[TETENAL]

Unemployment reaches 25% in East-Germany. The classical capitalism proves to be inept to cope with the situation. The classical capitalism is dead as a doornail. What we need are radical new ideas to structure our society. One of these ideas (I have not yet completely thought through this yet though) and solution to the problem is

Increasing Unemployment!

The majority of the work fore is employed in production. Production however is more and more automated. It might take decades, but it is obvious that with advancements in technology automation of production will reach completeness eventually � whether it takes 20, 50, 100 or 200 years, it will happen. And with completely automated production unemployment will inevitably increase further. In the future complete employment will be a thing of impossibility. So why continue the value of a human being by its profession? There is no way out �*that needs to be changed. And once we value people by other means, employment doesn't seem to attractive any more. Total unemployment will become a target of society. With total unemployment comes total freedom for each human being and everybody can unfold his personality freely according to his own interests. All work done will be driven by intrinsic motivation which will lead to happy people.

However, there are several necessary steps to undertake to reach total unemployment.

Tax Earnings � Not Work

When work becomes more and more seldom, a tax on work can not suffice to supply the needs of the state. Therefore the state must gradually increase the tax on earnings of all kinds while decreasing the tax on work. For the transition period a decrease on the tax on work also has the advantage that work becomes cheaper and employment will be easier to find while it is still necessary.

People's Pension

Once people do not work any more, they obviously do not have any income. To cover basic needs and luxury according to productivity of automatic production, every person can get the "People's Pension". People's pension is paid for by the radical taxation of earnings.

Project Based Interest Driven Employment

Even in the distant future, a total automation of production or fulfillment of needs will probably impossible. For certain jobs we will still need the work of human being, especially in things like planning and design. Since no human being would have any monetary incentive to work, all his work would have to originate from intrinsic motivation. Corporations could therefore not employ people on a permanent basis, but would do so on a per-project basis whenever the project matches a persons intrinsic interest. The per-project employment could be rewarded with additional monetary reward until the next step of social change has been reached.

Abolishment of Corporations: Consumer Driven Access to Production Means

Large corporation currently produce, advertise and push products to consumers. With difficulties finding per-project employees it will become more and more difficult for corporations to pre-produce products before the need of the consumer. That means that corporations become more and more irrelevant. What remains relevant is the need of the consumer on one side and the intrinsic interest of the product providing/inventing/deigning human being. Since the product planner is free of monetary needs he will provide the plan for the product by intrinsic motivation. What should drive production is then simply the choice of the consumer. Access to production means should be completely driven by the the demand of the consumer and no longer by profit-interest of any corporation. A corporation will become completely unnecessary.

Lack of Push Advertising

Since access to production means is consumer driven only and we no longer need any corporations any more, we also do not need any push-advertising. Produced is what each or any consumer asks for. Product planners may still promote their work by intrinsic interest and offer information to consumers, but things like tv or print advertising will become completely unnecessary which will make us all happier people.

Rule of the Political Class

Completely consumer driven production and per project employment of product planners will also mean that there is a lack of direction, coordination, and consistency. This task could be taken over by the political class. I would be willing to do this.
This might be a weak point still.

Knowledge Preservation

Another problem is knowledge preservation. Without an incentive to work there is also no incentive to educate yourself. There would be a risk of stupefying society. Therefore school-eduction must remain compulsory. It is commonly accepted that force can be exercised on minors, so I have no problem with this. Unlike knowledge preservation, science can be driven by intrinsic motivation again.

Happy New World!

I think with some radical yet rational changes to society mankind will head into a bright future. Leaving capitalism behind and turning its weaknesses into strength and happiness for everyone. What do you think?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

People's Pension

Once people do not work any more, they obviously do not have any income. To cover basic needs and luxury according to productivity of automatic production, every person can get the "People's Pension". People's pension is paid for by the radical taxation of earnings.

