manager within the technate does.
Wal-Mart doesn't have to invent the product and create the demand for it. They just pander to existing demands as a distributor. That's technically easy to do (the easiest part to automate).

If you are going to devote that much energy and enterprise to efficiency, why not consider effectiveness? It would be a whole lot easier just to ban new products-services and all advertising. Demand will diminish soon enough. Humans really only need the basics - food and shelter - maybe a few labor-saving conveniences perhaps. But demand for everything else is little more than 'redirected' emotional-psychological reactions channeled through advertising and peer group pressures. Without Madison Avenue, no need for Wal-Mart.

In other words, why bother? What's so wonderful about technical efficiency of distribution anyways? Capitalism provides enough to cover off superfluous redundancies (indeed, it tends to create them!).

And production is not a technical problem at all. That's the easiest part of commerce. We can train uneducated half-wits to do that. Sales-demand and service management is everything. Product development is also important and fairly challenging. These elements/aspects of commerce and production are not nearly as amendable to 'technocratic' solutions as are issues of distribution and/or production.

When it comes to modern business, distribution and production are soooooo twentieth century.

Hence the desire to abolish wage-labor entirely...
Desire to get rid of it is not an actual plan that eliminates it. If it isn't eliminated, its no improvement on capitalism. And it it isn't an improvement on capitalism, why bother?

...My entire point, and the argument of Technocracy, is that socialism failed partially because it maintained the same system of wage-labor that created the problems it was invented to solve.
I'll agree with that. Socialism in practice has always meant state-owner-capitalism and that eliminates none of the negative consequences of capitalism but still preserves the worst feature of capitalism (wage-labor).

Wage-labor is way better than obligatory-feudal-labor, no doubt about that. How is technocratic-wage-labor better than capitalist-wage-labor?

Material security, shorter work hours, and the feeling of doing necessary work is a recipe for job satisfaction.
Please supply data to defend this point. It doesn't follow common sense.

All known studies of those who 'love' their work show way different values in play - and notably long hours are very common. Material security is also oddly reversed. Those who love their work the most usually have little in the way of material security in it as they are almost always self-employed.

I think Marx was right, that 'man is a productive animal', meaning humans generally do like to work. The key point is that most people would prefer to work for themselves rather than for others. That is where 'happiness' comes in.

That is because socialism is nothing more than State-owned capitalism. It is no surprise that when the means of production are subverted for political ends, they will become less efficient at either supplying needs or turning profit than if they are allowed to operate for profit-- especially when turning a profit is still necessary.
Turning a profit was not necessary under the Soviet system of production. The goal there was to 'balance the books'. Profits made the books unbalanced. Inputs must equal outputs.

However, it is the necessity for profit that makes capitalism less efficient than Technocracy. Capitalism is most effective, first and foremost, at making profit; supplying the wants and needs of the population is a secondary objective.
Agreed. In theory, technocracy appears that it may be theoretically more efficient than capitalism according to measurements of distribution and/or production of goods.

However, as I noted above, capitalism has proven that distribution and production of goods is the easy part of economic systems.

Socialism measures economic success based on politics, and it is most effective at supporting political figures. Capitalism measures it based on profit, and it is most effective at earning profits. Technocracy measures economic success on the degree to which every product desired is available, and every product available is consumed, and it sets the issue of accomplishing this goal outside of the demands of either politics or profit. The focus of Technocracy is strictly on ensuring that the people get everything they need and that production is not wasted.
Life measures success based on what works. Socialism failed. Capitalism worked. Technocracy is a theory.

And why is it so important that production isn't wasted? I can think of other values that I'd rate much higher as 'desireable'. Human liberty for one. Material abundance is also nice, but not necessary. Human happiness is another good one. Human equity and justice are also pretty good values I'd put higher than 'not wasting production'.

And that wage-labor thing just isn't going to go away in your Wal-Mart distributed world. I don't like seeing human lives or human imaginations wasted laboring for someone else - no matter how 'pleasant' you dress up the workshop, it is still a workshop. Your technocracy doesn't eliminate this. Someone has to run the machines that make the objects that these people are demanding. Someone has to pick the fruit off the trees in order for people to be able to eat it.

