Hi everyone,

Just to expand on Bill's Star Trek theme, while not a fan (*definitely* not
a fan) I'm aware that in Star Trek World there *is* no
money.  International communism may have not taken off, but in the 25th
century (or whatever) interstellar communism seems to be a hit ;-)

Alister

At 12:44 1/05/2000 +1000, Bill Bartlett wrote:
>Issodhos @aol.com wrote:
>
> >Interesting perspective.  Thanks.
>
>Glad you thought so. The heart of the question is competition, according to
>that article, written about a hundred years ago it would seem.
>
>The writer points out that capitalism, which is predicated on and justified
>by free competition, inevitably trends toward increased monopoly, simply by
>the development of increasingly sophisticated machinery of production.
>
>It is therefor reactionary to blindly protest about this, to demand free
>competition, because that is already impossible. For the most part.
>
>Free competition under capitalism is a wonderful thing to behold, but as
>the article points out, the vast majority of the population simply don't
>have the necessary tools and have little chance of acquiring them. The only
>free competition they can engage in is the race to sell their labour at the
>cheapest price to those who do own the tools.
>
>The software industry is interesting in that its evolution has been so
>staggeringly fast. In less than 20 years it has progressed from a stage
>where free competition was not only possible, but standard. Thousands of
>people, individual developers all across the globe, were developing a huge
>variety of software applications for a hungry market.
>
>But the computer industry could not expect that it would last forever. The
>same process applies as that described in the article for the wider means
>of production. As it becomes more sophisticated, as the tools needed to
>produce the tools become more powerful and harder to produce from scratch,
>free competition becomes ever less practical.
>
>It is all very well to insist that the player which has developed the most
>sophisticated tools necessary, simply give them to anyone who needs them to
>compete with him. But capitalists would argue, with some truth, that if the
>price of success is to be stripped of rewards of success, to facillitate
>continued competition, then it is a no-win game for them.
>
>In simple terms, capitalism tends toward monopoly. The ultimate goal of all
>capitalists is to totally dominate their competition, thus freeing
>themselves from its evils. It is futile to pander to the reactionary
>squeals of those who cannot compete against more efficient producers.
>Resistance to the inevitable trend of capitalism, in the name of preserving
>capitalism, is futile.
>
>And while we're on the Star Trek theme. ;-)
>
>Fans will be aware that this series is about a fictional future society
>with an economy based on "replicators", which can produce an abundance of
>material needs literally out of thin air. As well as transport people and
>produce via "transporters", by means of simply dematerialising them and
>"replicating" them in another place. Of course it is not hard to see that
>such a society must be a socialist one, since all the necessities of life
>and a great deal more besides are freely available to anyone with a
>replicator. Obviously a competitive economy become meaningless when the
>cost of production is virtually nill for all items.
>
>One cannot help but see the analogy between the Replicator economy of the
>fictional Star Trek series and the software industry. After all, I can
>"replicate" a software package as easily and quickly as Captain Kirk can
>beam down to the planet surface. There is only one kind of economic system
>that makes sense here and increased competition is not it.
>
>Competition makes sense when things are scarce, maybe even when there is a
>limited supply. But trying to create a competitive economy based on
>commodities which are potentially unlimited and can be produced for
>practically nothing is going to involve a great deal of tinkering designed
>to create artificial scarcity.
>
>But is the human race really going to maintain artificial scarcity, in an
>effort to preserve an outdated economic system based on scarcity? It seems
>insane, it is clearly immoral, sickeningly so.
>
>Beam me up Scotty.
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas