New Communism

[Cognisant]

Communist government-controlled industry is (potentially) more efficient than capitalism because less resources go into making fashionable crap, but we like fashionable crap, that's why the US won the Cold War, in a world where resources are relatively plentiful capitalism can grow and develop technologically faster than communism. But in the not to distant future our every increasing industrial capacity will be stymied by a shortage of resources, no matter how advanced our technology the fact of the matter is our planet does have an industrial limit, at very least the growth we're experiencing now simply isn't sustainable.

I predict that in this new world, though we might not make the transition to communism, the communist mentality of industry more focused on specific needs and making stuff for its practical value rather than superficial desirability will make a resurgence. This means I'll no longer buy a new pair of shoes every three months from a store called "Payless Shoes" (no seriously I'm not kidding) because there won't be cheap shoes anymore, in a world of limited resources I'll have to pay more for things and when I do I'll be more interested in their quality than their superficial value.

This new shopping mentality will be met by the decline of shoe stores, there simply won't be enough variations of shoe to justify the continued existence of these retailers (at least not as many retailers as we currently are accustomed to) instead online and general stores will take even more of the market. Furthermore in a world of scarce resources and excess industrial capacity things won't just be made to last, they'll be over-engineered, the new fashion statement will be complexity, everything will have miniaturised electronics in it, going clothes shopping will be like building a computer.

Do you want a loose shirt that tracks perspiration and adjust venting accordingly or a tight shirt with heat sink cooling that tracks heartbeat and blood pressure?

Star Trek meets Schlock Mercenary's fullerene bodysuit, welcome to the future.
Everybody wears the same clothes, but they aren't exactly communist.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Who shall speak for teh commies!?!?!?111 I'll take your bait, but only because it looks like it tastes cheesy. You're effectively claiming that communistic mechanisms halt technological development and hedonic experience, which isn't true.

I predict that in this new world, though we might not make the transition to communism, the communist mentality of industry more focused on specific needs and making stuff for its practical value rather than superficial desirability will make a resurgence.

Utilitarianism. Check.

This means I'll no longer buy a new pair of shoes every three months from a store called "Payless Shoes" (no seriously I'm not kidding) because there won't be cheap shoes anymore, in a world of limited resources I'll have to pay more for things and when I do I'll be more interested in their quality than their superficial value.

This is entirely incorrect. The overarching system is still in equilibrium, the key lies in unlocking sinks, whether they be resource sinks, capital sinks, energy sinks, etc. A given product would be made from whatever materials would be available and efficient. If anything, variety increases and local price drops.

Star Trek meets Schlock Mercenary's fullerene bodysuit, welcome to the future.
Everybody wears the same clothes, but they aren't exactly communist.

Or we could... ditch clothes entirely.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I should probably point out one of our largest untapped sinks on a global scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill

 

[Nezaros]

Or we could just recycle.

I should probably point out one of our largest untapped sinks on a global scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill

Like that.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Or we could just recycle.

Like that.

Most everything that is recycled is recycled in relatively pristine condition. It's.... not quite that easy given how materials are mixed in landfill conditions. A lot of these involve hazardous substances that are a real (and costly) PITA to remove/isolate. Each layer is its own unique chemo-physical brew in a different state of decomposition/reaction.

 

[Nezaros]

We just need this.

 

[Cognisant]

It would be easier to create custom bacteria, there's already some strains that eat nylon, then again if they escaped into the wild that could become seriously problematic.

 

[scorpiomover]

Heard this one before. Sounds like the utopian Star Trek, that many people want to believe will happen. Isn't it amazing just how many people made the same sorts of claims about what would happen by now, and 50 years ago, and 50 years before that, and so on, and so on? Glad to see that you follow a rich tradition of people who keep claiming we will live in some sort of utopia in their lifetime.

Me? I believe that people are people. People will do what makes them more money.

When will you get sci-fi clothes? When there is more profit in it. I.E. When it costs 5 cents to make such a shirt, sells for about $1000, and the technology inside it wears out every 3 months, while the shirts you used to buy, would last you years, and would provide just as good service. No point in selling the normal stuff. People might buy them and not buy the really expensive stuff.

We just need this.

Hey, if you could get one of those, then you could make a replicator and a teleporter. Wouldn't need to bother doing anything with landfill at all.

 

[Nezaros]

Hey, if you could get one of those, then you could make a replicator and a teleporter. Wouldn't need to bother doing anything with landfill at all.

We would have a use for all that landfill stuff. More importantly, a way to get rid of nuclear waste.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

We just need this.

It would be easier to create custom bacteria, there's already some strains that eat nylon, then again if they escaped into the wild that could become seriously problematic.

Every time I hear, see, or read something reductionist to the effect of "We just need to make a positron super transmobile phaser!" I cringe. We don't even understand the system we're in, let alone the impacts of proposed solution XYZ37.

This whole convo-sequence reminds me of one of my few interactions on INTJforum, wherein it was proposed to fill the North American Great Lakes with oil-producing algae, without any regard to exotic invasion potential, evolution, billion dollar fisheries, the bacterial growth curve, pollution, etc. "It's just going to happen anyway so we might as well get on with it." Yup.

