|
OwlFancier posted:Society and politics are not markets. I would say the
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:So you're saying No, I'm saying social programs get passed because there's enough poor people protesting in the streets (or worse) that the authorities are worried they won't be able to contain the riots and radical movements anymore. This tends to be a limiting factor on rolling back those social programs. Sure, the Republicans probably have the votes to repeal the eight-hour workday, minimum wage laws, overtime laws, and even child labor laws...but if we go back to working conditions from the turn of the last century, we're going to go back to labor relations from the turn of the last century - complete with riots, bombings, and assassination attempts on the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:48
|
|
the market will sort it out
|
I'm curious if someone here could link some UBI papers? I'm also wondering if there's strong opinions on the 1993 Card et al study on fast food and minimum wage and its recent analog from UW and Berkeley. The mutually contradictory results seemed methodology and politically motivated? I honestly haven't read either. I feel like much of the debates around automation and AI are trying to put a probability on something they can't know about. I'm a buggy driver in 1893, what are my thoughts on air travel oligopolies? I think looking forward is useful insofar as it forces us to confront fears in the current system. Malthus and his crisis being an alright example-- he's wrong but for reasons beyond his contemporary understanding E: beyond the Iran paper! Thanks for linking Lurks Morington fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
It might just be Less than Nothing speaking. But the productivity gains that came with capitalism... many of these post work societies assume them and that, that trend continues... Isn't that assumption contradictory to many of the hypothetical societies being discussed as it implies they are merely a continuation of the current order?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
The productivity gains that come with capitalism are arguably more to do with industrialization which was also integral to the idea that owning machinery, or capital, could give you power. Unless you believe that industry magically stops being productive once it stops being privately owned, which granted some people do...
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Right the capitalism we have now and not capitalism before industrialization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Well the iteration of continuously improving and continously increasing automating might stop with the loss of private ownership.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
It might slow down and would probably not be done at the expense of the people dependent on the industry, though if the industry is collectively owned then everyone stands to benefit from automation, even if it means you are no longer employed, or less employed than you might otherwise be, the collective ownership should allow you to see the benefits of the increase in production. Currently if you automate something you fire the person who used to do it and write the increased productivity down as profit, and probably pay yourself a bit more. Collectively, if you automate something you could instead cut everybody's hours a little bit, up their pay with the increased productivity, and shift the person who used to do that task onto another role with fewer hours and better pay. A lot of the objection is to the idea that everyone should always be working as much as possible, because it's either that or not earning enough to live on. Collective ownership takes the automation problem and disburses the productivity among as many people as possible to alleviate that. The opposition to automation is when it's done at someone else's expense but there's no reason it has to be. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
"They take unleashed productivity as something intimately independent if the concrete capitalist social formation" Is the "teleological notion of communism" you just stated (and well) just a "fantasmatic scenario" functionally equivalent to the world to come, the kingdom of God? Edit drat autocorrect Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
I'm not sure it's a big leap? The alternative is that having rich buggers own stuff imbues people with some kind of magical energy that is the only way to get any work out of them, which seems a lot more stupid than suggesting that people will work to produce things that benefit them and will also work to make that production more efficient of their own volition. When the first human set out and planted the first crop I don't think he or she had a landowner telling them that they had to do it or they wouldn't get paid, they just did it. People have, for most of history, worked to produce things without someone else owning the means they used to do it. The introduction of mechanization doesn't even introduce a new problem, because land for growing and foraging used to be held in common and worked collectively until quite recently. Why is machinery different from arable land? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
That's not true though. The shift from a hunter-gatherer to agrarian society drove notions like land ownership and rigid social hierarchies though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:That's not true though. The shift from a hunter-gatherer to agrarian society drove notions like land ownership and rigid social hierarchies though. In that surplus productivity is necessary in order to facilitate the existence of people who just own things, yes. But it is definitely that way around, you produce enough and some twat comes along and decides that you really need someone to take a portion of your product in exchange for not stabbing you, it logically cannot be the other way around because you can't be made to surrender what you aren't producing in the first place. The assertion is that it doesn't need to result in social hierarchies and that land ownership does not actually offer anything to the people working the owned land. Especially not when we have alternative, democratic methods of organizing what to do with surplus productivity. We don't need a king or landlord to organize large scale projects like fending off vikings some of the time and living fat off our work the rest of the time, we can do that ourselves when necessary. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
