Is Socialism inevitable?

[Elegiac]

Additionally, our cities are already designed towards physical vehicle distribution over a wide area. Not so for bringing mass numbers of people to a small area. Centralized distribution would require rebuilding cities at a fundamental level.

Which, quite frankly, is something we should be looking into. Shifting towards walkable communities tied together by effective public transportation is pretty much the gold standard in modern urban planning - i.e. avoiding automotive-centric garbage pits like Los Angeles and Dubai.

[Slicer299]

Is Socialism inevitable?

OK if it gets to a point where literally everything can be done by machines and human labour is no longer needed will that spell the end for Capitalism?

Surely Socialism is the end goal of where we are going as a species I mean go and see the civilization on Star Trek The Next Generation where nobody works for capital because machines can produce anything humans need and could ever want so they just work for the sake of bettering themselves.

The days of people working for pieces of paper and numbers on a computer screen must surely be numbered if we get to a point where everything we need can just be manufactured by machines and delivered to us (driverless cars?) or if replication technology ever becomes a thing.

When or where will it get to a point where socialism is the only solution because nobody has jobs cause of automation that makes capitalism viable?

I don't think you understand how Socialism and Capitalism work. A completely machine workforce is the dream scenario for Capitalism, and would be the death of Socialism. A workforce of all machines means no paying for healthcare, no paying for unemployment or payroll taxes, no paying for what amounts to over 50% of the cost of running the average business. But a completely machine workforce for Socialism on the other hand means basically no one paying taxes, and Socialism can't exist without other people's money. If there aren't people out working jobs and paying taxes, there is no money to pay for everything that Socialism wants to pay for.

The only thing inevitable with Socialism is that it inevitably fails. Just look at Venezuela, where they are now arresting bakers for the crime of baking too much bread! Something that Bernie Sanders is a supporter of, he loves those "equal for everyone" food rations.

[Moratori]

and its starting to falling apart too..

the high tax rates needed to maintain thoses "free of charge" services, make things more expensive, and people are starting to burnout because of this

PS: I live on a socialism country

What country?

[Endus]

Eliminating rural communities makes me super nervous when it comes to actual policy proposals.

To clarify my point, I'm talking about "eliminating rural communities" in the same sense that we've "eliminated blacksmithing communities". Not an attempt to delete them, just a refusal to maintain them unnecessarily when our technological position has moved beyond the need for them.

If everyone's moving away because the farms aren't profitable, and the community ceases to be, that's not automatically "bad". Not if society is otherwise producing the agricultural products it needs. That's what I'm saying.

[Masark]

I don't think you understand how Socialism and Capitalism work. A completely machine workforce is the dream scenario for Capitalism, and would be the death of Socialism. A workforce of all machines means no paying for healthcare, no paying for unemployment or payroll taxes, no paying for what amounts to over 50% of the cost of running the average business. But a completely machine workforce for Socialism on the other hand means basically no one paying taxes, and Socialism can't exist without other people's money. If there aren't people out working jobs and paying taxes, there is no money to pay for everything that Socialism wants to pay for.

Pray tell, who is buying all the stuff that the machines make? Capitalism is just as dependent on "other people's money" as socialism is.

[Wells]

You can move goods from the farming tower to distribution centers through small commercial vehicles, because you no longer need to make bulk shipments using container trucks to make the logistics chain profitable. If you're feeling frisky about futuretech, the supply chain could be airborne through a drone network. That one seems more iffy to me, though.



I've lived in NYC for decades, where public transportation is...okay, it's not as good as it will ever get, but it's a fully functional public metro system. Trucks and "delivery hours" are nightmarish even here in a city which shuttles most of its population each day underground.

Then why are you producing them in core industrialized areas in the first place? You're placing your entire transportation chain inside the city. Better to have a distribution network that moves food from an hour or two outside the city directly into stores.

Replace cul-d-e-sacs with farms, not high-rises.

[Moratori]

The only thing inevitable with Socialism is that it inevitably fails. Just look at Venezuela, where they are not arresting bakers for the crime of baking too much bread! Something that Bernie Sanders is a supporter of, he loves those "equal for everyone" food rations.

What do you mean?

[Wells]

Which, quite frankly, is something we should be looking into. Shifting towards walkable communities tied together by effective public transportation is pretty much the gold standard in modern urban planning - i.e. avoiding automotive-centric garbage pits like Los Angeles and Dubai.

Redesigning cities from the ground up for some notion of greater efficiency makes even my socialized heart quaver.

