4 ms·

> Some say no China's hippie moment finally happened.

by est 5y ago

rbanffy 5y ago
The productivity gains from automation were almost completely funnelled into the richest pockets, increasing inequality and making the “rat race” more gruelling for everyone participating in it. If we solve this distribution issue, a lot of people will opt to do that. We’ll lose a lot of bank tellers, gas pump operators, and insurance sellers but, in return, we’ll get a lot more poets and dancers, dreamers and storytellers. And lots of people who won’t give us anything of importance besides being part of the human family.
- MathYouF 5y ago
  >If we solve this distribution issue I recall some shaggy bearded 19th century German philosopher who wrote a book on this. Thought he was pretty popular with the Chinese government. I'm surprised to hear they're still having problems with distribution 100 years later.
  - HKH2 5y ago
    The Great Chinese Famine resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Distribution was one of the biggest problems, and that was when the CCP was actually communist. Maybe it's just not feasible to effectively govern over a billion people. Even though I strongly disagree with it, I can understand why Mao wanted the Cultural Revolution; splitting up a country is far less desirable.
    - MathYouF 5y ago
      I'm highly sympathetic to the goals of communism and agree that the problems it's trying to solve exist and are inherent in our current system of economics. But one doesn't have to read much history to see that the prescribed methods offered for solving the problems laid out in The Communist Manifesto haven't been successful in any implementation tried in the 20th and 21st centuries. At this point I consider any communist who doesn't admit the ideology's massive failures to be either ignorant, or disingenuous, because if someone actually wants to solve the problems with the capitalist system, they have to admit what has been tried and failed so far. I do hope one day we'll find new solutions to the distribution problem that don't create other massive problems like we've seen, because the issues inherent in capitalism won't go away without acknowledging its failures either.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        > the prescribed methods offered for solving the problems laid out in The Communist Manifesto haven't been successful It was written about 170 years ago, so it'd make sense that the methods would no longer work now. Even if we count the inception of the Soviet Union as its first actual use, it was already pretty old to be relied upon as a manual. The productivity gains I mentioned are a very important step in that direction. Capitalism and free markets work best on an economy saddled by scarcity, to the point many scarcities are engineered to extract labor from the scarcity gradients a bit like a Stirling engine extract mechanical work from a temperature gradient: you don't need an iPhone 12 (I know I don't) or a 64-core desktop (I could use one) and a lot of people will work so they can have the things they want, but not necessarily need. As the tangping prove, after you reach a certain level of abundance (a low one for them), capitalism ceases to be able to extract labor because the price of wanting more is too high for them. These people who refuse to participate in this system are willing to live a materially constrained existence in exchange for more free time and a simpler life. I think we all could adopt a less radical position and still live with a little less and enjoy a life a little bit less complicated.
        MathYouF 5y ago
        We had it in the era of America's greatest relative growth (by some measures at least) in the 1950's-60's,they were called beatnik's. The conversation around them at the time tightly mirrors that about tangping today. I've been saying for a while now that China is undergoing a Mccarthy era politically, and that their "summer of love" is less than two decades away, and they'll be radically tranformed by it. Thanks for the metaphor with the Stirling engine, hasn't heard of that before. Interestingly I've always considered capitalism to only work in a system without scarcity of resources (land, minerals, ect.) as it's often the most efficient way to extract those resources and convert them into more useful products (by humans subjective standards). It's when raw resources are limited that the paradigm for endless extraction breaks down, as there's nothing more to extract, and quality of life starts diminishing as we extract beyond replacement level of natural resources. But I think your point is about scare processed resources being the motivator for capitalism, and that once the gradient diminishes and the top is warmed enough, and the heat differential with the bottom is less, certain members will opt out of further extraction. This is why inadvertently a lot of conservstive lawmakers advocate reducing entitlements, to artificially "cool" the top plate, to keep the engine turning, even if they don't know for what purpose. Still, communism even in it's converted versions has not worked (I'm sure you don't seriously consider China's economic system one that is concerned with equal distribution of wealth among the working class right?) and has brought many horrors to those living in states that claim to be using its doctrine, and those failures must be accepted and addressed before better alternative approaches can be considered.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  You're typing this on a computer, potentially one you keep in your pocket, that you purchased likely outright. There's a good chance you're going to get in your car at some point and drive somewhere. What "productivity gains from automation" do you feel the richest pockets are holding back?
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ is a good start.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

> Some say no China's hippie moment finally happened.

by est 5y ago

> Some say no China's hippie moment finally happened.