OK so there can't be capitalists in a subsistence farming setup because everyone lives hand to mouth. What's your point? You seem to be arguing that markets and capitalism are an aberration and there's some natural steady-state of communal living which is ahistorical. Even proponents of socialism would argue that it's an artificial society requiring constant government intervention and the threat of violence (not that this is a bad thing) to defend itself. This requires effort and activism. I find this strain of people online that want to jump to luxury space communism as though it'll happen by itself tiresome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:OK so there can't be capitalists in a subsistence farming setup because everyone lives hand to mouth. My point has nothing to do with naturalism, my point is that markets and capitalism are suboptimal. They are easy methods of organization in the same way that feudalism is an easy method of organization with a certain level of technology but I don't think you would suggest that feudalism is the optimal way to run a society in the modern age? I am arguing against the idea that markets and capitalism are somehow the only way in which people can produce things since the advent of industrialization which is a thing some people actually believe. How else do you respond to the assertion that belieiving non-capitalist methods of production and ownership could work, is on the same level as believing in the rapture? Capitalism does not create productivity, capitalism arises because productivity exists. And productivity would still exist without it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am arguing against the idea that markets and capitalism are somehow the only way in which people can produce things since the advent of industrialization which is a thing some people actually believe. How else do you respond to the assertion that belieiving non-capitalist methods of production and ownership could work, is on the same level as believing in the rapture? Slow up, I'm not saying this part : " capitalism are somehow the only way in which people can produce things since the advent of industrialization which is a thing some people actually believe" I am only saying how can we speculate about the post work society, when our speculations still assume the things we assume now. "The owl of minerva flies at midnight". There isn't a radically new post capitalist reality yet we can talk about, we might as well literally be speculating about world to come.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
The gently caress is this piece of poo poo of a thread? People are forced to do over 12 hours of a day of health hazardous work in factories and can barely afford to eat, and you speak of "post work" ? No, we're not entering "post work" or whatever the gently caress you call it. Things are going to keep getting shittier for the people at the bottom, and there's going to be more and more people who are a part of that bottom. In the current economic system we live in, human beings are resources, and resources are to be used to produce profit. And if the profit margin falls, the answer is always going to be an attack on the income of the workers and and a strengthening of the state in order to subdue their unrest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
About a year ago on the Peninsula, techies opposed a new bus route that would have addressed some serious commute issues for the economically downtrodden in East Palo Alto. Naturally, it was opposed because it was unnecessary. Self driving cars will solve those problems. So why create another bus route?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Source?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Source? It was talked about in the CA thread at length. It's a short enough thread that it should be pretty easy to find. Especially if you have search function. I don't because the Mods hate premature anti-fascists and (strangely) It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Funny how the people itt who argue against UBI think human beings are intrinsically bad whereas the ppl arguing for it think humans are innately good 🤔
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Probably because the protestant work ethic is so heavily ingrained in americans. The religious aspect probably fell away a century ago, but the social darwinism remained.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Where can I find a comprehensive analysis on Right to Work laws vs At Will employment but from a left wing or socialist perspective? Would be accurate to content that one leads to the other?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Aren't they both offensively named union breaking laws? Right to scab?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Aren't they both offensively named union breaking laws? Right to scab? edit: Maybe there could be a little interesting analysis in whether requiring for-cause firing actually accomplishes anything. Generating cause doesn't seem difficult and if you're planning on fighting unemployment you'll need to do that anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
True I guess they aren't necessarily related beyond both being a pile of shite. Requiring cause for firing combined with mandatory funded access to employment tribunals if desired can be quite empowering for a worker, it's not perfect but it puts the employer at a lot more risk if they sack you without good reason. Anything that tips the scales a little is welcome. Closed shops as far as I'm concerned are the indication that a union is working as intended. I guess you can argue that if you had a closed shop it would probably be quite difficult to enact free-firing policies, but my super official left wing analysis is that employers are bastards and are out to gently caress you at every turn and will push for the absolute worst legislation possible invariably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:36
|
|