This is unbelievably stupid. If people aren't working, they aren't earning income. Their income will instead be the "people's pension." How is the "people pension" funded? It's funded from taxing income. Renaming income "earnings" doesn't alter what income is. So what income is taxed -- why, it's the only income people have -- the "people's pension."

Mathmatically, that is just the government paying money in order to tax it in order to pay it in order to tax it, and so on. Net gain to anyone -- zero.

[OreoCookie]

I don't share the views and conclusions posted here at all, but I do think some of the points raised here are valid.

1 Too much short-term thinking

The most influential corporations are on the stock market, which in turn motivates companies to think in terms of financial quarters which is a very short term for a company. The management is often motivated to keep stock prices up, instead of making sure the company is healthy in the long term.


2 Decline in business ethics

As my parents are in the sme sector, they could feel the decline in business ethics, and friends who have their own business -- regardless of their political orientation -- also complain about the same phenomenon. Agreements in good faith are very seldom these days.


3 Human capital and companies' responsibilities

In Germany (and in some cases, this also applies to the US), many big companies evade taxes (e. g. BMW, Siemens, etc.) although they do make a profit. Whereas this might be technically legal, the tax load shifts towards sme and the population. Everybody should pay their share in sustaining a system they benefit from.

Another problem is the lack of the human component in all of the equations. I don't mean to deny the fact that companies should run efficiently, but a person is more than a number. (My father always knew each of his employees personally, and I remember picking him up from his office from time to time.)


4 Individual flexibility

I see that other countries are much poorer than the ones I lived in (till now), and so I feel the urge to add that most people are nowadays to inflexible to get rid of some of the luxury they have.


5 Keep a healthy middle class

It seems that the middle class is shrinking, resulting in many more problems such as decrease of consumption, decrease in incomes from taxes, etc.


6 Demographic problems

All industrialized countries I am aware of have the problem that society keeps on growing older. I think all of you are aware of that, so I won't explain things in detail. There are three solutions: 1 encourage having more children (unlikely that this works), 2 immigration (there's no real discussion about that) and 3 changing the pension system.

[REB3L]

East Germany's crappy condition speaks more to the negative legacy of communism than to the "death" of capitalism. Communism is obviously dead as a "dornail," it's gone and it's never coming back.

Why can't you bloody Europeans find something that works and stick with it, like the English? Why do Germans always need "radical" reforms and sweeping changes for everything? If these ridiculous ideas of increasing unemployment reflect the sentiment coming from Germany, then I'll be glad when the EU constitution is rejected by France, UK, and Holland.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by REB3L

East Germany's crappy condition speaks more to the negative legacy of communism than to the "death" of capitalism. Communism is obviously dead as a "dornail," it's gone and it's never coming back.

Why can't you bloody Europeans find something that works and stick with it, like the English? Why do Germans always need "radical" reforms and sweeping changes for everything? If these ridiculous ideas of increasing unemployment reflect the sentiment coming from Germany, then I'll be glad when the EU constitution is rejected by France, UK, and Holland.

The UK has the same problems as everybody else. (Just take a look at the MG Rover crisis.) Maybe British don't complain as much as Germans (no idea if that's the case), but I don't see how the British (or any other country) have `found something that works'.

[REB3L]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The UK has the same problems as everybody else. (Just take a look at the MG Rover crisis.) Maybe British don't complain as much as Germans (no idea if that's the case), but I don't see how the British (or any other country) have `found something that works'.

English common law has been in existence for centuries, our government has been working within the framework of constitutional monarchy for a thousand years, save the brief Interregnum period. The English State is a testament to stability and steady evolution, not unpredictablity and revolution, as is the case on the continent.

Sounds like a letter to The Times

[OreoCookie]

Oh, well, that's one take of the whole thing.

On the other hand, the European Constitution would be your first written constitution ... and I think the attitude of being a world power is a bit outdated

[Marv]

Brilliant! Oh-no... Wait! Already been tried by the Soviet Union.

[REB3L]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Oh, well, that's one take of the whole thing.