Capitalism is more than capable of producing material abundance, but it is not capable of sustaining this state. It produces until labor becomes too cheap, and then it implodes. The history of the past seventy years has been one of industrialized countries doing everything in their power to keep their price of labor artificially high-- and then suffering economic losses at the hands of countries who had yet to achieve a brief period of abundance.
Another very good point. You do make some wonderful critiques of socialism and capitalism. Both are quite flawed, though I'd argue that capitalism is much less flawed because it actually functions and socialism doesn't.

Btw, I suspect technocracy would fail for the same reason socialism did. Not enough idealistic, altruistic, competent and devoted socialists were available to run it. There's usually enough around to get the game going, but thirty or forty years down the road, not so much. Then things just decay, or suffer inertia. And then you get the 'Kafka-esque bureaucracy'. It never starts off that way. The 'Kafka-esque bureaucracy' is never part of the initial plan. It is just what the system ends up producing by its own tortured logic.

There is nothing within Technocracy that opposes freedom. There is nothing in it to stop a man from working in the field he desires, relocate as he pleases, or to leave employment he considers unsuitable.
Does it give the freedom not to work?

Secondly, I remember years ago running two ads in the newspaper to hire two new people at work. One was for a 'graphic designer' (and paid about $10 per hour). The second one was for 'lithographic press operator' (and paid about $30 per hour). We'd get several hundred phone calls and a hundred resumes within 48 hours for the graphic designer job. We'd be lucky to get 3 calls for the litho stripper job within a week or two (not even wannabe trainees begging for it).

This general pattern can be found everywhere. Certain jobs will attract huge numbers of people who want to do it - these are usually fairly easy jobs. Jobs that are much more difficult to do or require higher skills, get very little general interest.

How will technocracy solve this 'distribution' problem of 'fun' jobs and 'not-fun' jobs? Who really wants to be a garbageman? That's a really nasty job.

There is also plenty of room for competition, as departments producing similar goods would certainly prefer that their product is the more successful-- that is, the one more desired and more consumed by the population. There is competition within one's department for performance awards and for promotion, and within one's field for recognition and prestige.
And anyone who has worked in any larger company can tell you, half the people who work there couldn't care less about performance awards or promotion. Those are always secondary or substitutes for pay raises.

And there is not enough 'prestige' avialable in the world to give it all away to everyone who shows up to work.

And there is little to be selfish about, both when one has more access to wealth than one desires, and when noone else requires that you share with them. Certainly, one could be selfish with one's time... but when there is less time demanded of you, and no other way to earn esteem than by working for the benefit of all, it is a pointless endeavor.

I can live without esteem if it means not having to get up for work each morning. I don't go to work for 'esteem'. Esteem is nice, but only once the bills are paid and I'm comfortable.

No authoritarianism is required to transition to such a system, and indeed, an authoritarian system could not perform the task without the active participation of the people who actually perform all of the jobs that are needed by the technate. Without the consent of the workers, the engineers, the supervisors, and the managers, the technate cannot be built.
So the elite billionaires who control the big corporations are just going to vanish overnight and the lowly people who 'run' the company will keep running it as before - except orders come from some computer somewhere instead of the top-floor corner office? Something seems missing here.

That is the purpose behind promoting Technocracy; it is not to create a political movement, or to demand an autocratic change, but to inform people so that they can create the technate when the impetus gains enough momentum.

Forgive me, but this sounds like 'raising consciousness'. Apparently this technocracy isn't good enough of an organizing system to actually organize itself or able to prove itself superior? We just have to learn to trust the theory?

That doesn't sound convincing at all.

I'm not migrating; I hold the two belief systems concurrently, one for the practical considerations of today and the other for the better world that can be created tomorrow. The fact that Technocracy would abolish the means of my authoritarianism is just a price I am willing to pay.
This technocracy stuff seems like a solution in search of an application.

Besides, four hours a day would still leave me plenty of time with which to convince people to align themselves with strict moral principles and chain their will to a sense of obligation.
Four hours a day in a coal mine wouldn't be an improvement over my 8 hour relatively pleasant and easy days at the office.

