8 ms·

This isn’t a dig against you, but isn’t this just an idealized view of a communist society?

SequoiaHope 5y ago
I mean yes I do call it libertarian communism, tho I often leave that part out since people will be totally onboard until you mention the name. But also it’s a specific scheme that has the goal of lowering the marginal cost of living. And it’s totally voluntary which is not true for all schemes for communism.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > And it’s totally voluntary Sure, while you are in charge. But when a more ambitious leader bashes your head in and takes over, maybe not so. How much of Lenin remained when Stalin took over?
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    There is no one in charge. I am not in charge. This is not a system based on any manner of authoritarian control.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      Even a spiritual leader is in charge, if not in control. There still need to be laws, and those often follow from central sources/philosophies.
clairity 5y ago
...and/or idealized socialism. i agree that consumerism is an issue, but the solution isn't 'end consumerism', as that's just completely unrealistic. it'd be more realistic to think of ways to redirect our esteem-giving activities toward people who produce real and essential goods, and the rest would balance out much better as a result. that's diametrically opposed to our corrent system of giving esteem to the wealthy, which is why this approach is also very difficult, but not impossible.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say ending consumerism is completely unrealistic?
  - clairity 5y ago
    just zoom out and really look at the scope of the issue: 7+ billion people in the world want stuff. there's a huge matching problem between the want and the stuff, and a huge geographic/wealth/information asymmetry as well. there's going to be a lot of friction and waste in that huge, inefficient matching process (e.g., 30-40% of US food goes into the trash, 30-40% of stuff is returned to retailers). to achieve your goal, you'd have to be able to control (aka coerce) a majority of those people to want only an arbitrarily narrow set of "acceptable" things. that's just not tenable, even in a small, remote country.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      You and I view this very differently. First of all, getting people goods that they need is not consumerism. Consumerism is the idea that buying a new car or a Pepsi will make you feel better. Or that doing so will make you “cool”. So for example most car manufacturers come out with a new model every year and then push the idea that buying a new model is an indicator of success. But I claim we would be better off if cars were more similar year to year so that replacement parts were more common year to year. This would make repair easier and lower waste. The problem is not getting people cars (well, cars in particular are a contentious example…). The problem isn’t getting people goods they need. Is that the companies who make those goods use psychological tricks to convince us we need to upgrade even when our thing is working. And they design their products with the upgrade in mind and it all leads to more waste. To be honest it’s difficult for me to describe what I mean when I say consumerism. But getting people goods they need is not in and of itself consumerism. Consumerism is like the military industrial complex. It creates problems to feed a bloated production machine that consumes more and more because it benefits those in charge of the whole thing. And so consumerism leads our culture to believe the person with the new watch is cool and we all believe we must work day in and day out to compete in an endless game of consumption. That is very different than, say, manufacturing electrical transformers and cabling so a new town can have electricity. In the middle the line is not clear but we can focus at first on the extents.
BingoAhoy 5y ago
It's communism that reduces one of the notable downsides of communism, the social loafing aspect, due to reliance on machines instead of your fellow man for productive effort(labor equivalent).
- Chris2048 5y ago
  It's a little hand-wavey though. Who services the machines? Are the machines centralised in mass-manufacture-scales and products distributed (as they are now); or de-centralised but also less efficient (wrt manufacture and supply chain) as a result. What would the raw materials be, and how are they powered (given the carbon-crisis). I'd also ask what specifically are the essentials. Food? Shelter? ok. What about healthcare?
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    I love that you are asking these questions. Indeed I think any writing meant to describe an entire economy in a few paragraphs will necessarily be a bit hand wavey. I did try to answer one of your questions: the machines are serviced by the members of the collective. In any plan for a society education must be considered. But much the same way that any halfway technical person can learn how to fix a 3D printer, these machines should be designed with repair in mind and along with open source designs there would be freely accessible repair guides. Production should be somewhat decentralized so there should be many places manufacturing motors etc. but when it comes to putting the machines together I’d expect that different collectives would focus on certain machines and they would trade with people near them. Remember that you can always fall back on “people use money to exchange goods and services” I’m just imagining a model where that isn’t really the dominant way people manage their day to day survival. I am not sure that decentralization is less efficient. Getting the raw materials is one of the more serious questions. Generally falling back on non-automated things, firms should be cooperatively run. Also raw material consumption would arguably go down for westerners who move to this model, as there would be minimal waste and the machines would all be designed for repair. Health care is to me essential but these things would vary from region to region based on cultural ideals and material conditions. I am an engineer and I love to fix machines. I would rather spend my days fixing machines than working a corporate job to enrich a few executives. People who want to be Doctors or teachers often feel similarly. They need their material needs covered so they can do what they value most - helping others. I basically just think we can really streamline the whole production side of the economy and design things so everyone benefits and actually stops needing to work 40+ hours a week forever.

