Technocracy

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715253]

Technocracy seems to be a good idea.

The technocracy movement is a social movement that proposes replacing politicians with scientists and engineers who have the technical expertise to coordinate the economy.

I would go a little further then that, I would love to see a country that is run by people who have degrees/Phd's in science or engineering.

Since the most of the public is so misinformed by the media and generaly ignorant and too stupid to make the right decision. (i.e. the banning of nuclear power) It would be nice to see leaders who are elected because of their technical specialty instead of their political capital, religion , or image.

What is your opinion?

[Anonymous No.2715254]

>scientists and engineers have the technical expertise to coordinate the economy

[Fr 87 No.2715256]

Totally.

But it doesn't just refer to people in scientific positions, it also refers to economic and legal ones as well.
The president would most likely not be a science PHD.
To some degree, France is a technocratic system, the United States to a lesser one as well.

[Anonymous No.2715260]

> The technocracy movement is a social movement that proposes replacing politicians with scientists and engineers who have the technical expertise to coordinate the economy.

Hate to break it but what would be the different? The head of state would still be someone studying law and political science, as always.

[Anonymous No.2715262]

>>2715253
I agree that some politician don't know jack-squat about how to run a country and are just extremely charismatic and persuasive and fool the mass into believing that he is someone better. I feel like politics is more of a social thing than anything else.

[Anonymous No.2715263]

Rational, non-religious people making decisions based on what is good for the country instead of trying to further their own political careers. Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous No.2715268]

>>2715263
vote for me

[Anonymous No.2715271]

>>2715263
>implying rational people won't act to further their own political careers

Are you familiar with homo sapiens?

[Anonymous No.2715275]

>>2715253
lol yeah find me a guy who is extremely charismatic, proven to be a leader, is a doctor or expert in some field, understands history and political science
that guy definately should be president
but (protip: obama was a lawyer)

[Anonymous No.2715278]

>>2715260
see
>>2715054

[Anonymous No.2715285]

>>2715263

> non-religious

Oh for the love of god, what is wrong with people? So you'd just give the finger to Gandhi or M.L. King. if you got the chance to let one of them be your Minister of Foreign Affairs? Or if

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715295]

>>2715254
scientists and engineers ////who\\\\ have the technical expertise to coordinate the economy.

I wouldn't ask an astronomer to run the economy
"who" is there in the fist post idk why yours does not have it.

[Anonymous No.2715304]

>>2715278

But that's exactly how a technocracy is NOT run. Making your an engineer doesn't give you the understanding of the state that a PH.D in political science would.

If you think > hurr durr everyone should be a hard scientist or a faggotif they're going into politics, you need to rethink.

[Anonymous No.2715306]

>>2715263

Wassup?

[Anonymous No.2715317]

Very interesting concept. Somebody find a well-off, modernised country and make them do it so we can see if it works.

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715325]

>>All of you

Why is there no big push for technocracy in Europe, North America, Australia?

Or at least non that I have ever heard of?

[Anonymous No.2715337]

China is a technocracy then, in that all of their leaders are engineers or scientist. Although I wouldn't want to model my government on China.

[Anonymous No.2715341]

>>2715337
why not? it seems pretty effective

[Anonymous No.2715346]

>>2715285

Knee-jerk atheists are just as annoying as knee-jerk Christians who tell you you're going to hell for eternity if you look at one measly pic of a topless girl on the Internet.

[Anonymous No.2715351]

>>2715295
None of them have that expertise because it is not possible to run an economy top down with even a semblance of efficiency.

Hence,
>scientists and engineers have the technical expertise to coordinate the economy

[Anonymous No.2715353]

>>2715341

It's a totalitarian garbage dump?

[Anonymous No.2715355]

>>2715337

Because you're comparing China to wherever the hell you live. Try comparing it to India and see which you'd rather live in.

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715358]

>>2715304
I think people who are going to RUN COUNTRYS should be intellectually acclaimed not politicaly gifted.
Also I don't think technocracy bends to peoples peals of banning nuke power like politicians

[Anonymous No.2715367]

>>2715353
correction, it's a shimmering totalitarian metropolis. plus, it's free enough for north koreans to risk death trying to escape to it, and that's good enough for me

[Anonymous No.2715371]

>>2715341
dddurrr hurrr
>> implying its not a goverment thats scared to give away power
they justify having a iron fist because they want a "stable" country
recently they stated that the goverment will never become democratic
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7932091.stm

in addition china's central goverment is great but when it comes down to the local levels its corrupt and do you remember how nazi's had the S.S? we have a very weak version of that http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1899773,00.html
called chengguan

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715377]

>>2715351
And politicians somehow do have the ability to run the economy top down.

[Anonymous No.2715378]

>>2715351

He found Russia working with wood ploughs and left it armed with atomic piles.

[Anonymous No.2715380]

>>2715367

You know, you can't even access 4chan in China because it's blocked. And those shiny glass buildings are only found in the major cities. Most of the countryside and small towns still look quite Mao era.

[Anonymous No.2715381]

>>2715367
>he posts Hong Kong, which is leaps ahead of mainland China because of their western style political and economic systems
You are a tremendous retard

[Anonymous No.2715383]

>>2715355
Of course I'm comparing it to where I live, after all, if we're arguing about whether to implement it or not, it would logically be in America or Europe where most of the posters live. Modeling America's government after China would be going backwards. The point is that just because engineers and scientists are in charge doesn't always mean that the government will be good.

[Anonymous No.2715390]

>>2715381
yeah, i was originally going to post a picture of shanghai, but it wasn't as glorious. i was hoping you wouldn't notice

[Anonymous No.2715396]

>>2715378
They lied about their GDP to make their ideology seem more attractive. Late 80s USSR was still a horribly shitty country to live in.

[Anonymous No.2715399]

>>2715371
may i remind you that america is becoming less free every day

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html#ixzz1Gk8iCIP1

besides, what's a little communist party between friends?

[Anonymous No.2715400]

>>2715383

My point was that India and China were comparable economically in the 1950s. India chose to base itself on the western model, China chose to fuck around and do its own thing, and the rest was history.

Sure, adopting an exact replica of China's government is unwarranted, but it pays to ask what they are doing right as well as what they are doing wrong.

[Anonymous No.2715402]

>>2715390
Don't be intellectually dishonest, it just makes whatever you're proposing, suspect.

[Anonymous No.2715405]

China is an overcrowded police state with Internet and media censorship, forced abortion/family planning, a huge wealth gap, no concept of human rights, and horrific pollution.

You really would not enjoy living there.

[Anonymous No.2715411]

>>2715396

>Statistics disprove my claim
>Pretend they're made up

[Anonymous No.2715413]

>>2715358

And lawyers and political scientists aren't?

[Anonymous No.2715414]

>>2715400
>India chose to base itself on the western model
No, the government tried to run the economy top down as a rebellion against British classical liberalism and the country stagnated for 50 years.

[Anonymous No.2715415]

>>2715400

India wasn't a one-party state, but it still had a lot of socialism and central-planning until the Soviet Union collapsed and effectively discredited that sort of thing.

[Anonymous No.2715423]

>>2715415

You're honestly comparing the "market raj" to full blown central planning in China? What next, you'll claim Canada is socialist?

[Anonymous No.2715429]

>>2715371
>implying there's a government that isn't scared to give away power

[Anonymous No.2715430]

>>2715378

>and left it armed with atomic piles.

Because they stole nuclear technology from us thanks to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and the other communist plants in the government.

[Anonymous No.2715437]

>>2715377
No they don't, that's why the West dominated the 20th century

[Anonymous No.2715447]

>>2715423

India had a similar setup to Britain's nationalized industry that Margaret Thatcher dismantled. It wasn't out-and-out central planning, but it did keep large parts of the economy under state ownership.

[Anonymous No.2715453]

>>2715430

And? South America entered the 20th Century more developed than Russia. Yet Brazil didn't beat the yanks into space.

[Anonymous No.2715455]

>>2715429
yeah but no one is iron fist " WE WILL BE IN POWER FOREVER!" heil china!
in a democratic system the goverment can't screw everyone over or else they will have to face that fear

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715460]

>>2715413
George Bush was president, I dont think he was very intulectualy acclaimed. There are other countrys that have leaders who are bat shit crazy.

I would like there to be a system where people get into power who have the best intrest in founding knowledge, and preserving life.

I don't think lawyers and politicians are those kinds of people.

[Anonymous No.2715463]

What we need for a successful technocratie is just an AI.
All the advantages of an heavy bureaucratie with no downside.
Quite accurate simulations everywhere.
Extinction of the human specie and birth of the glorious plague of the stars.

Just a question, to access the building where the hardware of the AI is stored, what do you think would be needed?

[Anonymous No.2715472]

>>2715411
>he thinks the Soviets were publishing real statistics
Awww, how cute.

[Anonymous No.2715473]

>>2715463

>Just a question, to access the building where the hardware of the AI is stored, what do you think would be needed?

Decent spelling.

This way, the AI will guarantee it's safety for perpetuity.

