14 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat is 'post scarcity'? Why is communism inferior to capitalism in the age of scarcity? Surely capitalism is currently the cause of scarcity?
Communism would work, and might even be inevitable in a 'post scarcity' society (if we ever create one), but is
impractical and inferior to capitalism in a society that is still in the age of scarcity.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou must have a misunderstanding of capitalism. You probably got that
What is 'post scarcity'? Why is communism inferior to capitalism in the age of scarcity? Surely capitalism is currently the cause of scarcity?
idea from people who claim communism is superior.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAhh I see. Well in that case I would say that the fact you disagree with something else
You said the following statement was also wise:
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
- Andre Gide
My point in quoting the contradictory statements of Andre Gide on
communism is to compare it with the contradictory statement above.
He seems to be saying to believe those who are seeking the truth, even
though they h ...[text shortened]... ve not found it. But those who have found the truth are
to be doubted, rather than believed.
someone has said has no baring on the accuracy of any of their other statements.
The point of his quote as I understand it, is that you should believe it if someone tells you
that they are searching for the truth, but be suspicious if they tell you they have found it.
On the basis that many people claim to have the truth, when they have nothing of the sort.
If someone tells me they have found the ultimate truth, I am going to be very suspicious of
it and want them to justify their assertion. they may be able to do just that...
But experience suggests that it is unlikely.
The doubting here is that you should believe things on evidence not faith in authority.
Dasa claims to have the ultimate truth, yet I suspect you doubt him quite a bit.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, capitalism is a root of unbalanced distribution of resources, not the scarcity of resources in itself.
What is 'post scarcity'? Why is communism inferior to capitalism in the age of scarcity? Surely capitalism is currently the cause of scarcity?
A post scarcity society, currently only exists in Science fiction, although they are practically attainable
given a high enough tech level.
Basically it means that the level of resources available are so high that citizens can have almost anything
and everything they could possibly want, basically everyone gets to have the kind of life only the uuber wealthy
have today, but more so because we are talking about a future with more advanced tech.
Also as post scarcity societies are likely only possible with a totally or almost totally automated production system.
Basically everything is free, or so close as it doesn't matter, hence it becomes in essence pure communism.
resources are shared equally with everyone, but the amount available is so massive no one ever hits their
ration limit.
This is only possible with today's levels of population with a massive expansion into space.
As we don't live in a post scarcity society, we are left with devising a system of effectively rationing out
limited resources between everyone, where there isn't, or only just, enough to go around.
Moderated capitalism, is in these circumstances, far superior to communism.
Mainly due to human nature.
EDIT: google 'the culture' or 'a few notes on the culture' possibly with 'Ian M Banks' and look at the wiki for a
description of a fictional post scarcity society.... plus some really good stories ;-)
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by shahenshahMaybe that is because you don't know of any truly communist countries.
Is there any place / country where communism is successful? I don't know of any.
But of those claiming to be communist, how do you measure success? The USSR was very successful by some accounts, so is China, and even Cuba.
But I am not trying to support communism, all I said was that capitalism results in scarcity. Pure capitalism always results in the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThats what I said, but the distinction between my "god" and your "God" is that your god is two faced where as my idea of god is non-dual and hence nothing much can be said about IT directly. The only way to reveal mn "God" is to figure out what it's not. Process of elimination.
The cloud is just there, whether you believe in it or not. So too, is God.
(There's more to it, but I'll see how this goes first)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain I would clarify, capitalism results in unequal division of resources,
Maybe that is because you don't know of any truly communist countries.
But of those claiming to be communist, how do you measure success? The USSR was very successful by some accounts, so is China, and even Cuba.
But I am not trying to support communism, all I said was that capitalism results in scarcity. Pure capitalism always results in the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer.
it doesn't result in having less net resources overall.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYet the Uber wealthy today still seem to want more. There is no satisfying peoples greed. Once people get more than a certain amount of wealth they start wanting more than goods, they want status and power, and almost all money spent by people over a given income level is spent on these two things.
Basically it means that the level of resources available are so high that citizens can have almost anything
and everything they could possibly want, basically everyone gets to have the kind of life only the uuber wealthy
have today, but more so because we are talking about a future with more advanced tech.
If there was no 'scarcity' then status could not be bought with money and the required income level would drop to below today's average in wealthy countries.
In other words, I am saying there is already enough goods for a post scarcity society.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut net resources are not in short supply. Most of our basic resources like food / housing etc are more than sufficient for the current world population. They are just not equally distributed. There is no scarcity.
