The demand-constrained economy - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone.

Moderator: Kolzene

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14268140
The evolution of the demand-constrained economy has radically changed the conditions on the ground, such that technocratic socialism is now no longer a pipe-dream but a logical necessity. Technocratic socialism, which I would describe as a political system of basic income supported by automated production, must necessarily take hold, because it is increasingly in the survival interest of the power elite.

The Wastefulness of Automation

Chris Dillow observes that "one function of the welfare state is to ensure that capital gets a big supply of labour, by making eligibity for unemployment benefit conditional upon seeking work." And despite noting that when jobs are scarce, paying some to "lie fallow" so others can work might be a good thing, he concludes that "this is certainly not in the interests of capitalists, who want a large labour supply - a desire which is buttressed by the morality of reciprocal altruism and the work ethic." (emphasis mine). Basic Income, therefore, is not going to happen because capitalist interests, claiming the moral high ground, will ensure that it never gains political traction.

But what if capitalists DON'T want a large labour supply? What if automation means that what capitalists really want is a very small, highly skilled workforce to control the robots that do all the work? What if paying people enough to live on simply is not cost-effective compared to the running costs of robots? In short, what if the costs of automated production fall to virtually zero?

I don't think I am dreaming this. I've noted previously that forcing down labour costs is one of the ways in which firms avoid the up-front costs of automation. But as automation becomes cheaper, and the efficiency gains from automation become larger, we may reach a situation where employing the majority of people at wages on which they can afford to live simply is not worthwhile. Robots can produce far more for far less.

This creates an interesting problem. The efficiency gains from automating production tend to create an abundance of products, which forces down prices. This sounds like a good thing: if goods and services are cheap and abundant, people can have whatever they want, can't they? Well, not if they are unemployed and have no unearned income. It is all too easy to foresee a nightmare future in which people who have been supplanted by robots scratch out a living from subsistence farming on motorway verges (all other land being farmed by robots), while lorries carrying products they cannot afford to buy flash past on the way to the stores that only those lucky enough to have jobs frequent.

But it wouldn't actually be like that. If only a small number of people can afford to buy the products produced by all these robots, then unless there is a vibrant export market for those products - which requires the majority of people in other countries to be doing rather better than merely surviving on a basic subsistence income - producers have a real problem. They would normally expect increasing efficiencies of production to push up profits, either because demand for products would be sufficient to maintain prices while production costs are falling, or because lower production costs feeding through into lower prices gave them a competitive advantage. But the efficiencies of production created by automating - including, eventually, the low-skill jobs that at the moment are too expensive to automate - may actually result in the destruction of profits. The fact is that robots are brilliant at supply, but they don't create demand. Only humans create demand - and if the majority of humans are so poor that they can only afford basic essentials, the economy will be constrained by lack of demand, not lack of supply. There would be no scarcity of products, at least to start with....but there would be scarcity of the means to obtain them.

What does a demand-constrained economy look like? Firstly, it is deflationary for everything except basic essentials. Perversely, prices of energy, housing and basic foodstuffs may actually rise, because people will prioritise those over all other spending. But prices of non-essential goods will crash to zero, and profits will evaporate like the morning mist. At that point - when even the very low maintenance costs of robots are too high - businesses will cease production. So although the economy is generally deflationary, headline inflation could actually rise as producers of essential goods hike prices (because they can) and other goods and services disappear.

Secondly, a demand-constrained economy is sluggish. People who are struggling to survive don't do anything that isn't essential: they don't go shopping except when they absolutely have to, they don't go out for meals or other entertainment, they don't go on holiday, they may not even visit friends or relatives much if transport is expensive, they don't maintain their houses and they don't buy treats for their kids. And they are tired. The physical and mental energy required just to ensure that bills are paid on time is considerable: constant worry makes creativity impossible for many people. If the majority of people are living like this, then the country is not a happy place. Few people can enjoy life in a society where the sheer challenge of surviving is so great that people even lack the energy to protest.