[Anonymous No.2715479]

>>2715463
There's no such thing as AI, it's just a computer carrying out the wishes of the programmer given input data

I have no interest in the tyranny of the coders
PS everyone who is pro technocracy is an economic illiterate.

[Anonymous No.2715483]

>>2715453

The Russians got most of their rocket technology from Germany just as we did. And while they scored a bunch of space firsts, they completely failed at the biggest one of them all.

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715485]

>>2715437
lol wut

The west dominated the 20rth century because you state Scientists/Engineers and Politicians can't run the economy?

[Anonymous No.2715495]

>>2715460

> I would like there to be a system where people get into power who have the best intrest in founding knowledge, and preserving life.

Then what you're out after isn't a technocracy. A technocracy is simply having the one with the most knowledge having a suitable position where his knowledge can be put to use. A top lawyer or judge with a ph.d under his belt WILL take care of the law, if we're talking about a technocracy, and a political scientist WILL have to be the head of state.

[Anonymous No.2715506]

>>2715485
Free Enterprise.

[Anonymous No.2715509]

>>2715402
all i'm proposing is that PRC's system seems to be working for them in terms of strict GDP growth

[Anonymous No.2715512]

>>2715509

Oh, they're riding high off all the manufacturing they stole from us. But it'll all come down eventually. Mark my words.

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715515]

>>2715495
So a political scientest will have the final say in going with oil untill it runs out and energy crisis happens, or nuke power wich is a much better alternative

[Anonymous No.2715521]

>Let's bring oligarchy back
>Shiny new name
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715523]

>>2715506
I think youre skipping a few steps, I honestly can't follow youre logic. Why are you talking about free enterprise?

[Anonymous No.2715525]

>>2715509
When a country has its economy repressed like China did, it shouldn't be a surprise to see that they can gain ground, in terms of percentage growth year on year, quickly when things are liberalized.

[Anonymous No.2715527]

>>2715253

[Anonymous No.2715529]

>>2715515

Yep

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715531]

>>2715527
wut
tomato is a fruit.

[Anonymous No.2715539]

>>2715527
But it is a fruit.

[Anonymous No.2715540]

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715544]

>>2715529
Thats the most retarded thing I have ever heard, and why I think technocracy is a good idea, It leaves important decisions to those who SHOULD acutally make them.

[Anonymous No.2715550]

>>2715523
>Neither politicians nor scientists are capable of running a modern economy in a remotely efficient way
>"the cultural east" has an ideology that says they should try to central plan
>"the cultural west" has an ideology that says they should avoid trying to central plan
>The West is victorious in the 20th century
>This supports my first point

[Anonymous No.2715551]

Warning: Level II Libertarian contamination has been detected in this thread. Please standby for immediate decontamination.

[Anonymous No.2715556]

The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.

A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2] Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.

Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.[3] So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.

The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5]

[Anonymous No.2715559]

Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort,[6] a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[7] Let us consider the matter a little more closely.

A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. – in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.

Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both.

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715560]

>>2715550
oh... ok, Then why not re model the economy so that it is manageable?

[Anonymous No.2715564]

The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.

A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.

This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says,

“one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”[8]

[Anonymous No.2715567]

As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.

If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.

We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value.

[Anonymous No.2715571]

But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.

A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.

[Anonymous No.2715573]

The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time.

[Anonymous No.2715577]

Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. [A]

A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities.

[Anonymous No.2715578]

>>2715551

Got a problem with that, nigger?

[Anonymous No.2715580]

>>2715253
I disagree. Leaders should be experts in Philosophy, although having some scientific knowledge is a good thing. I wouldn't put my trust in, let's say, a scientist with a scientific ideology. There needs to be a philosophical element in any government for everyone to succeed.

[Anonymous No.2715583]

In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)[12] Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.

At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things – use value and exchange value. Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses the same twofold nature; for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this twofold nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns, we must go more into detail.

Let us take two commodities such as a coat and 10 yards of linen, and let the former be double the value of the latter, so that, if 10 yards of linen = W, the coat = 2W.

The coat is a use value that satisfies a particular want. Its existence is the result of a special sort of productive activity, the nature of which is determined by its aim, mode of operation, subject, means, and result. The labour, whose utility is thus represented by the value in use of its product, or which manifests itself by making its product a use value, we call useful labour. In this connection we consider only its useful effect.

[Anonymous No.2715585]

As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation of commodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.

To all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many different kinds of useful labour, classified according to the order, genus, species, and variety to which they belong in the social division of labour. This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labour. In the primitive Indian community there is social division of labour, without production of commodities. Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided according to a system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives mutually exchanging their individual products. Only such products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individuals.

