Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Internally Deformed]

Been there, done that. Taking taxes from "rich people" didn't do shit to get me out of that situation.

Good job you live in a cushy western country where you could gain fair employment, rather than a shit hole in which you worked 12 hour days for under a dollar.

 

[CiG]

Good job you live in a cushy western country where you could gain fair employment, rather than a shit hole in which you worked 12 hour days for under a dollar.

What does that have to do with anything? You went from saying poverty is horrible in our western countries to all of a sudden they have it cushy because it's not a hellhole like Africa?

 

[Internally Deformed]

What does that have to do with anything? You went from saying poverty is horrible in our western countries to all of a sudden they have it cushy because it's not a hellhole like Africa?

We were talking about inequality in a global capitalist system. Exploitation runs across borders, after all. Tbh I don't think poverty is that big a deal in the west - it's stressful and decreases one's quality of life, but it's not really comparable.

 

[CiG]

We were talking about inequality in a global capitalist system. Exploitation runs across borders, after all. Tbh I don't think poverty is that big a deal in the west - it's stressful and decreases one's quality of life, but it's not really comparable.

So then why the hell are you in favour of wealth redistribution?

 

[Internally Deformed]

Because even if it doesn't literally make the difference between life and death to several hundred million people for their wages to be increased, the benefits still outweigh the dubious benefits of maintaining an elite of the ultra rich whose massive wealth probably just leaves them feeling alienated and unsatisfied anyway.

 

[Dak]

Because even if it doesn't literally make the difference between life and death to several hundred million people for their wages to be increased, the benefits still outweigh the dubious benefits of maintaining an elite of the ultra rich whose massive wealth probably just leaves them feeling alienated and unsatisfied anyway.

I recommend you read "The Evolution of Civilizations" by Carroll Quigley.

 

[Einherjar86]

And yet multiple states with varying methods of political organisation can all be considered capitalist. Capitalism is defined by non-interference of the state in trade and industry, so if we allow that the division between capitalism and the state is in some respects vague, that is only because each country is imperfectly capitalist.

Sure, that's true - but no country has the capacity to be "perfectly capitalist." The very notion that a nation could be pure market is an illusion, since the very designation of "nation" necessitates something beyond the market (i.e. borders). Markets expand, they push past national borders (hence the persistent debate over whether or not companies have any legitimate duty to their country).

Given this, there's no logical/plausible argument for any kind of perfect or pure capitalism. Capitalism has always been, and will always be, intertwined with state apparatuses.

We're kind of covering old territory here, but yeah, the USA would function better without corruption. If we accept my earlier point about corruption leading to "poorer decisions being made by politicians on the behalf of the public", then it's reasonable to expect better decisions to be made without it. We've already established that re-organisation isn't objectively desirable, and if inevitable, is variable in its rate of progress. Limiting corruption would, by your logic, slow re-organisation, which you have no problem with. So why not do it?

I don't think that systems function better without corruption, though. I don't think they would function at all without corruption.

I realize this may seem like an apologetics for criminal behavior, but it isn't. I'm simply saying that we can discipline corrupt individuals while simultaneously acknowledging the functionality of systemic corruption.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Sure, that's true - but no country has the capacity to be "perfectly capitalist." The very notion that a nation could be pure market is an illusion, since the very designation of "nation" necessitates something beyond the market (i.e. borders). Markets expand, they push past national borders (hence the persistent debate over whether or not companies have any legitimate duty to their country).

Given this, there's no logical/plausible argument for any kind of perfect or pure capitalism. Capitalism has always been, and will always be, intertwined with state apparatuses.

While it isn't possible to have a capitalist system without a state, it is possible to have a capitalist system in which the state is insulated to a greater degree from influence by corporate forces; i.e. a less corrupt capitalist system.

I don't think that systems function better without corruption, though. I don't think they would function at all without corruption.

I realize this may seem like an apologetics for criminal behavior, but it isn't. I'm simply saying that we can discipline corrupt individuals while simultaneously acknowledging the functionality of systemic corruption.

Am I to understand that you mean by this that even minimising the extent of corruption would have catastrophic consequences to the system's ability to function? Personally I don't see why corruption is necessary; yes it stimulates change, but you also don't see this as a benefit. What does it actually cause or facilitate that we couldn't do without?

 

[Einherjar86]

While it isn't possible to have a capitalist system without a state, it is possible to have a capitalist system in which the state is insulated to a greater degree from influence by corporate forces; i.e. a less corrupt capitalist system.

Who (or what) insulates the state?

Am I to understand that you mean by this that even minimising the extent of corruption would have catastrophic consequences to the system's ability to function? Personally I don't see why corruption is necessary; yes it stimulates change, but you also don't see this as a benefit. What does it actually cause or facilitate that we couldn't do without?

I'm going to do my best to answer this by attending to the specific vocabulary of our discussion.