Highly doubtful, given that my rejection of liberalism isn't a matter of political allegiance-- I side with the liberals, more often than not-- but a matter of rejecting and repudiating the philosophical premises that liberal political thought is based upon. I object to liberalism for the same reason that I object to anarchism; the human animal requires strict rules and hierarchy to maintain both internal and social order.
But don't you see? I hate being a philosophical liberal. I ended up there after rejecting all the other options first. I suspect you will too eventually. You probably won't like it any more than I do, but I'd enjoy the company. :)

We need the arbitrary rules of society, that liberal thought declares voluntary, in order to maintain our understanding of ourselves and our understanding of our place in society.
Liberalism permits sanctions and authority as 'necessary' - they only insist upon the barest minimum for the sake of prudence.

But that is a topic for another thread. ;)
Indeed, I'm long overdue for a thread on liberalism. :D

[Korimyr the Rat]

So does technocracy assume that it is possible to establish a system in which everyone wanted to work and, moreover, that just enough people wanted to work at the appropriate occupations so that everything balances out?

It assumes that it is possible to establish a system in which enough people either want to work, or are convinced by social expectations to work, that the minority who can not or will not work can be supported without creating a burden upon those who do work. While there are fields in which human labor is essential, there is really very little human labor required to maintain our industrial capacity and provide human services.

I mean, again, what if you have 1000 people who really want to be food critics (or movie stars) and only 2 who want to work with garbage, even after garbage work has been made more "pleasant"?

I don't want to paint an inaccurate picture of the technate, since it would be difficult to predict the social structures it would have to develop to continue functioning.

But I would imagine that things would remain similar to how it is now-- if there are 1000 people who want to be "food critics" (I don't suspect that would count as "work" under the technate's definition), there would still be a limited number of positions open and people would have to wait until positions opened up. In the meantime, they would be free to take job training while performing whatever jobs are available.

I've seen it theorized that under the work conditions of the technate, the strong social expectation that people work, and the effort that career counselors would put into finding jobs for everyone-- under the theory that people need work, even if their efforts aren't strictly required-- that a person who is still unwilling to work, or unwilling to take a job while waiting for a more desirable position to come available, is suffering from a form of mental illness and should be treated the same as someone who is psychologically incapable of working.

And who would have the power/authority/motivation to make the positions more desirable, to arrange for the special recognition or to insert those sorts of jobs into career tracks?

Improving the quality of work conditions falls under the auspices of both the individual departments and a special department whose purpose is to improve human services within the technate. The former is motivated because a more pleasant environment leads to more productive employees, and the latter is motivated because his own job is measured, among other things, by the job satisfaction of others.

As for determining career tracks, that would start out as an implementation issue which I would not be qualified to predict. As for modifying those career tracks later, on-the-fly, I would imagine that would either be service department or executive department.

I suppose I'm not quite certain what technocracy really looks like, how it would handle a diversity of social visions or human pride and selfishness.

There are only guesses as to how it would actually look. As for how it handles social visions... those are not matters of economy, so the technate is politically neutral unless the social vision interferes with production or distribution.

It handles human pride by taking into account as part of the system, and by providing opportunities for the human being to advance himself and to take pride in his work. Indeed, the only two motivations for work under such a system, except for the value of the work itself, are pride and prestige-- and the technate leaves plenty of time outside of work hours for the human to seek pride and prestige in artistic and expressive endeavors.

As for human selfishness... it simply takes it out of the equation. There is no means by which to advance except doing the best possible job for the team and for society, and no benefit to advancement except for the opportunity to do more for society.

Laziness would be a bigger problem than selfishness, and I think that laziness is already drastically overrated.

If you are going to devote that much energy and enterprise to efficiency, why not consider effectiveness? It would be a whole lot easier just to ban new products-services and all advertising. Demand will diminish soon enough.

And what do you think happens to the companies which produce all the useless crap once the demand dies down? What happens to the people who work for those companies, and their ability to afford food and shelter-- much less conveniences and luxuries?

If America lived the lifestyle I lead, America would die. Indeed, even people like myself would suffer, because the loss of jobs would spread throughout the entire economy and crush people anyone who was not materially independent from the economy.

I agree with you that simpler, less material lifestyles should be encouraged and pursued, but it is simply not possible under any form of market economy.

In other words, why bother? What's so wonderful about technical efficiency of distribution anyways? Capitalism provides enough to cover off superfluous redundancies (indeed, it tends to create them!).

Because capitalism is unstable, and the dirty tricks we've been using to prop it up cannot last forever. We're running out of countries to bomb and we're approaching the end of our credit limit; how else are we going to create more demand for our products and find ways to limit the supplies?

