You are correct. It's picking up photons, or something, not signals. What James Webb sends to earth are signals.

Don't look at me, I was just cutting and pasting.

But sure, other galaxies have much higher rates of violence--murders, gun shots, axes sunk in skulls, beheadings, disembowelments, victims blown to smithereens, arson, rape, sudden planet extinctions, etc. Makes Chicago look like a day care play room.

What you will see depends on how the infra-red image is processed. The same goes for a print from your point and shoot camera. Processing can make a huge difference. The Hubble had infra-red capability for quite some time. It doesn't now (maybe it ran out of coolant, or something--I didn't get the memo on that).

Here's a picture of the central area of the Milky Whey. The objects that James Webb will be imaging are of course very, very far away, and they might or might not have the visually appealing features that makes a galaxy something you would want to hang on your wall. Hubble's star nursery pictures, for instance, set a very high bar of visual interest.



This composite color infrared image of the center of our Milky Way galaxy reveals a new population of massive stars and new details in complex structures in the hot ionized gas swirling around the central 300 light-years. This sweeping panorama is the sharpest infrared picture ever made of the Galactic core and offers a laboratory for how massive stars form and influence their environment in the often violent nuclear regions of other galaxies.

In an unalienated world, the worker would produce the beautiful cabinetry work, would receive full credit as the creator. He might work primarily as a custom producer, making cabinets and furniture to fit specific homes. (Independent cabinetmakers do a lot of custom work). Since he is working in a group rather than in his own little workshop, his and others' work would be fully credited. The consumer (another worker) would obtain something needed, and designed to fit and be attractive. (From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs).

Ideally, there would be no exchange of cash between the worker and the consumer for the cabinet.

Why wouldn't the cabinet maker and consumer both starver? You can't eat woodworking. No, and you can't grow a nice chair, either. Farmers produce food; shoemakers produce shoes. One needs a pair of shoes, the other one needs bread. It's obvious how they might exchange goods.

Realistically, a large economy can't work well on barter (as far as I know). Some sort of accounting system for production and consumption would have to be created (not difficult).

Having them labor at some project for the "communist collective" doesn't seem like enough of a motivator for most people. — schopenhauer1

Why not? Laboring in the communist collective provides them with what they need, and gives them a fair value from what they produce.

So the sour skeptic steps in and raises all sorts of objects here. Well, some people want a macmansion. If they don't get it, they will turn to theft, murder, cannibalism ... whatever it takes to get what they want. Or, people are lazy and they won't work, so everyone will starve, and so on and so forth.

People vary in how sick, psychopathic, and sociopathic they think other people are. (Of course, people vary in how crazy they actually are, too.). If your opinion of other people's sanity is low, you will tend to expect highly disruptive reactions to any significant social change. if your expectation is that people are flexible and adaptable, you will tend to expect willing cooperation for significant social change.

Remember, a collective communist system isn't going to be built next next to, or on top of this capitalist system. It will be built AFTER capitalism. The revolution will happen before collective communism can be built (and, remember, the USSR is in no way, shape, or manner or form an example of what we are talking about).

Some people are crazy -- between 5% and 10% of the population is holding on to reality by their fingernails. If their candidate for POTUS doesn't win they can't accept that reality. They deny it. They attempt to destroy democracy (such as it is). Some crazy people will decide that COVID-19 is a hoax; others think that the Covid vaccination is another hoax, or worse. Ditto for mask mandates. (This isn't just in the USA; crazy people are everywhere. THORAZINE FOR ALL!)

There are some very large conditions to be met here.

1) a classless society

Not since we were hunter-gatherers, traveling in small bands--probably family groups--have we seen a classless society. Once agriculture was organized, and ever since, there have been classes distinguished by restrictive roles and coercive power. It is difficult to even imagine being "classless".

2) collective management

A classless society MUST be collectively managed, or once again divisive categories of standing would be brought back in. We have some but not much experience with collective management, just as we have fleeting (generally pleasant) experiences of classlessness.