And thirdly, a demand-constrained economy is an unattractive place for businesses. Businesses want to make profits. If profits are impossible because no-one has any money, businesses will not want to locate themselves there, unless they plan to export their entire production. They will go to more vibrant economies where people have money to spend and the energy to pursue interests and hobbies.

So it seems that when an economy is facing deflationary pressures because jobs are disappearing, people's real incomes are falling and efficient production is causing excessive supply that cannot be mopped up by domestic or external demand, it might be wise for governments to support demand by putting a floor under real incomes at some level above basic subsistence.

Supporting real incomes when wages are being forced down typically involves in-work benefits: supporting real incomes when unemployment is rising involves unemployment benefits. The present welfare programmes were established on the principle that only a minority of workers would need this sort of support. But the reality has turned out differently. It is not clear whether the decline of of real wages over much of the last twenty years has been caused by the existence of in-work benefits, or whether in-work benefits have (unwittingly) been created to offset the decline of real wages. What is clear is that we are already well down the road towards income support for the majority, not the few, with increasing reliance on in-work benefits as the median income falls, and a minimum wage to prevent employers (with the collusion of workers who expect to be subsidised) bidding down wages to the floor. But our current income support system is a mess. It's an unholy mixture of pensions, benefits and tax breaks, inconsistently designed and arbitrarily applied, riddled with exploitable loopholes for those who know how to play the system, and harmful sanctions for those who don't understand the rules. And government is now making ill-considered changes to it because of its increasing cost.

Looking ahead, the only way in which such extensive outright subsidy of wages can be sustained in the longer term is through heavy taxation of profits and wealth - which rather undermines the purpose of forcing down labour costs, from capitalists' point of view.

But the short-sighted strategy of forcing down wages to prop up profits is not the only problem. As Tomas Hirst notes, traditional "middle class" skilled production and office jobs are disappearing, but there is relative growth of low-skill, low-pay jobs, mostly insecure, part-time and short-term. These jobs are increasing because the cost of employing people to do them is lower than the cost (at present) of automating them. If the future is that the majority of people will do unskilled, insecure jobs for very low wages, then this amounts to a shocking waste of human capital. And if the more distant future is that even these jobs will eventually be automated, and working for a living will become the privilege of a few, then it is an even bigger waste.We have the most educated workforce in history, but the majority of them will have no opportunity to use their skills in satisfying and well-remunerated work.

The obvious counter to this is that people have other opportunities to use their skills, through voluntary work and hobbies. But the problem is that people who are struggling to make ends meet focus only on survival - many of them working long hours or doing multiple jobs for little pay. People who have no disposable income don't do hobbies, because doing hobbies requires money. People who barely have enough work to meet essential living costs and don't qualify for state benefits don't do voluntary work, unless it has a real prospect of leading to paid work. For people on very low incomes, survival is the primary consideration. This is the lowest level in Maslow's hierarchy of needs: when you have to do any job - however lowly - in order to eat, self-actualisation (doing things that make the best use of one's abilities and interests), or doing things that improve one's social standing and benefit society as a whole can only be a distant dream. Is this really what we want for the majority of people?

Without financial support to enable people to do things that use their skills and talents, hysteresis - the decline in quality of human capital when skills are not maintained - is a real threat. And the work ethic to which Chris alluded encourages this. Better to work in a drudge job for dreadful pay than live off the earnings of others. Better to accept any job, however unsuited to your abilities, than be supported by the state while seeking the right job. Better to be "responsible", and provide for your family, than do the job you love and have been expensively trained to do. This attitude is all too prevalent, but it is fundamentally flawed. It is not good for the economy for people to be pushed into jobs that are unsuitable for them. Yes, it gets them off the unemployment statistics, for a while - but it doesn't necessarily get them off benefits, as I've mentioned already. And perhaps more importantly, it doesn't make good use of THEM. A labour market that is skewed towards unskilled jobs when the workforce is more highly skilled and educated is malfunctioning. People who are in the wrong jobs are less productive than they should be: therefore, when most of the workforce is in the wrong job, we inevitably have an economy that is less productive than it should be. But if the "right" jobs are disappearing from the private sector because of automation, what then? Human beings are part of the natural resource base of the economy. Are we to become like Shire horses, decorative relics of a past age? Or could the disappearance of production jobs and - even - many service jobs create an opportunity for human beings to invent new and exciting things to do?

