From: "ayub mohammed"
I give u Para -wise replies on the questions u raised in a good faith on the opinion of Mr. Gary, in the following manner.
Jim;- “It certainly could be a problem as you suggest. It depends on how a fully automated system is shaped.”
Ayub:-Automated system itself has been generated to serve the master of its own at the lowest cost of the individual human being who will demand more than the machine. So they opt the machinery. And I suggest here to them to opt more machinery in their lives than the humans who would never serve more than the machinery.
jim:- ”On the one hand, all the money could go to the owners of the automated corporations, and then they would hire everyone else as personal servants. for the pleasure of having personal servants to control. A corporations owner could employ a dozen or so gardeners, a dozen or so maids, etc”.
Ayub:-yeah let them hire to their level from gardening to bedroom by as many as the humans are engaged for them on the cheapest cost of the machines, because they are the people to live independently. But it is not possible for them
jim:-:”Or the money could be divided among everyone to support them in doing what they want to do.”
Ayub:-let them distribute the money what they earned through them, because they will never control them on the strength of money or muscle. Humans will work for more than the mechanical relations. So they should know on their own.
jim:-“I will repeat something from previously. One way to organize a fully automated economy would be to require that owners pay their machines a salary based on how many humans each machine displaces. Since the machines would have no use for the money, it would be entirely taxed into a government pool by a robot, or machine, income tax. Some of the money would be diverted to other government functions, but most of it would be equally divided among everyone. The corporate owners would still be making a profit, so they would have a higher income. However, that would do no harm as long as everyone else would be free to do what they want.”
Ayub:-the development of the mechanical relations in corporate level would be equally applied to all the human beings, if they engaged these in addition to the machines. Human will cost them more than the machines. Because no mechanical work is complete unless it has the human touch and its supervision in it’s functioning.
jim:-“To encourage research, people who did research could be paid a bit extra on top of their share. It might not be necessary to subsidize the Arts because people would be earning extra money from sales.”
Ayub:- not sure of its claim
jim:-“What would the wealthy do with their money? They wouldn't need very much of the money for living expenses so they would no doubt spend money on things like buying expensive art works from one another, buying expensive jewelry from one another, etc. They could go off in a corner and do that, and it would do no harm to everyone else”
Ayub:- this is the big question to the minds of the human beings but not for the MACHINES which wants earn, earn and earn like a machines , because the corporate people are nothing but the machines, machines would never seek the associations of machines. Hence human are above the machines.
ayub mohammed
--- On Sat, 19/9/09, jfnewell7
From: jfnewell7
Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: is capitalism permanent ?
To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 19 September, 2009, 7:03 AM
It certainly could be a problem as you suggest. It depends on how a fully automated system is shaped.
On the one hand, all the money could go to the owners of the automated corporations, and then they would hire everyone else as personal servants. for the pleasure of having personal servants to control. A corporations owner could employ a dozen or so gardeners, a dozen or so maids, etc.
Or the money could be divided among everyone to support them in doing what they want to do.
I will repeat something from previously. One way to organize a fully automated economy would be to require that owners pay their machines a salary based on how many humans each machine displaces. Since the machines would have no use for the money, it would be entirely taxed into a government pool by a robot, or machine, income tax. Some of the money would be diverted to other government functions, but most of it would be equally divided among everyone. The corporate owners would still be making a profit, so they would have a higher income. However, that would do no harm as long as everyone else would be free to do what they want.
To encourage research, people who did research could be paid a bit extra on top of their share. It might not be necessary to subsidize the Arts because people would be earning extra money from sales.
What would the wealthy do with their money? They wouldn't need very much of the money for living expenses so they would no doubt spend money on things like buying expensive art works from one another, buying expensive jewelry from one another, etc. They could go off in a corner and do that, and it would do no harm to everyone else.
Jim
--- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com, "Gary Shepherd"
>
> Hi
>
> The underlying controversy between the capitalist and socialist systems
> is, as I understand it, the ownership of the means of production. And
> that will remain a problem regardless of how much of the labor is
> performed by machines. I suspect the merger of the two systems is
> already underway, and we just haven't realized it yet.
>
>
>
> In any case, we aren't going to be able to perfect social or economic
> systems until we get rid of the enormous drag that the
> nationalist- militarist political system imposes on society. It skews
> everything. As I like to point out, if you combine socialism with
> nationalism what you inevitably get is national socialism.
>
>
>
> World Peace and Unity,
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com]
> On Behalf Of jfnewell7
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 3:41 PM
> To: WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: is capitalism permanent ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Mistake 1: Both capitalist and socialist systems tend to easily become
> corrupt. That problem has to be solved for either system to work.
>
> Mistake 2: Neither capitalism nor socialism is adequately adaptable. We
> have rapidly increasing automation, but both capitalism and socialism
> are based on societies of more than 100 years ago where human labor was
> much more important. Those systems fail to the extent that human labor
> becomes increasingly unimportant because more is done by machines.
>
> I want to be tentative about this, but what I think we are looking for
> is a new system which combines the best attributes of capitalism and the
> best attributes of socialism, in a way which solves the above problems.
> One might call what we need a post-labor economic system, with
> post-labor being a variable which changes as automation advances.
>
> Therefore, groups of people need to get together to try to create ideas
> relating to what such a system would be.
>
> We need to do a lot of new, creative thinking.
>
> Jim
>
> --- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com
>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marxism, as a theory and practicable task and goal for many states and
> its people, holding it in the hands in millions all over the world like
> a torch to quell the darkness of the poverty from their lives, marched
> years together with a hope for the liberation from all the problems they
> have in their lives for the socialism, now the majority of the people
> have been desisted it and do not like even to utter it in their daily
> lives in recent years after the failures in USSR, in CHINA. As a result
> the USA has emerged the single strongest state to rule the world in its
> own way what it thinks fit on the different names, world peace or war on
> terror. At the same time the USA itself is now under economic depression
> and striving to recover from recession and going to loose its legacy in
> coming years in the hands of new states in the same way of open market
> and global reforms. The same kind of the treatment what it has given to
> the other states in its past history
> > after its independence, is going to receive in the same way. Now it
> has already started such wounds to its body to receive from others. The
> history has so many such instances of rise and decline of the dynasties
> in the world from the biblical period to the present conditions. So here
> one question is in the minds of millions of the people globally that the
> capitalism is the only stable state of condition of the world states
> irrespective of considering their development to the level of capitalist
> societies the present developing countries. And has it no further
> progress of the social states from capitalism to socialism? Is the
> socialism dead? Is capitalism permanent state of social condition of
> state? The capitalism may have three or four types in its execution and
> in its administration in the world. And some people are still waging the
> wars in their states in some specific pockets on the hope that they
> achieve the socialism and their people will get some
> > relief from their problems through the philosophy of Marxism and its
> other extended philosophies of Leninism and Maoism. So are these
> philosophies still have the worth and validity as philosophies in these
> days to achieve the greatest task of socialism? Where have the mistakes
> in application of them to the present societies? Whether in practice or
> in its theory? So let us start the process of re-examination of Marxism
> so as to save it from the dying state and before it has been erased from
> the list of living philosophies of the world, without considering the
> criticisms from the same circles who would call it revisionism.
> >
> > Ayub mohammed
> > Moderator
> > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/political_ analysts/
> >
> >
> > See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out
> Yahoo! Buzz.
> >
> >
> >
No comments:
Post a Comment