Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be remembering the Ion Audio Saver, which was inexpensive ( https://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=F...
Quite similar, methinks. The other was much older (in Internet years). If I had to guess at a date, I can say I think it was in the 1998 to 2003 region. I can't be more accurate than a five year span, my memory isn't that good. It was a rig that was made with a metal frame. You could adjust the height of the camera and it had a light attached to it in the pictures. It turned the pages automatically but would sometime…
Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
71–80 of 97 posts
Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of poor places with people starving, even though we have enough food to give it to people. But even in the usa, there are people who don't get enough to eat. in Seattle I often see news stories about the food bank.
> There are plenty of poor places with people starving No, actually there's not. Starvation is mostly linked to conflict zones nowadays. In normal conditions starvation is pretty much a problem from the past. Look at the WHO report on poverty and how things have clearly improved since, let's say the 70s or 80s.
Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's not caused by SCARCITY. Scarcity means there isn't enough food. That's not the problem we have. There is enough food to feed everyone. It's just owned by the wrong people.
Scarcity in economics doesn't mean "not enough" right now, it means that if it were free there wouldn't be enough. If food were free, production would drop sharply and most of would starve.
I don't understand why, free food doesn't mean that farmers would work for free.
Not going to the extreme failure that was the Soviet collectivization, governments could use part of their tax revenue and pay salary and/or for the harvest to the farmers and redistribute the result. Given the amount of subventions in the US or the EU, we are partially there.
It would be a small shift in our mentalities: food is a necessary item to live, we must all contribute equally for it (as a society) and have easy access to it.
If anything I would be more worry about increasing the quantity of food wasted. Paying, even a little, can be necessary to signify that food is not infinite and growing from nothing, and thus, should not be wasted.
Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#74Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> library provisions in the DMCA There's stuff about archive.org I still don't quite understand. So they use legal hacks to host all the stuff they do? They're legally a library or something?
The Internet Archive is fully compliant with the DMCA's safe harbor provisions; in the event an item is reported by a copyright owner, it will no longer be served to the public (but it will remain in storage until a later date).
Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scarcity in economics doesn't mean "not enough" right now, it means that if it were free there wouldn't be enough. If food were free, production would drop sharply and most of would starve.
> If food were free, production would drop sharply and most of would starve. I don't understand why, free food doesn't mean that farmers would work for free. Not going to the extreme failure that was the Soviet collectivization, governments could use part of their tax revenue and pay salary and/or for the harvest to the farmers and redistribute the result. Given the amount of subventions in the US or the EU, we are p…
Definitely, we already heavily subsidize farmers, if the sole source buyer became the federal gov't we could cut out the middle men (Kroger, Walmart, the distribution warehouse chains, food staple speculators) and create a stable food supply for everyone.
Perhaps charge a piecemeal amount beyond a certain quantity, to reduce waste.
> the extreme failure that was the Soviet collectivization
Well, when you come in and break up the existing communes at gunpoint, you can't be surprised that their output drops to zero, combined with forcing the remaining peasants you haven't killed to form farming collectives.
Locally organized farming communes are quite productive, but you need buy-in from members, which takes time, effort, and proper economic incentives.
Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this tie into post-scarcity?
> what is population control
This particular comment seemed to focus on the man impregnating more than one woman, while saying nothing about the total number of children born per capita.
I thought they might have been talking about access to mates as a scarce resource, but to be honest that's just a wild guess as it's not clear to me what they intended.
Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If food were free, production would drop sharply and most of would starve. I don't understand why, free food doesn't mean that farmers would work for free. Not going to the extreme failure that was the Soviet collectivization, governments could use part of their tax revenue and pay salary and/or for the harvest to the farmers and redistribute the result. Given the amount of subventions in the US or the EU, we are p…
> free food doesn't mean that farmers would work for free. Definitely, we already heavily subsidize farmers, if the sole source buyer became the federal gov't we could cut out the middle men (Kroger, Walmart, the distribution warehouse chains, food staple speculators) and create a stable food supply for everyone. Perhaps charge a piecemeal amount beyond a certain quantity, to reduce waste. > the extreme failure that…
Classical Marxism is based in part on a hypothesis that a socialist revolution has a number of preconditions, one being an advanced capitalist economy (Russia of course did not meet that), and a second one being that as a consequence of that, a society with a large working class majority (Russia did not meet that either).
Lenin "worked around" this with a pamphlet published in the early 1890's where he argued that Russia was special: In Russia the large number of landless peasants would come to the support of the socialist revolution and make it possible for a socialist party to take control. Coupled with his idea of a "vanguard party" leading the masses, he believed this would allow Russia to basically "skip capitalism".