Again I would clarify, capitalism results in unequal division of resources,
it doesn't result in having less net resources overall.
14 Sep 11
1 edit
I've lived in communist Hungary upto 1980 and in capitalist Austrlaia(more or less anothe U.S. state politically) since , and imo both have their problems. Communist Hungary was worse though.
The hare krsna farm I lived on for some months (on and off) was the best society I've lived in by far.
It too had it's drawbacks, but at least you can be yourself there without fear of ridicule for your beliefs or lifestyle and enjoy healthy free food everyday. (of course I would donate money when I had some, but that was never forced either)
It was a truly nice vibe there-better than the Buddhist place I stayed at for 2 weeks up at Chen Rezeig
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadno there isn't.
Yet the Uber wealthy today still seem to want more. There is no satisfying peoples greed. Once people get more than a certain amount of wealth they start wanting more than goods, they want status and power, and almost all money spent by people over a given income level is spent on these two things.
If there was no 'scarcity' then status could not be boug ...[text shortened]... ries.
In other words, I am saying there is already enough goods for a post scarcity society.
at least not how post scarcity is defined.
We could certainly distribute wealth and materiel more fairly, and should in my opinion.
But we don't have anything like the resource levels to qualify for post scarcity.
BTW, resource levels include things like available living space/habitat area,
And this planet is not even close to being big enough to allow us to get to post scarcity
with anything like this many people.
The point of a post scarcity society is not that everyone consumes as much as the uuber wealthy,
but that that level of materiel wealth is available for everyone, and for free.
You could live like a hermit in a post scarcity society if you wanted.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd if enough people lived as hermits, then a post scarcity society would be possible. It is my claim that the majority of goods bought today are purely a result of people living in a scarecity society ie they are all about status and power - not about actual need. if status and power were removed, they would not be bought.
The point of a post scarcity society is not that everyone consumes as much as the uuber wealthy,
but that that level of materiel wealth is available for everyone, and for free.
You could live like a hermit in a post scarcity society if you wanted.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd again I have to disagree.
And if enough people lived as hermits, then a post scarcity society would be possible. It is my claim that the majority of goods bought today are purely a result of people living in a scarecity society ie they are all about status and power - not about actual need. if status and power were removed, they would not be bought.
Plus again for the definition of a post scarcity society, I/you/we have to work to earn enough to pay for the very food we eat.
Post scarcity, you don't, its provided free, because it can be produced in greater quantities than people could possibly eat, with
no human labour required.
You don't seem to get at what I mean by post scarcity.
In a post scarcity society, I could, if I so desired, happily have my very own personal spaceship, without effecting the material
availability or resource share of anyone else. They too could have their own spaceships, if they wanted.
As well as any and all clothing, food, and all housing, for free.
Because the available living space is so vast, and resources available so great that you have to use an unbelievable amount of
resources before you hit any restrictions.
Note: you still have some restrictions, ie I couldn't have my own personal WARship for example.
Scarcity talks about the amount of available resources, not how they are distributed.
You are right in that we would do better if we didn't consume so much, in fact the Scandinavians do do much better, and should
be emulated.
But you are still talking about the better allocation of limited resources, which still puts us firmly on the side of scarcity.
Post scarcity is when you don't have to care about available resources any more.
EDIT: Which brings me back to communism, at the moment communism, the extreme of socialism, has to be imposed
on the population, you will be able to get some to sign up voluntarily, but not all, or probably even the majority.
So you have to enforce it with a non democratic government on any significant population.
Companies following capitalist desires need socialist consumer protection to be imposed on them through regulation.
They don't do it themselves.
My point is that the draconian tyrannical governments needed for communism whilst in an age of scarcity are worse than the ills
of capitalism. Whereas in a post scarcity society, communism is both natural and probably inevitable.
Till such a time as that, we are better off with capitalism moderated with socialism, which is what most western countries have,
to greater or lesser extents.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd what would you do with your very own spaceship? Travel to your very own planet in your very own solar system in your very own universe?
In a post scarcity society, I could, if I so desired, happily have my very own personal spaceship, without effecting the material availability or resource share of anyone else.
You only want a space ship because you want the status that goes with it.
My point is that the draconian tyrannical governments needed for communism whilst in an age of scarcity are worse than the ills
of capitalism. Whereas in a post scarcity society, communism is both natural and probably inevitable.
I don't see how it would be called communism, or socialism any more than capitalism. Systems of government or society based on how goods are produced and shared simply wouldn't apply.
Till such a time as that, we are better off with capitalism moderated with socialism, which is what most western countries have,
to greater or lesser extents.
I generally agree with that.