Corbyn's Momentum to set up a "children's wing"

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    You're suggesting the final stage of Marx's vision?

    A society without a monetary system whereby everything's value is determined by its usefulness and any surplus is fed back into the collectively owned pot.
    I wasn't aware that Marx had this vision. My own view is rather than 'value' and 'usefulness' we just try to do things the best way, without the distortion of a profit motive. Hopefully we won't create too much surplus, and move towards a reduction in the requirement for people to work, whilst improving the opportunities for every individual.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    An idea pretty much unnatural for humans. Humans tend to create systems of money, what you are suggesting (apart from plunging the world into a primitive society) is completely against the human intuition
    Humans haven't always used money, and it is in no way 'natural. What I am suggesting is that we move on, from a monetary controlled system, not back to some other sort of primitive exchange mechanism. We only need an exchange mechanism because there is deliberate scarcity. If we make use of the technology we have and distribute things better, we can eliminate scarcity, and remove the wasteful and restricting effects of the monetary system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    I wasn't aware that Marx had this vision. My own view is rather than 'value' and 'usefulness' we just try to do things the best way, without the distortion of a profit motive. Hopefully we won't create too much surplus, and move towards a reduction in the requirement for people to work, whilst improving the opportunities for every individual.
    Naive imo. And more than a little at that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    I wasn't aware that Marx had this vision. My own view is rather than 'value' and 'usefulness' we just try to do things the best way, without the distortion of a profit motive. Hopefully we won't create too much surplus, and move towards a reduction in the requirement for people to work, whilst improving the opportunities for every individual.
    It wasn't a cheap shot, you've basically laid the theoretical foundations for your own school of Marxism.

    Lenin's and Mao's were based around the urban working class and rural peasants seizing the means of production from the Capitalists. Yours also includes collectivisation but with robotic labour replacing humans wherever possible(whether you'll accrue as many followers as the above remains to be seen) .

    The questions you need to ask though; would the robotic innovations we have today that make this technically possible have been achieved under the stifling auspices of a Communist government? History suggests not. And would future technology advance at the same rate if you remove people's motivation to innovate? Again, the same answer based on comparing West and East in the 20th century.

    I'm a firm believer in a more progressive approach to Capitalism which I think can provide a better standard of life for all, rather than (for all intents and purposes) the human equivalent of an ant colony.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The questions you need to ask though; would the robotic innovations we have today that make this technically possible have been achieved under the stifling auspices of a Communist government? History suggests not. And would future technology advance at the same rate if you remove people's motivation to innovate? Again, the same answer based on comparing West and East in the 20th century.

    I'm sure that, in the future, we will have the capabilities to re-educate people so that their motivation to innovate is not lost along with their private property rights.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    An idea pretty much unnatural for humans. Humans tend to create systems of money, what you are suggesting (apart from plunging the world into a primitive society) is completely against the human intuition
    Not true. This is an economic myth that anthropological accounts have now largely discredited.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    It wasn't a cheap shot, you've basically laid the theoretical foundations for your own school of Marxism.

    Lenin's and Mao's were based around the urban working class and rural peasants seizing the means of production from the Capitalists. Yours also includes collectivisation but with robotic labour replacing humans wherever possible(whether you'll accrue as many followers as the above remains to be seen) .

    The questions you need to ask though; would the robotic innovations we have today that make this technically possible have been achieved under the stifling auspices of a Communist government? History suggests not. And would future technology advance at the same rate if you remove people's motivation to innovate? Again, the same answer based on comparing West and East in the 20th century.

    I'm a firm believer in a more progressive approach to Capitalism which I think can provide a better standard of life for all, rather than (for all intents and purposes) the human equivalent of an ant colony.
    You seem to be ever looking backwards for inspiration, rather than looking at the way things are now, and the opportunities that presents. I have no argument with how we got to where we are. We are moving at a rapid pace to much higher levels of automation, with many fewer jobs needed whatever happens. We have a choice of sharing the benefits or consigning a large part of society to poverty, handouts or really low wages in order to compete with machines.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    You seem to be ever looking backwards for inspiration, rather than looking at the way things are now, and the opportunities that presents. I have no argument with how we got to where we are. We are moving at a rapid pace to much higher levels of automation, with many fewer jobs needed whatever happens. We have a choice of sharing the benefits or consigning a large part of society to poverty, handouts or really low wages in order to compete with machines.
    You should always look backwards to learn from the mistakes of history, as a society we have a tendency to repeat them. Labour for example are running an almost perfect parody of their dark ages in the 1980's currently.

    Universal basic income is the solution to mass implementation of robotics IMO, as soon there'll simply be more people than jobs that require one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    We are moving at a rapid pace to much higher levels of automation, with many fewer jobs needed
    You don't seem to have noticed that the reverse is true, regardless of automation. The number of people employed in the UK is growing quite rapidly.

    In the quarter from October to December 2015, there were 31.42 million people in work, 205,000 more than for July to September 2015 and 521,000 more than for a year earlier.

    In the same quarter there were 22.98 million people working full-time, 387,000 more than for a year earlier. There were 8.43 million people working part-time, 134,000 more than for a year earlier.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandl...-december-2015
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    So before I was the Daily Mail, now I'm 'running the Labour Party' :lol:

    Are you drunk? Don't answer that, btw. I don't care about your personal problems.
    You seem hysterical about a lot of things, particularly unsubstantiated paedophile scares, that's why I compared you to the Daily Mail. I didn't think it was that complicated an analogy, but when you turned out not to understand it I then compared you to the Labour party because they are also inept communicators and generally out of touch.

