5 ms·

> Just because you are not currently a moral realist, doesn't mean there's no such thing as moral realism. This is very important, more in a bit > You're talk

> Just because you are not currently a moral realist, doesn't mean there's no such thing as moral realism. This is very important, more in a bit > You're talking about an imagined capitalist utopia. I really don't think I am, all I've described is the basis for the allocation of resources, not even a mention of how it will eventually lead to a Utopia. But this basis depends on moral/value subjectivity (which as an aside is also the basis for democracy). If that is not the case, then a command and control system which allocates resources based on that set of values and enforces laws according to that set of morals will be objectively better than anything capitalism can come up with. > And this is all, of course, before we start addressing techno-utopian or techno-socialist proposals that run off the basic concept of, "Well, resources aren't that scarce" As far as I can tell they are, at least for the moment, once we start hitting whole numbers on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale we can talk about this practically. I do love Dyson Spheres. --- I will read this paper on moral realism and get back to you.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>If that is not the case, then a command and control system which allocates resources based on that set of values and enforces laws according to that set of morals will be objectively better than anything capitalism can come up with. There is a false dichotomy between "capitalism" (ie: your imagined utopia of perfect markets that increase the subjective value of rational agents) and "command and control". What I have been trying to say, despite your visible and extreme prior inability to hear it, is that there are far more alternatives than "something resembling American capitalism" and "something resembling the Soviet command economy". If you can imagine a civilization hitting Kardashev Level I, you ought to be able to imagine their doing so in a way that isn't designed to rationalize 20th-century party politics!
- grinnbearit 12y ago
  Last time, because I really can't see why we're talking past each other. In this entire conversation Imagined Utopia of Perfect Markets, not mentioned once American Capitalism, not mentioned once Soviet Command Economy, not mentioned once Lets assume for the moment that I am talking about a system and how it should allocate resources. Can there be other systems? yes, can there be better systems? also yes. Now, based on objective vs subjective morals and values (which is a dichotomy as far as I can tell), we have two types of systems. 1) Given objective values/morals => There exists an objective best allocation of resources and laws governing people and we need to find a system to achieve this. 2) Given subjective values/morals => There is no objective best allocation of resources and laws and we need to find a way to reach consensus on what is produced and what laws are enforced. Capitalism is a type 2 system, it might be terrible at allocating resources but it does this by reaching consensus Communism is a type 1 system, it might be terrible at allocating resources but it does this by determining the best allocation Democracy is a type 2 system, it might be terrible at determining laws but it does this by reaching consensus Dictatorship is a type 1 system, it might be terrible at determining laws but it does this by determining the best set of laws The first step is to figure out which universe we live in. If we live in universe 1, we need to pick type 1 systems. If we live in universe 2, type 2.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    Terminological question: if you're not talking about the Soviet command economy, what do you mean by "Communism"? Because you definitely don't seem to be talking about a classless, moneyless, stateless society of nonviolent cooperation and economic democracy, which is the official definition of "communism". Likewise, you don't seem to be talking about economic democracy either, which is the official definition of "socialism".
    - grinnbearit 12y ago
      For the conversation so far, "Communism" only refers to the system that decides and maintains how resources are allocated. (Just like how I've been using capitalism). As I understand it, communism decides an allocation of resources to maximise a utility function which isn't driven by individual demands but by some objective ranking of value. From my side I am curious what you mean by economic democracy.
      - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
        >As I understand it, communism decides an allocation of resources to maximise a utility function which isn't driven by individual demands but by some objective ranking of value. That is incorrect. Communism refers to the set of economic systems which involve a stateless, moneyless, classless society in which the means of production are operated by workers for human need (ie: individual and collective demands). Or at least, that is how the term "Communism" is used by self-professed communists, as opposed to by self-professed enemies of communism, who of course use the term in their propaganda to mean "Soviet-style dictatorship". But if you use any term as its enemies imply it to be defined in their propaganda, you will of course never get the bottom of the matter. > (Just like how I've been using capitalism). This is very wrong, as well. "Capitalism" means the set of economic systems in which the means of production are primarily controlled by private owners (who are distinct from the state), and operated for profit (via the sale of commodities in some sort of market), by wage laborers (who survive by offering their labor in a labor market), coordinated via the exchange of currency (again, some kind of market). Systems can vary from "textbook" capitalism in multiple directions, such as: by the state intervening to some great or small degree in the economy (social-democratic capitalism), by finance becoming the dominant economic power above and over commodities manufacturers (financialized capitalism), by raw-materials producers becoming the dominant economic power (rentier capitalism), by private rentiers merging state power into their own personal power (feudalism), by the replacement of capital-labor separation with economic democracy (socialism), by the foundational subsidization of "market" businesses by the state (state capitalism), by the complete nationalization of production and its turning towards the state's national goals (fascism), by the removal of the state and its regime of private exclusive-possession "property" titles to resources but the keeping of the market economy (mutualism), by the removal of the state and its private-property regime and the removal of markets in favor of a debt/gift economy (anarchism), etc. >From my side I am curious what you mean by economic democracy. The means of production are owned and ultimate decisions are made by the people who actually do the work operating those means of production. It means exactly what it sounds like: democracy in the workplace and the commons, either direct or representative.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>If that is not the case, then a command and control system which allocates resources based on that set of values and enforces laws according to that set of morals will be objectively better than anything capitalism can come up with. There is a false dichotomy between "capitalism" (ie: your imagined utopia of perfect markets that increase the subjective value of rational agents) and "command and control". What I have been trying to say, despite your visible and extreme prior inability to hear it, is that there are far more alternatives than "something resembling American capitalism" and "something resembling the Soviet command economy". If you can imagine a civilization hitting Kardashev Level I, you ought to be able to imagine their doing so in a way that isn't designed to rationalize 20th-century party politics!