Wage-labor is way better than obligatory-feudal-labor, no doubt about that. How is technocratic-wage-labor better than capitalist-wage-labor?

Better wages and shorter hours, at the very least. Earlier retirement for people who want it. Better working conditions, and a system which honestly regards workers as ends themselves, instead of a means to an end.

However, as I noted above, capitalism has proven that distribution and production of goods is the easy part of economic systems.

Right. They're the parts that can be automated, leaving the rest of it for human beings to perform. But the fact that production and distribution is "the easy part" is actually a testement to the unviability of industrialized capitalism; that sales marketing demands so much time and energy demonstrates how difficult it is to maintain constant expansion of markets beyond natural human desire.

The system has managed to survive mostly by encouraging everything that I-- and most critics of consumerism-- hate about it. The problem is, people refuse to believe that there are limits, and insist that we can always convince people to buy more stuff.

I don't like seeing human lives or human imaginations wasted laboring for someone else - no matter how 'pleasant' you dress up the workshop, it is still a workshop. Your technocracy doesn't eliminate this.

So, you are unwilling to support a proposal that reduces these things you hate, on the basis that it does not eliminate them. That is irrational, and even in the face of nanomolecular manufacturing and other new technologies, I think it is foolish to believe that working for other people can ever be abolished.

Does it give the freedom not to work?

It gives the freedom to work less and retire sooner. And it doesn't allow people to starve in the meantime.

There is no freedom not to work under any economic or political system.

[Michael]

It assumes that it is possible to establish a system in which enough people either want to work, or are convinced by social expectations to work, that the minority who can not or will not work can be supported without creating a burden upon those who do work. While there are fields in which human labor is essential, there is really very little human labor required to maintain our industrial capacity and provide human services.
True - it doesn't take a lot of human labor to maintain our industrial capacity and to provide human services.

However, it does take a huge amount of human effort to improve anything. Preserving is relatively easy. Building/creating/inventing/improving is a bit harder to command people to do.

And that "convinced by social expectations" sounds a lot like government sponsored peer pressure (or outright propaganda).

I don't want to paint an inaccurate picture of the technate, since it would be difficult to predict the social structures it would have to develop to continue functioning.

But I would imagine that things would remain similar to how it is now-- if there are 1000 people who want to be "food critics" (I don't suspect that would count as "work" under the technate's definition), there would still be a limited number of positions open and people would have to wait until positions opened up. In the meantime, they would be free to take job training while performing whatever jobs are available.

I've seen it theorized that under the work conditions of the technate, the strong social expectation that people work, and the effort that career counselors would put into finding jobs for everyone-- under the theory that people need work, even if their efforts aren't strictly required-- that a person who is still unwilling to work, or unwilling to take a job while waiting for a more desirable position to come available, is suffering from a form of mental illness and should be treated the same as someone who is psychologically incapable of working.
Two points.

1. This sure looks like an economy that is command-driven by a bureaucracy. You tend to deny this in theory, but then fall back to command-driven bureaucracy in response to particular inquiries. The whole logic of this technocratic system is 'bureaucratic' and 'command-driven' by definition. I don't see ANYTHING here that could suggest otherwise.

2. Unwillingness to work for the glory of the technate shall be deemed to be 'proof' of mental illness? Why am I not surprised? That is a classic bureaucratic command-type response to the issue.

Improving the quality of work conditions falls under the auspices of both the individual departments and a special department whose purpose is to improve human services within the technate. The former is motivated because a more pleasant environment leads to more productive employees, and the latter is motivated because his own job is measured, among other things, by the job satisfaction of others.

As for determining career tracks, that would start out as an implementation issue which I would not be qualified to predict. As for modifying those career tracks later, on-the-fly, I would imagine that would either be service department or executive department.
Looks like bureaucrats deciding what is best for all. Such a bureaucratic structure will tend to evolve into an aristocracy over time. The USSR provides an excellent example of the phenomena (children of party officials inheriting high status).

Btw, all of your examples are defined by the language of authority.

There are only guesses as to how it would actually look. As for how it handles social visions... those are not matters of economy, so the technate is politically neutral unless the social vision interferes with production or distribution.
Nothing is really politically neutral.

And who/how shall non-economic issues be governed?

And don't the old, the sick or the weak have a social duty to work and consume as much as everyone else for the good of all?