On the other hand, the European Constitution would be your first written constitution ... and I think the attitude of being a world power is a bit outdated

[post edited to avoid derailment]

A quick re-read of the original post showed that the ideas being put for by the Tetenal, while creative and interesting, are almost entirely impossible.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by REB3L

[post edited to avoid derailment]

A quick re-read of the original post showed that the ideas being put for by the Tetenal, while creative and interesting, are almost entirely impossible.

Well, contrary to British belief, Germany is the largest net contributor to the EU budget.

Anyway, back on topic. I do think that the challenges here can be solved within the framework of social market economy.

[REB3L]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, contrary to British belief, Germany is the largest net contributor to the EU budget.

Anyway, back on topic. I do think that the challenges here can be solved within the framework of social market economy.

Yes but they are the largest country so that would be expected. Holland is the largest contributor per capita, and they recieve few benefits. With Germany it is the other way around.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by REB3L

Yes but they are the largest country so that would be expected. Holland is the largest contributor per capita, and they recieve few benefits. With Germany it is the other way around.

Well, I still don't understand why you single out Germany to be the source of today's turmoil in Europe.

I understand that British have a different attitude towards Europe than -- say -- Germany or French (my British friends used to say Britain and Europe), so your criticism isn't neither surprising nor new.

But I would like to know what you think Germany (or any other country with similar problems) can learn from the British to solve their problems.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is unbelievably stupid. If people aren't working, they aren't earning income. Their income will instead be the "people's pension." How is the "people pension" funded? It's funded from taxing income. Renaming income "earnings" doesn't alter what income is. So what income is taxed -- why, it's the only income people have -- the "people's pension."

Mathmatically, that is just the government paying money in order to tax it in order to pay it in order to tax it, and so on. Net gain to anyone -- zero.

Lot's of people earn some or all of their income from things other than work.

I don't think what he is saying is simply to rename "income" to "earnings". Income (people's wages) and earnings (corporate earnings, capital gains, interest, etc) is not nearly the same thing and are not acquired in nearly the same way. My reading of TETNAL'S post was that they are simply talking about shifting the tax burden to unearned income rather than wages as the goal of this utopia is the reduce the overall amount of wage-based labor being done.

Its just a radical over-extension of measures that have been successfully implemented within the Capitalist system in the past (e.g. reduction of the work week to 40hrs in the US and 35 in some European countries is a milder version of the same idea). Of course, I don't see the advantage of having 25% unemployed and a "People's Pension" to just gradually cutting the number of hours in a standard work week. I imagine that if there were a "People's Pension" that allowed someone to live a decent lifestyle, a lot more than 25% of the population would WANT to be unemployed.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Marv

Brilliant! Oh-no... Wait! Already been tried by the Soviet Union.

no kidding. the original post of this thread is so rediculous.. I can't believe in 2005 someone could post such horse manure with a straight face.

If you think Germany is bad swim over to Cuba and try that for a while.

Germany is in no way shape or form a capitalist country, and has not been since at least the 1960's. It is a socialist utopia enjoying the usual results. It will only get worse until the Germans throw out the current socialists who are running it into the ground.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Germany is in no way shape or form a capitalist country, and has not been since at least the 1960's. It is a socialist utopia enjoying the usual results. It will only get worse until the Germans throw out the current socialists who are running it into the ground.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is unbelievably stupid. If people aren't working, they aren't earning income. Their income will instead be the "people's pension." How is the "people pension" funded? It's funded from taxing income. Renaming income "earnings" doesn't alter what income is. So what income is taxed -- why, it's the only income people have -- the "people's pension."

Mathmatically, that is just the government paying money in order to tax it in order to pay it in order to tax it, and so on. Net gain to anyone -- zero.

