Originally posted by ahinton
View Post
-
The unsustainability of capitalism and its inability to deal with things like climate change for a start. Capitalism relies on about 3% minimum of compound growth per year to sustain itself (otherwise it crashes) - we live on a finite world, growth cannot go on infinitely - that's perhaps the greatest contradiction of all. Plus growing automation will soon make great swathes of society utterly redundant and impoverished (it's already doing it to an extent) - unless the benefits of automation are socialised. Socialism or barbarism. Fully automated luxury communism or dystopic nightmare! -
But what in your view is the - or at least an - alternative to capitalism when every state has practised it since time immemorial - or immoral - or whatever? Just curious! I'm not even suggesting that there could never be one, although I do believe that, if there were, some humans somewhere would turn it into capitalism Mk. × before you could say knife...Originally posted by Joseph K View PostComment
-
Socialism or barbarism as in the following example.....?Originally posted by Joseph K View PostComment
-
-
Oh and, by the way, in case anyone's interested, no - all radio work should NOT be unpaid!...Comment
-
I have a great admiration for buskers (good ones, that is...)Comment
-
Hmmm; I take it that you've never lived in the centre of Bath, then!...Originally posted by greenilex View PostComment
-
Sidestepping your question, I feel very strongly there has to be a different answer than the continuation of (to too great an extent) unrestrained capitalism and continual growth in GDP. There have been occasions in history warning we are approaching the end of human society / occupation of the earth - or the start of that process. Useful for the climate change deniers to point out how wrong they were (just look at the identity of their paymasters). How do we identify that the present warning is not correctly identifying that event? (And if not terminal climate change, then overpopulation and the mass migration of peoples across continents as they become uninhabitable - the exodus across the Mediterranean a mere small scale rehearsal).Originally posted by gradus View Post
For developed economies the sweeping change of automation, only just started, is surely an unprecedented challenge - previous transformations have involved occupation and purpose for humans. Automation divides us into the fortunate in employment and a steeply rising (ultimately a majoriity) classified as burdens on the state endlessly looking for paid work that does not exist. And the handsome profits from automation will be routed through those tax havens into the hands of the ever present 1%.
For decades there has been limited work for those who can labour but have limited literacy or general capability. Now entrants into the work force are being advised to consider creative occupations as the last redoubt of paid work for.Comment
-
Societies used to be feudal, didn't they? I am pretty sure they thought that would be around forever. Now we only have vestiges of that. I guess it is all part of capitalist ideology to believe ardently that this is how things have always been and always will be, that capitalism is just human nature...Originally posted by ahinton View Post
The alternative to capitalism would be socialism, where the means of production is owned in common.Comment
-
I have been trying to access this website since about 6am to no avail.Originally posted by french frank View Post
Thought it was you and yours but it seems that it was probably me and mine?
Other websites worked fine, though.
I am happy to exclude musicians, actors and technicians from non payment in the theoretical scenario that is open to discussion.
Also happy if others wish to disagree.Comment
-
Of course nothing can stand still and I for one would not expect it to do so. Our interconnectedness today as compared to the days of feudalism means that we all have the opportunity to know what's going on, but those who dismiss capitalism (a phenomenon that I'd be the first to admit is flawed in many areas of its practice) never seem to offer chapter and verse as to how or even whether a society could function without money, the exchange of goods and services and the labour requirements that have not been overridden by technologies of one kind and another - nor, indeed, do they even go so far as to identify how an entire world population can be persuaded to try whatever that alternative might turn out to be.Originally posted by Joseph K View Post
What is meant by the common ownership of the means of production? Common within each country or common globally? And how would the means of production necessarily mean or lead to the common ownership of everything else? Moreover, one could question whether it's morally defensible to force shared ownership of this or that upon individuals who do not want it (did any of us who were not already RBS shareholders want to be made to "own" a chunk of it, especially now that it seems clear that, when that ends, a loss will have been sustained by all?).
UK's NHS - the nation's largest employer by far - is dependent upon private capital and private enterprise; how else would it procure and maintain its buildings and equipment, purchase pharmaceuticals and the rest? It's still a state run industry (owned by the government of the day, not by the individual taxpayers that help to fund it) and so it should remain, but its dealings with non-state organisations are an example of capitalism at work even though run by the state.
The various communist régimes that have come and (largely) gone have all depended to some extent on trading with non-communist ones. Unless the entire world can be persuaded that the capitalist system as a whole has to be fundamentally overhauled, I can see the only sensible solution as ensuring that capitalism works (in ways that it often doesn't at present) rather than trying to throw it out altogether with no viable internationally agreed alternative on offer. That said, there are many lessons to be learned from the history of socialism and it behoves people to learn them.
As to the growth element, this is surely inevitable, whether the world's economies are run on a capitalist or non-capitalist basis? It's all very well claiming that permanent growth is unsustainable - which it will be if not handled with intelligence - but as long as medical science, better food production and the rest enables more people to live longer, the demands upon the world's resources will continue to grow whether anyone likes ot or not. The only solution to this would appear to be to develop ways to get more from less. The gradual wholesale abandonment of fossil fuel production and use in favour of increasing renewable sources of power is just one vital step towards this and UK and US are at present going in the exact opposite direction, in their respective "wisdom"; it can also lessen individuals' dependence upon vast corporations, which has to be a good thing.
But as I hinted before, none of this bears much relation to whether or not radon work should be paid for and therefore probably belongs to another thread that someone might want to create...Comment
-
-
I have had the same problem, lat, but looking at the times of other messagers, it does not appear to have been universal.Originally posted by Lat-Literal View PostI have been trying to access this website since about 6am to no avail.
Thought it was you and yours but it seems that it was probably me and mine?
Other websites worked fine, though.Comment
-
-
No - but it does seem to be at least "widespread", so apologies to everyone affected. It is being "looked into"Originally posted by cloughie View Post
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]Comment
Comment