It handles human pride by taking into account as part of the system, and by providing opportunities for the human being to advance himself and to take pride in his work. Indeed, the only two motivations for work under such a system, except for the value of the work itself, are pride and prestige-- and the technate leaves plenty of time outside of work hours for the human to seek pride and prestige in artistic and expressive endeavors.
How does one take pride in the work that is ordered by, and for the benefit of, others? That's alienation by definition. Even if it is the social group rather than the corporate shareholder or the feudal Lord. To the worker, they are all pretty much the same in that they require the worker to work for someone else's benefit (and command).

The only work that is ultimately moral is work that is freely chosen for the benefit of the self, to the best of one's own conditions, circumstances and aspirations. In many cases, this might be socially beneficial work.

As for human selfishness... it simply takes it out of the equation. There is no means by which to advance except doing the best possible job for the team and for society, and no benefit to advancement except for the opportunity to do more for society.
Human selfishness can no more be 'eliminated' than any other human passion (or vice) for sex, gambling, drinking, recreational drugs, prostitution, gluttony, avarice or laziness.

Laziness would be a bigger problem than selfishness, and I think that laziness is already drastically overrated.
I'm curious by what you mean here about "overrated" laziness.

If you are going to devote that much energy and enterprise to efficiency, why not consider effectiveness? It would be a whole lot easier just to ban new products-services and all advertising. Demand will diminish soon enough.
And what do you think happens to the companies which produce all the useless crap once the demand dies down? What happens to the people who work for those companies, and their ability to afford food and shelter-- much less conveniences and luxuries?

If America lived the lifestyle I lead, America would die. Indeed, even people like myself would suffer, because the loss of jobs would spread throughout the entire economy and crush people anyone who was not materially independent from the economy.

I agree with you that simpler, less material lifestyles should be encouraged and pursued, but it is simply not possible under any form of market economy.

With regard to the first point, that's the point. According to the logic of the technate, eliminating/reducing demand for 'products' is probably the most efficient way of meeting demand for production. Why bother ordering endless production of useless items that people just like? Isn't it easier to reduce the attraction of the useless items so that people won't want them? Then you don't have to bother producing them and that's the easiest and most cost-efficient way to address consumer production. Your technical experts will likely figure this out eventually.

Because capitalism is unstable, and the dirty tricks we've been using to prop it up cannot last forever. We're running out of countries to bomb and we're approaching the end of our credit limit; how else are we going to create more demand for our products and find ways to limit the supplies?
Capitalism (as a technique of production) is only as strong as profits are. As profits decrease over time, so does the 'political power' of capitalism. Capitalist profits are necessary in order for capitalists to purchase political power. No profits equals no power.

Admittedly, capitalist-dependent political regimes may face increasingly tough times or may become unstable, but that's a good thing. That makes it possible for the system to be replaced. Nothing worse than old inefficient power systems clinging to power once their primary source of production power is gone. But that situation never lasts very long.

Capitalism is slowly dying and will eventually die out as the primary mode of production. That makes sense. But I just don't see how any 'committee' is going to organize the shift over to some hypothetical utopia - especially as capitalism is still functional. That's just 'vanguardism' - arguing that people just need to be shown their own best interests (by elite technocrats instead of party officials).

It looks like the same game to me. Technocracy seems to be as dependent upon the capitalist model of wage-labor production as state-socialism always has been. If any proposed economic system involves wage-labor of ANY KIND, it is no improvement on capitalism at all. Wage-labor is held to be the key defining 'evil' of the capitalist system. If that remains, so does the evil.

Better wages and shorter hours, at the very least. Earlier retirement for people who want it. Better working conditions, and a system which honestly regards workers as ends themselves, instead of a means to an end.
Sounds like gilded cages or rewards for the obedient.

Right. They're the parts that can be automated, leaving the rest of it for human beings to perform. But the fact that production and distribution is "the easy part" is actually a testement to the unviability of industrialized capitalism; that sales marketing demands so much time and energy demonstrates how difficult it is to maintain constant expansion of markets beyond natural human desire.
No, it is a testament to the remarkable productive power of capitalism.

Capitalism has been so successful as a 'mode of production' that the concept of production and distribution are considered so easy as to be able to be done by completely uneducated and unskilled workers (of which we always have so many of).