Actually, the current US Congress has passed laws that say the following:
"Capital Gains and Dividends are in a special category and thus should be taxed less"
"Savings should be passed tax free to the next generation"
"Earnings on savings in special accounts called IRAs shall not be taxed"
"Earnings on savings in special accounts called Kemp-Roth IRAs shall not be taxed ever"
"Moneys paid to corporate CEOs as "stock options" are called capital gains and thus shall be taxed less"

Money can currently be "earned" without working and remain virtually untaxed. So, it is proposed to expand this to the entire population. I agree. sam

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Marv

Brilliant! Oh-no... Wait! Already been tried by the Soviet Union.

I always love this completely thoughtless knee-jerk response to anything that "sounds" socialist. The USSR did not ever implement a system as described by TETNAL. Their method was state-planned industrialization (and militarization), it had nothing to do with reducing employment as presented by TETNAL. If anything, the idea he has presented looks a lot more like work-week reductions and limitations as implemented in the West.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is unbelievably stupid. If people aren't working, they aren't earning income. Their income will instead be the "people's pension." How is the "people pension" funded? It's funded from taxing income. Renaming income "earnings" doesn't alter what income is. So what income is taxed -- why, it's the only income people have -- the "people's pension."

More and more companies are releasing people despite record earnings.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/fe...germ-f05.shtml

It is obvious that in the future human work will become more and more expendable. Therefore taxing income of work is not sustainable. In the long term we must switch from taxing income (on work) to taxing earnings (on capital).

[nath]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

But I would like to know what you think Germany (or any other country with similar problems) can learn from the British to solve their problems.

Well we recovered from a huge unemployment problem not so long ago to get it down to the current rate of around 4.8%. (I think Germany's sailed past 10% some time ago)

Obviously there are substantially different circumstances but it would be arrogant to assume that Germany couldn't learn anything about what was done to effect that turnaround.

And of course, this has been achieved at a time when record amounts of money are being invested into socialised healthcare and education, with largely cross-party support. For the moment it looks like Gordon Brown has managed to have his cake and eat it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Lot's of people earn some or all of their income from things other than work.

I don't think what he is saying is simply to rename "income" to "earnings". Income (people's wages) and earnings (corporate earnings, capital gains, interest, etc) is not nearly the same thing and are not acquired in nearly the same way. My reading of TETNAL'S post was that they are simply talking about shifting the tax burden to unearned income rather than wages as the goal of this utopia is the reduce the overall amount of wage-based labor being done.

Its just a radical over-extension of measures that have been successfully implemented within the Capitalist system in the past (e.g. reduction of the work week to 40hrs in the US and 35 in some European countries is a milder version of the same idea). Of course, I don't see the advantage of having 25% unemployed and a "People's Pension" to just gradually cutting the number of hours in a standard work week. I imagine that if there were a "People's Pension" that allowed someone to live a decent lifestyle, a lot more than 25% of the population would WANT to be unemployed.

Okay, I didn't understand their unique use of teminology. Income is the broader term. Earnings is simply a synonym for income. If they meant to say tax income on capital gains and dividends as well as corporate profits rather than personal payroll income, then they could have simply said so. That way we wouldn't have had to guess what they meant by "earnings" as distinct from "income." What they mean is tax capital gains income and dividends, but not salaries or wages (what in the US tax code is called ordinary income).

Taking that rationale, I still don't think it works. If you punitively tax investments, all that happens is that people don't invest. Either the investments move abroad, or they go underground, or people simply stop putting their money in places where it will be punitively taxed. Either way, the tax base for his unemployment subsidy will shrink.

When it shrinks, employment and output will shrink with it. Meanwhile, TETENAL proposes encouraging people not to work by subsidizing people to not work. So you will have more and more people doing less and less work living off of a subsidy paid for by a shrinking tax base. It's a recipe for economic collapse.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

More and more companies are releasing people despite record earnings.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/fe...germ-f05.shtml

It is obvious that in the future human work will become more and more expendable. Therefore taxing income of work is not sustainable. In the long term we must switch from taxing income (on work) to taxing earnings (on capital).

While I understand your point TETNAL (see above), I think you are missing something with the rising-profits-but-diminishing-employment equation. For a company to reduce workforce in one location does not imply an overall reduction in labor .. just a reduction in direct, local labor.