These two elements will be quite difficult to achieve. That is not to say they are impossible, only that it will be difficult -- hard work, ingenuity, persistence, self-discipline, and more will all be needed.

The direct distribution of the fruits of the labour of each worker to fulfill the interests of the working class—and thus to an individuals own interest and benefit—will constitute an un-alienated state of labour conditions, which restores to the worker the fullest exercise and determination of their human nature

"Alienation" is a term of art: It means severing the relationship between the worker and what he makes. Take this as an example: A skilled cabinet maker works for a large furniture company. The individual pieces of cabinetry and furniture he makes are really masterworks. He pours his heart into the beautiful pieces.

When they are finished, they are picked up, hauled away, and sold under the companies premium brand name. People pay a lot of money for these pieces. The worker who made them receive a fixed wage, no share of the selling price, and no recognition as the producer. He is alienated from his work (think of the term, "alienation of affections" when an outsider interferes with the stability of a marriage.

We use "alienation" to reference a state of anomie, feeling cut off, friendless, etc. That isn't what the 'term of art' means.

Here's an interesting situation: Before WWII began, the British were making plans for war--as were everybody else. The airplane people in the military thought that the highest and best use of air power was bombing. Fine, so what should the Air Force bomb? Should they support ground troops? Should they attack shipping at sea? Should they bomb railroads? Should they bomb factories? Should they bomb housing? What?

It seemed obvious to some planners that bombing factories, oil refineries, mills, and the like would be most productive. Other planners felt that bombing factories, refineries, mills... would kill too many people. The British government officially decided that they would not et out to kill people. Property yes, people no.

Despiser what the government officially decided, once WWII started, it became obvious that deliberately killing people made sound military sense--in the context of "total war" and in the context of (possible) existential threats. So they soon starting bombing factories and, significantly, neighborhoods. (So did the Germans.). The British were very careful to maintain the PR fiction that they only bombed "military targets" even if the "military target was a neighborhood where ordinary workers lived.

all this was complicated by the fact that a bomb intended to hit a railroad might instead hit a house or a school. Bombs aimed at a factory might end up hitting the surrounding workers' homes.

Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

I don't know; I believe just about any violence will be declared "ethical" IF and WHENEVER large nation interests are at stake. This goes for pretty much any country. "War is diplomacy conducted by other methods." Violence is not always useful, it doesn't always achieve what is desired; but it works often enough that it is high on the list of options.

Ethics applied to individual cases are much easier.

We don't need the humanity guy pondering life on mars, Bitter.. — schopenhauer1

Oh, yes -- we need this guy very much. Big picture people are needed to decide whether it is WORTH going to Mars. I have decided it is nit economically worthwhile, so fuck all the engineers working on it.

What matters is the techne. Everything else becomes irrelevant and dissolves away. — schopenhauer1

Technology in all its forms is a human invention, remember. The design of little screws is a human activity. The engineers, technologists, lathe operators--even the fucking captains of industry--are all humans, like you, like me. They can escape being guano ["guano" is an example of bad techne -- automatic-spelling-correction guessing that my mistyped "human" should be "guano"] no better than I can.

Your line of rhetoric here (Everything else becomes irrelevant and dissolves away.) reflects the dehumanizing effect of remorseless capital. (I'm distinguishing you from your rhetoric.)

Yes, we absolutely need detail people, and we've needed detail people from the get go, along with big picture people. Knapping stone tools is detail work; determining when it is time to move to a different cave is a pig picture work. Individuals can be both. Some of my personal research has been big picture, and some of it has been minutiae. World War II history is pretty much big-picture. The outcome of particular bombing operations is pretty much minutiae. How many bombs, what size, what composition, from what altitude were they dropped? What was the ratio of explosive and incendiary bombs by weight and by number. How many buildings were partially, largely, or totally destroyed? How many people were killed, how many injured and how badly? How many planes were lost; how much production was disrupted or destroyed in the bombing operation? Think large tables of statistics... details, details details.

minutia-mongerers — schopenhauer1

How I hate having to deal with minutia and minutia mongers. I am strictly a big picture man. "Don't ask me where that little screw went --the question is, "Will we make it all the way to Mars and back?"

