• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pick your Poison - Communism or Capitalism? (Or Socialism?)

Which poison would you pick?


  • Total voters
    44
Meh. The Zeitgeist Movement has some interesting aspects, but it's naive and overly idealistic in the extreme. An economy is simply too complicated for a central body to micromanage it, even if that central body is a supercomputer. It's a chaotic system, which means future states are impossible to determine no matter how good your current data is. Essentially, the Zeitgeist Movement is to the left what libertarianism is to the right. It's a nice idea theoretically, but it would never work in practice.

Why do you think a super computer would not be able to micromanage a world economy?

Why do you think it is a chaotic system?

True, you probably will never be able to accurately predict future states, but it has probably nothing to do with the fact that it is a "chaotic system." It more has to do with the fact that you are trying to predict the future.
 
No ideology is perfect, everything has its flaws but free market democratic capitalism is the best that is out there.

Well, let us know where to look for examples of it in practice and we'll make a judgement on that.
 
Why do you think a super computer would not be able to micromanage a world economy?

Why do you think it is a chaotic system?

Because an economy is a collection of 6 billion people conducting many transactions every day, behaving in ways that they believe benefit themselves. In order for a supercomputer to micromanage the world economy, it would need to know more about economics, psychology, sociology, politics, and business than exists in the repertoire of human knowledge.

And even if we did have supercomputers powerful enough to do all that, they still wouldn't be able to control the world economy. Why? Because they would simply supplant humans and BECOME the world economy. And then we'd need even smarter supercomputers to micromanage THEIR transactions.
 
I firmly disagree.

The supercomputer wouldn't need to know about psychology, sociology, politics, etc.. Really, all the computer is doing in this model is tracking the world's resources, and orders for the most part. In a Resource Based Economy there is no currency. Somebody would put in their computer at home I need a hair dryer. This is sent electronically to a computer, which then packages the hair dryer and records the inventory. This data is sent to the Big Super Computer let's title it, and it records the consumption of the resources that was used for that hair dryer. That is essentially all it is doing. Sure, there are billions of people on this planet. So let's say everyone wanted something every second and put an order in on that second. That is 6 billion orders per second. Let's say it takes the processor(s) 4 instructions per order. Let me double that. 8. That is about 48 billion instructions per second. As you can see, this is very feasible because these are processor speeds for a singular computer.

Instructions per second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you notice, the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (Quad Core) 49,161 MIPS at 2.66 GHz could handle that load, and this processor was made in 2006. On top of that, I'm sure we would be able to link multiple computers together and combine the resources. So really, this is very feasible.

I am not even going to waste energy on the other point.
 
Why do you think a super computer would not be able to micromanage a world economy?

An economy can only be centrally and consciously managed by the people as a whole, not by a supercomputer. Yes, computers can be a good tool to use in doing so, but it is not a replacement for human beings.
 
I firmly disagree.

The supercomputer wouldn't need to know about psychology, sociology, politics, etc.. Really, all the computer is doing in this model is tracking the world's resources, and orders for the most part. In a Resource Based Economy there is no currency. Somebody would put in their computer at home I need a hair dryer. This is sent electronically to a computer, which then packages the hair dryer and records the inventory. This data is sent to the Big Super Computer let's title it, and it records the consumption of the resources that was used for that hair dryer. That is essentially all it is doing. Sure, there are billions of people on this planet. So let's say everyone wanted something every second and put an order in on that second. That is 6 billion orders per second. Let's say it takes the processor(s) 4 instructions per order. Let me double that. 8. That is about 48 billion instructions per second. As you can see, this is very feasible because these are processor speeds for a singular computer.

Instructions per second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you notice, the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (Quad Core) 49,161 MIPS at 2.66 GHz could handle that load, and this processor was made in 2006. On top of that, I'm sure we would be able to link multiple computers together and combine the resources. So really, this is very feasible.

I am not even going to waste energy on the other point.

So who makes the hairdryer? Who makes the things needed to make the hairdryer? Who mines the things out of the ground? How does all that stuff get to where it needs to go? What if someone decides they want 500 hairdryers? What if the computer decides I don't actually need a hairdryer?
 
One of the general philosophies of this model, and I am not too certain on this, is the goal is to automate as much as you can. So on with the questions:

So who makes the hairdryer?

I wouldn't be surprised there is a factory where the hair dryers are produced, and this process would be automated.

Who makes the things needed to make the hairdryer?

I am thinking you are trying to get to the raw materials. I'm sure the process of mining could be fully automated as well. Now, from the start is everything automated? No. But the goal is to slowly automate mundane physical labor, so the human mind can be freed and used for other purposes.

How does all that stuff get to where it needs to go?