In the globalizing economy, a layoff of 5,000 German workers might correspond to a rise of 10,000 laborers somewhere else. A company can easily raise profits by paying 10,000 people (directly or indirectly) in China to do what 5,000 people in their own country once did. They can also raise productivity of individual workers (which is a way of codifying more abstract "labor" into a smaller number of actual living, breathing human beings).

Point being. I don't know if your example of record profits combined with layoffs is really a sign of a reduction in overall need for labor, or if its more a sign of closed, national labor markets transitioning to open, worldwide labor markets. Do you have any evidence that worldwide labor is decreasing ??

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by nath

Well we recovered from a huge unemployment problem not so long ago to get it down to the current rate of around 4.8%. (I think Germany's sailed past 10% some time ago)

Obviously there are substantially different circumstances but it would be arrogant to assume that Germany couldn't learn anything about what was done to effect that turnaround.

And of course, this has been achieved at a time when record amounts of money are being invested into socialised healthcare and education, with largely cross-party support. For the moment it looks like Gordon Brown has managed to have his cake and eat it.

My point exactly. Whereas we can definitely learn from others' experiences (and mistakes for that matter), the solution has to be an individual one. I respect GB like any other country, I didn't mean to be patronizing.

[nath]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

My point exactly. Whereas we can definitely learn from others' experiences (and mistakes for that matter), the solution has to be an individual one. I respect GB like any other country, I didn't mean to be patronizing.

I didn't think it was patronizing, no offence taken!

[SVass]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

If you punitively tax investments, all that happens is that people don't invest. Either the investments move abroad, or they go underground, or people simply stop putting their money in places where it will be punitively taxed. Either way, the tax base for his unemployment subsidy will shrink.

When it shrinks, employment and output will shrink with it. Meanwhile, TETENAL proposes encouraging people not to work by subsidizing people to not work. So you will have more and more people doing less and less work living off of a subsidy paid for by a shrinking tax base. It's a recipe for economic collapse.

First, getting job training via education or ojt is making an investment. Yes, people do move abroad taking our investment in them away. Our tax base is currently shrinking and employment is going with it. We provide tax credits for foreign investment and award defense contracts to foreign corporations in order to subsidize those who receive partially taxed dividends. No one is asking for punitive taxation. They are requesting equality (and perhaps less waste and fraud).

[REB3L]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, I still don't understand why you single out Germany to be the source of today's turmoil in Europe.

I understand that British have a different attitude towards Europe than -- say -- Germany or French (my British friends used to say Britain and Europe), so your criticism isn't neither surprising nor new.

But I would like to know what you think Germany (or any other country with similar problems) can learn from the British to solve their problems.

Well, the English "approach" is essentially just pragmatism. When a problem arises, it is fixed. If it's not broken, then you don't fix it. Take the single currency for example. While EU idealists were pushing for the UK to join the single currency, Her Majesty's Treasury decided to do an extensive study into the economic impact of joining the euro. In the end, they recommended that the UK stay out of the single currency, largely because major sectors of the economy such as the housing market are very sensitive to changes in the interest rate. Single currency members are beginning to learn about the negative effects that the euro is having on manufacturing and tourism. They dream of that "ever closer union" at the expense of their economies.

The EU, rather than solving problems like unemployment in Spain & Germany or tackling immigration in Holland, creates whole new problems. Increasingly, "Old Europe" are becoming suspicious of eastward expansion, member states worry about losing their identity, issues that should be local are being spread through Europe. A good example is how Ireland tried to move to tighten abortion laws in Holland.

While politicians in France & Germany envisage the creation of a powerful, protectionist European state that reminds one of 1970s socialist politics, Britain have pushed for an EU that is, at most, a tightly knit commonwealth of independent nations, and at the least, an economic union. And Britain's vision of Europe is coming true now that we are the most powerful nation in Europe. By expanding Europe into the east, Britain now has the allies it needs to dominate EU affairs. In this way, Britain can implement its pragmatic approach of a market-oriented (ultra-liberal as the French would say) union of independent nations. This is essentially what the British do best - driving wedges between the major European countries to make sure that the entire continent does not come under the control of one single country.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by REB3L

Well, the English "approach" is essentially just pragmatism. When a problem arises, it is fixed. If it's not broken, then you don't fix it. Take the single currency for example. While EU idealists were pushing for the UK to join the single currency, Her Majesty's Treasury decided to do an extensive study into the economic impact of joining the euro. In the end, they recommended that the UK stay out of the single currency, largely because major sectors of the economy such as the housing market are very sensitive to changes in the interest rate. Single currency members are beginning to learn about the negative effects that the euro is having on manufacturing and tourism. They dream of that "ever closer union" at the expense of their economies.

The EU, rather than solving problems like unemployment in Spain & Germany or tackling immigration in Holland, creates whole new problems. Increasingly, "Old Europe" are becoming suspicious of eastward expansion, member states worry about losing their identity, issues that should be local are being spread through Europe. A good example is how Ireland tried to move to tighten abortion laws in Holland.

While politicians in France & Germany envisage the creation of a powerful, protectionist European state that reminds one of 1970s socialist politics, Britain have pushed for an EU that is, at most, a tightly knit commonwealth of independent nations, and at the least, an economic union. And Britain's vision of Europe is coming true now that we are the most powerful nation in Europe. By expanding Europe into the east, Britain now has the allies it needs to dominate EU affairs. In this way, Britain can implement its pragmatic approach of a market-oriented (ultra-liberal as the French would say) union of independent nations. This is essentially what the British do best - driving wedges between the major European countries to make sure that the entire continent does not come under the control of one single country.

Joining the EU is not a must, that includes its currency. If your country decided not to join, then the rest simply respects that. Which is the great thing about the EU. On the other hand, Britain is not as much involved in some aspects of the EU and the more they opt out of it, the more they will loose influence.

Driving wedges (as you put it) in between is not pragmatic, but very nearsighted. With a EU which continues to work like this, it will never be a powerful unity which I believe it should be. Historically, economic unions usually preceded political unions, so I am not surprised about the developments that have been set in motion, basically, by the Benelux countries, France and Germany.

I also don't agree that you are `Europe's most powerful nation' -- historically, you lived longer off food stamps than Germany. Due to the more centralized economy (back then), Britain was hit much harder by the consequences of WW2. The difference is even more obvious when you combine the economic power of Europe's core nations.

Altogether, I would advise you to read up some more facts about the EU. Most of it is modeled after France's wishes, with Germany taking a more pragmatic stance and giving in to some of their demands. With the proposed reforms, some of the weaknesses of the EU will be remedied, although Europe still has a long way to go.

[REB3L]

If the UK isn't Europe's most powerful, influential nation, then who is? London by itself is easily the most important city in Europe. I know this is very jingoistic, eurosceptical stuff, but it's true. Britain may not be the most modern nation in Europe in terms of living standards, as the country had enormous difficulty adjusting to the 20th century. It wasn't until recently that the "Third World Britain" image was shed. But the UK has made the changes necessary to adapt to a market-oriented, globalised world, while the rest of Europe is still living the 1970s. The EU, as envisaged by the French & Germans, reflects the outdated post-war idea that there can be a single European state, capable of acting singularly on the economy and on matters of foreign policy, but this is a myth. The best that could come of it would be a cumbersome bureaucracy that would frustrate local legislators and waste tax money on things like the CAP.

The idea that in the future Sweden could be a part of the same country as Italy is a myth. There is just no way that European nations can get along under the same state, and the UK is well aware of this. It is convenient, from an American perspective, to look at Europe as one singular entity like the United States, but within Europe, the divisions are all too apparent. The UK's plan for the EU, where nations are all sovereign members of a free trade area, is the most practical path for Europe to take, and it is the only path that leads anywhere.