It may be that even with full automation of production and robots replacing many service jobs, there will always be productive and socially useful things for human beings to do. But while we insist that everyone must work to meet basic living expenses when the labour market is bifurcating into a small number of high-skill, highly paid jobs and a much larger number of unskilled, poorly paid and insecure jobs, we are preventing people from inventing new things to do and new ways of working, and dooming ourselves to a low-growth, low-income future. It seems to me that providing people with a reasonable income while they find or create for themselves the right job (not just any job), or to enable them to do creative and/or socially useful things that are currently unpaid, or to study and develop new skills, might be a good investment for the future, improving the productivity of human capital which over the longer term benefits the economy. And it would also provide a useful counter to the tendency of firms to force down wages and design work badly when profits are under pressure. If workers can afford to refuse to do poorly paid drudge jobs, firms will have to offer something better.

If the future of production and services really does lie in automation, though, it raises questions about the future of work for the majority. I mentioned earlier that working for a living could become a privilege to which people aspire. But if most people are paid not to work, while a small number of people own and operate the machines, how will capitalism survive? After all, as Bertrand Russell points out, we are used to having a small leisure class supported by a large working class....but this would be a complete reversal of that state of affairs. There would be a very small working class and a much larger leisure class. If the owners and operators of the machines kept for themselves all the proceeds from robot production, the state could not for long provide enough income to the rest to enable them to buy the goods and services produced by the elite....but if most of the elite's money were taken from them by the state to provide incomes for the leisure class so that they could buy goods and services, why would the elite bother to produce anything? It seems to me that fully automated production and a world in which few people work for a living is not in the interests of capitalism or of capitalists. So maybe Chris is right. Maybe capitalists DO need a large labour force. Their survival depends on it.


The last bolded statement is a concise summary of one of the fundamental unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable) dilemmas facing the survival of liberal capitalism.

(Incidentally, the demand-constrained economy is not some imaginary condition. It has been evolving for decades, and we are now fully in its thrall. Disinflation, persistent unemployment, sluggish growth, and massive industrial overcapacity have become the identifying factors of the new normality.)

In the first paragraph I argued that technocratic socialism must necessarily evolve from current conditions. The follow-on question is whether that socialism will be the feudal structure our leaders are now planning for us or whether a more vibrant type of society can be constructed.
#14268223
Quetz, that's a good article, but the dire warning at the end is based on an economic fallacy, that taxes are required for spending. As we both know, spending is required for taxes; the current proposals based on neoclassical economics won't work, and will progressively create worse and worse failures until the system has to adapt. However, the international-financiers will refuse to give up any of their advantages; we've seen a steady progression over the last sixty years of them gaming the system. Planned obsolescence in the fifties stimulated extra demand by increasing turn-over rates, crushing labor in the 70's and 80's increased credit, and patent laws extending to genetic material and discoveries all help feed the beast. It's a misnomer to think of the ruling elite as the Industrialist, who runs factories that produce goods; rather, the Industrialist is and always has been the pawn of the Financier, who owns the stock of his company and reaps it's profit, for whom he is legally obligated to earn as much money as possible and possess no conscious.

So, it seems likely the financier will attempt to maintain control however possible, most likely through an ill-funded basic income program, the deficit then, much like now, being arbitrarily funded by the financier-control Fed or equivalent central bank. I doubt they'd pay much beyond poverty level, perhaps making that the allotment; however, w/ such new devices as the 3D printer, people will continue to use credit to furnish their house, and rather than investing in manufacturing, they'll lease out designs whose patents they have purchased. It's imaginable that rather than office-workers, people will create designs that they sell to a financier-owned shell company. This, while eliminating most of their overhead, would also lay bare the mechanisms through which they rob the masses.

I don't believe post-scarcity is inevitable, as it's been possible for nearly a century with no advancement and the international-financier will cling to their advantage by any means necessary. However, certain aspects of it will increasingly present themselves, and we will have to fight to change this system by some means or another. For instance, there's a growing concern for Monstanto's genetic patents, as well as Pharmecuetical companies. By chipping away at the system they have in place, we weaken them until we can restructure the entire system; reducing restrictions on credit unions is another option.
#14413817
"Values and Marx

The disappearance of 'values' in tangible objects with the advancing technology approaching full automatically is a fundamental factor not anticipated by Marxian theory of 'values,' nor by any other social philosophy. The disappearance of 'value' automatically invalidates all social philosophies as potential solutions of our social problems. Social philosophies are based on assumed moral values of human effort.

Previously, that item which was scarcest and involved the largest expenditure of human effort was the highest in 'value.' Now, in a sea of abundance, one who stubbornly holds fast to a social philosophy and values is much like the poor hen who with bewilderment watches the ducklings she has hatched take to the water. She herself lacks the webbed feet required for swimming, and cannot understand such peculiar goings-on.

As a case in point, let us consider one material without which no life can continue on this globe—air. Air has never yet been subjected to the operations of trading, financing, mortgaging, loaning, borrowing, evaluating, or any other manipulations of the Price System. Why? Because its bountiful supply has never permitted the creation of a demand. With it there never has existed the opportunity of introducing the concepts of 'value' and human labor which form the basis of Marxian theory.

The characteristics of air can be duplicated with any other needful thing, if we establish the requirement of abundance.

There might be much said in disposing of Major Douglas' Social Credit theory, Fischer's commodity dollar, Soddy's treatment of monetary structure, and other such schemes. In theory they differ, but in application they all deal in evaluation and therefore must be declared inapplicable in an era of abundance where there are no values. It did not happen that Soddy, an outstanding scientist, came remarkably close to the projection of the unique civilization required in an era of abundance—but ere too late he remembered that he was an English gentleman, inescapably charged with the preservation of all that for which Oxonian tradition stands.

The energy certificate furnishes the molecular mass with a medium whereby it presents its mandate unequivocally and continually to the administrative mechanism, without representation, delegation, referendum, or any other device of previous social administration.

The Energy certificate is the only instrument of distribution which can be used in this Continent's emerging era of abundance.

There can be no era of abundance without a New America.

The energy certificate will be the instrument of distribution in the New America."

- THE ENERGY CERTIFICATE
https://archive.org/details/EnergyAccou ... etificates
#14413852
Just a suggestion, TNAT. Why don't you include a short discussion or summary along with your links. We want to hear your ideas about the energy certificate, not just read an article.
#14413876
quetzalcoatl wrote:Just a suggestion, TNAT. Why don't you include a short discussion or summary along with your links. We want to hear your ideas about the energy certificate, not just read an article.


Quetzalcoatl these are not my ideas. Not more than one person out of a million has the capacity to have a new idea. You and I have never had an original idea in our lives, and the chances are very slim we ever will:

"Intellectually, there are three types of human beings, as viewed from their influence on society:

First, those few rare individuals who have the capacity to get new ideas. Not more than one out of a million would belong to this group. You and I do not belong to it; we have never had an original idea in our lives, and the chances are very slim we ever will.

Second, are those who recognize the significance of a new idea when it is presented to them, and who have the ability and will to apply it to human use. This group is responsible for the practical development and application of most of our inventions and discoveries. Possibly one percent of the general population could be put into this group, with one or two percent more being borderline cases.

Don't Call Me A Moron!

Third, is the great mass of ignorant, superstitious, selfish morons, who never create anything new, who never think, and who have no greater motivation than to live selfish, petty lives. These are the people usually embraced in the expression 'the common man.' These people fit into the habit patterns of their time; they accept what society offers, in much the same way that a pig accepts what is offered to it. They try to make themselves appear important through fancy ornamentation. They eventually die and are forgotten, leaving nothing of moment to the world. Although their lives are no doubt of the utmost subjective importance to the individuals concerned, to society at large they exist only as statistics. In this group come most of our 'successful, nice people'— those who happened to get to the trough first with both feet— and the many millions who are not so 'successful' or so 'nice.' This group of people might be dismissed as of no more significance to the world or to civilization than the countless millions of cattle that carelessly come into the scene and as unglamorously depart from it; except, that it constitutes a social force because of its numbers and because of its ability to manipulate, if not comprehend, the tools provided by the other two groups. Consequently, we must seriously consider it in any social program.