I'm not saying that minimising corruption would have catastrophic consequences; but you specifically said that the country would function better "without corruption," which I interpreted as meaning that functionality would improve if corruption were exorcised entirely. I do not agree with this because I see it as a non sequitur.

Change, or evolution, is not inherently good or bad, which is why corruption is neither a boon nor a bane. It is simply a structural component of developing systems. We often perceive corruption as bad because of the effects that it has on human individuals. It is possible, however, to imagine an alternate perspective from which corruption has no positive or negative value, comparable to a genetic mutation. A mutation can be perceived as good or bad depending on the effects it has within a given environment; but the mutation isn't inherently good or inherently bad. It simply is. And mutation is a necessary feature of evolutionary adaptation. If you accept evolution, then you accept mutation. Mutation is a structural feature of evolution.

That's what I'm saying about corruption. If you accept that societies are always adapting/evolving, then you have to accept corruption as a driving factor of that change. This doesn't make it good or bad.

I'm appealing here in general to a branch of theoretical knowledge known as second-order systems theory, whose primary practioner is Niklas Luhmann. Systems are autopoietic, meaning they are constitutively paradoxical. They only develop/evolve because of this constitutive paradox. I see corruption as a manifestation of systemic paradox, of an imbalance that propels the system. Systems never achieve balance or stasis. They are always suffering corruption, and this corruption contributes to their functionality.

Michel Serres, another figure within the general circle of systems and communications theory, summarizes it this way:

Systems work because they don’t work. Non-functionality remains essential for functionality. This can be formalized: pretend there are two stations exchanging messages through a channel. If the exchange succeeds — if it is perfect, optimal, immediate — then the relation erases itself. But if the relation remains there, if it exists, it’s because the exchange has failed. It is nothing but mediation. The relation is a non-relation.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Who (or what) insulates the state?

Transparency and accountability - the more easy it is to detect and punish corruption, the less likely it is to come about.

I'm going to do my best to answer this by attending to the specific vocabulary of our discussion.

I'm not saying that minimising corruption would have catastrophic consequences; but you specifically said that the country would function better "without corruption," which I interpreted as meaning that functionality would improve if corruption were exorcised entirely. I do not agree with this because I see it as a non sequitur.

This is where we keep clashing heads - I've already agreed with you that completely eliminating corruption is as impossible as completely eliminating crime, and is therefore not the subject of this discussion. What I'm asking is whether you agree that the country would function better with less corruption.

Change, or evolution, is not inherently good or bad, which is why corruption is neither a boon nor a bane. It is simply a structural component of developing systems. We often perceive corruption as bad because of the effects that it has on human individuals. It is possible, however, to imagine an alternate perspective from which corruption has no positive or negative value, comparable to a genetic mutation. A mutation can be perceived as good or bad depending on the effects it has within a given environment; but the mutation isn't inherently good or inherently bad. It simply is. And mutation is a necessary feature of evolutionary adaptation. If you accept evolution, then you accept mutation. Mutation is a structural feature of evolution.

That's what I'm saying about corruption. If you accept that societies are always adapting/evolving, then you have to accept corruption as a driving factor of that change. This doesn't make it good or bad.

I'm appealing here in general to a branch of theoretical knowledge known as second-order systems theory, whose primary practioner is Niklas Luhmann. Systems are autopoietic, meaning they are constitutively paradoxical. They only develop/evolve because of this constitutive paradox. I see corruption as a manifestation of systemic paradox, of an imbalance that propels the system. Systems never achieve balance or stasis. They are always suffering corruption, and this corruption contributes to their functionality.

Michel Serres, another figure within the general circle of systems and communications theory, summarizes it this way:

This is very well argued, but it's a masterwork of abstraction from the human cost of corruption, which is what we should actually be evaluating when selecting which political candidate to vote for. I will say this about that perspective, though: even if corruption were completely eliminated, it would still be a theoretical component of the system - as you've already stated. So you actually have nothing to worry about; were someone like Sanders to be entirely successful in eliminating real world instances of corruption, the systemic potential for it would still exist. So we get the best of both worlds - something theoretically impossible hasn't taken place, but things have still improved.

 

[Dak]

http://qz.com/740401/instead-of-ask...need-to-ask-are-humans-becoming-more-robotic/

 

[Einherjar86]

Transparency and accountability - the more easy it is to detect and punish corruption, the less likely it is to come about.

Okay, I like this answer, but I have a rejoinder. The more we tend toward "absolute informational transparency" (to quote William Gibson), the more transparent not only the state becomes, but private individuals become. In other words, informational transparency cannot be limited to transactions between the state and the marketplace. If we have a greater degree of access to the goings-on of corporatist dealings, this means that the state also has a greater degree of access to the privacy of individuals.