[Millennium]

Unemployment reaches 25% in East-Germany. The classical capitalism proves to be inept to cope with the situation. The classical capitalism is dead as a doornail.

You call that classical capitalism? Although it is a far cry from the communism under which East Germany once suffered, what Germany (including the East thereof) is hardly 'classical' capitalism. Although the economy includes some capitalist concepts, it is as far from capitalism as it is from communism.

[Marv]

Originally Posted by Krusty

I always love this completely thoughtless knee-jerk response to anything that "sounds" socialist. The USSR did not ever implement a system as described by TETNAL. Their method was state-planned industrialization (and militarization), it had nothing to do with reducing employment as presented by TETNAL. If anything, the idea he has presented looks a lot more like work-week reductions and limitations as implemented in the West.

Now, now. That was only a joke, but it is actually closer to than you might think, in some ways.

Rereading it, it is still a form of socialism. No, it is socialism. The author simply doesn't mention government, but some entity must be set up to collect the wealth and redistribute it. There must be healthcare and food distribution, teachers, and the most important, enforcers. People will get out of line or fail to go to school or whatever. I think that will be the strong arm of the political class.

I applaud the author for at least thinking and daring to dream.

Thomas More wrote a book about this called Utopia. The actual definition for utopia is 'no place'.

Marv

[ryaxnb]

Communism rocks and all hail Hit... oh wait it sucks.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by REB3L

If the UK isn't Europe's most powerful, influential nation, then who is? London by itself is easily the most important city in Europe. I know this is very jingoistic, eurosceptical stuff, but it's true. Britain may not be the most modern nation in Europe in terms of living standards, as the country had enormous difficulty adjusting to the 20th century. It wasn't until recently that the "Third World Britain" image was shed. But the UK has made the changes necessary to adapt to a market-oriented, globalised world, while the rest of Europe is still living the 1970s. The EU, as envisaged by the French & Germans, reflects the outdated post-war idea that there can be a single European state, capable of acting singularly on the economy and on matters of foreign policy, but this is a myth. The best that could come of it would be a cumbersome bureaucracy that would frustrate local legislators and waste tax money on things like the CAP.

The idea that in the future Sweden could be a part of the same country as Italy is a myth. There is just no way that European nations can get along under the same state, and the UK is well aware of this. It is convenient, from an American perspective, to look at Europe as one singular entity like the United States, but within Europe, the divisions are all too apparent. The UK's plan for the EU, where nations are all sovereign members of a free trade area, is the most practical path for Europe to take, and it is the only path that leads anywhere.

Well, Germany is much stronger economically, for one. Germans even tried to buy London's stock market recently Then there is France, which is the `continent's' #2 economy. Given the close ties between the Elys�e Palace and Berlin, I don't think there is any problem to take on Britain. Since Britain is more of a Euro sceptic, it also is not involved in many European affairs (e. g. anything that involves the monetary union), so their influence is smaller than that of the core members. I do agree however that the UK has closer ties to the US (e. g. Iraq crisis).

I'd hate to get you back to reality, but you are still thinking of the UK as the superpower it once was, but no longer is. I don't have any illusions, Germany isn't that superpower either, but the EU could become one.

However, the EU is not supposed to be one country, but a hybrid between a loose union of states (confederation) and a federation of states. If you (and the majority of your fellow citizens) think Europe heads in the wrong direction, you don't have to be a part of it. But don't impose your way of thinking on others.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Communism rocks and all hail Hit... oh wait it sucks.

Hitler may well have hated Communism even more than the Americans. Certainly he was a fiend -arguably among the most wicked ever to have lived- but this is one crime that cannot be laid at his feet.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Hitler may well have hated Communism even more than the Americans. Certainly he was a fiend -arguably among the most wicked ever to have lived- but this is one crime that cannot be laid at his feet.

I agree.
This might be obscured by the `friendship' of Stalin and Hitler who were very much alike. The last days of the war clearly support this: Germany tried to concentrate their forces on the East.

