and skip all the fancy electronic timers and crap. pot of coffee is done in 90 seconds. and they last forever, as long as you de-lime it occassionally.
a D&E is the "normal" surgical abortion procedure, and is the exact same medical procedure that is performed when a woman miscarries, and needs to have her uterus cleaned out.
why would the owners of the means of production eliminate scarcity? they would be devaluing their product, and working against their own best interests.
so, in order to keep the value of a widget, artificial scarcity must be introduced.
let us consider the music industry; they control the means of production and make a "scarce" item, music media, and distribute it. however, with the advent of cheap digital media (whatever form factor you imagine here), their product should be essentially worth zero.
As such, they have taken to introducing legislation and technological measures to artifically maintain their products scarcity.
Now let us consider Monsanto - imagine that they have discoverred some GM crop that could eliminate world hunger, and was infinitely reproduceable through its seed. Monsanto would not be able to sell this product, without creating a legal framework to make it scarce.
And therein lies the communist revolution. Capitalism will produce the technology to eliminate scarcity, but because elimination of scarcity reduces th value of a commodity to zero, the owners of the means of production have interest in maintaining their scarce production.
So, in theory, the means of production would be open to all, so that scarcity would be eliminated. We would all be able to burn CD's, without hinderance and we could use Monsanto's corn seed, and save the seed for next season, because no one would have a profit motive in creating an artifical scarcity.
wow, i'm in a reasonable economic argument on slashdot:-)
first, i think that you mean pre-lenin'ist, or more correctly, pre-trotsky'ist when you said pre-stalinist. lenin/trotsky drastically improvised in their implementation, and stalin was just a plain old insane, paranoid power-mad dictator. (and the rest of that line were just buffoons)
of course, in the real world, pure communism is just as untenable as pure capitalism, and both extremes are inefficient in their distribution of goods.
a motivation factor, such as greed, does play an important part in human motivation. in a world without scarcity, you can hope that humans could find better motivation than fear of not being able to survive.
as for the "class struggle nonsense", of course there is a class struggle, and there always will be.
the best that you can hope for is to keep the class struggle solely to non-violent tactics, and the way you do this is the social safety nets high enough that the proles are just comfortable enough that they will never consider dying for their economic benefit.
Social Safety nets are, at their core, an insurance policy against violent revolution by the lower classes. Talk of dismantling them, or weakening them to the point where they are no longer effective is foolish and self-destructive.
I have no use for any extreme economic or political system. Rand leads to as many problems as Marx, both are as foolish as the other, and yet both have value to add to any economic discussion.
the answer lies somewhere in the middle, and will constantly be changing.
It is true, that in the knowable past, and the realistically imaginable future, that there are no communist societies, regardless of claims to the otherwise.
the preconditions to communism arent met, and wont be, for some time.
not only very lame, but a huge waste of cycles in a realtime environment. what happened, did someone above make a decree that you would use xml in this solution?
but there has yet to be a true communist state. there have been plenty of totalitarian ones, however.
the pre-conditions for communism to arise are not met. there is not a surplus of necessities. we simply can not feed/cloth/house everyone. scarcity still exists, and as such, communism is an inefficient economic system.
and thats another point - communism is an economic system, not political.
Slashdot Mirror
and, i remember being able to do the exact same functionality with WP 5.1 .
there really hasnt been much new under the sun in software for a longgg time. they just make it a little prettier, and charge you again.
this is a totally unsustainable business model.
french presses are too much work, although they do make good coffee, along with my old italian espresso maker that goes directly on the stove...
buy a Bunn
and skip all the fancy electronic timers and crap. pot of coffee is done in 90 seconds. and they last forever, as long as you de-lime it occassionally.
or travelling around in a device that carries 10+ gallons of flammable liquid that is then EXPLODED to propel the vehicle.
it'll never happen.
well, when can i stop financing that whole war in iraq, then?
for the record:
a D&E is the "normal" surgical abortion procedure, and is the exact same medical procedure that is performed when a woman miscarries, and needs to have her uterus cleaned out.
a partial-birth is completely different.
i agree with your general thesis. See this post
and why on earth cant he answer with, "It isnt, and here's why it doesnt matter:"
mostly...
what makes something valuable? its scarcity.
why would the owners of the means of production eliminate scarcity? they would be devaluing their product, and working against their own best interests.
so, in order to keep the value of a widget, artificial scarcity must be introduced.
let us consider the music industry; they control the means of production and make a "scarce" item, music media, and distribute it. however, with the advent of cheap digital media (whatever form factor you imagine here), their product should be essentially worth zero.
As such, they have taken to introducing legislation and technological measures to artifically maintain their products scarcity.