Now I'm all for greater informational transparency, but the infiltration of individual privacy yields new contradictions, especially if we're appealing to notions of privacy (and property) as justifications for business (i.e. private) enterprises.

This is where we keep clashing heads - I've already agreed with you that completely eliminating corruption is as impossible as completely eliminating crime, and is therefore not the subject of this discussion. What I'm asking is whether you agree that the country would function better with less corruption.

I think we're about at the conclusion!

So, I fully admit that what I'm about to say is not an attempt at further disagreement, but an admission regarding my perspective. That is, you ask me if I would say that a decrease in corruption would make the country function "better." I cannot bring myself to answer that question because "better" is evaluative, and I do not believe there is any objective space from which to qualify such a distinction.

I do think that less corruption means that individual human lives may be markedly better - maybe even most human lives. But I'm a posthumanist, so this concession immediately makes me start to wonder what this means from the perspective of a nonhuman system. Scientific and theoretical analyses suggest that different scales lead to different notions of "better," and it's plausible to me that acting in the hypothetical interests of a system could also - in the long run - have a positive impact of individual human lives.

So my short answer to your question is yes, I do think less corruption would help the system function better from a human perspective. I do not think anyone can make the claim, however, that less corruption results in an objectively greater degree of functionality.

This is very well argued, but it's a masterwork of abstraction

I love masterworks of abstraction.

from the human cost of corruption, which is what we should actually be evaluating when selecting which political candidate to vote for. I will say this about that perspective, though: even if corruption were completely eliminated, it would still be a theoretical component of the system - as you've already stated. So you actually have nothing to worry about; were someone like Sanders to be entirely successful in eliminating real world instances of corruption, the systemic potential for it would still exist. So we get the best of both worlds - something theoretically impossible hasn't taken place, but things have still improved.

And here you basically are acknowledging what I said above, which is the human element of systems. These are invaluable, seeing as we are humans (I assume ) and have to look out for our interests. I have an almost automatic tendency to pull back from such commitments, however, to check my own emotions and empathic associations, and to try and look at things from a structural angle. Of course, this is ultimately impossible to do logically; but it isn't impossible to do speculatively...

Also, just a final point. If corruption (i.e. paradox) is a constitutive component of systems, there will always be local manifestations. If internal paradoxes exist, they will always out.

http://qz.com/740401/instead-of-ask...need-to-ask-are-humans-becoming-more-robotic/

In a general sense, this is kind of what my dissertation is about, although I'm suggesting that we can trace this question back to the mid-twentieth century.

 

[arg]

Hilary's corruption will be worse for the country than Trump's incompetence because professionals can be hired/appointed to fill the gaps in the latter

The way to fight Hillary if elected will be through Congress and the Supreme Court but that will be an uphill battle because she will either bribe or replace them or abuse executive orders like Obama

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Could you list some high paying jobs that depend on "human touch", or at least jobs you think would become at least reasonably paying that are based on "human touch"?

I wasn't really including high-paying jobs in my argument (though I assume engineering and management jobs are still a safe long-term bet). The second part of your question I already answered:

There are plenty of useful, difficult-to-automate, and currently-underpaid jobs that can be subsidized with the profits of automation: education, government, social work, mental health, elderly care, beauty/spa services, etc.

Of course it depends on a political incentive to subsidize those jobs, but since I can't think of a better bet for maintaining the quality of life and level of public order enjoyed by Western society, I assume an incentive will derive from that status quo.

 

[Dak]

When I think of human touch I'm thinking much more literally. So for instance palliative care, parenting, etc. Government mostly consists of bureaucratic management - paper shuffling could easily be vastly automated. Education will face increasing disruption, but I don't know what direction it will take. Beauty/spa services probably qualify, but outside of elite boutiques, how much does this really pay?

 

[Dak]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536

 

[zabu of nΩd]

When I think of human touch I'm thinking much more literally. So for instance palliative care, parenting, etc. Government mostly consists of bureaucratic management - paper shuffling could easily be vastly automated. Education will face increasing disruption, but I don't know what direction it will take. Beauty/spa services probably qualify, but outside of elite boutiques, how much does this really pay?

Sure plenty of government jobs can be automated, but I expect jobs in law enforcement, courts, military, diplomacy, and humanitarian work to continue employing a lot of people.

Education jobs will benefit from the need for an increasingly educated workforce (as "lower-IQ" jobs get automated), as well as the inevitable (and currently underserved) need for students to have individual attention and face time from teachers.

Beauty and spa services don't pay much now, but there's potential for increased demand. I mainly expect this to come from an increase in the population's average age.

I also suspect that the number of hours/day and days/year people work will decrease, giving people an incentive to allocate more time to all kinds of time- and service-intensive activities, whether it's spa treatment, fitness training, live entertainment, tourism, higher education, or whatever. I know there's a question here of whether a lighter workload will decrease the economy's productivity to the point that it can't support as much service consumption - it just depends on how much we can use automation-based productivity gains to reduce the share of productivity we demand from humans.

