Is Socialism inevitable?

[Deleted]

Humans will never stop working. All jobs will never be taken over by computers, since a computer can never do more than we ask of it to do.

Unless we all as a race accepts total apathy and decides to wait for the sun to burn out instead of furthering our understanding of the world and the universe

[Nihilist74]

Human beings are pretty selfish, self centered, fearful, vengeful and willfully ignorant. Even if we have free energy and other great technology, there is always going to be large amount of people who want to oppress other people. We could have a pretty nice utopia with the technology we have now if people were willing but humans are assholes. Unfortunately we will not ever reach the perfect socialist society.

[Shibito]

It's not inevitable. I think the elite in many countries would sooner fuck people lives over than let socialism be introduced on such a scale that it allowed people to live an okay life without worrying about their income.

Most elites in countries are socialists tho so its wrong what you say, venezuela is the shining beacon of socialism.

[Moratori]

Most elites in countries are socialists tho so its wrong what you say, venezuela is the shining beacon of socialism.

You're joking, right?

[Spectral]

in a post-shortage/fully automated society, it'll either be a (democratic) socialist/communist society, or it'll turn into a corporate run dystopia.

You can't really get any more dystopian than communism.

The obvious alternative is just shifting modern market economies to having a high basic income guarantee. No need for communism or corporate dystopia.

Corporations owning the government.

I'm not sure where this meme came from, but this is almost entirely orthogonal to fascism.

[Barnabas]

Nothing in socialism make humans stop working, why does it seems only Americans think it means that. Socialism is about the state controlling the means of production. Meaning the government control industries. Those industries still need people to work in them? Your military is a perfect example of that. It means your government and by via your taxes control the industry that would involve training and maintaining military personnel. Instead of hiring private soldiers for money, they are the sole driving force behind that particular industry.

- - - Updated - - -



But its not what they employ. Credit is still money. You are misunderstanding what utopia star trek tries to come off as. Socialism still requires money as well. Like i said star trek fiction is neither.

My statement is to contradict the OP. That was the premise in the OP. Mainly the failures of marxist socialism reflect americans thoughts. The democratic socialism thing isn't real socialism. It's socialism in name only. It's really just capitalism. You need a stronger argument than using credits as a basis for the economy being socialism in star trek.

[melodramocracy]

The short answer is yes.

Human labor is critical to capitalism, because human labor facilitates the movement of money (ie, collecting it via wages, spending it at other businesses). Automation effectively breaks the monetary cycle, because the entities actually performing the work neither collect nor spend.

[minteK917]

My statement is to contradict the OP. That was the premise in the OP. Mainly the failures of marxist socialism reflect americans thoughts. The democratic socialism thing isn't real socialism. It's socialism in name only. It's really just capitalism. You need a stronger argument than using credits as a basis for the economy being socialism in star trek.

We dont use capitalism either. The state has much control over the capital, more then most industry. Its only one step away from owning the means of production and just stays outside that door as a precaution. Star trek is not socialism, like i said socialism requires money as well and is only about the government owning the means of production. We use both socialism and capitalism when we feel its appropriate currently. There is value to nationalizing police forces and firefighter and no value to nationalize video game industry for example. So police force and firefighter use socialism system and video game industry is private as much as it follow governmental regulations.

Star trek is the fiction of neither of these thing. Imagine if any food, cloths, house, items, vehicle. Could simply be made out of thin air (replicators). It means wealth is worth nothing anymore, just like if we dragged a gold asteroid out of space and mined it, gold would be worth nothing anymore. All that remains is career and life choices, education, things that cant be made up by matter alone. You dont need to buy anything, hence money is worth nothing and nobody has to build anything for you to buy. Only job left are the academic part of design, which star trek says overall you can if you want do on your own by programming replication. You want a chair, not only do the you not need money to get it, you dont need someone to make it and you can just make it up exactly on the interface how you want even skipping the design industry of it.

Theres still criminal and such, but like in real life most humans prefer to have some meaning to their lives then just sit in front of TV. I live in a country where i could live in front of the TV, collect a check and eat fine have a roof. But why dont i? Hell why are unemployed rate so low? Hell why even among those unemployed most still end up being unemployed only a few months at a time. Probably because most humans have some kind of dignity and drive to do something?

[JohnBrown1917]

No. It does not. It stands of anarchy capitalism. Anarchy is a total removal of authority were individual sovereignty is the principle. There would be no CEO running anything, as soon as a CEO takes control, its already no longer anarchy. I dont care what gobbles american useless libertarian are telling them. As soon as an authority public or private takes control over personal sovereignty you are no longer in anarchy. A kingdom was not anarchy.

Thats part of why anarchy is stupid and has never existed. We have never existed without an expression of leadership and concentration of power, we never will either.

But that is how anarcho capitalist view it. You're making the mistake of assuming Anarcho capitalism is a form of anarchy, its not..

- - - Updated - - -

You learn something new everyday.......... just because communism = the people(by that i mean a select few) run things doesn't mean the polar opposite is fascism. We are currently living in oligarchy states in the west and we are in no way under fascist dictatorship.

...yeee I never said that.

[Theodarzna]

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?

Possibly, but there are multiple possible futures.

1) The increased complexity of society is unsustainable. This is basically the "Great Filter" future. In essence it turns out there is a limit to how much complexity we can add to society and continue to function. Technology of this sort becomes unsustainable and societies rapidly simplify, which may imply a decline in technical ability and skill. The major reasons being that innovations and discoveries are becoming narrowly useful and increasingly costly and difficult to discover and this difficulty outpaces a societies willingness to bare the burden of innovation. This also may imply increasing energy problems as oil becomes ever more expensive and other sources or even more energy rich sources do not reveal themselves to us. This is my prefer opinion on the future.

2) SOCIALISM! Things go exactly as you describe. But that scenario might lead back to option one, or to the stars.

3) Managerialism, which is somewhat how you describe but there is still an elite caste system and inequality built into the system. This system may or may not call itself a Technocracy but it will be a kind of dictatorship with the same class hierarchy we have now, except the ruling class is too technically superior to ever be displaced. This scenario may lead to option one eventually. Or it might also lead to the stars.

[Shiny212]

Just to be clear, you are using Star Trek: The Next Generation as your basis for deriving the ideal end point of society?

As should we all... In Star Trek earth is utopia. No famine, no disease, no war or conflict, all humans live full lives of peace and plenty. To quote it directly... "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives, we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."

[Mayhem]

Fun Fact OP - Socialism and Capitalism together form a coherent and stable society, it is only either extreme (extreme Socialism -> Communism and extreme Capitalism -> Fascism) that cause problems.

Considering there never was extreme socialism i don´t see how you can say that it causes problems.

[Deleted]

...yeee I never said that.

You stated that corporations owning governments leads to fascism. Governments are already owned by corporate and Billionaires, and yet we are not under fascism or anywhere near to heading that way.

[Unforgivenn]

What country?

Brazil

/10chars

[igualitarist]

Fun Fact OP - Socialism and Capitalism together form a coherent and stable society, it is only either extreme (extreme Socialism -> Communism and extreme Capitalism -> Fascism) that cause problems.

The US right now is at a cross roads, either to follow Trump et al into fascism, or pull back into a rationalist centre involving socialism as a moderating influence on capitalist ideals.

The extreme capitalism would be something like a 100% free market, or close to it. Something like an anarcho-capitalism or laissez-faire.

Fascism is just a mix of corporatism and socialism.

Why do i say socialism ? Well, just look on how fascism was very appealing to european working class in the last century.

If you want a hint, just look at carta del lavoro enacted by Mussolini. It will be a good start.

Both socialism and fascism have some common things, like a strong sindicalism, collectivism and the idea that private sector should be driven by the government.

Fun fact: Brazil had a fascist president last century, called Getulio Vargas. He is considered by the left the greatest leader we ever had (next to Lula). He created our labour legislation (which is expressly pro worker), gave women the right to vote and created our bigger state company - Petrobras (Which is involved in a HUGE corruption scandal, and managed to have deficit even having 99% of the rights to explore and refine oil in the 5th most populated country in the world, with the 7th largest economy).

Why do the socialists love this fascist so much ?
Why do socialists in America are those showing fascist attitudes ?

Simple, socialism and fascism are close cousins.

[Unforgivenn]

Let us know when any other form of government manages to produce a comparable level of comfort and wealth for a comparable population.

socialism isnt that perfect..

yes its good on paper, but on reality is way different.

governement makes thing really high because of tax

for example, here to buy computer pieces (like an nvidia 1080) its 60% tax, while a computer (manufactured - or best, mounted here) is 30%. the problem is the manufacturer here dont make pc for gamers, just for home usage, so..

an iphone 7 plus 256gb here is fucking $5.2k ... yes, there conversion(1usd = 3,092brl) which makes 969usd x 3,092brl = 2.996 ... the rest is fucking taxes and profit from the seller

[Logwyn]

I just don't see people being able to produce food fast enough and in enough amounts on their own with that to survive on that alone. Lots of things that people eat take months to grow.

You are coming at it from a modern perspective. Where you say I need food.. I go get it at the store. Not from the angle of I grow my food then store what I need when I'm not able to grow it. If stored correctly frozen say tomatoes can last 6 months to a year.

Its just a different way of thinking. We'd probably still need a place to buy meat or other items. But I bet you could grow enough food for the year in a small urban apartment if you knew how.

[THE Bigzoman]

Only if you subscribe to Marxist theory.

But i'll spare you the post of me mansplaining what that is.

To answer your question, no one knows. We can only forecast and predict what's going to happen. We also don't know if any exogenous forces will push us off this seemingly linear path (assuming it is as linear as you think). All we can do is wait and see.

- - - Updated - - -

Possibly, but there are multiple possible futures.

1) The increased complexity of society is unsustainable. This is basically the "Great Filter" future. In essence it turns out there is a limit to how much complexity we can add to society and continue to function. Technology of this sort becomes unsustainable and societies rapidly simplify, which may imply a decline in technical ability and skill. The major reasons being that innovations and discoveries are becoming narrowly useful and increasingly costly and difficult to discover and this difficulty outpaces a societies willingness to bare the burden of innovation. This also may imply increasing energy problems as oil becomes ever more expensive and other sources or even more energy rich sources do not reveal themselves to us. This is my prefer opinion on the future.

2) SOCIALISM! Things go exactly as you describe. But that scenario might lead back to option one, or to the stars.

3) Managerialism, which is somewhat how you describe but there is still an elite caste system and inequality built into the system. This system may or may not call itself a Technocracy but it will be a kind of dictatorship with the same class hierarchy we have now, except the ruling class is too technically superior to ever be displaced. This scenario may lead to option one eventually. Or it might also lead to the stars.

A desire to innovate or be innovative is a part of the human condition.

What's driving Dr. Smartypants to make productive AI machines is the same thing that drove cavemen to use sticks, stone, and metal.

I don't think there's a burden TOO GREAT for people to just stop improving. But I could be wrong.

Our most likely future is a combination of 2 and 3, but I refuse to put the spin on 3 that you just did.

[Spectral]

As should we all... In Star Trek earth is utopia. No famine, no disease, no war or conflict, all humans live full lives of peace and plenty. To quote it directly... "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives, we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."

I think the way an actual post-wealth society works is not the egalitarian utopia imagined by, well, egalitarians, but would instead replace clawing for wealth with clawing for status. Humans aren't really put together in a fashion that works as this perfectly altruistic, team-based system. We're not ants.

- - - Updated - - -

What's driving Dr. Smartypants to make productive AI machines is the same thing that drove cavemen to use sticks, stone, and metal.

Is it an attempt to get the finest piece of ass possible?

I suspect that pretty much everything is just a spandrel stemming from an attempt to get the finest piece of ass possible...

[THE Bigzoman]

I think the way an actual post-wealth society works is not the egalitarian utopia imagined by, well, egalitarians, but would instead replace clawing for wealth with clawing for status. Humans aren't really put together in a fashion that works as this perfectly altruistic, team-based system. We're not ants.

- - - Updated - - -


Is it an attempt to get the finest piece of ass possible?

I suspect that pretty much everything is just a spandrel stemming from an attempt to get the finest piece of ass possible...

I'd describe it more as an attempt to live better, even if the marginal increase in living standards is lower than the resources and costs it takes to get it.

But I understand that the desire to live better and the desire to fuck bitches isn't mutually exclusive if that makes sense.