Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

Computerized economy

From Anarchopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

As there were factories and workers and raw materials and consumers who wanted products and services both before and after 2008, why were all of these things suddenly diminished? The answer is, the money men. They make it run, they just stopped. And whether one describes it as, they stopped because they wanted to, or they stopped because they had to, they are still the weak link. And they can be replaced by computers. Not only are they paid more than everyone else, and not only do they do their job poorly (allowing everything to collapse every couple of decades), but they are entirely expendable. Every transaction that takes place in our economy can be performed by the merest electronic blink of a computer program. All the salesman. All the financiers. All redundant. And what would these people do for a living, you ask? Why, what everyone else does. It is really that simple. Imagine it.

Com+mundi+put Together + World + reckoned (latin, as in computer, reckoned together) World reckoned together. It also has an endearing, inoffensive sound like Lilliput (WP), which is suitable for a utopian proposition which could potentially threaten rulers. Better to be underestimated.

The processes of the world analyzed, with qualitative values assigned quantitative value by humans (if necessary, as an ongoing process), and the resulting program run by computer, instead of middlemen.

Implementation is simple. The same system that allows companies to steal the work of workers, and steal the accumulated loot of other companies, enables the cooperatives to steal these things back. And because they are more efficient because of and in direct proportion to the waste that investment capitalists make, they will always make higher profits faster than the capitalist economy, slowly but steadily increasing to take up more and more of the economy.

It may take hundreds of years, and it can potentially be halted by the economic elites. This should be expected-it is, after all, an existential threat to them. However, in many ways they are powerless against it. They cannot dismantle the system of factories and workers and consumers itself, which is all that Commmundiput requires. They could require investment in companies, or outlaw the cooperative systems themselves, but both of these are on the face of it, immmoral, and difficult for them to rationalize, easy for proponents of the co-ops to criticize, and would make it easier for proponents to rally both political and financial support. Make no mistake-the challenge of commundiput will not be a financial one as much as it will be a legal and political one.

Egalitarianism is a given. Even if self-interest is assumed to be paramount, this can be proven to be true. If one self-interested person is tasked with cutting the cake in half, and the other chooses their half, the person cutting will always take care to make the division as equal as possible. So when everyone spends the same time and effort in work, then the pay should be the same.

Motivation, goes the big lie, is entirely based on pay. Yet it is common knowledge that a good job is also a job that offers the best chance to use one's most advanced skills, and one that is truly productive and makes a difference. Humans will always find something lacking in their lives, working in a job that does not make full use of their capabilities. So the lie is exposed-there will always be workers for the most advanced and difficult jobs. Will there always be people who will settle for less? Probably. But instead of it being a given that they must be bribed to do more, they will instead be a valuable resource to fill in the jobs that are not complex and difficult.

Cooptiput / Commundiput[edit]

A portmanteau, with a purposely inoffensive air, representing the wealth of all equally, by three factors The Land. What is taken out, what is put back in Labor. Duh? Organization. Replaces the notion of "capital", in every way that is not covered in the previous two factors.

This was always possible, but the third element has become infinitely easier due to computers. Hence the "com" prefix and the "put" suffix, for computers

Organization is perfected by computers. No transport travels half-laden, no product goes unsold, no worker is without employment. These superlatives are due in the most part, but fail in some areas. For example, while no innovation goes without at least due consideration, it would be untrue to say that no innovation is not made available to the public. Consumer items undergo a very complex process of decision making, which is, for now, impossible to fully automate. The preferred system for dealing with such complex processes would seem to be a fusion of expertocracy and democracy. But because of egalitarianism, no one has a vested interest in the outcome of such deliberations.

Consequently, capitalists, whose only contribution is the decision of what to produce, are ENTIRELY replaced by this system. They work as others do. Commundiput has three distinct advantages over capitalism, not entirely unrelated to the relegation of capitalists to other work (understatement) Efficiency, or the elimination of waste Egalitarianism: Equality The elimination of corruption through egalitarianism. No one has a vested interest, so no untoward interests can be served. The exception to this is in the allocation of transported goods, and the locations of factories, travel and residence, and other geographical considerations. There are many means to address these, with the large number of factors under consideration making the process of deciding these allocations, as well, democracy-dependent. Basically, anyone can go anywhere in the world, for an amount of time balanced with the cost of travel.

Changing resources Played out mines. Climate change. Fossil fuel depletion. The very section itself is subject to rewriting.