To resume, then: In the use value of each commodity there is contained useful labour, i.e., productive activity of a definite kind and exercised with a definite aim. Use values cannot confront each other as commodities, unless the useful labour embodied in them is qualitatively different in each of them.

[Anonymous No.2715589]

>>2715583
GO TO SLEEP, KARL

[Anonymous No.2715593]

In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently of individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, a social division of labour.

Anyhow, whether the coat be worn by the tailor or by his customer, in either case it operates as a use value. Nor is the relation between the coat and the labour that produced it altered by the circumstance that tailoring may have become a special trade, an independent branch of the social division of labour. Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor. But coats and linen, like every other element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous produce of Nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special productive activity, exercised with a definite aim, an activity that appropriates particular nature-given materials to particular human wants. So far therefore as labour is a creator of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life.

The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.[13] Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour.

[Anonymous No.2715594]

As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.

Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use value to the value of commodities.

By our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is a mere quantitative difference, which for the present does not concern us. We bear in mind, however, that if the value of the coat is double that of 10 yds of linen, 20 yds of linen must have the same value as one coat. So far as they are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective expressions of essentially identical labour. But tailoring and weaving are, qualitatively, different kinds of labour. There are, however, states of society in which one and the same man does tailoring and weaving alternately, in which case these two forms of labour are mere modifications of the labour of the same individual, and not special and fixed functions of different persons, just as the coat which our tailor makes one day, and the trousers which he makes another day, imply only a variation in the labour of one and the same individual. Moreover, we see at a glance that, in our capitalist society, a given portion of human labour is, in accordance with the varying demand, at one time supplied in the form of tailoring, at another in the form of weaving. This change may possibly not take place without friction, but take place it must.

[Anonymous No.2715597]

Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, viz., the useful character of the labour, is nothing but the expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour power. Of course, this labour power, which remains the same under all its modifications, must have attained a certain pitch of development before it can be expended in a multiplicity of modes. But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on the other hand, a very shabby part,[14] so here with mere human labour. It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone.[15] The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom.

[Anonymous No.2715601]

For simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction.

Just as, therefore, in viewing the coat and linen as values, we abstract from their different use values, so it is with the labour represented by those values: we disregard the difference between its useful forms, weaving and tailoring. As the use values, coat and linen, are combinations of special productive activities with cloth and yarn, while the values, coat and linen, are, on the other hand, mere homogeneous congelations of undifferentiated labour, so the labour embodied in these latter values does not count by virtue of its productive relation to cloth and yarn, but only as being expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in the creation of the use values, coat and linen, precisely because these two kinds of labour are of different qualities; but only in so far as abstraction is made from their special qualities, only in so far as both possess the same quality of being human labour, do tailoring and weaving form the substance of the values of the same articles.

[Anonymous No.2715604]

Coats and linen, however, are not merely values, but values of definite magnitude, and according to our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the ten yards of linen. Whence this difference in their values? It is owing to the fact that the linen contains only half as much labour as the coat, and consequently, that in the production of the latter, labour power must have been expended during twice the time necessary for the production of the former.

While, therefore, with reference to use value, the labour contained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much? How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value.

If the productive power of all the different sorts of useful labour required for the production of a coat remains unchanged, the sum of the values of the coats produced increases with their number. If one coat represents x days’ labour, two coats represent 2x days’ labour, and so on. But assume that the duration of the labour necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled or halved. In the first case one coat is worth as much as two coats were before; in the second case, two coats are only worth as much as one was before, although in both cases one coat renders the same service as before, and the useful labour embodied in it remains of the same quality. But the quantity of labour spent on its production has altered.

[Anonymous No.2715606]

An increase in the quantity of use values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man. Nevertheless, an increased quantity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic movement has its origin in the twofold character of labour. Productive power has reference, of course, only to labour of some useful concrete form, the efficacy of any special productive activity during a given time being dependent on its productiveness. Useful labour becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products, in proportion to the rise or fall of its productiveness. On the other hand, no change in this productiveness affects the labour represented by value. Since productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms of labour, of course it can no longer have any bearing on that labour, so soon as we make abstraction from those concrete useful forms. However then productive power may vary, the same labour, exercised during equal periods of time, always yields equal amounts of value. But it will yield, during equal periods of time, different quantities of values in use; more, if the productive power rise, fewer, if it fall. The same change in productive power, which increases the fruitfulness of labour, and, in consequence, the quantity of use values produced by that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased quantity of use values, provided such change shorten the total labour time necessary for their production; and vice versâ.

On the one hand all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour, it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expenditure of human labour power in a special form and with a definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labour, it produces use values.[16]

[Anonymous No.2715610]

Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something twofold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.