We are not casting blame or criticism on these common people as individuals or as a group, but are merely seeking to arrive at an analysis of the existing condition. It is not the fault of these people that they happen to be the end products of poor breeding, bad evolution and a lousy environment. Although they are, biologically, culls, they constitute the present population of the world, and must furnish the basis for any future population of human beings. Should this race disappear from the earth, there is scant probability of any other being of a similar intelligence ever developing; for, there is no other animal, living or potential, that is likely to equal man in the development of the brain. To deplore the present low order of social intelligence among Americans, and to wish for a better race of people, is to seek an impractical escape from the present reality and at most it merely serves as an excuse to justify a do-nothing attitude. We must be more realistic and practical.

Any social concept of the future for this Continent must take into consideration these things: (1) the geographical area, (2) the mineral resources, (3) the energy resources, (4) the existing population, and (5) the present state of human knowledge. Whatever our future is to become, it must proceed from what we have here and now, not from what we wish we had.

Under Or Over?

We presume that you are at least near the borderline between a moron and one who is capable of conceiving the significance of a new idea; otherwise, you probably would not be interested to the extent of reading this article. How near the borderline you are can be determined from your reaction."

https://archive.org/details/MakeWayForSocialChange

"During a press conference for Scott in a Chicago hotel about 1939-40, the reporters around him after listening to his summary of the serious problems facing North America and of Technocracy's alternative solution, began to remonstrate with him: "But Mr. Scott, doesn't so-and-so and so-and-so believe that ....? "But, sir, in my opinion," etc., etc. To all of that, he stopped them short with: "I don't care what you or anyone else 'believes". Hell, it doesn't matter what your 'opinions' are — or mine either for that matter. What do you know? It is only the facts that count!"

- PERSONAL NOTES
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott
#14414083
Who is Howard Scott? Why the numerous quotes from this one particular individual? Is Scott some sort of Lyndon LaRouche?

To me this is starting to smell bad. Really bad, especially the refusal to participate in a give and take discussion of the ideas you are promoting. This is not a forum for received wisdom from on high - it is a forum for reasoned argument between intelligent individuals.

Out of courtesy, and an interest in technocracy, I will take a look at the links you have provided. But you are not doing a good job of explicating your ideas.
#14414358
quetzalcoatl wrote:Who is Howard Scott?


"Howard Scott is the man, the genius, who first recognized the physical basis of social change, the laws of physical change in human society. He applied the scientific method to the study of social phenomena and the social mechanism, substituting a 'metrical' for a 'value' interpretation."

- Analysis of Technocracy


quetzalcoatl wrote: Why the numerous quotes from this one particular individual?


"A few Technocracy Sections are fortunate enough to posses a historic document,—a small pamphlet written back in 1920 entitled 'THE TECHNICAL ALLIANCE .' Listed with the organizing committee in this pamphlet are names of scientists and educators who have since become known all over the world,—Veblen, Steinmetz, and, at the end,—Howard Scott,—'Chief Engineer.' The membership of Technocracy Inc. salutes the 'Chief Engineer' whose leadership, tenacity and genius have inspired Technocracy over a long and often solitary road of continuous effort.

It is not with any sense of hero-worship that Technocrats look to their Director-in-Chief, but with a deep respect for his genius and integrity. How many times has he been asked to 'sell out' to political and business interests? What other American leader could make the same statements today he made nine years ago? The uncompromising and fearless leadership of Howard Scott speaks for itself in the following quotations gleaned from his writings over the past years. They stand for themselves as a monument to this, — the most patriotic American."

- The Northwest Technocrat, October 1942

quetzalcoatl wrote: Is Scott some sort of Lyndon LaRouche?