Meanwhile, the little screw gets sucked into the ventilation duct and causes the life support system to fail. We make it Mars, but we are all dead.

Sometimes the lords hold the knowledge (like the precise formula of Coca Cola or the 'kernel" of programs that run computers. Much of what goes into products is information shared by workers -- not out of some urge to be "transparent" but. because the workers have to know in order to produce goods and services.

The lords hold the power to produce by means of law, coercion, secrecy, deceit, et cetera -- not because they know how to manipulate magic. The economic arrangement can be changed, if the workers decide to collectively act to change it (e.g., revolution).

Don't underestimate the power of consumers. IF even half the recommended health habits were to sweep the nation, some companies would go broke overnight. People didn't like the Edsel. Ford lost money on it. People didn't like the Newton personal assistant (1995, +/-). I thought it was pretty cool, but not enough others did. It used handwriting as the input format -- it could read clear handwriting. (Attractove as t was, I didn't by one --yet another reason for it's failure.). Thousands of retail products are rejected by consumers every year and disappear, a heart break for a company or an executive (que the violins).

I see it as a major problem that most of us have minimal understanding of how and what produced the items we use to live (survive, find comfort in, and entertain). — schopenhauer1

I see no major problem in not knowing how my cell phone, computer, remote, etc. works. Personally, I find the technology interesting and have limited knowledge about the machinery, What is much more dangerous is not understanding how social media (which we access through the hardware) is designed, programmed, and operated.

The owners and operators of Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, pinterest, Twitter, game producers, et al understand how our brains' reward systems work better than we do. They know how important it is to elicit a little dopamine out of every interaction. Every successful search on Google, amazon, or YouTube makes us feel a little bit of pleasure. It's not an orgasm-level pleasure, but it counts just enough to make us come back for a little more.

On-line advertising uses the same approach -- clicking on an ad opens a new page with bright shiny pictures, interesting objects, etc. You don't need to know whether the software uses a "mouse-up" or a "mouse-down" click; all you need to know is "click", and voila --more stuff.

Clicks and tiny dopamine pleasures enable media and online corporations to lead us around by the nose, because it isn't obvious to us how this stuff works, or what the consequences are. One consequence is that we spend way to much time messing around, clicking here, clicking there, and before we knowing a couple of hours has disappeared.

Now, sadly, knowing how on-line and social media works doesn't lessen its pleasures. I know, but I still like it. What to do, what to do, what to do?

As with any habituated behavior (smoking, drinking, eating potato chips, mindlessly switching channels, endlessly surfing the net) we have to make a decision to do it less or stop doing it at all. I'm not suggesting people should stop using their phones and computers to access social media and on-line companies, but one can and should reduce the frequency of use.

Why? Your autonomy is at stake. People who are practically addicted to social media (continuously watching their phones whatever else they are doing or spending hours surfing on their computers) have ceded a degree of control to companies that do not have your best interests at heart (they have no hearts, btw).

had he stayed cold and dead in his sepulchre... — Agent Smith

"Isn't that what happened?" he said, provoking a ZAP from on high.

If it produces structured radiation it should be observable. — Raymond

What about...

Yep, I believe the signal weakens as the square of the distance. We'd need a humongous dish to collect every available ounce of any ET transmission out there in the great void. — Agent Smith

Thanks Raymond. Welcome.

SETI is one of those organizations that'll never show results. — Agent Smith

Likely because a coherent signal from very, very far away is unlikely to reach us, and b, such signals may never have been sent in the first place.

BTW, what radio telescope is SETI using, these days? Arecibo collapsed into rubble a while back, so that one is out (if they used it at all).

We should stop worrying about intelligent life elsewhere. Either we are alone -- and that is amazing, or we are not alone, and that is amazing. Let's leave it there. WE are certainly fucked up, so THEY would be well advised to avoid us, and it's possible (hard to imagine) that they are even more screwed up than us, and we would want to avoid them.