[Zimphire]

Chill people, it's just a joke.

[el chupacabra]

Marx and others have already debated this and it is simple. Things have been becoming more and more automated for the past 1000 years. Nothing has changed. As processes become automated and people are fired those items become that much cheaper. The people then find new work that isnt automated. that is how technology advances. Marx said eventually nobody would need to work much once means of production met demand and this would be communism. We know now a lot of what he said isn't exactly true but a lot of the principles still hold...its all just ever evolving capitalism.

Flour and corn is cheap now but people used to have to work a lot more for it. If people don't like losing their job they should look to a field that isnt going to be automated in the near future.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Marx said eventually nobody would need to work much once means of production met demand and this would be communism. We know now a lot of what he said isn't exactly true but a lot of the principles still hold...its all just ever evolving capitalism.

Yes, and this is one area where Marx really flubbed up. The surprising thing about modern Capitalism is it ability to create new needs where ones didn't exist before. The need for Viagra, for iPods, for not just a car but one with leather and a sunroof, for a movie collection, for the right cologne and shaving system, for cell phones. Marx's notion did not account for Capital's ability to constantly create new items that are not really life necessities but that become de facto necessities for modern living. If not for this Capitalist consumer culture, we could all probably work 1 hr a week and have all the food, shelter, and clothing we need ... only a very tiny part of our productive capacity actually goes to basic necessities and the rest to "junk" that people seemed to get along just fine without for thousands of years.

Many of Marx's predictions about the way things will turn out in the future are no longer agreed upon, even by Marxists. However, as you say, the principles he laid out about how Capitalism works are surprisingly widely accepted ... even unwittingly by conservatives who scoff at Marxism every chance they get. His Labor theory of value and tendency of the rate of profit to fall and Capital's requirement to always expand get born out again and again in real life (and are actually recognized and analyzed by modern free market economists under different nomenclature). For example, when economists speak of "emerging markets", "mature markets". and "saturated markets" they are simply restating what Marx already described as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

The notion that Marxism has "been tried before" is pretty far off base too ... the top-down Socialism such as has been practiced in the former USSR and China are not at all the way he envisioned communism coming about. Communism is not something that gets "imposed" but something that springs forth from the most advanced Capitalist states as the antagonistic relations between Capital and regular people comes into sharper focus. I'll save it for another discussion, but this "laying bare" of the antagonism can be measurably seen .. even in the last 15 years or so.

Oh well, I've already take too great an aside on this topic. I'll shut up now.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Marx and others have already debated this and it is simple. Things have been becoming more and more automated for the past 1000 years. Nothing has changed.

"Nothing has changed"? Au contraire; practically everything has changed, and that is what Marx failed to foresee. As careers have become mechanized, new fields have opened. Sometimes this is a direct result of mechanization (as in the case of automotive repair), and sometimes it's an indirect result, as people are willing to pay others to do things they once did themselves.

Marx made an awful lot of assumptions in his work, and he admits to more than a few of them. For example, he had great hope for US capitalism; he believed that since the US had never undergone feudalism that capitalism could work there. Some of the assumptions have thus far borne out, but quite a few have not.

[Millennium]

If not for this Capitalist consumer culture, we could all probably work 1 hr a week and have all the food, shelter, and clothing we need ... only a very tiny part of our productive capacity actually goes to basic necessities and the rest to "junk" that people seemed to get along just fine without for thousands of years.

Um, how much do you make in an hour? Although I'll grant that a fair portion of most modern salaries goes to 'junk', I think it's a far smaller portion than you realize.

The notion that Marxism has "been tried before" is pretty far off base too ... the top-down Socialism such as has been practiced in the former USSR and China are not at all the way he envisioned communism coming about.

They didn't end that way, but in many cases (though not China's) they certainly started that way. They degenerated into top-down state socialism in part out of logistical necessity, as pure Marxism failed to deal with many vital aspects of their respective nations' economies and something had to be done about that.