The big problem with that, of course, was that it never happened: In the elections for the Constituent Assembly arranged by the Provisional Government after the February Revolution, the Bolsheviks got a minority, with almost all their support in the big cities, while the peasants largely voted for more moderate parties - including the socialist SR/Left SR and Mensheviks. So the Bolsheviks went into their coup (the October "revolution" was a coup against the socialist-led Provisional Government; the Tsar had already been in house-arrest for months) in a situation where they must have known that the odds were most peasants would oppose their regime.
Collectivization then must be seen against a backdrop where the Bolsheviks not only had theoretical reasons to want to minimize the peasantry (trying to "leapfrog" capitalism), but also had very practical reasons to want to try to forcibly mold the peasantry into working class: they were afraid that leaving the peasants be would sow the foundations of further opposition.
Lenin relented a bit after the civil war, with New Economic Policy (which allowed limited market economy), but as soon as he died, Stalin pushed collectivization much harder and further, basically on the basis that while he couldn't eradicate farmers, he certainly could do whatever he could to try to turn farming into an industrial job.
So while they undoubtably also hoped to find ways of increasing productivity, it's worth realizing that a lot of decisions they took also had another purpose of basically trying to find a way of "farming without farmers" that was politically important especially for Stalin, and that made many possible concessions that might have mitigated disastrous outcomes completely politically unpalatable for the Bolsheviks because they especially early on feared for their power base. E.g. even the concession they did make under Lenin (NEP) were unpalatable enough for Stalin to reverse them.
It doesn't excuse what they did in any way, of course, but it goes so way towards explaining why they persisted in at times disastrous policies even after they'd clearly learned about the consequences - maintaining power remained more important for them than getting good outcomes.
Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#79I'm ambivalent about all the weirdness about digital books. On the one hand, I kinda get why San Francisco Public Library has to "pretend" it can only loan out 20 "digital copies" of "The Subtle Art of not Giving a Fuck" at a time, because I guess if you could just instantly use the Libby app to throw it on your kindle and renew endlessly, why would anybody ever buy a book? Still, it is "fake" prohibitions. There's l…
> I really hope I get to live long enough to see society have to tackle the "oh fuck, currency as a concept is useless" problem, aka the steps leading up to post-scarcity. When people talk about "post-scarcity", they are talking about the basic necessities of life becoming so cheap they are basically free. But, even in such a "post-scarcity" world, we will always still have finite resources, and human aspirations wil…
There's nothing in socialism that requires central planning. In fact, there are forms of socialism (e.g. market communism) that explicitly include market mechanisms as one solution for allocation of resources.
So I tend to agree with you that currencies won't disappear until we're well past "basic post-scarcity" aka. nobody needs to go hungry or homeless. To get rid of currency entirely we likely need much more fundamental cultural changes and far more extensive abilities to create what we want.
I don't think "authenticity" will survive as a major driver that long past meeting sufficiently good virtual environments, because while it may have a certain charm, with "good enough" virtual environments, reality can be trounced in other factors. E.g. the real Mona Lisa is utterly unimpressive in person: It's tiny. You can't get really up close to it. Many people who have seen it - me included - mention being left thinking "that's it?" A "virtual Louvre" could easily present a "better than real" version of it that I suspect would quickly seduce people away from caring much about that authenticity.
A large part of why authenticity matters today is that we perceive it as better. But if the "authentic" experience consistently becomes drab and dull and trite compared to the copies, the appeal will gradually diminish.
Even so, in the intervening period, we can certainly move product and services between two categories: One where we merely care about tracking consumption to allocate resources to manufacture and distribution efficiently, but otherwise people can consume what they want, and one where we need to mediate and restrict use because we can not yet meet the full, unconstrained demand without sacrificing something else.
Re: Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take how much extra tax you are willing to pay. Pay it to charity that best supports those ideals. If you're not already doing this people will suggest talk is cheap and posturing has a negative value to society at large. Good luck with it!
I do give to charity, actually. That hardly precludes me from wishing my money, and others', was used more efficiently. I feel like this isn't going how you were expecting. I was supposed to be exposed as a hollow "progressive" who's free with other people's money but is secretly a grasping hypocrite. You shouldn't assume everyone is selfish just because you are.
You're willing to pay more to solve a problem. Do it. No realy. Do it. The amount you're willing pay, pay that. It's that simple. Don't read more into it. Do it.