It's been decades since I read it, but didn't a few intrepid astronauts land on the nose of the ship and get admitted inside? (I don't remember their blasting their way in.) There were at least 2 books, maybe 3 in the Rama series. Later much more was revealed about the ship and its source civilization. Alien, yes; monstrous, no. Good book.

Ever noticed that folk who trot out the enlightened self-interest argument tend not to be nurses, teachers, paramedics, firemen... — Banno

"Enlightened self-interest" hasn't bulked large in my life as I've lived it, and it isn't something I usually argue for. Individuals, families, communities, and societies work well to the extent that self-interest--blind or enlightened--isn't the primary modus operandi.

On the other hand, individuals do have real self-interests--even nurses, teachers, paramedics, firemen... Within limits there is nothing faulty about self-interests. Voting or acting against your own self-interest may be collectively harmful. Working class people without a pot to piss in are often swayed by propaganda to vote like Republican bankers. They rant and vote against unions, social welfare programs, more lenient prison sentences for minor property crimes, etc. etc. etc. They are, literally, voting against their self-interest and against everyone else's (except the Republican banker's).

For the sake of others. — Banno

I suppose I am diluting the meaning of 'self interest' when I define it to include acting on the interests of others, at least to some degree. Feeding the birds is at once for the sake of birds, but also for my own sake, so there will be birds to see and hear. Feeding the poor is for the sake of the poor, but also for my own sake, so that the fabric of society is maintained--something I depend on, just like the poor depend on it.

What goes around comes around, as the cliche says. A narrowly focused pursuit of self-interest will likely have both benefits and deficiencies, neither guaranteed. Acting on behalf of others, for their sake, also has benefits and deficiencies, and they are not guaranteed in this case, either. In general, though, whatever we do to reduce brutality is worth doing, worth it to me, worth it to you.

Why would parents vote against a school levy when their own children needed the school? Likely because they believed lies and bad faith information. Why would childless people vote for the school? Because educated people (tend toward) more stability, more prosperity, better outcomes all round.

What makes you say that voting should be based off of self-interest? — Shawn

Why would anyone knowingly vote against their self interest? Self-interest can be define extremely narrowly, like Ebenezer Scrooge, or more broadly. I define it broadly. It's in my best interests, broadly defined, to have programs for released offenders, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. I don't have children, but it's in my broader self-interest to have children well educated. I don't drive, but it's in my broader self-interest to have safe roads and less traffic. And so on.

Spanish-speakers may want their state to make Spanish an official language, so it would be easier for them to deal with the state. I don't believe that is in my broader self-interest, so I wouldn't vote for that. I might prefer that everyone speak English in public.

So, what gives? Is this about dominating interests or political forces coercing people to vote in a certain way? — Shawn

Well, sometimes dominating interests and political forces do attempt to coerce people to voter in a certain way. For example, in my home town, the school board wanted to build a new elementary school on land that some developers were "donating" (to improve their real estate project). The citizens of the town (pop. 2300) voted the proposal down three times in three years, but the school board kept bringing it back for a vote. In the fourth year they achieved their aim.

Major league team owners beg for a new stadium (paid for by taxpayers) while promising wonderful results and threatening dire outcomes if the damned thing isn't built. Or, maybe, they will move the team somewhere else.

Still, citizens quite often resist attempts to bend the will of the people. Minneapolis voters soundly defeated a demand by the Vikings for a new stadium. The owners went to the state legislature which forced Minneapolis to pay.

So, would you agree with the notion that voting is altruistic, or in the least that voting should be altruistic? Why or why not? — Shawn

I would vote in favor of altruism, but I haven't seen it on the ballot. People vote in favor of their own interests (as they should) and they vote in favor of others' interests to the extent that they can relate to them.

An altruistic heterosexual voter may vote for a gay rights fair housing law because they can relate to gay people needing housing. The vote isn't going to cost them anything, financially or psychologically.