 

[Dak]

Sure plenty of government jobs can be automated, but I expect jobs in law enforcement, courts, military, diplomacy, and humanitarian work to continue employing a lot of people.

Law enforcement and the military are areas ripe for automation. Furthermore, again, jobs that remain available will be increasingly high tech. You cannot simply re-educate a bunch of average intelligence people to run complex equipment/systems.

Education jobs will benefit from the need for an increasingly educated workforce (as "lower-IQ" jobs get automated), as well as the inevitable (and currently underserved) need for students to have individual attention and face time from teachers.

Beauty and spa services don't pay much now, but there's potential for increased demand. I mainly expect this to come from an increase in the population's average age.

I also suspect that the number of hours/day and days/year people work will decrease, giving people an incentive to allocate more time to all kinds of time- and service-intensive activities, whether it's spa treatment, fitness training, live entertainment, tourism, higher education, or whatever. I know there's a question here of whether a lighter workload will decrease the economy's productivity to the point that it can't support as much service consumption - it just depends on how much we can use automation-based productivity gains to reduce the share of productivity we demand from humans.

And this is where the greatest uncertainty lies, not only in how to deal with it but if we even will actually "deal" with it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's an interesting problem for sure, with a lot of variables at play.

I'm curious what this looks like in list form now...

• the maximum value-creation possible through automation
• the amount of value-creating human labor that remains
• how many jobs the human labor can be divided into
• implied change in work/life balance from the new labor scheme
• how much the pay for those jobs can be subsidized
• how much service consumption the pay can support
• the work/life balance that results in optimal service consumption
• political will to implement all of the above
• pace of disruption in the job market vs. pace of policy changes and workforce retraining

 

[Internally Deformed]

Okay, I like this answer, but I have a rejoinder. The more we tend toward "absolute informational transparency" (to quote William Gibson), the more transparent not only the state becomes, but private individuals become. In other words, informational transparency cannot be limited to transactions between the state and the marketplace. If we have a greater degree of access to the goings-on of corporatist dealings, this means that the state also has a greater degree of access to the privacy of individuals.

Now I'm all for greater informational transparency, but the infiltration of individual privacy yields new contradictions, especially if we're appealing to notions of privacy (and property) as justifications for business (i.e. private) enterprises.

Good job on bringing William Gibson into play, every debate needs more WG. As to the idea of informational transparency being a two way street, this only really holds true if we accept the notion of privacy and freedom typically appealed to by conservatives in the pocket of big business, i.e. privacy = one's ability to trade without scrutiny, and freedom = one's ability to trade without regulatory interference. A clear notion of the divide between the public and private spheres pretty much solves this problem. Scrutiny of business dealings is only an invasion of one's privacy if one considers business to belong to the private sphere in the first place, which I would argue it doesn't and shouldn't.

I think we're about at the conclusion!

So, I fully admit that what I'm about to say is not an attempt at further disagreement, but an admission regarding my perspective. That is, you ask me if I would say that a decrease in corruption would make the country function "better." I cannot bring myself to answer that question because "better" is evaluative, and I do not believe there is any objective space from which to qualify such a distinction.

I do think that less corruption means that individual human lives may be markedly better - maybe even most human lives. But I'm a posthumanist, so this concession immediately makes me start to wonder what this means from the perspective of a nonhuman system. Scientific and theoretical analyses suggest that different scales lead to different notions of "better," and it's plausible to me that acting in the hypothetical interests of a system could also - in the long run - have a positive impact of individual human lives.

So my short answer to your question is yes, I do think less corruption would help the system function better from a human perspective. I do not think anyone can make the claim, however, that less corruption results in an objectively greater degree of functionality.

Okay, I can see where you're coming from there. All I would add is that anyone holding that world view would probably also support the position that all kinds of sub-optimal conditions that exacerbate human misery ought to be accepted in the interest of stimulating a development which might later more effectively overcome them. It also discounts, of course, the possibility that someone espousing Sanders' views could well be that development.

And here you basically are acknowledging what I said above, which is the human element of systems. These are invaluable, seeing as we are humans (I assume ) and have to look out for our interests. I have an almost automatic tendency to pull back from such commitments, however, to check my own emotions and empathic associations, and to try and look at things from a structural angle. Of course, this is ultimately impossible to do logically; but it isn't impossible to do speculatively...

Also, just a final point. If corruption (i.e. paradox) is a constitutive component of systems, there will always be local manifestations. If internal paradoxes exist, they will always out.

Agreed - but I think you'll also agree that the purpose of structural analysis must ultimately be to benefit the human element. If it is better equipped to do so than acting emotively, then go for it.

And yup, corruption will always out - but we do control the extent to which it does.