The reality of the value of commodities differs in this respect from Dame Quickly, that we don’t know “where to have it.” The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity. In fact we started from exchange value, or the exchange relation of commodities, in order to get at the value that lies hidden behind it. We must now return to this form under which value first appeared to us.

[Anonymous No.2715611]

Every one knows, if he knows nothing else, that commodities have a value form common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use values. I mean their money form. Here, however, a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form. By doing this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented by money.

The simplest value-relation is evidently that of one commodity to some one other commodity of a different kind. Hence the relation between the values of two commodities supplies us with the simplest expression of the value of a single commodity.

A. Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value

x commodity A = y commodity B, or
x commodity A is worth y commodity B.

20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or
20 Yards of linen are worth 1 coat.

[Anonymous No.2715612]

so, you want to put nerds in power?
i dont know if that is a good idea, they surely will become dictators with that bad selveconcience.

[Anonymous No.2715613]

1. The two poles of the expression of value. Relative form and Equivalent form

The whole mystery of the form of value lies hidden in this elementary form. Its analysis, therefore, is our real difficulty.

Here two different kinds of commodities (in our example the linen and the coat), evidently play two different parts. The linen expresses its value in the coat; the coat serves as the material in which that value is expressed. The former plays an active, the latter a passive, part. The value of the linen is represented as relative value, or appears in relative form. The coat officiates as equivalent, or appears in equivalent form.

The relative form and the equivalent form are two intimately connected, mutually dependent and inseparable elements of the expression of value; but, at the same time, are mutually exclusive, antagonistic extremes – i.e., poles of the same expression. They are allotted respectively to the two different commodities brought into relation by that expression. It is not possible to express the value of linen in linen. 20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen is no expression of value. On the contrary, such an equation merely says that 20 yards of linen are nothing else than 20 yards of linen, a definite quantity of the use value linen. The value of the linen can therefore be expressed only relatively – i.e., in some other commodity. The relative form of the value of the linen presupposes, therefore, the presence of some other commodity – here the coat – under the form of an equivalent. On the other hand, the commodity that figures as the equivalent cannot at the same time assume the relative form. That second commodity is not the one whose value is expressed. Its function is merely to serve as the material in which the value of the first commodity is expressed.

[Anonymous No.2715616]

No doubt, the expression 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat, implies the opposite relation. 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, or 1 coat is worth 20 yards of linen. But, in that case, I must reverse the equation, in order to express the value of the coat relatively; and. so soon as I do that the linen becomes the equivalent instead of the coat. A single commodity cannot, therefore, simultaneously assume, in the same expression of value, both forms. The very polarity of these forms makes them mutually exclusive.

Whether, then, a commodity assumes the relative form, or the opposite equivalent form, depends entirely upon its accidental position in the expression of value – that is, upon whether it is the commodity whose value is being expressed or the commodity in which value is being expressed.

2. The Relative Form of value

(a.) The nature and import of this form


In order to discover how the elementary expression of the value of a commodity lies hidden in the value relation of two commodities, we must, in the first place, consider the latter entirely apart from its quantitative aspect. The usual mode of procedure is generally the reverse, and in the value relation nothing is seen but the proportion between definite quantities of two different sorts of commodities that are considered equal to each other. It is apt to be forgotten that the magnitudes of different things can be compared quantitatively, only when those magnitudes are expressed in terms of the same unit. It is only as expressions of such a unit that they are of the same denomination, and therefore commensurable.[17]

[Anonymous No.2715619]

Whether 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 20 coats or = x coats – that is, whether a given quantity of linen is worth few or many coats, every such statement implies that the linen and coats, as magnitudes of value, are expressions of the same unit, things of the same kind. Linen = coat is the basis of the equation.

But the two commodities whose identity of quality is thus assumed, do not play the same part. It is only the value of the linen that is expressed. And how? By its reference to the coat as its equivalent, as something that can be exchanged for it. In this relation the coat is the mode of existence of value, is value embodied, for only as such is it the same as the linen. On the other hand, the linen’s own value comes to the front, receives independent expression, for it is only as being value that it is comparable with the coat as a thing of equal value, or exchangeable with the coat. To borrow an illustration from chemistry, butyric acid is a different substance from propyl formate. Yet both are made up of the same chemical substances, carbon (C), hydrogen (H), and oxygen (O), and that, too, in like proportions – namely, C4H8O2. If now we equate butyric acid to propyl formate, then, in the first place, propyl formate would be, in this relation, merely a form of existence of C4H8O2; and in the second place, we should be stating that butyric acid also consists of C4H8O2. Therefore, by thus equating the two substances, expression would be given to their chemical composition, while their different physical forms would be neglected.