Now let us consider Monsanto - imagine that they have discoverred some GM crop that could eliminate world hunger, and was infinitely reproduceable through its seed. Monsanto would not be able to sell this product, without creating a legal framework to make it scarce.
And therein lies the communist revolution. Capitalism will produce the technology to eliminate scarcity, but because elimination of scarcity reduces th value of a commodity to zero, the owners of the means of production have interest in maintaining their scarce production.
So, in theory, the means of production would be open to all, so that scarcity would be eliminated. We would all be able to burn CD's, without hinderance and we could use Monsanto's corn seed, and save the seed for next season, because no one would have a profit motive in creating an artifical scarcity.
There is no reason that democracy and capitalism go together.
It has been demonstrated, in many different countries, that Capitalism and Totalitarianism/Fascism/Monarchies can go hand in hand.
Why then, is communism limited to only totalitarian regimes?
If the majority in a democracy vote for a communst-style economic plan, why is this less feasible than creating laws to respect capitalistic rights?
To go further: The USSR was not a communistic economy, it was a centrally-planned economy, under a totalitarian government.
The US, during WW2, was a centrally planned economy, under a democratic government.
I see no coupling of economic and political systems.
until the robots start using us as batteries, and then you'll wish that communism had taken over!
wow, i'm in a reasonable economic argument on slashdot :-)
first, i think that you mean pre-lenin'ist, or more correctly, pre-trotsky'ist when you said pre-stalinist. lenin/trotsky drastically improvised in their implementation, and stalin was just a plain old insane, paranoid power-mad dictator. (and the rest of that line were just buffoons)
of course, in the real world, pure communism is just as untenable as pure capitalism, and both extremes are inefficient in their distribution of goods.
a motivation factor, such as greed, does play an important part in human motivation. in a world without scarcity, you can hope that humans could find better motivation than fear of not being able to survive.
as for the "class struggle nonsense", of course there is a class struggle, and there always will be.
the best that you can hope for is to keep the class struggle solely to non-violent tactics, and the way you do this is the social safety nets high enough that the proles are just comfortable enough that they will never consider dying for their economic benefit.
Social Safety nets are, at their core, an insurance policy against violent revolution by the lower classes. Talk of dismantling them, or weakening them to the point where they are no longer effective is foolish and self-destructive.
I have no use for any extreme economic or political system. Rand leads to as many problems as Marx, both are as foolish as the other, and yet both have value to add to any economic discussion.
the answer lies somewhere in the middle, and will constantly be changing.
peace out.
And now I'm trying to get the analagy of linux to farm animals out of my mind.
well... we could start with RMS... he seems to be the most likely to be an actual farm animal.
pro-soviet communists are idiots...
but the thought of, one day, communism will being a more viable economic system than capitalism, yes, i can picture that.
is it likely to happen in my lifetime? no.
are people who advocate forcefully implementing communism equivalent to ruthless dictators? yes.
can one imagine a society where scarcity does not exist? yes.
can people be forced to do without so that others can make do? no.
but, for right now, capitalism is the best system, that works, given the current state of production.
right, a proper communist transition will occur like the ones from a feudal->capitalist society. not necessarily a revolution.
let me modify your statement:
It is true, that in the knowable past, and the realistically imaginable future, that there are no communist societies, regardless of claims to the otherwise.
the preconditions to communism arent met, and wont be, for some time.
according to his *wants*?
it's "according to his needs" - good lord, cant people quote common phrases correctly, even when they work for a damn dictionary company?
not only very lame, but a huge waste of cycles in a realtime environment. what happened, did someone above make a decree that you would use xml in this solution?
with grits down their pants!
have you ever actually read a single book by marx, or taken a philosophy course that coverred marx?
cuz i gotta tell you have some wildly innacurrate ideas about "Marxist systems".
Marx's views were an economic system, not a political system, and as such, says nothing about the existence of the state.
communism, like capitalism, can exist under any number of forms of political structure. the difference is the ownership of the means of production.
but there has yet to be a true communist state. there have been plenty of totalitarian ones, however.
the pre-conditions for communism to arise are not met. there is not a surplus of necessities. we simply can not feed/cloth/house everyone. scarcity still exists, and as such, communism is an inefficient economic system.
and thats another point - communism is an economic system, not political.
Um, no less than Marx himself said that there would have to be a period of dictatorship.
where did marx say that?
i'm aware of Lenin saying that the Proletariat must be pulled up to class-consciousness from above, but never marx.
i dont understand, what are you referring to?
creationism has a primary source? really? i wouldnt consider the bible more than an unsourced, secondary source.
and its about fucking time.
so, evolution is pseudo-scientific propaganda?
i dont understand, what are you trying to say, that ID, is an actual "theory" ?!?