Why not take a break and let the system guide us for a while? Take it apart, put it back together, and actually understand how it works before pushing Big Red Buttons?

Heard this one before. Sounds like the utopian Star Trek, that many people want to believe will happen. Isn't it amazing just how many people made the same sorts of claims about what would happen by now, and 50 years ago, and 50 years before that, and so on, and so on? Glad to see that you follow a rich tradition of people who keep claiming we will live in some sort of utopia in their lifetime.

What of the possibility that we're actually in a utopia, always have been, but just can't seem to unglue our eyelids to figure out htf it works? Ignorance is agony.

We would have a use for all that landfill stuff. More importantly, a way to get rid of nuclear waste.

We already do: Subductive Disposal.

 

[scorpiomover]

What of the possibility that we're actually in a utopia, always have been, but just can't seem to unglue our eyelids to figure out htf it works? Ignorance is agony.

I've actually been telling an INFP friend for over a year, that the human experience is really about therapy. When we stop self-sabotaging and trying to satisfy short-term desires that we know will screw us over later, and just do what makes sense, things will simplify. If it's soluble now, we'll do it, and then it's solved. If it takes longer to implement the solution, we'll just persevere patiently. If we don't have a solution, we'll accept it, the same way that most of us accept that we don't shit solid gold.

Why not take a break and let the system guide us for a while? Take it apart, put it back together, and actually understand how it works before pushing Big Red Buttons?

Sounds far too reasonable for us humans.

 

[Kuu]

Uhh let me think about it...

No.

You seem to fail to understand that we live in a "globalised" world, a post-national era where large corporations operate and hold more funds than entire states, and are largely unbound by the geographic shackles of national governments. The era where government could hope to control industry is history. Industry controls governments. In a world of resource scarcity, people will just exploit others more brutally so they can keep their prices artificially low and continue riding atop the consumerist wave. When shit hits the fan in nation X, corporations just pick up shop and go to nation Y.

I agree that an utilitarian-oriented industry would be far more productive for the general population; I disagree that resource scarcity would somehow push industry and government into that mindset. What is the incentive to abandon exploitation and the hierarchical society that allows it, upon which industrial overproduction and superfluous consumerism is built on? Resource scarcity? On the contrary, I would posit resource scarcity exacerbates class gaps, reinforces social competitiveness and hoarding.

Also, so carelessly dumping a term loaded with baggage like "communism" is questionable at best.

 

[gilliatt]

The first point is everything I write will not be perfect. My second point is I am working on learning to write. It is not a mystery. This thing can be learned. I figure I can speak English, you get the point. There is plot, plot, plot...clarity, clarity, clarity. Henry Adams said,"The result of a year's work depends on what is struck out than on what is left in, on the sequence of the main lines of thought, than on their play and variety." So, practicing, there is so many theoretical possibilities. INTPs, why not? We are interesting, intriguing, freshness etc. And these threads, their questions? I know what they are up to, their politics, hidden motives etc. This thread, the subject is communism; the theme, a new one. Communist principle..Man must exist for the sake of the State(the essential issue) evil, evil, evil. I understand all these materialists, all neo-mystics. All these Communist are all the same, the results are the same.

 

[ZenRaiden]

There is no analogy to communism.
To put simply communism is qualitatively different, not in quantity.

More importantly there are more versions of communism than consumerism.
Consumerism we live today is basically just that. You buy what you want.

There probably at least 20 different distinct variations of communism.
Anarcho communism it self could be divided in to varieties.

There just aren't many INTPs fleshing up this theoretical stuff, because its too abstract.

The fact that there is one version of communism still shows how low understanding of communism is.

Just deciding on the voting structure of communism is headache.

 

[Old Things]

Is it weird that I think communism restricts commerce rather than makes it more efficient?

 

[Black Rose]

Is it weird that I think communism restricts commerce rather than makes it more efficient?

no economic system even communism can exist without government.

the cowboy libertarian ideal is dumb - the earth is a tech-based civilization.

Mars maybe but that will be a technocracy.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Is it weird that I think communism restricts commerce rather than makes it more efficient?

If red block did no trading and sold no stuff they would be about 100 percent more poor. I know a joke.

But commerce is life blood of every empire.

Commerce in Soviet Union was not small, but restricted to red block.
Also lots of stuff was simply not sold, but given away to spread the proletariat.
Basically giving stuff for free, so yeah not as much income.

Exports were pretty high for red block and trade among them was basically the thing holding them together.

To answer your question its not a weird thought or line of thinking.
Comparably trade of western nations was larger volume.

People just need to adjust for some thing. Soviet Union had two world wars and had to get on its feet alone.
Other red block countries were ruined too.

The division of Europe into blocks was not economically sound. It was a political move.
Soviet Union broke apart, but economically speaking despite its poor leadership its economy was growing all the time exponentially.
If Soviet Union existed now it would probably be better of than Putins Russia.
Possibly twice as much.
Considering that we don't consider red block dissolved.

Can anyone though confirm this? Probably not so its just opinion.