[Anonymous No.2715620]

"If my son had spent more time earning capital instead of writing about it, he would have had a better life."

-- Karl's mother

[Anonymous No.2715628]

>>2715620
Disregard capital, acquire surplus value.

If we say that, as values, commodities are mere congelations of human labour, we reduce them by our analysis, it is true, to the abstraction, value; but we ascribe to this value no form apart from their bodily form. It is otherwise in the value relation of one commodity to another. Here, the one stands forth in its character of value by reason of its relation to the other.

By making the coat the equivalent of the linen, we equate the labour embodied in the former to that in the latter. Now, it is true that the tailoring, which makes the coat, is concrete labour of a different sort from the weaving which makes the linen. But the act of equating it to the weaving, reduces the tailoring to that which is really equal in the two kinds of labour, to their common character of human labour. In this roundabout way, then, the fact is expressed, that weaving also, in so far as it weaves value, has nothing to distinguish it from tailoring, and, consequently, is abstract human labour. It is the expression of equivalence between different sorts of commodities that alone brings into relief the specific character of value-creating labour, and this it does by actually reducing the different varieties of labour embodied in the different kinds of commodities to their common quality of human labour in the abstract.[18]

[Anonymous No.2715635]

There is, however, something else required beyond the expression of the specific character of the labour of which the value of the linen consists. Human labour power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human labour, that value must be expressed as having objective existence, as being a something materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something common to the linen and all other commodities. The problem is already solved.

When occupying the position of equivalent in the equation of value, the coat ranks qualitatively as the equal of the linen, as something of the same kind, because it is value. In this position it is a thing in which we see nothing but value, or whose palpable bodily form represents value. Yet the coat itself, the body of the commodity, coat, is a mere use value. A coat as such no more tells us it is value, than does the first piece of linen we take hold of. This shows that when placed in value-relation to the linen, the coat signifies more than when out of that relation, just as many a man strutting about in a gorgeous uniform counts for more than when in mufti.

[Anonymous No.2715638]

In the production of the coat, human labour power, in the shape of tailoring, must have been actually expended. Human labour is therefore accumulated in it. In this aspect the coat is a depository of value, but though worn to a thread, it does not let this fact show through. And as equivalent of the linen in the value equation, it exists under this aspect alone, counts therefore as embodied value, as a body that is value. A, for instance, cannot be “your majesty” to B, unless at the same time majesty in B’s eyes assumes the bodily form of A, and, what is more, with every new father of the people, changes its features, hair, and many other things besides.

Hence, in the value equation, in which the coat is the equivalent of the linen, the coat officiates as the form of value. The value of the commodity linen is expressed by the bodily form of the commodity coat, the value of one by the use value of the other. As a use value, the linen is something palpably different from the coat; as value, it is the same as the coat, and now has the appearance of a coat. Thus the linen acquires a value form different from its physical form. The fact that it is value, is made manifest by its equality with the coat, just as the sheep’s nature of a Christian is shown in his resemblance to the Lamb of God.

[Anonymous No.2715639]

We see, then, all that our analysis of the value of commodities has already told us, is told us by the linen itself, so soon as it comes into communication with another commodity, the coat. Only it betrays its thoughts in that language with which alone it is familiar, the language of commodities. In order to tell us that its own value is created by labour in its abstract character of human labour, it says that the coat, in so far as it is worth as much as the linen, and therefore is value, consists of the same labour as the linen. In order to inform us that its sublime reality as value is not the same as its buckram body, it says that value has the appearance of a coat, and consequently that so far as the linen is value, it and the coat are as like as two peas. We may here remark, that the language of commodities has, besides Hebrew, many other more or less correct dialects. The German “Wertsein,” to be worth, for instance, expresses in a less striking manner than the Romance verbs “valere,” “valer,” “valoir,” that the equating of commodity B to commodity A, is commodity A’s own mode of expressing its value. Paris vaut bien une messe. [Paris is certainly worth a mass]

By means, therefore, of the value-relation expressed in our equation, the bodily form of commodity B becomes the value form of commodity A, or the body of commodity B acts as a mirror to the value of commodity A.[19] By putting itself in relation with commodity B, as value in propriâ personâ, as the matter of which human labour is made up, the commodity A converts the value in use, B, into the substance in which to express its, A’s, own value. The value of A, thus expressed in the use value of B, has taken the form of relative value.

