Make it make sense

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

133 comments

In abstract sense, when you make profit, it means that you've made a sufficiently good path to some end for other people. Like in electrical engineering.
The more your "path-shortening" effect, the bigger your profit.
It's a system leading to optimization (in abstract).
they can democratically make strategic plans for future production, and logistical changes to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of work necessary and improve their working conditions
While this isn't.
I'd be happy to see any idea aimed at improving human life conditions, general happiness and so on succeed. Just with leftist conversations it always looks like "the brakes and safety measures are making the car too expensive, let's get rid of them".
- In abstract sense, when you make profit, it means that you’ve made a sufficiently good path to some end for other people.
  In an abstract sense, sure. But in reality, profit does not require you to do any good. If it's more expensive to dispose of waste ethically, for example, then waste will be disposed of unethically.
  Like in electrical engineering.
  Yes, I can't argue that jobs exist that help other people.
  The more your “path-shortening” effect, the bigger your profit.
  Not necessarily. Insurance is one example.
  It’s a system leading to optimization (in abstract).
  In the abstract, I agree. But left to play out, monopoly and bureaucracy inevitably emerge.
  While this isn’t.
  Why not?
  I’d be happy to see any idea aimed at improving human life conditions, general happiness and so on succeed.
  Okay. Me, too.
  Just with leftist conversations it always looks like “the brakes and safety measures are making the car too expensive, let’s get rid of them”.
  I really don't mean to be snide, but you have this backwards. Under capitalism, it requires the state to intervene to regulate it in order to, for example, add safety measures to cars. Socialist economies are, as I mentioned, democratic. The people need safety measures, and the people are in control of production, so safety measures will be in place.
  
  But in reality, profit does not require you to do any good.
  It requires you to do something, and scale may make production cheaper, for example.
  Not necessarily. Insurance is one example.
  How so? Insurance is one of the most ingenious things I can think about which market economy allows. Leveraging probabilities to protect each separate participant from some event which would be too expensive without it.
  In the abstract, I agree. But left to play out, monopoly and bureaucracy inevitably emerge.
  That happens in planned economies just as well and worse.
  Why not?
  Because with private\public companies there is some criterion by which a company is being optimized, it's profit (in general, though with public companies things already work more complex, which is how Apple\MS\etc look so weird).
  With what you describe, first, the response is going to be slow, as it's democratic planning, second, every worker is going to vote in his own perceived interest. At best it's going to be just like public companies, at worst most of such companies are not going to be able to support themselves existing.
  I mean, okay, it's going to have an element of optimization too (cause it's still going to be capitalist in essence), just possibly less efficient in general. But may bypass some of the traps for public companies.
  Under capitalism, it requires the state to intervene to regulate it in order to, for example, add safety measures to cars.
  Only to make them mandatory for everyone. And then see the following.
  Socialist economies are, as I mentioned, democratic.
  Not necessarily. But they are all bureaucratic.
  The people need safety measures, and the people are in control of production, so safety measures will be in place.
  What one needs, what one thinks one needs, and what one can choose from are three different stages, and then there's another stage of what one receives in response.
  And these are managed by bureaucracies. Point being, with markets you at least don't have to build a bureaucracy for market operations per se.
  
  You think a socialist economy is "not necessarily" democratic..? It is democratic by definition.
  
  Actually every known one IRL is not.
  
  If it's not democratic, it makes no sense to call it socialist.

133 comments