 

[gilliatt]

Have you ever bought anything made in Russia? Not me..

 

[Drvladivostok]

Communist government-controlled industry is (potentially) more efficient than capitalism because less resources go into making fashionable crap, but we like fashionable crap, that's why the US won the Cold War, in a world where resources are relatively plentiful capitalism can grow and develop technologically faster than communism. But in the not to distant future our every increasing industrial capacity will be stymied by a shortage of resources, no matter how advanced our technology the fact of the matter is our planet does have an industrial limit, at very least the growth we're experiencing now simply isn't sustainable.

I predict that in this new world, though we might not make the transition to communism, the communist mentality of industry more focused on specific needs and making stuff for its practical value rather than superficial desirability will make a resurgence. This means I'll no longer buy a new pair of shoes every three months from a store called "Payless Shoes" (no seriously I'm not kidding) because there won't be cheap shoes anymore, in a world of limited resources I'll have to pay more for things and when I do I'll be more interested in their quality than their superficial value.

This new shopping mentality will be met by the decline of shoe stores, there simply won't be enough variations of shoe to justify the continued existence of these retailers (at least not as many retailers as we currently are accustomed to) instead online and general stores will take even more of the market. Furthermore in a world of scarce resources and excess industrial capacity things won't just be made to last, they'll be over-engineered, the new fashion statement will be complexity, everything will have miniaturised electronics in it, going clothes shopping will be like building a computer.

Do you want a loose shirt that tracks perspiration and adjust venting accordingly or a tight shirt with heat sink cooling that tracks heartbeat and blood pressure?

Star Trek meets Schlock Mercenary's fullerene bodysuit, welcome to the future.
Everybody wears the same clothes, but they aren't exactly communist.

Well Utility is Relative, if utility is given toward the consumer to decide, and demand to determine price then variations on consumer choice is the inevitable consequence.

When Utility is detirmined by the Producer, and they have no incentive to be driven by demand, consumer good variation decrease. Simple as that. Fun fact: Sanitary Pads, Tampons, and Many Feminine Products didn't exist in the USSR.

Even in Medieval Ages when there are guilds and Proto-capitalism, and consumer Goods take some weeks wage for a layman's wage to purchase, variations in Style and Fashion exist. You can't have forced integratian and uniformization without the word forced.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Have you ever bought anything made in Russia? Not me..

That is because you are not in desperate need of Russian rocket engines like NASA.
Or maybe you don't need a AK47, or a supersonic 5th generation fighter.
Or a vehicle that can climb steeper hills than a hummer.
Or a helicopter that can fly in - 40 °C temperature, which no other country can make.

Just because people cannot get a fidget spinner from Russia does not mean they don't produce.
All of those products by the way are legacy of Soviet Tech industry.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Russian space chief says Russia will no longer sell rocket engines to the US | CNN Business

Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, will no longer deliver Russian-made rocket engines to the United States, Roscosmos head Dmitry Rogozin said on state television, ending a decades-long relationship between US and Russian rocket makers.

edition.cnn.com

Oh snap poor Russia technological impaired.

 

[ZenRaiden]

One of the most sold aircraft in history were Soviet Mig 21 and Czechoslovakian L39 Albatros a training aircraft capable of being deployed in combat.

The Secret Is Out: America Purchased 21 Russian MiG-29 Fighters (Here Is What Happenned)

One test pilot concluded that the Fulcrum’s “abilities equals and sometimes even exceeds those of the F-15 and F-16 jets. The aircraft is highly maneuverable, and its engines provide higher weight to thrust ratio. Our pilots must be careful with this aircraft in air combat. Flown by a well...

nationalinterest.org

 

[ZenRaiden]

but we like fashionable crap

Also I hate 21 century fashion. Nylon made blouse with computer generated flower pattern is a garb worth 2 cents and looks like a 5 year old bagladeshian kid made it during night shifts. And instead of it costing 2 cents it costs 70 euro.
But as JP said people value expensive things.
So I see women trotting around like peacocks in the most lame garbs and I think to myself if I were gay Id vomit.
I mean old 15 century folk dress looks better than whatever fuck women wear today.
Its neither sexy or fashionable.
The only thing I can think of is if a female can make that industrial crap look sexy than they are worth it.

 

[sushi]

if you can copy and replicate 3 dimension objects and resources with little cost, communism might be possible

communism failed the first test due to starvation, and lack of enough food and water for everyone.

there are many inefficiencies with capitalism but so far no one has answer for them.

 

[ZenRaiden]

if you can copy and replicate 3 dimension objects and resources with little cost, communism might be possible

Why? We live in small communes as people before, and shared common goods, without capital. So most of human evolution we lived as commies.
No one had much technology back then. We were idiots compared to what we can do now. Its a societal structure not technological.

communism failed the first test due to starvation

Mao failed, and Stalin was asshole, Cuba was well fed, but US put it on hit list of major embargo, and sabotage it every year.

But many more decades of Communism were in non starvation. Not only that commies exported a lot of goods.
So communism works most of the time. But when it fails it fails in spectacular fashion.
Kind of like when great depression hit in capitalist countries.