    Hope that helps mate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not true. This is an economic myth that anthropological accounts have now largely discredited.
    So the historic use of money by just about every civilised society in history is a myth? It didn't happen? Let me guess - fat, white, American bankers invented money and brainwashed everyone into using it. That includes the Egyptians, Romans, Hellenics, Hittites, Babylonians, Sumerians and Armenians - not to mention the Native Americans and ancient Polynesians.

    I'd like to hear of these anthropological accounts that run contrary to basically everything in human history.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    So the historic use of money by just about every civilised society in history is a myth? It didn't happen? Let me guess - fat, white, American bankers invented money and brainwashed everyone into using it. That includes the Egyptians, Romans, Hellenics, Hittites, Babylonians, Sumerians and Armenians - not to mention the Native Americans and ancient Polynesians.

    I'd like to hear of these anthropological accounts that run contrary to basically everything in human history.
    The Inca Empire would be an example of a very large complex society that never developed a monetary system. Given you mentioned Native Americans, the Iroquois Confederacy, though not as complex as the Incas, would be another example.

    It depends how broadly you classify 'money', but an actual physical cash monetary system didn't emerge until around 600 BCE. Claims of 'money' existing before this are usually confusions or one of two things:
    i) what are known in anthropology as 'social currencies' - usually rare items that are passed from one person to another as traditional ceremonial gifts, usually at special ceremonial events like weddings or coming-of-age ceremonies, and very rarely if ever traded for basic material goods. The Rai Stones of Micronesia would be an example of this
    ii) complex credit systems which have developed a quantifiable system of debts and accounting, but which are generally entirely virtual. Sometimes they calculated these debts in terms of goods, but generally these goods were not actually transferred. In Ancient Ireland, for example, debt records were still being recorded in quantities of slaves long after slavery had declined into non-existence.

    Money as a physical commodity and medium of exchange didn't evolve until the rise of highly professionalised armies and state bureaucracies in the mid-1st millennium BCE. If you want a specific account, I'd really recommend David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    An idea pretty much unnatural for humans. Humans tend to create systems of money, what you are suggesting (apart from plunging the world into a primitive society) is completely against the human intuition
    or certainly a system where portable items of intrinsic value are used to supplement barter ( later developing into even more portable items / devices backed by the word of government / banks )
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The Inca Empire would be an example of a very large complex society that never developed a monetary system. Given you mentioned Native Americans, the Iroquois Confederacy, though not as complex as the Incas, would be another example.

    It depends how broadly you classify 'money', but an actual physical cash monetary system didn't emerge until around 600 BCE. Claims of 'money' existing before this are usually confusions or one of two things:
    i) what are known in anthropology as 'social currencies' - usually rare items that are passed from one person to another as traditional ceremonial gifts, usually at special ceremonial events like weddings or coming-of-age ceremonies, and very rarely if ever traded for basic material goods. The Rai Stones of Micronesia would be an example of this
    ii) complex credit systems which have developed a quantifiable system of debts and accounting, but which are generally entirely virtual. Sometimes they calculated these debts in terms of goods, but generally these goods were not actually transferred. In Ancient Ireland, for example, debt records were still being recorded in quantities of slaves long after slavery had declined into non-existence.

    Money as a physical commodity and medium of exchange didn't evolve until the rise of highly professionalised armies and state bureaucracies in the mid-1st millennium BCE. If you want a specific account, I'd really recommend David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
    i) Sounds like total nonsense to me. Are you saying that you believe that coinage did not exist before the 6th century BC? No coins? Or ingots before that?

    ii) Sounds like a very complex system of....debt. If that's not a hallmark of a money/trading society - what is? It's certainly not a pseudo-communistic society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You don't seem to have noticed that the reverse is true, regardless of automation. The number of people employed in the UK is growing quite rapidly.

    In the quarter from October to December 2015, there were 31.42 million people in work, 205,000 more than for July to September 2015 and 521,000 more than for a year earlier.

    In the same quarter there were 22.98 million people working full-time, 387,000 more than for a year earlier. There were 8.43 million people working part-time, 134,000 more than for a year earlier.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandl...-december-2015
    At the moment this is the case. Most automation so far has affected manufacturing, and the UK is heavily services based. The other thing hidden by these figures is the number of people on low pay, which is increasing as they try to compete with automation.
    We should be moving towards reducing the burden of work, but are obsessed with full employment, as the system is based on work for consumption. As we 'labour save' in one area we are forced to create new work in another.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    You should always look backwards to learn from the mistakes of history, as a society we have a tendency to repeat them. Labour for example are running an almost perfect parody of their dark ages in the 1980's currently.
    We should take lessons from the past, but also recognise that just because something failed previously it cannot work in a new era with the bad bits changed out to benefit from new ways of doing things.
    The situation in the 80s was a lot different to how things are now. The whole financial and economic structure has shifted.

    Universal basic income is the solution to mass implementation of robotics IMO, as soon there'll simply be more people than jobs that require one.
    This is a stepping stone, and once widely implemented should speed up automation, and reduce the need for pointless jobs. Once it becomes the norm, we will probably realise the actual income part is a pointless activity and stop that pretence too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What the f**k..
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 22, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.