The productivity gains from automation were almost completely funnelled into the richest pockets, increasing inequality and making the “rat race” more gruelling for everyone participating in it. If we solve this distribution issue, a lot of people will opt to do that. We’ll lose a lot of bank tellers, gas pump operators, and insurance sellers but, in return, we’ll get a lot more poets and dancers, dreamers and storytellers. And lots of people who won’t give us anything of importance besides being part of the human family.

MathYouF 5y ago
>If we solve this distribution issue I recall some shaggy bearded 19th century German philosopher who wrote a book on this. Thought he was pretty popular with the Chinese government. I'm surprised to hear they're still having problems with distribution 100 years later.
- HKH2 5y ago
  The Great Chinese Famine resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Distribution was one of the biggest problems, and that was when the CCP was actually communist. Maybe it's just not feasible to effectively govern over a billion people. Even though I strongly disagree with it, I can understand why Mao wanted the Cultural Revolution; splitting up a country is far less desirable.
  - MathYouF 5y ago
    I'm highly sympathetic to the goals of communism and agree that the problems it's trying to solve exist and are inherent in our current system of economics. But one doesn't have to read much history to see that the prescribed methods offered for solving the problems laid out in The Communist Manifesto haven't been successful in any implementation tried in the 20th and 21st centuries. At this point I consider any communist who doesn't admit the ideology's massive failures to be either ignorant, or disingenuous, because if someone actually wants to solve the problems with the capitalist system, they have to admit what has been tried and failed so far. I do hope one day we'll find new solutions to the distribution problem that don't create other massive problems like we've seen, because the issues inherent in capitalism won't go away without acknowledging its failures either.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      > the prescribed methods offered for solving the problems laid out in The Communist Manifesto haven't been successful It was written about 170 years ago, so it'd make sense that the methods would no longer work now. Even if we count the inception of the Soviet Union as its first actual use, it was already pretty old to be relied upon as a manual. The productivity gains I mentioned are a very important step in that direction. Capitalism and free markets work best on an economy saddled by scarcity, to the point many scarcities are engineered to extract labor from the scarcity gradients a bit like a Stirling engine extract mechanical work from a temperature gradient: you don't need an iPhone 12 (I know I don't) or a 64-core desktop (I could use one) and a lot of people will work so they can have the things they want, but not necessarily need. As the tangping prove, after you reach a certain level of abundance (a low one for them), capitalism ceases to be able to extract labor because the price of wanting more is too high for them. These people who refuse to participate in this system are willing to live a materially constrained existence in exchange for more free time and a simpler life. I think we all could adopt a less radical position and still live with a little less and enjoy a life a little bit less complicated.
      - MathYouF 5y ago
        We had it in the era of America's greatest relative growth (by some measures at least) in the 1950's-60's,they were called beatnik's. The conversation around them at the time tightly mirrors that about tangping today. I've been saying for a while now that China is undergoing a Mccarthy era politically, and that their "summer of love" is less than two decades away, and they'll be radically tranformed by it. Thanks for the metaphor with the Stirling engine, hasn't heard of that before. Interestingly I've always considered capitalism to only work in a system without scarcity of resources (land, minerals, ect.) as it's often the most efficient way to extract those resources and convert them into more useful products (by humans subjective standards). It's when raw resources are limited that the paradigm for endless extraction breaks down, as there's nothing more to extract, and quality of life starts diminishing as we extract beyond replacement level of natural resources. But I think your point is about scare processed resources being the motivator for capitalism, and that once the gradient diminishes and the top is warmed enough, and the heat differential with the bottom is less, certain members will opt out of further extraction. This is why inadvertently a lot of conservstive lawmakers advocate reducing entitlements, to artificially "cool" the top plate, to keep the engine turning, even if they don't know for what purpose. Still, communism even in it's converted versions has not worked (I'm sure you don't seriously consider China's economic system one that is concerned with equal distribution of wealth among the working class right?) and has brought many horrors to those living in states that claim to be using its doctrine, and those failures must be accepted and addressed before better alternative approaches can be considered.
vorpalhex 5y ago
You're typing this on a computer, potentially one you keep in your pocket, that you purchased likely outright. There's a good chance you're going to get in your car at some point and drive somewhere. What "productivity gains from automation" do you feel the richest pockets are holding back?
- rbanffy 5y ago
  https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ is a good start.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]