That same voter may vote against a tax proposal to build affordable housing in their city because they do not want poor people to move there (or blacks, hispanics, or asians). They don't wish homelessness on minorities, they just want them to be decently housed somewhere else. This bill will cost them something psychologically or financially, or both,

Otherwise altruistic people can organize in a flash if a non-profit wants to open a group home in their neighborhood for released offenders, recovering drug addicts, sex offenders, or former mafioso. No, no, no! We need to protect women and children from these menaces! Keep the sons of bitches in prison!

Americans, on a broad average, tend to be more liberal than their elected representatives. (Note, this is a very qualified generalization.). When voting, they tend to accept liberal (generous) spending programs. Yes, there are exceptions and there are regional differences. The degree to which voters in Massachusetts and Minnesota support liberal spending will be much higher than what voters in Mississippi or Alabama will support.

A factor in whether voters here or there support spending is whether they view the State as an appropriate tool with which to fashion a good society. Northern voters, following the lead of the New England Puritans who strongly believed in the utility of the State. (New Englanders moved westward and influenced the politics of the states they helped create and populate.). The South followed the opposite tendency, and tend to view the State as an unfriendly burden.

One could say Northern voters tend to be more altruistic than Southern voters, or one could say that Northern voters prefer a more secular and well organized society than Southern voters.

There are limits of course. Northern voters usually support generous spending on education, but if the school board asks for too much too often, they will vote down levy proposals.

Paradoxically conservative southern states that are opposed to government spending tend to receive more from the federal budget (and give less) than liberal states that receive less and give more. They tend to have more military bases than northern states, and they tend to have more needs that federal programs address than northern states.

inter-stellar conquest is a substitution — Wayfarer

And, to quote Dostoyevski, "If god is dead, everything is permitted."

I've followed the controversy around Avi Loeb — Wayfarer

I read about his theory, haven't read the book. Thanks for the link to the New Yorker article, Did Arthur C. Clark's Rendezvous With Rama inadvertently influence Loeb's interpretation of the brief sighting? We have not been watching the skies with such good telescopes for that long. Probably objects have been crossing our solar path periodically, sight unseen.

That said, reports of unusual "objects" in space are highly arousing -- they arouse me, certainly. But evidence of intelligence (besides ours, such as it is) would be ambiguous. Would the intelligence be cold and dry, or would it be warm and humane? Would the intelligent beings wish to become our partners or overlords, benevolent or otherwise? Based on past performance, any intelligent, humane beings would be well advised to keep us at a long distance, if they value their lives.

Brenden Q. Morris (who is working on a space science degree in Europe) has written a batch of 'hard science fiction' novels involving exploration of moons like Enceladus and later some relatively nearby stars. He has a clever solution to the problem of getting to places like Proxima Centauri: A tiny space sail pushed by powerful lasers from earth becomes a self-assembled (atom by atom) space ship carrying a very intelligent Robot (Marchenko) and two children (grown from DNA carried in Tardigrades--hey, it's fiction.

Over the course of exploring several quite different planets, they have not so far found one that is suitable. All of the planets have evolved life and had breathable air and drinkable water, but none were suitable to our life form. The biggest problems they found were micro and macro life forms that were perfectly capable of defending themselves, whether they were intelligent or not, and came very close to eating the earthlings several times.

They did encounter 1 intelligent species, however, and have joined up with them in looking for a suitable planet habitat for both of them.

Marchenko is a great character. He was a Russian astronaut who was trapped under the ice of Enceladus, where he encountered an apparently intelligent life form. By means unknown the creature digitizes Marchenko's mind and uploads it to the orbiting space ship. Marchenko lives on in several robot versions of himself. There are some other silicon minds in some of the stories with unknown origins,

Another character Morris invented (might be split off from Marchenko) is an artificial mind that downloaded itself into a robotic vacuum cleaner so it could inconspicuously spy on the Russians running a large space exploration project. It gets itself on board a mission to the vicinity of Pluto and turns out to be very helpful--also sarcastic and devious, sometimes.

