[James82]

(Original post by MTR_10)
Actually if everything was created individually we would need a lot of people with a lot of different skills. Many of which are currently replaced with energy draining and brutal soul destroying machinery.

Imagine if every piece of beautiful clothing was made lovingly by the hands of many different people for another?

Imagine if every building was individually crafted for the needs of the user and the love of craft?

Imagine if every place in the world was different and there was so much to discover?

Imagine if everyone was different and not pressured into compliance and mediocracy through aggressive capitalism and unrestrained media?

Imagine if life was purely about perfecting an art and putting your heart and soul into your work?

So you're saying that people should specialise in a skill and then just do that for the rest of their lives with no reward? Obviously they couldn't sell or barter their services because that would be industry. Say a craftsman builds 5 houses in his lifetime, how would you decide who lived in the houses? If a farmer produced 100 tonnes of wheat a year, does he just leave it at the front of his property for passers by to collect? It seems to me that a system like this would be abused far too easily?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I thought socialists cringed at central planning?

I think that a certain amount of central planning is necessary, so as long as it is based on the principle of common sense, and so as long as it can benefit the majority of people.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I think that a certain amount of central planning is necessary, so as long as it is based on the principle of common sense, and so as long as it can benefit the majority of people.

If you are planning for very small niches in the economy where demand and price do not fluctuate too much then MAYBE it would work in the short term to provide some stability after a revolution (which will never be seen again in the west) or an economic collapse and socialists get in and nationalise everything.

Other than that if you omit the price mechanism you are going to be left with a whole bunch of people missing a whole bunch of stuff.

Food for a start.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by James82)
Let me guess, calculated by socialists.

Who else? Capitalists are only interested in the profit motive and protect their own interests; they are not likely to calculate the happiness of the whole of society, wether on individual and/or collective merit. Communists assert that their system calculates the happiness of everyone. But their policies can only be brought about by violent revolution, and why they get into power the new Communist owners soon become the oppressors. Communism is just as anti-Democratic as Fascism is.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by prog2djent)
If you are planning for very small niches in the economy where demand and price do not fluctuate too much then MAYBE it would work in the short term to provide some stability after a revolution (which will never be seen again in the west) or an economic collapse and socialists get in and nationalise everything.

Other than that if you omit the price mechanism you are going to be left with a whole bunch of people missing a whole bunch of stuff.

Food for a start.

Maybe in the scenario you describe. But then what kind of revolution? Under what system will this revolution take place? Socialism does not aim to nationalise eveything; it aims to nationalise those industries which would be better run as a public service serving the interests of all the people. Some public services need to be protected from private interests where profit is the prime motive. To this, it may be said that taxes are necessary so that everyone be they rich or poor can access such important services; Government may contract certain services out to private interests if they wish. A society where profit is the only motive - the Capitalists' dream - would produce so much suffering and will likely lead to violent revolution.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Maybe in the scenario you describe. But then what kind of revolution? Under what system will this revolution take place? Socialism does not aim to nationalise eveything; it aims to nationalise those industries which would be better run as a public service serving the interests of all the people. Some public services need to be protected from private interests where profit is the prime motive. To this, it may be said that taxes are necessary so that everyone be they rich or poor can access such important services; Government may contract certain services out to private interests if they wish. A society where profit is the only motive - the Capitalists' dream - would produce so much suffering and will likely lead to violent revolution.

I understand what socialists want to do, but under the circumstances of complete economic collapse they really will nationalise whatever they can to protect the public.

And I'm getting tired of this fixation on Profits by, it just goes to show how little they understand about business. Profit is only a motive for, mostly, Private limited companies on the stock market and that's about it.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I understand what socialists want to do, but under the circumstances of complete economic collapse they really will nationalise whatever they can to protect the public.

And I'm getting tired of this fixation on Profits by, it just goes to show how little they understand about business. Profit is only a motive for, mostly, Private limited companies on the stock market and that's about it.

Under complete economic collapse, the masses will want to protest against the conditions they find themselves in, and any system be it fascism or communism will be attractive to them, especially to the middle classes. This is, it may be said, what we are seeing in Greece at the moment.

Of course, Socialists will want to nationalise services to protect the public, it will be necessary to regain power over such services in order to stabilise society from the dangers of economic collapse. The Capitalists and financiers are not going to do this because it means less power for them since they will no longer have complete control of production, and the Communists would probably rather have a protracted violent revolution to ensure it properly hammers the Capitalists, before doing anything else.

[Snagprophet]

Why do we need anything?