[Anonymous No.2715644]

(b.) Quantitative determination of Relative value


Every commodity, whose value it is intended to express, is a useful object of given quantity, as 15 bushels of corn, or 100 lbs of coffee. And a given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. The value form must therefore not only express value generally, but also value in definite quantity. Therefore, in the value relation of commodity A to commodity B, of the linen to the coat, not only is the latter, as value in general, made the equal in quality of the linen, but a definite quantity of coat (1 coat) is made the equivalent of a definite quantity (20 yards) of linen.

The equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are worth one coat, implies that the same quantity of value substance (congealed labour) is embodied in both; that the two commodities have each cost the same amount of labour of the same quantity of labour time. But the labour time necessary for the production of 20 yards of linen or 1 coat varies with every change in the productiveness of weaving or tailoring. We have now to consider the influence of such changes on the quantitative aspect of the relative expression of value.

[Anonymous No.2715645]

I. Let the value of the linen vary,[20] that of the coat remaining constant. If, say in consequence of the exhaustion of flax-growing soil, the labour time necessary for the production of the linen be doubled, the value of the linen will also be doubled. Instead of the equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, we should have 20 yards of linen = 2 coats, since 1 coat would now contain only half the labour time embodied in 20 yards of linen. If, on the other hand, in consequence, say, of improved looms, this labour time be reduced by one-half, the value of the linen would fall by one-half. Consequently, we should have 20 yards of linen = ½ coat. The relative value of commodity A, i.e., its value expressed in commodity B, rises and falls directly as the value of A, the value of B being supposed constant.

II. Let the value of the linen remain constant, while the value of the coat varies. If, under these circumstances, in consequence, for instance, of a poor crop of wool, the labour time necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled, we have instead of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, 20 yards of linen = ½ coat. If, on the other hand, the value of the coat sinks by one-half, then 20 yards of linen = 2 coats. Hence, if the value of commodity A remain constant, its relative value expressed in commodity B rises and falls inversely as the value of B.

If we compare the different cases in I and II, we see that the same change of magnitude in relative value may arise from totally opposite causes. Thus, the equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, becomes 20 yards of linen = 2 coats, either, because the value of the linen has doubled, or because the value of the coat has fallen by one-half; and it becomes 20 yards of linen = ½ coat, either, because the value of the linen has fallen by one-half, or because the value of the coat has doubled.

[Anonymous No.2715646]

III. Let the quantities of labour time respectively necessary for the production of the linen and the coat vary simultaneously in the same direction and in the same proportion. In this case 20 yards of linen continue equal to 1 coat, however much their values may have altered. Their change of value is seen as soon as they are compared with a third commodity, whose value has remained constant. If the values of all commodities rose or fell simultaneously, and in the same proportion, their relative values would remain unaltered. Their real change of value would appear from the diminished or increased quantity of commodities produced in a given time.

IV. The labour time respectively necessary for the production of the linen and the coat, and therefore the value of these commodities may simultaneously vary in the same direction, but at unequal rates or in opposite directions, or in other ways. The effect of all these possible different variations, on the relative value of a commodity, may be deduced from the results of I, II, and III.

Thus real changes in the magnitude of value are neither unequivocally nor exhaustively reflected in their relative expression, that is, in the equation expressing the magnitude of relative value. The relative value of a commodity may vary, although its value remains constant. Its relative value may remain constant, although its value varies; and finally, simultaneous variations in the magnitude of value and in that of its relative expression by no means necessarily correspond in amount.[21]

[Anonymous No.2715651]

3. The Equivalent form of value

We have seen that commodity A (the linen), by expressing its value in the use value of a commodity differing in kind (the coat), at the same time impresses upon the latter a specific form of value, namely that of the equivalent. The commodity linen manifests its quality of having a value by the fact that the coat, without having assumed a value form different from its bodily form, is equated to the linen. The fact that the latter therefore has a value is expressed by saying that the coat is directly exchangeable with it. Therefore, when we say that a commodity is in the equivalent form, we express the fact that it is directly exchangeable with other commodities.

When one commodity, such as a coat, serves as the equivalent of another, such as linen, and coats consequently acquire the characteristic property of being directly exchangeable with linen, we are far from knowing in what proportion the two are exchangeable. The value of the linen being given in magnitude, that proportion depends on the value of the coat. Whether the coat serves as the equivalent and the linen as relative value, or the linen as the equivalent and the coat as relative value, the magnitude of the coat’s value is determined, independently of its value form, by the labour time necessary for its production. But whenever the coat assumes in the equation of value, the position of equivalent, its value acquires no quantitative expression; on the contrary, the commodity coat now figures only as a definite quantity of some article.

