Most likely the anger will be targeted on capital owners, but in some technophobic conservative communities may be also on programmers!

Nice  BS anecdote will absolutely no cognitive value.

Not to mention pathetic attempt to make people submit to your values because of the "invisible all powerful force" ....

20-30 years from now, with automation having rendered entire classes of workers obsolete, with the resultant gains having been gobbled by the same actors who have dominated global commerce these last 80+ years - I think we'll find then what the end game really looks like.

There are no free markets - and never will be. The idea that market forces will prevent revolution is so naïve I have trouble that anyone actually believes it, and yet... here we are.

Either automation frees us from labor, or the labor will tear down the machines. It's as simple as that.

You are a poor worker. You are your buddies are forced to toil at machines that manufacture basics like food, clothing, and transportation appliances, and more discretionary things, like electoronics, communication equipment,  and various other tools.

Someone says "Down with the bourgeoisie!" and you all tear down the machines. Now you have no food, no clothing, no tools, and nothing to entertain yourselves with.
Good job, you poor starving morons!

I don't support patents and copyrights, either, but that's true about the rest. And we all know the outcome. Same thing that happened in every other country where a revolution resulted in public confiscation of private land and private means of production (it was never good).


Why is it unfair? Should workers get more product, even if they don't contribute as much to its production? I would argue that it's unfair for workers to get ANY product, because without the capital owners, no product would be created in the first place (and my argument would also be ridiculous).
Who is it that decides what is fair, what is not, who contributed, and who did not?

Or I can read opinions of people who lived in USSR, or now live in Cuba, Venezuela, China, Iran, and North Korea. Well, maybe not North Korea.


But the private shareholders were the ones who put the money together to get the company those workers are working in started in the first place. And the only reason they gave the money to form the company, and thus give those workers jobs, was because they were promised returns or dividends from that company.
Does fair distribution mean much higher amounts go to the people at the top who are running the system, and much smaller to the lowest workers who are just watching the machines, or cleaning the floors, or pressing a button all day?


How do the workers in the union know what level of skill is required to run the company and how much that person should earn? And what if their "fair" wages end up with them not being able to hire anyone to manage the company?

What did i say about delusion of free-marketer ?



* Good ( as in person defending invisible hand ) always wins.
* Absolutely nothing can go wrong in an age of weapons of mass destruction. Invisible hand will protects the believers.


Enemies of the invisible hand are :
* Are mindless zombies th iat will just run into the bullet
* Can't organize

How about "Down with the bourgeoisie!" and you all tear down the bourgeoisies and take the machines ??

Cant comprehed such a scenario ?? Oh i forgot , belivers in invisible hand will be protected !!!

I mean laizess faire capitalism which is so actively advocated by libertarians. They won't easily give up and likely to move to the enclaves or even floating cities when socialist pressure will grow.

Sure, they took out all the aristocracy (my great-grandparents were among them), confiscated all land and houses (my great-grandmother's mansion became a kindergarten), and raided all the wealthy merchants and businesses. And then they didn't know much what to do with it, other than grow food. Yay for basic agricultural economy.
And no, the transformation started before Stalin. Lenin was possibly even more evil and ruthless than Stalin, but we just didn't get a chance to see how much more. Stalin was just carrying forward Lenin's ideas.

Yes, Soviet Russia was marketless. We had three guys in our neighborhood, who owned a bakery, manage to get a higher allowance of flour, which, instead of using to make basic pasta like the their bakery was required to, they used to make extremely good pierogis using their own cooking skills and recipes. There was still pasta, but we all loved their pierogies, and paid them extra for it. When the government found out they were trying to make a profit selling their own stuff, all three were disappeared into a labor camp, and we never heard of them again.
I know my history, because my family and I live it. And I don't go to free-market web sites, or know of any. I just read a lot about global business and economics in various countries.

Besides market distribution and central planning there is one other distribution philosophy, participatory planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_planning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
http://www.zcommunications.org/

This distribution philosophy implemented with a decentralized system of participatory democracy will go a long way toward resolving many of the fundamental weaknesses of our current social pattern.

At least something to consider along the way.