To clarify my point, I'm talking about "eliminating rural communities" in the same sense that we've "eliminated blacksmithing communities". Not an attempt to delete them, just a refusal to maintain them unnecessarily when our technological position has moved beyond the need for them.

If everyone's moving away because the farms aren't profitable, and the community ceases to be, that's not automatically "bad". Not if society is otherwise producing the agricultural products it needs. That's what I'm saying.

Agreed

[Nadiru]

Then why are you producing them in core industrialized areas in the first place? You're placing your entire transportation chain inside the city. Better to have a distribution network that moves food from an hour or two outside the city directly into stores.

Replace cul-d-e-sacs with farms, not high-rises.

Commercial vans don't put anywhere near the same congestion burden on cities that big wheelers do.

[Elegiac]

Redesigning cities from the ground up for some notion of greater efficiency makes even my socialized heart quaver.

Don't you worry, it's never going to happen as long as Americans still long for their white picket fence and ignorance of their ecological impact.

[Wells]

Commercial vans don't put anywhere near the same congestion burden on cities that big wheelers do.

Not sure how you think growing the food in the city itself somehow lets you distribute the same amount in smaller vehicles. No matter where you grow it you have to distribute comparable amounts to food stores. Having that movement occur between the suburb and the stores is easier than entirely intra-urban

[Kelathos]

Is Socialism inevitable?

That appears to be a terrible misuse of the word.
Capitalism with a safety net is not Socialism.

[Wells]

Don't you worry, it's never going to happen as long as Americans still long for their white picket fence and ignorance of their ecological impact.

I mean obviously I'm no libertarian, but there are, in realistic terms, limits on what we can hope for from real world central planning.

[Darth Vowrawn]

The only thing "inevitable" about Socialism, is it will either 1.) collapse due to lack of public-based resources and return to a privatized capitalist economy, or 2.) turn into a nationalistic Communist despotic nightmare state. This is because people, in general, don't work out of "enjoyment" or "altruism", but simple self-survival and benefit.

Sure, there are always those few individuals that work extra hard, and are altruistic. But they are also rare, and their altruism always has a breaking point, unless they have attained the state of Nirvana necessary to become equal to Buddha. Those few then have to hold up the rest of the lazy, stupid, entitled masses, and pay for all of their free stuff. This leads to many of them to just throw their hands up and give up, to join the people already on the welfare take. Eventually, that leads to more and more rationing, and eventually forced labor to meet production requirements.

[Wells]

The only thing "inevitable" about Socialism, is it will either 1.) collapse due to lack of public-based resources and return to a privatized capitalist economy, or 2.) turn into a nationalistic Communist despotic nightmare state.

How long does a socialized nation have to exist without either of these occurring before the hypothesis is proven wrong?

[Elegiac]

Not sure how you think growing the food in the city itself somehow lets you distribute the same amount in smaller vehicles. No matter where you grow it you have to distribute comparable amounts to food stores. Having that movement occur between the suburb and the stores is easier than entirely intra-urban

More than likely the compromise model would feature the staples being grown in the hinterland regions (what used to be suburbs) with the more delicate crops being located closer to the action.

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing "inevitable" about Socialism, is it will either 1.) collapse due to lack of public-based resources and return to a privatized capitalist economy, or 2.) turn into a nationalistic Communist despotic nightmare state. This is because people, in general, don't work out of "enjoyment" or "altruism", but simple self-survival and and benefit.

Sure, there are always those few individuals that work extra hard, and are altruistic. But they are also rare, and their altruism always has a breaking point, unless they have attained the state of Nirvana necessary to become equal to Buddha. Those few then have to hold up the rest of the lazy, stupid, entitled masses, and pay for all of their free stuff. This leads to many of them to just throw their hands up and give up, to join the people already on the welfare take. Eventually, that leads to more and more rationing, and eventually forced labor to meet production requirements.

Please point out where this has happened in the West.

[Vash The Stampede]

Socialism is inevitable, but a brief period in human economy. At some point we'll just remove money all together. At least remove currency based on trade.

[LilSaihah]

On 'killing rural communities', I honestly don't see it happening. I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer having space to roam. If I'm living in a city, it's not because I prefer the city life; it's because I need to, for work.

[Wells]

More than likely the compromise model would feature the staples being grown in the hinterland regions (what used to be suburbs) with the more delicate crops being located closer to the action.

Probably. I can see what are essentially boutique stores being a thing.

[Elegiac]

Socialism is inevitable, but a brief period in human economy. At some point we'll just remove money all together. At least remove currency based on trade.

I sincerely doubt that a money-less economy is going to be a thing, even in a post-scarcity scenario.