About the AGP bus

Ed Light wrote:


"Rich Webb" wrote
It hasn't been tried yet.

Yes it has, many times over the years. Defined broadly enough,
variations on "From each according to his abilities, to each according
to his needs" have been tried for millennia.

Where did they try the people owning the means of production and
administering it democratically for their own well being?

In principle the Soviet Union was a democracy, in principle Communist China
is a democracy, in principle there are all sorts of "democracies" out there
where "the people" own the means of production. None of them are setting
the world on fire.

And what makes you think that anybody who is never going to get more than
some committee decides that he "needs" is going to put in more than the
minimal effort?

I'm sure that "the people" have the smarts to make
it work. They just go on doing their service (work), but they own the
means
of production and democratically administer production and distrubution.

So let's see, the whole society votes on whether to make blue socks or brown
socks? Isn't that going to get kind of cumbersome after a while?

Computers (!! doh !!) would keep track of demand and keep the appropriate
professions working on it.

What happens if the "appropriate professions" decide that they want more
than the computers think they "need", and tell the computers to sod off?

Mine the stuff, make the steel, make the
product,
send it out to distribution points, for instance.

So rather than having freedom of choice, you prefer a totalitarian
regime where computers (doh?) "keep the appropriate professions working
on it?"

You're hung over from reading about "Socialist" countries that weren't
Socialist at all.

The democratic people use computers to organize the production. The more
automation, the less work to do, the shorter the workdays.

"Organizing the production" is not "automation". So in this paradise of
yours everyone is going to live well and not work very hard because
everything is automated?

Adam Smith's invisible hand is far from a perfect solution (Adam himself
penned a critique of the mechanism) but it does allow innovation and
hard work to be rewarded.

I don't know Adam,

Then you don't know enough about history or economics to be entitled to have
anyone give a damn about your opinion.

but democratic ownership and administration of the
means of production seems prefereable to finding a job where you give up
some of the value you produce,

Whereas in your system you give up _all_ of "the value you produce" and then
get back whatever "the democracy" decides that you "need", as does the guy
down the street who has produced no value whatsoever because he's a sot
wino.

or starting a small business with a
statistical 20% chance of success,

Whereas in your system there is no way to succeed at all, you just get what
the "democracy" decides to give you, whether you've earned it or not.

unless you inherit enough or whatever.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ed Light wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Ed Light wrote:


"First of One" wrote in message
...
"The people own the means of production collectively"

Where in the works of Marx and Lenin have I read this before?

You know those high-performance Soviet PCs in the 1980s...

Lenin didn't follow what I said at all.

Perhaps there's a reason for that? Like that you're basically having
decisions made by committee and a committee is the only known form of
life with six legs and no brain?

OK, decisions are made by elected officials who are recallable by majority
vote. They get no perks.

Then why do they want to be elected? To have power that they can abuse?

Each profession has local and national reps. Of
course they'd have lots of votes by the members.

How about occupations that are not "professions"? And what happens when
there is a crying need for widgets in Seattle but the only widget factory
is in Miami? Does this go to Washington to be decided?

Right, nobody wants an oligarchy.

Why not?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ed Light wrote:


"First of One" wrote in message
...
"People owning the means of production collectively" has been the
propaganda
used by all socialist governments since the Soviet Union.

There hasn't been one real Socialist government is what I'm trying to tell
you.

Why should we be wage slaves and employers walking a tightrope of
competition just because fascists called themselves Socialists?

So what makes you think that any future attempt at creating one is going to
turn out any better?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Rich Webb" wrote
If you're not familiar with the works of Adam Smith and others of both
similar and disparate philosophies then you really don't have standing
to so blithely advocate your rehashing of Thomas More. When you've done
some reading of Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume, Bentham, Mills, Montesquieu, and
Voltaire, as well as More and Smith and even Marx's original works (not
the pop culture versions) then maybe you'll have enough background to
start a discussion.

Having a tough time with it?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

"J. Clarke" wrote

Then you don't know enough about history or economics to be entitled to
have
anyone give a damn about your opinion.

Then why did you take notice?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.


but democratic ownership and administration of the
means of production seems prefereable to finding a job where you give up
some of the value you produce,

Whereas in your system you give up _all_ of "the value you produce" and
then
get back whatever "the democracy" decides that you "need", as does the guy
down the street who has produced no value whatsoever because he's a sot
wino.

or starting a small business with a
statistical 20% chance of success,

Whereas in your system there is no way to succeed at all, you just get
what
the "democracy" decides to give you, whether you've earned it or not.

unless you inherit enough or whatever.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote
Whereas in your system there is no way to succeed at all, you just get
what
the "democracy" decides to give you, whether you've earned it or not.

You're making up all this stuff.

Have some faith. Americans can democratically put together a good thing.
They aren't so dumb.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

"J. Clarke" wrote

OK, decisions are made by elected officials who are recallable by
majority
vote. They get no perks.

Then why do they want to be elected? To have power that they can abuse?

In your world nobody cares enough to bother to serve; and some way, they
will take over and not be removed by majority vote, as above. OK.




Each profession has local and national reps. Of
course they'd have lots of votes by the members.

How about occupations that are not "professions"? And what happens when
there is a crying need for widgets in Seattle but the only widget factory
is in Miami? Does this go to Washington to be decided?

Yeah. National. Every local has reps regionals, which have reps to national.

They program the computers so they know who needs what, and set it up
accordingly. That is basically what computers do, except presently it's for
profit, coincidentally for service, except in public utilities and the like.



Right, nobody wants an oligarchy.

Why not?

Now, are you for democracy, or not?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

"J. Clarke" wrote
Why should we be wage slaves and employers walking a tightrope of
competition just because fascists called themselves Socialists?

So what makes you think that any future attempt at creating one is going
to
turn out any better?

Due to the vast superiority of doing it in a highly developed country with a
great infrastructure and a kind of democratic system?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:43:46 -0800, "Ed Light"
wrote:


"Rich Webb" wrote
If you're not familiar with the works of Adam Smith and others of both
similar and disparate philosophies then you really don't have standing
to so blithely advocate your rehashing of Thomas More. When you've done
some reading of Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume, Bentham, Mills, Montesquieu, and
Voltaire, as well as More and Smith and even Marx's original works (not
the pop culture versions) then maybe you'll have enough background to
start a discussion.

Having a tough time with it?

No, actually I find the study of the philosophy of The Age of Reason and
The Enlightenment to be quite enjoyable. You have heard of these?

However, I don't think there's much point in continuing the discussion,
as you've demonstrated a rather shallow knowledge (and less
understanding) of the centuries of serious thought on this subject.

Buh-bye!

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Ed Light wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote

Then you don't know enough about history or economics to be entitled to
have
anyone give a damn about your opinion.

Then why did you take notice?

Because I felt like it.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)