They have thought this through as well. Do you remember Maglev trains? These trains run on electromagnetism. They are super quiet, and insanely fast.

What if someone decides they want 500 hairdryers?

Where is the incentive? There is absolutely no currency so they can't sell it.

What if the computer decides I don't actually need a hairdryer?

Depends on the architects who design the program. Personally, my view of this computer is to serve humanity. So, if you think you need it, the computer will send it to you.
 
If i recall correctly, Wake, that's actually a Lenin or Trotsky quote, and I remember Le Marteau sporting it before he got banned. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think Kori would ever say such a thing.
 
Last edited:
If i recall correctly, Wake, that's actually a Lenin or Trotsky quote, and I remember Le Marteau sporting it before he got banned. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's supposedly a Trotsky quote, though I have not come across it anywhere in his writings. It's not on MIA, though they don't have all of his works up as the SWP still holds the rights to some of his work and refuse to release them to the public, choosing instead to profit off of being their exclusive producer.

Le Marteau was a Trotskyist, if I gathered correctly, so that would make sense, though the quote is quite silly.
 
Really? What if I have a terrible job that I hate? What will happen if I quit it?

That's up to you. The beauty of freedom is that you control what happens to you.
 
That's up to you. The beauty of freedom is that you control what happens to you.

No, it's not up to me. In this little place we call reality, if I quit my job, chances are I won't be able to find another one, since there's about 4 unemployed people for every 1 job opening. Then I get kicked out of my house and starve, assuming that welfare system you hate so much isn't there. How is that different from a system where they shoot you if you don't work? Both are essentially offering you the choice of work or death.
 
A mixed economy is the best.
 
One of the general philosophies of this model, and I am not too certain on this, is the goal is to automate as much as you can. So on with the questions:

So who makes the hairdryer?

I wouldn't be surprised there is a factory where the hair dryers are produced, and this process would be automated.

Who makes the things needed to make the hairdryer?

I am thinking you are trying to get to the raw materials. I'm sure the process of mining could be fully automated as well. Now, from the start is everything automated? No. But the goal is to slowly automate mundane physical labor, so the human mind can be freed and used for other purposes.

How does all that stuff get to where it needs to go?

They have thought this through as well. Do you remember Maglev trains? These trains run on electromagnetism. They are super quiet, and insanely fast.

What if someone decides they want 500 hairdryers?

Where is the incentive? There is absolutely no currency so they can't sell it.

What if the computer decides I don't actually need a hairdryer?

Depends on the architects who design the program. Personally, my view of this computer is to serve humanity. So, if you think you need it, the computer will send it to you.

The hairdryers are just an analogy. What if someone wants 5 houses, 12 cars, a yacht, and a private jet? And apparently a lot of people want that. Will the computer just trust them on that one? Or will it decide they don't actually need those things? And if so, who gets to decide how much people need?
 
"Both already happens here, and we don't complain to much." - Juiposa

If you really believe that then you're not paying attention.

"We bitched about HST but that has gone away. We have no problem with it here in Canuckland." - Juiposa

With respect to my questions I guess what you are trying to say is that you have no idea.
 
No, it's not up to me. In this little place we call reality, if I quit my job, chances are I won't be able to find another one, since there's about 4 unemployed people for every 1 job opening. Then I get kicked out of my house and starve, assuming that welfare system you hate so much isn't there. How is that different from a system where they shoot you if you don't work? Both are essentially offering you the choice of work or death.

Wow. Text book fallacy. How can you possibly put this on DP as a counter point?

You seem to think you are impervious to making bad decisions or at the very least your bad decisions should be offset by some sort of government program/regulation. Freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. So many people think the only price of freedom is paid for on the battle field. But everyday many people pay the price in their own lives. Whether it is the loss of a job or the loss of possessions. But just because someone may fail doesn't give us the right to take from those that do succeed. Life is full of choices, rewards and consequences. Take away the consequences, the rewards and choices loose all meaning. Take the meaning from choices and rewards and freedom is lost. Without freedom, what's the point of life? To serve a government? I'd rather live and fail than live and serve.
 
The hairdryers are just an analogy. What if someone wants 5 houses, 12 cars, a yacht, and a private jet? And apparently a lot of people want that. Will the computer just trust them on that one? Or will it decide they don't actually need those things? And if so, who gets to decide how much people need?

I am so glad you went there. Sure, this is a problem, but it is mainly a problem because we are diverging from a Capitalistic Society. People that lived during this time, are taught about self-preservation, maximizing profits, continual consumption, etc.. So really, people of this age would gravitate over something that they want over what they need.

But imagine a world where this is not taught, and other values are taught instead. Eventually, people would only ask for what they need, and they might indulge on wants every now and again but not to the determent of the community.