I recommend Morris. His science fiction is inventive, positive, hopeful, and believable while still being sci fi.

There was light from the very beginning. — Raymond

Thanks. I find it hard to picture the processes. Fortunately, it doesn't matter whether I understand it or not.

I would disagree on the fact that all philosophy involves thinking, so long as we attribute thinking to be an individual endeavour. In fact, its fairly interesting to see that the more you read/comprehend philosophical books and what not, the more you indulge in their (their being the person who wrote the book) thinking, which eventually leads to a loss of personal inquiry — john27

You have named an important truth (an over-used word): knowledge production and transmission is a social project. "New" ideas, inventions, art works, scientific discoveries, etc. are built on the advertent and inadvertent contributions of others. That takes away nothing from those who hatch new work.

Im just surprised you wouldn’t be for a higher authority stepping in with socialist tendencies. — schopenhauer1

Your higher socialist authority has revealed the future: You will sell vegan hotdogs on stale sugarless gluten free buns with ersatz condiments from a cart at a slaughter house. Yes, of course there will be a 5 year plan for you to follow and a daily quota to keep you on your toes, lest you fall into old fashioned capitalist sloth.

↪Bitter Crank
Agreed. But sometimes regional management makes the wrong decision. Then what? — schopenhauer1

Then what? — schopenhauer1

I have to go to the grocery store. Suppose they are out of bananas. Then what? What if somebody bought all my favorite flavor of ice cream, Then what? Suppose I get run over by a bus. Then what?

Then life goes on, or it doesn't.

then a wrong decision is made and we live with the consequences.

Warren Buffet might make the same wrong decision.

Bershire Hathaway is probably in no position to intervene in a strike. A guy who owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Dairy Queen both, and more--much more--probably isn't in a good position to intervene in local labor issues. The people running the steel operation should deal with the workers, and of course grant them everything they ask for.

Hot Dog Comradeship Coop — schopenhauer1

turns out to be the old criminal cart cartel doing business under a new name.

Look, gardeners, hot dog vendors, artisan needle workers, sculptors, weavers, artisan paper makers, occasional cooks and bakers, etc. are no threat to socialism. There would be room for some of those. In a socialist economy accumulation of capital would be difficult--not because a heavy state fist would come down on the wiener wrangler, but because the economy wouldn't support individual capital accumulation above and beyond self-support.

In a humane society, there could/would/should be room for at least some individuals to work by themselves, for their own good and the good of society. I'm probably one of those people. Are you?

Right, but I guess what would socialism have to do with that? It wouldn't solve it. It's simply interpersonal stuff. — schopenhauer1

If anything is political, it's the interpersonal stuff. A lot of interpersonal static stems from the stresses of life as we know it, under capitalism.

Ok, so what does he say about this? Simply that they are necessary but will be discarded? Again, what about the hot dog seller? — schopenhauer1

You know, Marx was a political economist, we'd say. He described how individuals (who are not at first even petite bourgeoisie accumulate wealth. The do this by extracting 'surplus value' from their workforce. A worker may produce $1000 worth of goods in a day, but be paid $300. $700 (less overhead and raw materials) is the surplus value.

The hot dog man might be able to generate a profit above and beyond what it costs him to support himself and buy supplies and pay for the cart. IF (unlikely) he produces a lot of profit, he could finance a second cart and a second hot dog seller who would be paid a modest wage. If the second hot dog cart was profitable, he cold add a third, and so on. He might be able to establish a hot dog monopoly in Gotham, and with the steady income buy and sell real estate, eventually becoming rich.

That, dear Schop, is the :party:AMERICAN :sparkle: DREAM:party:

Many dream it, 99% wake up to live another day working hard to keep a roof over their head and bread on the table. Then they die relatively poor.

He is content with his cart. — schopenhauer1

How do you know he is content with his cart? He may be cruelly forced to sell hotdogs.