[Nepene]

Imagine if every piece of beautiful clothing was made lovingly by the hands of many different people for another?

It happened in the past. Families made their own clothes. It meant they were shoddily done and uncomfy. Only the rich could afford good clothes.

Imagine if every building was individually crafted for the needs of the user and the love of craft?

It looks so loving.

Imagine if every place in the world was different and there was so much to discover?

So much indeed.

Imagine if everyone was different and not pressured into compliance and mediocracy through aggressive capitalism and unrestrained media?

Excellent idea, they had a restrained media that only talked about what the government wanted. Who really needs freedom of speech?

Imagine if life was purely about perfecting an art and putting your heart and soul into your work?

Sounds like a stable basis for a long term society.

[Nick100]

(Original post by MTR_10)
Imagine if every place in the world was different and there was so much to discover?

We already have that, but we also have cheap food, nice homes, and instant global communication thanks to industry. That painting in your first post is unimpressive compared to any one of the photos taken on Apollo 11.

[stellardesigf]

I don't see a limit on what can or cannot be traded.

I don't also see what is wrong in inequality.

[MTR_10]

(Original post by Nepene)
It happened in the past. Families made their own clothes. It meant they were shoddily done and uncomfy. Only the rich could afford good clothes.





It looks so loving.





So much indeed.





Excellent idea, they had a restrained media that only talked about what the government wanted. Who really needs freedom of speech?





Sounds like a stable basis for a long term society.

I really do not see your point here considering that

a) It is industry which causes poverty in the first place. For example, the reason people don't have access to local building materials (eg timber stone) is because the local resource has been privatised and drained for profit.

b) With reagrds to the picture of dead bodies - That is most likely the result of either;
i) Starvation, brought about by industrialisation and capitalism - taking away local resources and selling them to another continent for the sole purpose of pursuing profit.
ii)War, fought for the purpose of power, capital and control - all potent symbols of industrialisation
iii)Mass murder, which again is linked to the industrialisation of cultures. Why would people living peacefully together and sharing need to kill? How many murders occur in the Amish community?

c) Corrugated steel is an industrial material.

d) Your attempt at ridiculing art is pretty pathetic really.

[MTR_10]

(Original post by Nick100)
We already have that, but we also have cheap food, nice homes, and instant global communication thanks to industry. That painting in your first post is unimpressive compared to any one of the photos taken on Apollo 11.

To be fair, I have never really understood why people are always searching for the 'spectacular' image or something 'awesome' rather than appreciating the beauty of the everyday. Maybe that's strange but what useful information has space travel given us? Compare that against the impact it has had on the earth and it is very dfficult to justify.

[MTR_10]

(Original post by stellardesigf;38363427[B)
]I don't see a limit on what can or cannot be traded[/B].

I don't also see what is wrong in inequality.

One would imagine that is what the bankers think...

Actually an arts and crafts economy would go hand in hand with individuality and to some extent, inequality. Think about it, all the wealthy people now wear the same brands of clothes, have the same style of house everywhere, speak the same language, it's all the same old stuff. If everything was made for a specific purpose, time and place, think about how individual and beautiful everything would be.

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Why do we need anything?

Not everything has to be industrially produced.

[MTR_10]

(Original post by James82)
So you're saying that people should specialise in a skill and then just do that for the rest of their lives with no reward? Obviously they couldn't sell or barter their services because that would be industry. Say a craftsman builds 5 houses in his lifetime, how would you decide who lived in the houses? If a farmer produced 100 tonnes of wheat a year, does he just leave it at the front of his property for passers by to collect? It seems to me that a system like this would be abused far too easily?

Your first line sounds just like capitalism to be fair, except the current model of capitalism is pretty much redundant of all skill. Your attitude is very much that of 'well we are the priviledged few who own the earth and it is up to everyone else to provide for us and we shall give you something small in return'. But why do you own the earth? Why not allow people access to their local resources? Why should we be priviledged and steal other peoples resources? Typical industrialist.

A craftsman would not 'build 5 houses in a lifetime' purely because building a house is not a solitary activity. Likewise the credit (in the form of profit) should not be concentrated to an individual) but done for a purpose (eg. dwelling as opposed to wealth generation). People living within a community provide for each other, not solely for themselves. Industrialisation kills community.

Why do you have to quantify eveything? Quality over quantity?

