Well, I'm back

[David Horn]

(01-09-2018, 09:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(01-09-2018, 11:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: Remember, it was you who was the Marxist.  In fact, it was only you, if I remember the positions of the many posters to this board and its antecedent.

And your point is what exactly, Mr. Horn?  You do realize that intelligent people typically change their positions when their current ones are no longer suitable, right?  I mean what would you call someone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results?  I can only think of two things to call such a person and neither are flattering.

Some of us recognize bunk right out of the chute.  I've favored social-democracy since I was in high school ... you know, those public schools you hate so much.

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:Marxism was dead when the modern economy emerged in the 1920s.

 
History would disagree with you.  Marxism reached its peak sometime in the 1940s.  Marxism-Leninism in particular is an outgrowth of the matieral conditions of rapidly industrializing states--a la the USSR, and PRC.

The death began in the '20s.  It took decades for it to kill the host country.  Credit to Deng Xiaoping for seeing the death rattles before they became toxic, so China survived but is MINO.

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:It's even less relevant today.

I agree, but only because except in especially backward sates most countries have at least some light industry or the income to buy goods cheaply from the World's Sweatshops (China and India respectively).  By and large the growing industries are involved with information technology and the outgrowths of those technologies.  In short Marxism has become less relevant because the material conditions changed.  Interestingly this is the same reason why I walked away from Marxism after having been a Marxist-Leninist for a quarter century.

Marxism assumes large labor inputs to generate specific material outputs.  Modern industrial techniques started to kill that idea in the 1920s, at least it did in countries that had that technology and employed it.

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:A bigger question: what replaces capitalism when AI replaces human work?  I know I won't live to see it, but it's coming.  Under that model, libertarianism will devolve to the rule of the mob or absolute autocracy.  I'll bet on the latter.

What odds are you giving because I'm willing to take that bet.  I by no means believe that industrial capitalism is a permanent fixture in human society but the idea that automation and AI will completely replace human labor entirely is absurd.  Automation has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution and so far capitalism not only out competed Marxist Socialism, but as the video in my previous post demonstrates it even out competes so-called democratic socialism.

Give it 50 years, and the work will be complete.  Although you can't remember life 50 years ago, I can.  Everything was still human input.  Computers were room-sized boxes that did computations at a snail's pace by today's standards, and were uncommon to boot.  The first automation (Computer Numerical Control) didn't even start for another 10 years, and it was primitive.  With today's pace of change, 50 years may be a pessimistic guess.

Kinser Wrote:Furthermore more people in the 20th century have died as a result of governmental action than from anything else.  So given the choice between a huge all-powerful state and society being run by a biker gang, I'll take the biker gang.  At least the drugs will be good.

OK, but so what?  Are you suggesting that anarcho-whatever will prevail and government will disappear?  Not a chance.  When it shrinks, it just becomes an appendage of private interests ... who can grow it if they need it.  

Kinser Wrote:So how many bitcoin are we wagering...I take gold, silver and platinum also.  You can keep your paper though.  I only take bets with items of intrinsic value.

I don't place bets I won't live long enough to collect, but I think my case is strong.

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:As a social system, neither is acceptable, so some advanced planning is in order.

The USSR had advanced planning.  People stood in line for hours for potatoes.  While I think a lack of computing power did play a part (as I've referenced Toward a New Socialism by Paul Cockshot numerous times on the old forum and even a few times here) that is not the whole story.  Command economies have great difficulties with calculating price and correctly allocating resources and labor.  Simply put cats cannot swim the Atlantic Ocean.

Wrong kind of planning.  The planning that's needed is contingent not directive.  Since no one can predict the future with true accuracy, it's more than just wise to have a few optional chess moves figured-out.  Having options beats, "Oh shit, what now?"