Besides, I don't think selling hotdogs or popcorn on the street is particularly capitalistic in nature. If it is, it is a very primitive sort of capitalism. [Homer Simpson asked Apu about the hotdogs turning in a heated display on the counter. Apu discouraged Homer, telling him the hotdogs were there for decorative purposes only (and the same ones had been there for months). Homer ate one anyway.]

It could very well be that the hotdog cart is one of a fleet of hotdog carts owned by the mafia-controlled cart cartel. What looks like individual entrepreneurial activity might actually be an egregiously exploitative form of retail drudgery. I never buy anything a la cart. It's disgusting. Car exhaust falling on the wieners; flies and people buzzing around breathing on the merchandise. Everybody knows pickle relish is made from the pickles that fell on the factory floor. As for then buns, they are ancient rolls loaded with preservatives so they can not mold, however much they might want to. As for wieners-- even Nathan's kosher all beef version -- there's a reason sausage [and laws] aren't made in public.

@schopenhauer1 When we get into debates about capitalism vs. socialism we are often, under cover, debating essentialism vs. constructivism. "Man is essential competitive, greedy, power seeking ... or man is essentially cooperative, compassionate, generous. Pro-capitalists and pro-socialists can take either position.

I tend to think that people are more alike than they are different, and that social influences determine a lot of our character. It matters a great deal how one is raised up from childhood.

There isn't any final answer here. Individuals have managed to flourish, and have failed to flourish, under all sorts of arrangements. For instance, I tend to be a loner; I do not like intense complicated social engagement. I am not usually ambitious on a sustained basis. I live fairly simply. Under which economic system would I most effectively flourish? I can imagine being unhappy in a socialist society, and I have certainly been unhappy at times in our capitalist scheme.

People find arbitrary and capricious control very unpleasant. It is also the case that most of us are perfectly capable of being arbitrary and capricious, and cruel in unusual ways. Only one snake was required to ruin paradise.

Gulags? But also, really, what would that look like? — schopenhauer1

Management can get away with being total assholes in workplaces that are without organized workers--unions who stand up for the workers. In a socialist economy, with the workers owning and running the operations, the management-line worker antagonism can be minimized.

Socialism will not eliminate assholes, alas. For that you will have to wait for the Kingdom of Heaven or evolution, whichever comes first. Don't hold your breath.

this is leaving out something major — schopenhauer1

Marx didn't leave it out, I did. I can't represent all of Das Capital here. Full Disclosure: I have not read all of Das Capital. Entrepreneurs are engaged in the act of 'original accumulation': It's the news stand owner who eventual becomes the owner of the New York Times. It's the tailor making clothes for a few minors who eventually becomes LEVIS. It's the garage tinkerers who eventually becomes Microsoft and Apple.

So the assessment is that since we are a more advanced capitalist civilization, our large government entity would be able to handle the supply and demand problems of balancing capital and consumer goods? — schopenhauer1

Marx thought that the employees of advanced capitalist operations--who actually run the companies--acquired the knowledge to effectively administer operations. Does that mean the janitor knows how to balance the books? No. It means that the employees who work in management know how to manage -- because that is what they do every day.

The owners of large corporations (GM, IBM, Apple, Intel, Toro, Wells Fargo, etc.) do not manage the corporation. They hire people to do that. Where do these people come from? Harvard Business School, Carlson Universities of Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Northwestern, et al. Management is layered by ranks into ever finer detail.

There is one group of owners who do manage -- the Board of Directors. They make major decisions like GM will focus on electric vehicles. They don't figure out how to do it.

Where does the Board of Directors get the information that electric vehicles are the future? From the employees of other companies who track trends. And so on and so forth.

All these people working in thousands of companies possess a vast pool of knowledge about how to run things.

How would the most educated/experienced get the just rewards in socialism? — schopenhauer1

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. Karl Marx

Yes, I am just trying to get at, how a socialist regime solves anything different than a capitalist one — schopenhauer1

Capitalist corporations are chartered to make a profit for the shareholders of the corporation. Companies make a profit by exploiting their workers (by taking their entire production and paying them for only a fraction of it) and by charging as high a price for ... whatever ... as the market will bear.