Changing tastes-Voting with your feet All of the initial code should be considered subject to rewriting. What people actually end up wanting, in this new world, may be decidedly different to what they thought they wanted, based on the old system. Travel, job moving, resource allocation

Democracy = national debt No way around it Capitalism, too, but that is a function of influence, not a given


The one common denominator, education?

WP already, tho. But not a How To

teaching the overview and the procedure. Practical application is a different skill, and oftentimes simpler, but without the overall knowledge, there is no response to, for example, malfunctions and emergencies

Computer run production and services

?? - Democratic? Expertocracy? Decides the value of Elective services - everything that is of aesthetic utility or optional in some way Medicine and medical research Art and Music

Environmental protections are democratically advised Got to say, though, I trust environmentalists' horizon line about as much as they trust government-capitalist complex's bottom line They just do not seem to be able to balance a budget and the environment at the same time Does not really make sense being barefoot work slaves toiling in the fields just so no other creatures suffer any inconvenience, when we can be rich and fix more problems later with our later wealth To wit: we can make a solar-powered harvester now, and 2 smoke scrubbers later, or one smoke scrubber now and one later. This example assumes that labor is equivalent to a smoke scrubber or harvester, which is not entirely accurate, but the underlying principle is sound: Investment A lot of this is about personalities : I worry about how the other guy is going to receive my words, and then they pick up on my worrying, and give me grief. I feel bad, and my worry increases. It is a vicious circle so, if someone else is selling the same theories, it will go much better

Capitalism Cannnot[edit]

"It would be nice if that could happen, but there is no money in it" Get Products to Consumers from Raw Materials Factories and their Workers without MIDDLEMEN Provide any product that is cheap to produce to all that can afford it

Electronified media

Distinguish the usefulness of products (erroneously, Capitalism can determine the usefulness to itself, by how much money the product makes it)

Therefore, Capitalism cannot create the best products
Cannot regulate the money supply without creating debt and usury

Capitalism does what is unnecessary[edit]

Proliferation of goods at lower quality to sell the most goods while capitalism does not afford buying power equally

The lower quality goods do not cost less to produce
So, capitalism produces lower quality goods than it has to

The cost of egalitarianism is reduced by the amount of cheap products that cost the same as their more expensive counterparts to produce

So a cheap computer with less RAM takes about the same raw materials to make as one with more
Making only the better RAM is an increase in value
CPU chips might be a better example

The cost of equality is also reduced by increased productivity

An instantly, unerringly mobilized workforce can fill positions more quickly

Cheaper goods[edit]

Exception, to be noted as a tiebreaker and to determine the artificially created availability of goods: goods that are produced at an earlier stage of development should be produced in smaller numbers due to their reduced utility in comparison with upgraded goods to be produced later. Conversely, there is a cost attached to goods that are produced later: the R&D costs. The two have to be balanced. In which proportion, is the decision, and the decision-making process is still very much up in the air The later goods are produced after additional R&D costs have been incurred, and are not possible without those costs. However, it is almost arbitrary, after the R&D costs have been incurred, to assign those costs to the new products If it is assumed that R&D will take place (if consumers vote for those projects) then the new products are the same as the old, other than being superior tech

other cheaper goods would be seconds-with imperfections

  1. R&D costs are factored into the price
  2. They decay over time, as the costs are absorbed
  3. The costs should be shifted ahead, so that customers are paying for future R&D-see Surplus from Overpayments
Surplus from Overpayments

Overpayments, eg from R&D paying ahead time-shift, can create a surplus. This can be repaid in the form of vacation time, or cash

Good Ideas

Food preparation is paid, and communal

Commundiput U?

University-The one common denominator, education?

WP already, tho. But not a How To

teaching the overview and the procedure. Practical application is a different skill, and oftentimes simpler, but without the overall knowledge, there is no response to, for example, malfunctions and emergencies

The Wars for Inequality and the Peace Movement

Iran Nuke for Iran is either not even seen as a deterrent, or even discounted as a deterrent. At worst, in this latter case, the US uses a nuclear weapon and is villified, or two and worse villified, and so on. Enough nukes, which would be among the worst things that have happened this decade, and the world could turn against the US, which would be the best world event since the US became a threat after WWI or so Cons-the world would not turn against the US enough


The threat that kills the promise of Egalitarianism is pacifism No violence = no revolution The nice guy gives in Evil stands its ground They will never give in because you ask them nicely

See also: Resource-based economic model