5 ms·

We communists frequently argue against such programmes and instead for cheap and rational transportation for the working class, like trains, light rail and biof

by lucian1900 5y ago

We communists frequently argue against such programmes and instead for cheap and rational transportation for the working class, like trains, light rail and biofuel cars for rural areas. And kulaks had it coming, even my great-granddad. Destroying food during a famine is inhuman.

robertlagrant 5y ago
Cheap trains and light rail require very high levels of automation. As long as you argue in favour of that as well it makes sense.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Of course. Such automation wouldn’t be sustainable under capitalism because the rate of profit would drop even further, but it would be entirely possible under a socialist economy that produces for use instead of for profit.
  - anamax 5y ago
    > Such automation wouldn’t be sustainable under capitalism because the rate of profit would drop even further I get that you don't like profits (even though investment to do automation requires profits), but automation reduces costs which INCREASES profits and/or reduces prices.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "I get that you don't like profits (even though investment to do automation requires profits)" That's literally opposite of how accounting works, if you reinvest everything, your profit is 0%. Profits are what's lefts after Cost of good sold, reinvesting, etc. which you then may distribute to shareholders.
      - anamax 5y ago
        > That's literally opposite of how accounting works, if you reinvest everything, your profit is 0%. Wrong - Profit is revenue minus costs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(accounting) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(accounting) and all of the other definitions on the web. Reinvesting affects cash flow but not profits.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      One enterprise automating increases its competitive advantage for a while, thus temporarily increasing its profits. However, over time, all enterprises will either automate or fail. Since profits are a portion of the value generated by labour, as the proportion of costs attributed to labour drop, so do profits. There are secondary effects as well, as workers lose their jobs, their wages fall through competition and they can no longer afford to buy the commodities produced. This phenomenon is well documented historically, as the rate of profit has an overall tendency to drop which is more clearly noticeable after bursts of automation. https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2020/07/25/a-world-rate-of-profit-a-new-approach/ https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2020/07/25/a-world-ra...
      - anamax 5y ago
        > Since profits are a portion of the value generated by labour That's simply not true. Profits = revenue - costs. Revenue, what buyers pay, is based on perceived value. That perceived value may come from labor, but it can also come from some mechanical transformation (ie automation). It can even come from something else, such as color. (I'm assuming that red paint costs the same as blue and takes no more labor to apply.)
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        You're over-valuing labour. Labour is one thing, but not everything. What you're describing assumes people can't get other jobs, which is not true, and that of competition, which is where multiple parties automate, and so profits decrease (because monopolies are bad).
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    > Such automation wouldn’t be sustainable under capitalism because the rate of profit would drop even further Not really. Successful automation increases profits. E.g. McDonald's touchscreen menus came about because minimum wage increased, and the value of labour became less than its cost, so investment in automation was required. What else do you think incentivises expensive, failure-prone automation attempts? It increases value and thus competitiveness in the marketplace of the automating company.
HideousKojima 5y ago
>And kulaks had it coming, even my great-granddad. Destroying food during a famine is inhuman. Don't take people's property by force and not expect them to fight back. And especially don't use their fighting back as an excuse to oppress and slaughter them, that's what's truly inhuman. And the famine was caused by collectivization policies in the first place, you're just blameshifting your failed policies onto the victims of it.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  When some starve and others hoard food, is property more important than hunger? The famines were environmental, for centuries. It was only collectivisation and industrialisation of agriculture that stopped the famines.
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    >When some starve and others hoard food, is property more important than hunger? Yes, because destroying private property rights will lead to further famines. It's something called second-order effects, which Communists seem utterly incapable of understanding. >The famines were environmental, for centuries. None were ever on the scale of those caused by the Soviets, Mao, and others, so they clearly weren't just environmental. >It was only collectivisation and industrialisation of agriculture that stopped the famines. Industrialization is doing some Atlas-tier lifting for the rest of your argument in that sentence. Collectivization did nothing to stop famines unless you count causing millions to die and thereby having fewer mouths to feed in the following years. Reversing collectivization, on the other hand, increased food output six-fold in Xiaogang, China: http://www.china.org.cn/china/features/content_11778487_2.htm http://www.china.org.cn/china/features/content_11778487_2.ht... Edit: Note that the villagers of Xiaogang had to undo collectivization in secret because they risked literally life imprisonment and execution. They even made pacts with each other to care for the others' children until adulthood if any of them were caught and executed. Edit2: Since HN won't let me reply to your response directly, here it is. I lived in the Czech Republic and befriended countless people rich and poor who suffered under the evils of Communism. Communism has led to political violence in every single country that has adopted it, without exception. For a good historical overview (since you implied I haven't read any boons on the matter) I would recommend From the Gulag to the Killing Fields, which contains excerpts of historical accounts from every single country that established Communist regimes. You support a Godless ideology of murder, oppression, and lies.

robertlagrant 5y ago

Cheap trains and light rail require very high levels of automation. As long as you argue in favour of that as well it makes sense.

lucian1900 5y ago
Of course. Such automation wouldn’t be sustainable under capitalism because the rate of profit would drop even further, but it would be entirely possible under a socialist economy that produces for use instead of for profit.
- anamax 5y ago
  > Such automation wouldn’t be sustainable under capitalism because the rate of profit would drop even further I get that you don't like profits (even though investment to do automation requires profits), but automation reduces costs which INCREASES profits and/or reduces prices.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "I get that you don't like profits (even though investment to do automation requires profits)" That's literally opposite of how accounting works, if you reinvest everything, your profit is 0%. Profits are what's lefts after Cost of good sold, reinvesting, etc. which you then may distribute to shareholders.
    - anamax 5y ago
      > That's literally opposite of how accounting works, if you reinvest everything, your profit is 0%. Wrong - Profit is revenue minus costs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(accounting) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(accounting) and all of the other definitions on the web. Reinvesting affects cash flow but not profits.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    One enterprise automating increases its competitive advantage for a while, thus temporarily increasing its profits. However, over time, all enterprises will either automate or fail. Since profits are a portion of the value generated by labour, as the proportion of costs attributed to labour drop, so do profits. There are secondary effects as well, as workers lose their jobs, their wages fall through competition and they can no longer afford to buy the commodities produced. This phenomenon is well documented historically, as the rate of profit has an overall tendency to drop which is more clearly noticeable after bursts of automation. https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2020/07/25/a-world-rate-of-profit-a-new-approach/ https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2020/07/25/a-world-ra...
    - anamax 5y ago
      > Since profits are a portion of the value generated by labour That's simply not true. Profits = revenue - costs. Revenue, what buyers pay, is based on perceived value. That perceived value may come from labor, but it can also come from some mechanical transformation (ie automation). It can even come from something else, such as color. (I'm assuming that red paint costs the same as blue and takes no more labor to apply.)
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      You're over-valuing labour. Labour is one thing, but not everything. What you're describing assumes people can't get other jobs, which is not true, and that of competition, which is where multiple parties automate, and so profits decrease (because monopolies are bad).
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > Such automation wouldn’t be sustainable under capitalism because the rate of profit would drop even further Not really. Successful automation increases profits. E.g. McDonald's touchscreen menus came about because minimum wage increased, and the value of labour became less than its cost, so investment in automation was required. What else do you think incentivises expensive, failure-prone automation attempts? It increases value and thus competitiveness in the marketplace of the automating company.

HideousKojima 5y ago

>And kulaks had it coming, even my great-granddad. Destroying food during a famine is inhuman. Don't take people's property by force and not expect them to fight back. And especially don't use their fighting back as an excuse to oppress and slaughter them, that's what's truly inhuman. And the famine was caused by collectivization policies in the first place, you're just blameshifting your failed policies onto the victims of it.

lucian1900 5y ago
When some starve and others hoard food, is property more important than hunger? The famines were environmental, for centuries. It was only collectivisation and industrialisation of agriculture that stopped the famines.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  >When some starve and others hoard food, is property more important than hunger? Yes, because destroying private property rights will lead to further famines. It's something called second-order effects, which Communists seem utterly incapable of understanding. >The famines were environmental, for centuries. None were ever on the scale of those caused by the Soviets, Mao, and others, so they clearly weren't just environmental. >It was only collectivisation and industrialisation of agriculture that stopped the famines. Industrialization is doing some Atlas-tier lifting for the rest of your argument in that sentence. Collectivization did nothing to stop famines unless you count causing millions to die and thereby having fewer mouths to feed in the following years. Reversing collectivization, on the other hand, increased food output six-fold in Xiaogang, China: http://www.china.org.cn/china/features/content_11778487_2.htm http://www.china.org.cn/china/features/content_11778487_2.ht... Edit: Note that the villagers of Xiaogang had to undo collectivization in secret because they risked literally life imprisonment and execution. They even made pacts with each other to care for the others' children until adulthood if any of them were caught and executed. Edit2: Since HN won't let me reply to your response directly, here it is. I lived in the Czech Republic and befriended countless people rich and poor who suffered under the evils of Communism. Communism has led to political violence in every single country that has adopted it, without exception. For a good historical overview (since you implied I haven't read any boons on the matter) I would recommend From the Gulag to the Killing Fields, which contains excerpts of historical accounts from every single country that established Communist regimes. You support a Godless ideology of murder, oppression, and lies.