Socialism is designed for workers to keep almost all of the value of their product and to sell goods at the lowest possible price to maintain the operation. High profit margins do not figure into socialism.

Don't companies and parts of the geographical and land management aspects of the government already do this? — schopenhauer1

yes, they do, but the existing companies and governments won't be in business after the revolution.

Weren't these started by individuals through investments? Is this meant to take that property from them — schopenhauer1

They were built with somebody's money -- stockholders', banks', etc. So yes their property will be taken from them--expropriating the expropriators. Socialism does away with private ownership of factories, railroads, warehouses, stores, etc. No, they will not be compensated. No, they will not be taken out and shot. If they have very large and multiple houses, they will lose those too. Yes, they will be free to join work groups like other workers do.

Didn't the Soviet Union try to do this but failed with long bread lines, lack of variety, and unfilled stores? — schopenhauer1

The USSR was handicapped from the get go. There was only a small industrial establishment with highly skilled workers and managers before the Revolution. Then there was a civil war; the Communists tried very hard to catch up, but the cards were stacked against them. There was a drought (in the US and in the USSR) which damaged production. Joseph Stalin was was all around bad news--a paranoid mass murderer. Then there was WWII which devastated the USSR; there were severe population losses. After that, there was a period of recovery then the Cold War race with the US. Parr's of the USSR society was decent, but it was a poorly run state monopoly.

Won't they just be the new managers? What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one? — schopenhauer1

My guess is that many of the old managers of capitalist enterprises would be hired as managers of socialist enterprises. Good management is good management and talent should not be wasted.

What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one? — schopenhauer1

We can all rest assured that there will be people who will not like the new system any better than they liked the current system. I might be one of the many bitching and carping pains in the socialist manager's ass.

Don't they say that market mechanisms fill the demands more efficiently because information is based on price rates where supply meets demand and such? — schopenhauer1

Market mechanisms are not the problem.

But that says it all, doesn't it? — schopenhauer1

It's an example of socialist self-deprecating humor and a lefty in joke. Being required to like what's on your plate is, of course, wrong.

Who decides what gets made? Isn't that going right back to politburos and oligarchic dictatorships? 1984 and all that? — schopenhauer1

Essentially, the workers decide, through three mechanisms: 1. responses to data gathering; 2. decision making by manufacturing, distribution, and consumer groups; and 3. market mechanisms.
Understand, though, that maximum production for maximum profit is not the goal. Matching production to human needs and wants is the goal. Just because 1,000,000 people want to take meth doesn't mean that they are going to get it.

in a socialist world, it seems that because it is run by the same human personality-types — schopenhauer1

Where did you get the idea that the same greedy ruthless bastards would be running socialism? People like that will be sent back to attitude class.

There is still a hierarchy. — schopenhauer1

Socialists are not hierarchy-abolishing anarchists. Yes, there will still be some kind of hierarchy -- which is not unique to capitalism. It's a human thing. There's always a hierarchy of some kind. I hope we will build it better.

there will be consequences (they die) — schopenhauer1

I'm not advocating a terrorist state. We have had more than enough of those already,

How do people decide how much to do, when to do it, and the like? — schopenhauer1

Workers always collectively sort out among themselves what reasonable work performance is.

What does it look like for insubordination under this socialist regime? — schopenhauer1

If you can't abide by the terms of work that your fellow workers have established, whether that be in a factory, a school, a store, or whatever, then one will be encouraged to go work someplace else. Or one will leave on one's own.

'd like to know, what makes one person able and willing to be an owner, and another only able to work for them? — schopenhauer1

Various personal characteristics like drive, greed, ambition, desire for status, compulsion, obsession, determination, delusions of grandeur, etc. I have always lacked the drive ambition compulsion, and determination to make a successful entrepreneur. In addition, I've never had a good business idea in my life.