Ab activist group of doctors in Quebec (Canada) signed a petition to reduce a pay raise, because too many people in Canada (nurses, patients) were having a hard time of it, economically.
A system that relies on such noble sacrifices to keep costs down is shaky. Because: tomorrow, they may feel different about the matter, or they may have been succeeded by less noble people.
Yet: well done, Quebecois!
Automation will replace workers!
That’s how capitalism, with its continuous attempts to minimize cost, will undermine the economy; replacing everyone with robots, making everyone unemployed.
It seems quite clear to me that that will not happen. If it would starrt to happen(to an overly large extent), then the purchasing power of the people would vanish. And the business that did that, would go bamkrupt, leading to a rolling chain of bankruptcies, and preventing other businesses from doing the same.
What’s more likely, is that automation will supplement workers, making them more productive (hence cheaper and richer). Imagie a car mechanic loosening wheel nuts wth his bare hands instead of using a pneumatic tool. (It’s true that in the olden days cars had wing nuts, which you’d undo with a hammer,. Here the hammer counts as a simple form of automation).
So, automation / tool-use makes workers more productive. And more productive workers means customers get to spend less money on products/services and keep more in their pocket to spend on other products/services, or save in a bank account, enabling entrepreneurs to borrow more money otoinvest in productive facilities (factories) /automation.
Was it the socialist calculation problem?
Meaning because everything and everyone was the property of the state, there were no prices for resources (like fuel, iron ore, wood, clay, etc) So no prices for first stage /all the way up to final products. So the allocation of resources is impossible, and thus production could not be planned to meet the wishes of the people.
No doubt that played a role of some sort, but my guess is, communism was no more than a means designed to beat down the population. Which is why sadists like Lenim ans Stalin embraced it.
It took the poor Soviet-citizens 80 years to realize that a government ranks way below the people in the natural hierarchy. And so, attempting to flee the evil crimes of communism was pointless (they just ended up caught in the barbed wire strung between the Baltic and Mediterranean seas, or they got shot or whatever), instead they had to organize to take a stand against the junta. It takes some time and effort to get millions of people ready to take the risks of even protesting the junta, never mind fighting it.
People prefer to stay safe-ish at home, rather than risk getting disappeared. Don’t forget, even today there are citizens alive that survived the Gulags.
So fear dpes work to keep the people in line (for a short period of time)
Anarcho communism can not possibly exist; communism needs a dictator to prevent private ownership, which is the perfectly natural impulse, just look at animals defending their catch, territory, offspring, etc.
It’s because in nature, the default mode is starvation/hunger, sand it takes energy to catch food, breed offspring, so if an animal lets other animals run away with the fruits of its efforts, without being able to reap those fruits itself, it would be operating at a continuous loss day in, day out. It would not survive that.
Oh, the heartless practice of locking the exits to the factories! Surely, this proves that greedy capitalism kills?
Actually, no: it shows that justice was completely underdeveloped; a proper sense of restitution justice could have prevented these deaths. Since those women all died in the fire, they were unable to provide future income for their families, those families should receive restitution from the factory owner for the lost income.
This serves two purposes:
- It alleviates the pile-on tragedy of empoverishment
- It would have incentivised the owner to reconsider the erstwhile standard practice of locking people into the factory.
This would have been feasible for the 48 year old victims, but quite a bit more costly for the 14 year olds, thus incebtivizing employers to not hire children – which would have increased poverty for the young girls, though!
In short, a contract based society is a safe society.
Atthetime of this tragedy (1911) society had not developed to the point it has now. A future contract-based society will not e transplanted into 1911-standards.
If the state would pass a law forcing businesses to keep doors unlocked, that would be akin to social atrophy.
I disagree on the definitions of public and private, (eg when it comes to property), because oublic s the most private there is: it is owned by the government, which does not do anything for the public, never mind that the government never cares about the people.
So, instead of private and public I propose to speak of democratic for”public”.