[Anonymous No.2715655]

For instance, 40 yards of linen are worth – what? 2 coats. Because the commodity coat here plays the part of equivalent, because the use-value coat, as opposed to the linen, figures as an embodiment of value, therefore a definite number of coats suffices to express the definite quantity of value in the linen. Two coats may therefore express the quantity of value of 40 yards of linen, but they can never express the quantity of their own value. A superficial observation of this fact, namely, that in the equation of value, the equivalent figures exclusively as a simple quantity of some article, of some use value, has misled Bailey, as also many others, both before and after him, into seeing, in the expression of value, merely a quantitative relation. The truth being, that when a commodity acts as equivalent, no quantitative determination of its value is expressed.

The first peculiarity that strikes us, in considering the form of the equivalent, is this: use value becomes the form of manifestation, the phenomenal form of its opposite, value.

The bodily form of the commodity becomes its value form. But, mark well, that this quid pro quo exists in the case of any commodity B, only when some other commodity A enters into a value relation with it, and then only within the limits of this relation. Since no commodity can stand in the relation of equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into the expression of its own value, every commodity is compelled to choose some other commodity for its equivalent, and to accept the use value, that is to say, the bodily shape of that other commodity as the form of its own value.

[Anonymous No.2715680]

>Labor Theory of Value

[Anonymous No.2715723]

>>2715254
>>2715254
>compared to the ones currently and previously running it because they obviously did such a good job at preventing the economic crash.

[Anonymous No.2715765]

This thread is a load of shit, just because someone has Phd's in engineering and other technical sectors, doesnt make that person a good leader. If we go back to monarchy, you have the king at the top, the advisors who manage all the sectors and the people below the advisors who work in the sectors. So that there is room for the king to lead its country.

ITT: Wiki lurkers and hands on sciencefags who think they know the perfect society.

If people arent perfect, there is no way a perfect society can be built.

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715777]

>>2715655
There are three basic conclusions. The first is that there exists on the North American Continent a physical potential in resources to produce a high standard of goods and services for all citizens, and that the high-speed technology for converting these resources to use-forms in sufficient volume is already installed, and that the skilled personnel for operating it are present and available. Yet we have unprecedented insecurity, extensive poverty and rampant crime.

The second conclusion of Technocracy is that the Price System can no longer function adequately as a method of production and distribution of goods. The invention of power machinery has made it possible to produce a plethora of goods with a relatively small amount of human labor. As machines displace men and women, however, purchasing power is destroyed, for if people cannot work for wages and salaries, they cannot buy goods. We find ourselves, then, in this paradoxical situation: the more we produce, the less we are able to consume.

The final basic conclusion is that a new distributive system must be instituted that is designed to satisfy the special needs of an environment of technological adequacy, and that this system must not in any way be associated with the extent of an individual's functional contribution to society.

[Anonymous No.2715785]

It's called the Cabinet.

President is elected for his leadership.

etc, etc

[The Asker !cPUZU5OGFs No.2715787]

>>2715765
Then why not build the best we can build?

[Anonymous No.2715795]

No one is saying a scientist has the expertise to run a country but that they have the necessary critical thinking ability. Even for China, top officials would have 20 years plus experience of field work to be selected. Political science phd and certainly popular politician who are essentially actors on the other hand, may well lack such basic abilities.

[Anonymous No.2715834]

Who says we (in Europe) dont have a Technocracy already?
- most politicians have a degree, at least the leading ones
Effect: Leaders who know their stuff - but have to fool the stupid masses with baits and nonsense speeches.

So intelligent people have the power, because they can fool the stupid ones and convince the intelligent ones.

[Anonymous No.2715854]

>>2715834

yeah. Look at german cancellor Angela Merkel for example!

"Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof from 1978 to 1990. She learned to speak Russian fluently, and earned a statewide prize for her proficiency.
After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry she worked as a researcher."

[Anonymous No.2715861]

>>2715854
and yet she's a christian conservative

[Anonymous No.2715876]

>>2715861

yeah, her father was a priest.
but really the christian party isnt about religion and filled with religious people. they are just more conservative then others. nothing in comparison to US christian parties.

[Anonymous No.2716017]

>>2715680
Why don't you believe in the labor theory of value when it's just a theory (a fact)?

Marxists: 1
Randroids: 0

[Anonymous No.2716030]

>>2715876

Europeans don't tend to go for in-your-face religiosity as Americans do. Cultural differences.

[Anonymous No.2716043]

[Anonymous No.2716049]

Absolutely OP!
Our cabinet is filled by BA's and BComm's
Most of them don't even have a masters degree, hence the daily herp derp on the parliament floor.

Australia here.