grinnbearit 12y ago
Last time, because I really can't see why we're talking past each other. In this entire conversation Imagined Utopia of Perfect Markets, not mentioned once American Capitalism, not mentioned once Soviet Command Economy, not mentioned once Lets assume for the moment that I am talking about a system and how it should allocate resources. Can there be other systems? yes, can there be better systems? also yes. Now, based on objective vs subjective morals and values (which is a dichotomy as far as I can tell), we have two types of systems. 1) Given objective values/morals => There exists an objective best allocation of resources and laws governing people and we need to find a system to achieve this. 2) Given subjective values/morals => There is no objective best allocation of resources and laws and we need to find a way to reach consensus on what is produced and what laws are enforced. Capitalism is a type 2 system, it might be terrible at allocating resources but it does this by reaching consensus Communism is a type 1 system, it might be terrible at allocating resources but it does this by determining the best allocation Democracy is a type 2 system, it might be terrible at determining laws but it does this by reaching consensus Dictatorship is a type 1 system, it might be terrible at determining laws but it does this by determining the best set of laws The first step is to figure out which universe we live in. If we live in universe 1, we need to pick type 1 systems. If we live in universe 2, type 2.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Terminological question: if you're not talking about the Soviet command economy, what do you mean by "Communism"? Because you definitely don't seem to be talking about a classless, moneyless, stateless society of nonviolent cooperation and economic democracy, which is the official definition of "communism". Likewise, you don't seem to be talking about economic democracy either, which is the official definition of "socialism".
  - grinnbearit 12y ago
    For the conversation so far, "Communism" only refers to the system that decides and maintains how resources are allocated. (Just like how I've been using capitalism). As I understand it, communism decides an allocation of resources to maximise a utility function which isn't driven by individual demands but by some objective ranking of value. From my side I am curious what you mean by economic democracy.
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      >As I understand it, communism decides an allocation of resources to maximise a utility function which isn't driven by individual demands but by some objective ranking of value. That is incorrect. Communism refers to the set of economic systems which involve a stateless, moneyless, classless society in which the means of production are operated by workers for human need (ie: individual and collective demands). Or at least, that is how the term "Communism" is used by self-professed communists, as opposed to by self-professed enemies of communism, who of course use the term in their propaganda to mean "Soviet-style dictatorship". But if you use any term as its enemies imply it to be defined in their propaganda, you will of course never get the bottom of the matter. > (Just like how I've been using capitalism). This is very wrong, as well. "Capitalism" means the set of economic systems in which the means of production are primarily controlled by private owners (who are distinct from the state), and operated for profit (via the sale of commodities in some sort of market), by wage laborers (who survive by offering their labor in a labor market), coordinated via the exchange of currency (again, some kind of market). Systems can vary from "textbook" capitalism in multiple directions, such as: by the state intervening to some great or small degree in the economy (social-democratic capitalism), by finance becoming the dominant economic power above and over commodities manufacturers (financialized capitalism), by raw-materials producers becoming the dominant economic power (rentier capitalism), by private rentiers merging state power into their own personal power (feudalism), by the replacement of capital-labor separation with economic democracy (socialism), by the foundational subsidization of "market" businesses by the state (state capitalism), by the complete nationalization of production and its turning towards the state's national goals (fascism), by the removal of the state and its regime of private exclusive-possession "property" titles to resources but the keeping of the market economy (mutualism), by the removal of the state and its private-property regime and the removal of markets in favor of a debt/gift economy (anarchism), etc. >From my side I am curious what you mean by economic democracy. The means of production are owned and ultimate decisions are made by the people who actually do the work operating those means of production. It means exactly what it sounds like: democracy in the workplace and the commons, either direct or representative.