'Passers by' - classic symbol of industrialisation. People speeding past in big flashy cars taking resources and endlessly consuming other peoples labour. For your information, no this is not how it works. Think of it like this, a farm produces wheat for the local communitiy who sort it and prepare and share it together - everybody participates in all activities. Your ideology seems to be based around dividing and producer and consumer which is a terrible thing imo as it encourages abuse and greed.

[James82]

(Original post by MTR_10)
Your first line sounds just like capitalism to be fair, except the current model of capitalism is pretty much redundant of all skill. Your attitude is very much that of 'well we are the priviledged few who own the earth and it is up to everyone else to provide for us and we shall give you something small in return'. But why do you own the earth? Why not allow people access to their local resources? Why should we be priviledged and steal other peoples resources? Typical industrialist.

A craftsman would not 'build 5 houses in a lifetime' purely because building a house is not a solitary activity. Likewise the credit (in the form of profit) should not be concentrated to an individual) but done for a purpose (eg. dwelling as opposed to wealth generation). People living within a community provide for each other, not solely for themselves. Industrialisation kills community.

Why do you have to quantify eveything? Quality over quantity?

'Passers by' - classic symbol of industrialisation. People speeding past in big flashy cars taking resources and endlessly consuming other peoples labour. For your information, no this is not how it works. Think of it like this, a farm produces wheat for the local communitiy who sort it and prepare and share it together - everybody participates in all activities. Your ideology seems to be based around dividing and producer and consumer which is a terrible thing imo as it encourages abuse and greed.

Your whole ideology rests on the fact that everybody in the community would work together, humans aren't like that, we, as with every other species on the planet are fundamentally only interested in ourselves. I doubt there has been a time in human history where industry hasn't played a part in our lives, humans would have bartered and traded with people in their tribe and neighbouring tribes. Tribes would have exploited other tribes the same as countries exploit other countries nowadays, nothing has changed, it's just moved onto a bigger scale, but we can't help being human.

[Nick100]

(Original post by MTR_10)
To be fair, I have never really understood why people are always searching for the 'spectacular' image or something 'awesome' rather than appreciating the beauty of the everyday. Maybe that's strange but what useful information has space travel given us? Compare that against the impact it has had on the earth and it is very dfficult to justify.

What negative impact has space travel had on Earth? Space travel has given us instant global communications and is the only hope of life's survival beyond the destruction of Earth (which we know is inevitable). And weren't you the one complaining about mediocrity, yet you apparently believe that we should turn away from the stars and stay on Earth until the sun, or an asteroid, or a volcano destroys us all?

Industry brings us wealth and health that our ancestors could only dream of; we are richer than kings of old and we can see more of the world in a matter weeks than our pre-industrial ancestors could see in a lifetime. Destroying industry would make the world a bleak and hopeless place.

[AspiringGenius]

Amish?

[Nepene]

(Original post by MTR_10)
I really do not see your point here considering that

a) It is industry which causes poverty in the first place. For example, the reason people don't have access to local building materials (eg timber stone) is because the local resource has been privatised and drained for profit.

b) With reagrds to the picture of dead bodies - That is most likely the result of either;
i) Starvation, brought about by industrialisation and capitalism - taking away local resources and selling them to another continent for the sole purpose of pursuing profit.
ii)War, fought for the purpose of power, capital and control - all potent symbols of industrialisation
iii)Mass murder, which again is linked to the industrialisation of cultures. Why would people living peacefully together and sharing need to kill? How many murders occur in the Amish community?

c) Corrugated steel is an industrial material.

d) Your attempt at ridiculing art is pretty pathetic really.

I don't recognise the first picture, but I do recognise Taos Pueblo. You are aware that those were buildings made for the religious leaders and war leaders? That was a fortress for defence. The only way to build big things like that is to a large tribe of people working to support a rich elite.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/batiks/5345997017/

Their homes looked more like this.

This sort of house is common too, away from industry.



Stone and wood are hard to lug around. They use scrap metal around, or dirt or branches or sand. If people live in an area for any length of time the easily accessible resources will be used up too, and they will need to go a long way for stone or wood.

So essentially what you are saying is you want to go back to the days when a rich elite owned everyone and used them for their labour, and only the rich could afford good houses?

The reason for the corpses was they were racist and wanted to kill another race. Dictatorships are hardly immune to racism. You know the depression? Low wages, high unemployment, a lack of respect for others? That's the norm in the wild.

Art is no substitute for industry.

[zedeneye1]

(Original post by Flyteryder)
Communism collapsed; are you not aware of that?

You're viewing this website on a computer made by industry. Hypocrite.

USSR was an industrial economy...so is China...Its bad politics that results in collapse of empires...