3 ms·

Yes, I see what you mean. In cases of extreme poverty, everything is complicated. The problem is there wether we change/evolve the productive model or not. The

Yes, I see what you mean. In cases of extreme poverty, everything is complicated. The problem is there wether we change/evolve the productive model or not. The problem is there right now and it was there 50 years ago, 100 years ago and so on. If you take away their low qualification "jobs" because of technology, new low qualification jobs will arise. They will be at the same position at least but chances are they will improve their life quality. That is what I think at least. Do you think that avances in technology an automation will make the life of this people worse? Will progress make this people's life more miserable? Will progress make the rich/poor people gap bigger? What is the _root_ of this problem? Are companys investing, making research and developing technology guilty or responsible of this? Do we have to make them responsible of this (ie, make them pay) ? Some may see this different, maybe we should instead pay and encourage/incentivize this companies for their work?

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
>Will progress make the rich/poor people gap bigger? What is the _root_ of this problem? // Absolutely. The root is capitalism puts much of the reward for workers labour in the hands of the already rich owners - with an excess of labour the value of a person in capitalist terms tends towards zero; pure capitalism has no notion of humanity or basic human worth, just of humans as resources. The benefits of progress would need to be democratised, which is basically some form of communism - which countries like USA and UK have been ably brainwashed in to thinking is the devil and harmful to ordinary workers.
- int0x80 9y ago
  Absolutely? So we are worse than a century ago you say? I won't claim to know the comunism/capitalist theorys or models at all but you are making this an absolute black or white argument. It is not anymore. The developed countrys and the models we use are not black/white. They mix-in in different proportions liberal and social politics and models making difficult and controversial choices. We have lots of mechanisms to "democratize" the progress. You know one progress that has been democratized? Air travel. Technology was involved in this process. Is not that easy. And no. In no way communism is the solution to anything. Edit: BTW, precisely, the problem at hand in this thread is the democratization of the technology. Now, every other company will be able to get a cheap robot which will take the jobs of people.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Well in the UK we've had socialist governments to do things like bring in the NHS and temper the Market-will-moderate-it-all conservatism and the heavy buy-in to the concept that only things that make rich donors private profits are worthwhile. We've also had incredible technological growth in part through global conflict. And there has been a massive use of non-renewable resources and huge unsustainable environmental impact because of that (externalities don't matter in capitalism). Add in this unmediated growth allowed for by not accounting for the externalities, and you get where we are now. Iff (sic) the companies buying the robots are distributing all the benefit; eg they're cooperatives, public interest companies, charities (with flat pay structures); then you're democratising. Replacing a worker with a robot not only puts another worker out to be cared for by the social care, but also denies society the company's share of the tax payments associated with that worker - a double whammy. Then on top of that the robot doesn't get a share of profits, that share goes to the (in almost all cases already wealthy) owners and so increases the wealth gap. I'm interested in why you reject, seemingly out of hand, all aspects of communism. Why are Maker Spaces, say, so contrary to your notions of good social order. Are cooperatives evil in your eyes? On the subject of air travel - where I am in the UK the only reason there is an airport is because the government stepped in, paid a stupidly high price that went to private individuals, and took over running of the airport. Without the capitalistic need to pay private profits with every transaction the gov could have paid costs (probably negative in this case, but anyway) and used the additional monies to further benefit the demos as a whole.
    - int0x80 9y ago
      That is why I say it is not black and white. In Europe we've had both social and liberal goverments. None of them one-sided radicals. The same in the US. If you ask me, I like a very thin and light weight state, with some regulations, and tweaks/adjustments over time to adapt to the current reality. But not one big dady that controls everything. The less the state is involved, the better. Anyway, this is a never ending debate. IMO it doesn't lead to anything new. In the end, probably a compromise between the two models is best. Yes, I belive in solidarity too. I don't reject all aspects of communism. All I say is that "communism as a drop in solution" is a (very) bad idea. For starters, just look at recent history. Yes, I know excuses can be made and arguments about external agents interfering in USSR/China/Cuba/NK et all. With the specific example of taxing robots, I just think is a very unfair and bad idea. Yes, something needs to be done. But a company that replaces workers withs robots is going to reduce costs hence making more profit. Hence paying more taxes. It's taken into account already. Also, a fundamental problem arises. What is a robot? A computer is a robot. Every chip in the computer is a robot. This would be a very unfair model and a very inexact one leading to all kind of problems. I don't know. I just find the idea of blaming and taxing the companys using technology to be more productive very unfair and I would say even childish.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