"It is a scientific design, not a philosophy, so one cannot argue against it. One can argue against a philosophy, such as communism or fascism, but one just cannot argue against science. The only offensive action to be taken against Technocracy is to call its leaders names."

https://archive.org/details/TheTechnocrat-August1943

quetzalcoatl wrote: To me this is starting to smell bad. Really bad, especially the refusal to participate in a give and take discussion of the ideas you are promoting. This is not a forum for received wisdom from on high - it is a forum for reasoned argument between intelligent individuals.


"Science Versus Philosophy

MANY people wonder why Technocrats do not enter into a debate about Technocracy. These persons fail to understand that science in any field—even the social field—just doesn't operate that way. The criterion governing any scientific theory is: does it fit the known facts? Either it does or it doesn't, and no amount of cunning rationalization can alter the situation.

What could be more incongruous than Albert Einstein arguing with the general public as to the validity of his Theory of Relativity! Every scientist worthy of the name is his own most zealous critic. A classic example is to be found in the life and work of Charles Darwin. Darwin spent many years accumulating the biological evidence that enabled him to formulate his Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection—but he didn't stop there. The rest of his life he tried to turn up new facts which would disprove his theory.

Similarly with Howard Scott's Theory of Energy Determinants. Technocrats do not accept this theory blindly; instead they try to uncover facts which might invalidate it.

This scientific attitude causes Technocrats to avoid philosophic arguments with other organizations, but it does not mean that they refuse to analyze social programs other than their own. In the interests of all people of North America, they make objective appraisals of what other groups have to offer the citizens of this Continent.

In contrast to Technocracy's calmly analytical approach, these other groups slander each other and Technocracy in a mad scramble for the political spoils of the Price System.

The less they have to offer, the more mud they sling, in a desperate effort to camouflage the impotence of their own program.

(...)

Technocrats have endless patience in explaining Technocracy to those who are biologically capable of becoming conditioned to a scientific approach to social phenomena, but we have no time to waste on persons who want to indulge in futile philosophic argument.

We don't ask people to believe what we say; all we ask is that they at least be scientific enough to investigate thoroughly the only organization in North America that has the blueprint of a new social mechanism which will provide security, abundance, and leisure to all the citizens of this Continent."

—The Editor (Technocracy Digest)

quetzalcoatl wrote: Out of courtesy, and an interest in technocracy, I will take a look at the links you have provided. But you are not doing a good job of explicating your ideas.


"Well, I don't know who asked that question, but I have this to say, that when it comes to questions, I will do my best to answer them, but no matter how great the extent of the knowledge of Technocracy is, there is one thing we cannot do. We cannot give you understanding. Only God can do that, and I won't even try to compete with him."

- HOWARD SCOTT, DETROIT 3-15-58
#14414389
Kolzene wrote:No, he's not, but I'm glad you are not letting one person get in the way of your pursuit of understanding. Feel free to ask any questions you like. Or if you prefer something to read a good resource for beginners can be found here.

To answer your question, Howard Scott was the inventor of Technocracy, and leader of the movement until his death in 1970. His works are generally held in high regard within the movement, but without proper context can be made counter-productive, just like anything.


I just need to make it clear that Kolzene is not an official member of Technocracy Inc., and the website which he is promoting here contains all kinds of disinformation about Technocracy which he wrote himself; it is most definitely not a good resource for beginners. Kolzene was expelled from the organization in 2008 after it became clear to the Technocracy Inc. leadership that he was taking advantage of the fact that there was still so little information about Technocracy on the internet at the time to pose as a "Technocracy expert" and give his own personality more importance than it really deserved. For a time he succeeded in attracting a small following comprised of all kinds of people who had little understanding of Technocracy and who in general displayed hostility towards real Technocracy information more than anything else. Thankfully today the huge quantities of genuine Technocracy videos, books, magazines and other official Technocracy material which have been uncovered and uploaded to the internet have made it really hard for him to continue doing this, and as could be expected his followers are no longer active and his website is now mostly defunct. As a place for Technocrats to interact online, it has been long superseded by the highly active "Technocracy Revolution" group on facebook which now boasts more than 600 members and several admins, with new members arriving every day. Despite all this he has nevertheless received several invitations to participate in the facebook group but he refuses every time. We can understand why.
#14414883
What have you got against Cheeky Charlie?

As for his patriotism, I'm not sure that sort of thing was his bag (and I am fine with that).
#14414892
First, those few rare individuals who have the capacity to get new ideas. Not more than one out of a million would belong to this group. You and I do not belong to it; we have never had an original idea in our lives, and the chances are very slim we ever will.

Second, are those who recognize the significance of a new idea when it is presented to them, and who have the ability and will to apply it to human use. This group is responsible for the practical development and application of most of our inventions and discoveries. Possibly one percent of the general population could be put into this group, with one or two percent more being borderline cases.

Third, is the great mass of ignorant, superstitious, selfish morons, who never create anything new, who never think, and who have no greater motivation than to live selfish, petty lives.


I wonder what group our newest esteemed member considers himself a part of?
#14414904
Fasces wrote: I wonder what group our newest esteemed member considers himself a part of?


You don't have to wonder, you would have found out if you had read the rest of the quote:

"Under Or Over?

We presume that you are at least near the borderline between a moron and one who is capable of conceiving the significance of a new idea; otherwise, you probably would not be interested to the extent of reading this article. How near the borderline you are can be determined from your reaction." "

But I guess you weren't interested to the extent of reading the article.
#14414905
By the way "fasces" I guess you are planning on piercing out the eyes, slitting the throats, and cutting out the tongues of your fellow Americans because that is what fascists do:

"Fascist Terrorism

The mutilation of slain corpses is typical of fascist terrorism and war. Mohammedan fascists normally destroy the wounded and mutilate the bodies of the dead. Throughout the Catholic wars of Medieval Europe, it was routine procedure to butcher the wounded and chop up the bodies of the dead. The Franco fascists in Spain were notoriously cruel to their captured prisoners. Torturing of political prisoners in Latin America is regular practice. The sadistic viciousness with which the bodies of non-fascists were mutilated in Hungary during the 1956 attempted coup d'etat is characteristic of fascist behavior everywhere. "

https://archive.org/details/AdventureIntoFascism

Thankfully under Technocracy all pro-fascists will be liquidated.
#14414910
Fasces wrote:Chinese_room_thought_experiment


"Objective Viewpoint

There was still, however, the age-old puzzle of human behavior and of what we called ‘thinking.’ It might be remarked that the most minute anatomical dissection had never revealed anything that corresponded to a ‘mind’ or a ‘conscience’ or a ‘will.’ The reason for this is not difficult to find when one considers that all of these terms were inherited from an ignorant, barbarian past, and had never been subjected to scientific scrutiny. Let us remember that real scientific progress is at all times based upon the correlation of objectively observable (see, feel, hear, taste, smell, etc.) phenomena. When we subject such concepts as the human ‘mind’ to this sort of test they rapidly fade out of existence. When we observe a human being we merely perceive an object which makes a certain variety of motions and noises. The same is true, however, when we observe a dog or a Ford car. Only the form is different in each case, and the particular pattern of motions and noises is different. We observe, likewise, certain cause and effect relationships. If, for instance, we press the horn button on the Ford car, the Ford gives vent to a honk; likewise, if we step on the dog’s tail the dog lets out a yelp. Thus, we can say in the case of these two mechanisms, the dog and the Ford car, that:

Pressing horn button produces honk.
Stepping on tail produces yelp.

We see, therefore, that when we begin to correlate what we actually observe, without introducing any of our inherited preconceptions, we can treat a dog with the same dispassionate objectivity which we are accustomed to use when dealing with Ford cars or radio sets."

http://archive.org/details/TechnocracyS ... Unabridged

But are you really planning on torturing and mutilating American citizens, "fasces" from group number 3?
#14414933
Fasces wrote:News to me. On what basis do you assume everyone you speak to is a) American, and b) had a grandfather fight in WW2?


I'm sure your grandfather was a fascist bum who enjoyed burning women and children alive as well. I have news for you. Your sick plan failed and will fail again.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls General Election Summary 2022 Date[…]

Claims that mainstream economics is changing rad[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]