But Gian-Reto, you know, we kinda are talking about words and symbols here.
Let me explain : deltaKshatriya proposes, so to say, a system where an army of "slave robots" would be working for the needs of the majority of the population - the driving force here would be to satisfy the needs of the many, not the profits of the few. Supposedly, a central(world-wide?) planning AI would decide how this would best be done - and I guess this planning AI would also determine the wage differentials for the human jobs that still exist, in order to encourage productivity and innovation - so, for example, a neurosurgeon gets paid 3x as a school teacher.
Do I really need to say that what makes capitalism, well, capitalism, is that the decision-making process about the allocation of resources(what should be produced, what should be invested, when and where) belongs to individuals with the motive of maximizing profit? What deltaKshatriya is proposing here is to take this decision-making power away from individuals and entrust it into a central planning AI that would decide the allocation based on what the needs of the population are, and also possibly calculate wage differentials(I assume within reasonable limits, so for example a ratio that does not exceed 1:5 or something like that) for the highly-skilled human labour force that remains, with the goal of increasing productivity and innovation - reward those who do a better job.
This is *de facto* communism. I'm not sure it is understood fully here(even by deltaKshatriya) that this essentially does away with capitalists completely. Capitalists' function is precisely to decide resource allocation of an enterprise - and they capture the lion share of the profits if said enterprise is successful. Take that decision-making away from competing human capitalists and give it to a central AI...what exactly do you think you have done here? You have basically completely dismantled capitalism. You have done away with the Bill Gates and the Steve Jobs - all their functions are entrusted into a central benevolent body now that makes the decision they used to make.
You have not done away with the Wozniaks, nor you have done away with the concept that the more skilled of them should enjoy more luxuries as a way to incentivize, but that is secondary. Resonable reward for harder or more high-quality work is not what makes capitalism what it is - what makes it what it is, is what you have just dismantled. It does not matter one bit if, say, more skilled engineers are paid somewhat higher or enjoy more luxuries than less skilled engineers - this is by no means incompatible with communism, though it's understandable that many people think communism has this obsessive need for everyone to get exactly an equal wage, which is false.
There is still the incentive of doing a better job - making a new invention that would be rewarded(by the central AI?) with a bonus/larger wage/access to extra luxury goods or services, but the possibility of starting your own enterprise based on that invention goes away. We have already agreed that the resource allocation is done by the central AI in order to satisfy the needs of the population, didn't we? The invention you made is put into the disposal of that central AI then, and you get your moderate material reward, along with the moral awards of contributing to the community, recognition from your peers, and the joy of solving a difficult problem. Am I wrong here to say this is how things are going to work with what deltaKshatriya proposes? There is a ceiling here - by working harder, or by doing higher-quality work, you can hope to get a larger wage, a larger bonus, more fame and recognition - but you cannot hope to get the power of deciding resource allocation, we already agreed this is done by the central planning AI.
So what you have done, is that you have transferred the decision-making power of the allocation of resources from individual capitalists competing for profits to a central planning entity whose state goal is to satisfy the needs of the whole population, whether currently employed or unemployed. At this point, what we are arguing here are mere words and symbols : if you guys don't want to call this "communism", then let's don't, let's find a new "brand", let's call it whatever you want, but that's what it is. It doesn't involve gulags, it doesn't involve Red Guards, it doesn't involve liquidating the kulaks, it doesn't involve Stalin's mustache, but the basic transformation is done : Allocation of resources is not done by competing individuals with profit motive, but by a central benevolent(obviously) planning body with the motive or satisfy the needs of the population.
Of course, the whole thing is an artificial model : We suppose the entirety of the population agrees on it, there is little to no resistance from those that do not want to relinquish control of their industries to a central planning AI, and the problem of "how do we ensure that a central planning body which has in its disposal the entirety of resources uses it for the good for the population and not for its own good" is solved by just making that central planning body a machine(or network of machines), which are simultaneously smarter than an equivalent central planning body composed of human planners, but also ego-less, so impossible to abuse its power. This vision is kind of disappointing to a degree, because it presupposes that humanity can never truly become a self-governed global community - we have not shed our worst qualities, we have just delegated the decisions to an machine that is free of those qualities to begin with. But I digress.
Anyway, some other asides:
Quote
It's worked so far in some ways. Not all will agree there (I'm sure @mikeman would probably disagree).
Not really. Compared to feudalism, capitalism is a massive, massive improvement. No self-respecting marxist considers it some unspeakable evil that should never have existed. Straight from the communist manifesto :
QuoteThe bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
(Also, an aside about supporting harmful regimes : At best I am no more naive than those that eat up hagiographies of individuals like Churchill).