But how do we address this problem during an age when even the children remember Capitalism? There are various strategies.
 
I am so glad you went there. Sure, this is a problem, but it is mainly a problem because we are diverging from a Capitalistic Society. People that lived during this time, are taught about self-preservation, maximizing profits, continual consumption, etc.. So really, people of this age would gravitate over something that they want over what they need.

But imagine a world where this is not taught, and other values are taught instead. Eventually, people would only ask for what they need, and they might indulge on wants every now and again but not to the determent of the community.

But how do we address this problem during an age when even the children remember Capitalism? There are various strategies.

I'll give you this: At the point at which technology has advanced enough that anyone can make virtually anything they want with a snap of their fingers using nanotechnology or whatever, this type of system will be feasible. Until that point, it won't.
 
Well, I disagree. Just because you say it is so does not mean it is.
 
Wow. Text book fallacy. How can you possibly put this on DP as a counter point?

You seem to think you are impervious to making bad decisions or at the very least your bad decisions should be offset by some sort of government program/regulation. Freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. So many people think the only price of freedom is paid for on the battle field. But everyday many people pay the price in their own lives. Whether it is the loss of a job or the loss of possessions. But just because someone may fail doesn't give us the right to take from those that do succeed. Life is full of choices, rewards and consequences. Take away the consequences, the rewards and choices loose all meaning. Take the meaning from choices and rewards and freedom is lost. Without freedom, what's the point of life? To serve a government? I'd rather live and fail than live and serve.



You know, it's actually kind of impressive how badly you missed the point right there. If failure were purely a result of personal choices, I would agree with you. It's not, and saying otherwise is naive in the extreme. There aren't enough jobs to go around. This is a simple fact. That means that a certain percentage of people are guaranteed to fail. It means that doing something like quitting your job is inviting yourself to become part of that percentage, which means that you're effectively forced to work that job no matter how bad it is. You can't define your way out of this. It's not freedom any more than the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democratic people's republic.
 
I am so glad you went there. Sure, this is a problem, but it is mainly a problem because we are diverging from a Capitalistic Society. People that lived during this time, are taught about self-preservation, maximizing profits, continual consumption, etc.. So really, people of this age would gravitate over something that they want over what they need.

But imagine a world where this is not taught, and other values are taught instead. Eventually, people would only ask for what they need, and they might indulge on wants every now and again but not to the determent of the community.

But how do we address this problem during an age when even the children remember Capitalism? There are various strategies.

The level of control you desire in this post is scary. This may be an over used term, but to totalitarian nature of this post is frightening. You seem to assume that you know what's best for everyone else and that level of arrogance may be prevalent in many but has only been prevalent in a select few in history...and none of them are viewed favorably.

My only hope is that no one of your ilk ever reaches a position of power that is of consequence. I just can't imagine the disaster that would befall.
 


You know, it's actually kind of impressive how badly you missed the point right there. If failure were purely a result of personal choices, I would agree with you. It's not, and saying otherwise is naive in the extreme. There aren't enough jobs to go around. This is a simple fact. That means that a certain percentage of people are guaranteed to fail. It means that doing something like quitting your job is inviting yourself to become part of that percentage, which means that you're effectively forced to work that job no matter how bad it is. You can't define your way out of this. It's not freedom any more than the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democratic people's republic.


Awww....you had a cute video...does that mean you win? You are still putting forth this fallacy that an individual is not responsible for their own choices. In your example you chose a job, decided you didn't like it and then chose to quit. Just because you don't like the choices doesn't mean you aren't better off having choices.
 
Awww....you had a cute video...does that mean you win? You are still putting forth this fallacy that an individual is not responsible for their own choices. In your example you chose a job, decided you didn't like it and then chose to quit. Just because you don't like the choices doesn't mean you aren't better off having choices.

Again: The "choice" being offered is work or starve. How is that different from the choice of work or be shot offered in a place like the Soviet Union?
 
The level of control you desire in this post is scary. This may be an over used term, but to totalitarian nature of this post is frightening. You seem to assume that you know what's best for everyone else and that level of arrogance may be prevalent in many but has only been prevalent in a select few in history...and none of them are viewed favorably.

My only hope is that no one of your ilk ever reaches a position of power that is of consequence. I just can't imagine the disaster that would befall.

First don't worry, I won't be in power in a long time if at all. I am only 23.

Second, I don't think, I know, that a system like this, or some other system besides the one we are living in, would drastically improve the life of most of the people on the planet. Sure, there would be some where their standards of living would decrease, but it is very selfish to keep the world the way it is for the minority.
 
Back
Top Bottom