Prior to the advent of capitalism, production and distribution were considered impossibly difficult enterprises to 'improve' or 'expand'. Now they are simple.

Indeed, prior to the advent of capitalism, demand for products of consumption was considered 'infinite'. Now we know that demand is not infinite. That demand needs to be artificially created by capitalist advertising (propaganda) that is evidence that capitalism is nearing reaching physical maximums of demand. Saturating what was once considered
'infinite' is yet another amazing accomplishment of capitalism. These are not flaws. We are so jaded that we take the productions of capitalism for granted. It was not always so in the past under previous economic systems.

For this reason, I'm very suspicious of economic utopias that presume to fix yesterday's problem - and lock us into some hellish tomorrow.

The system has managed to survive mostly by encouraging everything that I-- and most critics of consumerism-- hate about it. The problem is, people refuse to believe that there are limits, and insist that we can always convince people to buy more stuff.
So the real problem with capitalism is that you don't like it?

Sorry, that's not good enough. You must show that you have an economic system that actually is better than capitalism, not one that presumes to just mitigate the worst elements of capitalism and keep the rest. That's just not good enough (even without the authoritarian-bureaucracy that this technate appears to require).

So, you are unwilling to support a proposal that reduces these things you hate, on the basis that it does not eliminate them. That is irrational, and even in the face of nanomolecular manufacturing and other new technologies, I think it is foolish to believe that working for other people can ever be abolished.
1. I don't actually believe that this technocratic system can actually reduce the negative aspects of capitalism. Capitalism has flaws certainly, but it does function rather impressively. Ergo, my rejection of your solution is not illogical. I don't believe that your system can do what you say it can.

2. Take away the huge capitalist windfall that accrues to those who succeed in perfecting nanomolecular manufacturing, and it will likely never actually happen. Your technate needs capitalism to create these new toys for the technate to 'take over and run'. One cannot 'command' new inventions and assign the task to workers. It just doesn't work that way.

It gives the freedom to work less and retire sooner. And it doesn't allow people to starve in the meantime.
People have always starved in the meantime. That's nothing new at all.

As for the freedom to work less and retire sooner, that is indeed already an invention of the capitalist system. Your technate presumes only to try to 'improve' on the capitalist model here. Wage-labor is still wage-labor even if there is slightly less of it.

There is no freedom not to work under any economic or political system.
Except capitalism or feudalism to name two actually known and functional models.

Under capitalism, the wealthy have the luxury and liberty to choose not to work. Under feudalism, the aristocracy have the luxury and liberty of being banned from any labor.

[Americano]

Excellent thread.

In the 1980s, after my introduction to Asian and European commerce on a corporate basis, I argued capitalism as an ideal long-term world economic and caste system would eventually be severely limited by development opportunities and social dependencies. 30-some years later, my opinion feels reinforced.

[Michael]

Excellent thread.
I'm glad you have enjoyed it. It a relatively brief one for the Rat and myself. ;)

We have a remarkable ability to disagree about everything! :D

In the 1980s, after my introduction to Asian and European commerce on a corporate basis, I argued capitalism as an ideal long-term world economic and caste system would eventually be severely limited by development opportunities and social dependencies. 30-some years later, my opinion feels reinforced.
Well, that is essentially what Marx famously predicted.

My personal interpretation is that capitalism will never be actually 'overthrown' - it will simply be replaced as the dominant mode of production by a better system. The invisible hand of the market will eventually make it so. ;)

[Americano]

I'm glad you have enjoyed it. It a relatively brief one for the Rat and myself. ;)

We have a remarkable ability to disagree about everything! :D


Well, that is essentially what Marx famously predicted.

My personal interpretation is that capitalism will never be actually 'overthrown' - it will simply be replaced as the dominant mode of production by a better system. The invisible hand of the market will eventually make it so. ;)

As much as I appreciate commerce that would be a pleasant experience. With the primitive state of Planet Earth, well beyond my lifespan.

[Abruptum]

I don't feel it's a right...but it's the world's governments role of power to provide the best possible living standards for their people as they can.

[SMadsen]

I don't feel it's a right...but it's the world's governments role of power to provide the best possible living standards for their people as they can.
Welcome to the forum , Abruptum.

It can't be a right since granting it as such and, hence, protecting it as such potentially infringes on the rights of others. That being said, it is indeed the role of the world's governments to provide the best for their people.