I mean yes I do call it libertarian communism, tho I often leave that part out since people will be totally onboard until you mention the name. But also it’s a specific scheme that has the goal of lowering the marginal cost of living. And it’s totally voluntary which is not true for all schemes for communism.

Chris2048 5y ago
> And it’s totally voluntary Sure, while you are in charge. But when a more ambitious leader bashes your head in and takes over, maybe not so. How much of Lenin remained when Stalin took over?
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  There is no one in charge. I am not in charge. This is not a system based on any manner of authoritarian control.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Even a spiritual leader is in charge, if not in control. There still need to be laws, and those often follow from central sources/philosophies.

clairity 5y ago

...and/or idealized socialism. i agree that consumerism is an issue, but the solution isn't 'end consumerism', as that's just completely unrealistic. it'd be more realistic to think of ways to redirect our esteem-giving activities toward people who produce real and essential goods, and the rest would balance out much better as a result. that's diametrically opposed to our corrent system of giving esteem to the wealthy, which is why this approach is also very difficult, but not impossible.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say ending consumerism is completely unrealistic?
- clairity 5y ago
  just zoom out and really look at the scope of the issue: 7+ billion people in the world want stuff. there's a huge matching problem between the want and the stuff, and a huge geographic/wealth/information asymmetry as well. there's going to be a lot of friction and waste in that huge, inefficient matching process (e.g., 30-40% of US food goes into the trash, 30-40% of stuff is returned to retailers). to achieve your goal, you'd have to be able to control (aka coerce) a majority of those people to want only an arbitrarily narrow set of "acceptable" things. that's just not tenable, even in a small, remote country.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    You and I view this very differently. First of all, getting people goods that they need is not consumerism. Consumerism is the idea that buying a new car or a Pepsi will make you feel better. Or that doing so will make you “cool”. So for example most car manufacturers come out with a new model every year and then push the idea that buying a new model is an indicator of success. But I claim we would be better off if cars were more similar year to year so that replacement parts were more common year to year. This would make repair easier and lower waste. The problem is not getting people cars (well, cars in particular are a contentious example…). The problem isn’t getting people goods they need. Is that the companies who make those goods use psychological tricks to convince us we need to upgrade even when our thing is working. And they design their products with the upgrade in mind and it all leads to more waste. To be honest it’s difficult for me to describe what I mean when I say consumerism. But getting people goods they need is not in and of itself consumerism. Consumerism is like the military industrial complex. It creates problems to feed a bloated production machine that consumes more and more because it benefits those in charge of the whole thing. And so consumerism leads our culture to believe the person with the new watch is cool and we all believe we must work day in and day out to compete in an endless game of consumption. That is very different than, say, manufacturing electrical transformers and cabling so a new town can have electricity. In the middle the line is not clear but we can focus at first on the extents.

BingoAhoy 5y ago

It's communism that reduces one of the notable downsides of communism, the social loafing aspect, due to reliance on machines instead of your fellow man for productive effort(labor equivalent).

Chris2048 5y ago
It's a little hand-wavey though. Who services the machines? Are the machines centralised in mass-manufacture-scales and products distributed (as they are now); or de-centralised but also less efficient (wrt manufacture and supply chain) as a result. What would the raw materials be, and how are they powered (given the carbon-crisis). I'd also ask what specifically are the essentials. Food? Shelter? ok. What about healthcare?
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I love that you are asking these questions. Indeed I think any writing meant to describe an entire economy in a few paragraphs will necessarily be a bit hand wavey. I did try to answer one of your questions: the machines are serviced by the members of the collective. In any plan for a society education must be considered. But much the same way that any halfway technical person can learn how to fix a 3D printer, these machines should be designed with repair in mind and along with open source designs there would be freely accessible repair guides. Production should be somewhat decentralized so there should be many places manufacturing motors etc. but when it comes to putting the machines together I’d expect that different collectives would focus on certain machines and they would trade with people near them. Remember that you can always fall back on “people use money to exchange goods and services” I’m just imagining a model where that isn’t really the dominant way people manage their day to day survival. I am not sure that decentralization is less efficient. Getting the raw materials is one of the more serious questions. Generally falling back on non-automated things, firms should be cooperatively run. Also raw material consumption would arguably go down for westerners who move to this model, as there would be minimal waste and the machines would all be designed for repair. Health care is to me essential but these things would vary from region to region based on cultural ideals and material conditions. I am an engineer and I love to fix machines. I would rather spend my days fixing machines than working a corporate job to enrich a few executives. People who want to be Doctors or teachers often feel similarly. They need their material needs covered so they can do what they value most - helping others. I basically just think we can really streamline the whole production side of the economy and design things so everyone benefits and actually stops needing to work 40+ hours a week forever.