>Will progress make the rich/poor people gap bigger? What is the _root_ of this problem? // Absolutely. The root is capitalism puts much of the reward for workers labour in the hands of the already rich owners - with an excess of labour the value of a person in capitalist terms tends towards zero; pure capitalism has no notion of humanity or basic human worth, just of humans as resources. The benefits of progress would need to be democratised, which is basically some form of communism - which countries like USA and UK have been ably brainwashed in to thinking is the devil and harmful to ordinary workers.

int0x80 9y ago
Absolutely? So we are worse than a century ago you say? I won't claim to know the comunism/capitalist theorys or models at all but you are making this an absolute black or white argument. It is not anymore. The developed countrys and the models we use are not black/white. They mix-in in different proportions liberal and social politics and models making difficult and controversial choices. We have lots of mechanisms to "democratize" the progress. You know one progress that has been democratized? Air travel. Technology was involved in this process. Is not that easy. And no. In no way communism is the solution to anything. Edit: BTW, precisely, the problem at hand in this thread is the democratization of the technology. Now, every other company will be able to get a cheap robot which will take the jobs of people.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Well in the UK we've had socialist governments to do things like bring in the NHS and temper the Market-will-moderate-it-all conservatism and the heavy buy-in to the concept that only things that make rich donors private profits are worthwhile. We've also had incredible technological growth in part through global conflict. And there has been a massive use of non-renewable resources and huge unsustainable environmental impact because of that (externalities don't matter in capitalism). Add in this unmediated growth allowed for by not accounting for the externalities, and you get where we are now. Iff (sic) the companies buying the robots are distributing all the benefit; eg they're cooperatives, public interest companies, charities (with flat pay structures); then you're democratising. Replacing a worker with a robot not only puts another worker out to be cared for by the social care, but also denies society the company's share of the tax payments associated with that worker - a double whammy. Then on top of that the robot doesn't get a share of profits, that share goes to the (in almost all cases already wealthy) owners and so increases the wealth gap. I'm interested in why you reject, seemingly out of hand, all aspects of communism. Why are Maker Spaces, say, so contrary to your notions of good social order. Are cooperatives evil in your eyes? On the subject of air travel - where I am in the UK the only reason there is an airport is because the government stepped in, paid a stupidly high price that went to private individuals, and took over running of the airport. Without the capitalistic need to pay private profits with every transaction the gov could have paid costs (probably negative in this case, but anyway) and used the additional monies to further benefit the demos as a whole.
  - int0x80 9y ago
    That is why I say it is not black and white. In Europe we've had both social and liberal goverments. None of them one-sided radicals. The same in the US. If you ask me, I like a very thin and light weight state, with some regulations, and tweaks/adjustments over time to adapt to the current reality. But not one big dady that controls everything. The less the state is involved, the better. Anyway, this is a never ending debate. IMO it doesn't lead to anything new. In the end, probably a compromise between the two models is best. Yes, I belive in solidarity too. I don't reject all aspects of communism. All I say is that "communism as a drop in solution" is a (very) bad idea. For starters, just look at recent history. Yes, I know excuses can be made and arguments about external agents interfering in USSR/China/Cuba/NK et all. With the specific example of taxing robots, I just think is a very unfair and bad idea. Yes, something needs to be done. But a company that replaces workers withs robots is going to reduce costs hence making more profit. Hence paying more taxes. It's taken into account already. Also, a fundamental problem arises. What is a robot? A computer is a robot. Every chip in the computer is a robot. This would be a very unfair model and a very inexact one leading to all kind of problems. I don't know. I just find the idea of blaming and taxing the companys using technology to be more productive very unfair and I would say even childish.