Is Socialism inevitable?

[hardhat]

Socialism is a kind of a pipe dream it just cant work unless God is running it. Men tend to become corrupt over time unless there is some kind of system to keep them balanced. That is the problem with the government and elected and appointed officials. As long as it is someone else's money it leads to corruption and ruin. People always want more and more till the whole system collapses. That is socialism. Argentina and Detroit and Greece and Spain are all good examples.

You are right, but capitalism suffers from equal problems. People will seek to exploit any system of government for their own benefit. Think of all of the money spent by corporations trying to gain tax benefits or contracts by lobbying and bribery. Think of the monopolies and price collusion that has happened. Arguing that one principle of governance is superior by pointing out the weak points of the other is pointless and not relevant to the idea in the OP.

For my part, I think that neither capitalism nor socialism will exist eventually, as they are means of distributing scarce goods. When our society generates goods in sufficient quantity to satisfy its needs without human effort, the government will instead focus its efforts on meeting other standards of human actualization. But until then in the US capitalism will exist, with an increasing shift of social welfare programs to support those who are not needed for their role in the economy. The people who continue to add value will continue to work.

 

[werepossum]

Newsflash, a lot of aspects of our society are already socialized. Do you call the police? Or do you call your private security? Do you call the fire department? Or do you have a company you pay for fighting your fires? Do you drive on public roads? Heard of the military? How about public libraries? The post office? National parks? A variety of museums, etc.? What about student loans that are gov't backed? How about most jails/prisons? Public parks? Beaches? All those damn street lights? National Weather Service? USDA? National monuments? (State monuments, city/town monuments?) There are probably hundreds of things that are for the common good that are socialized in this country. Stop acting like most of it isn't for the better of our society.

But she is clearly discussing socialism as it is defined classically: government owning or controlling the means of production. That is an order above what we now have.

I voted yes. As off-shoring and automation and immigration lower the value of our labor, capitalism works for fewer people. At some point those without marketable skills sufficient to earn a living at a socially acceptable level will grossly outnumber those who do posess such skills. Either we move into serfdom, a quasi-welfare state where those people become totally powerless, or we move into hard socialism (where people are subject to the rule of government, but perhaps not quite so much). At that point, government will receive more benefit from businesses than do the owners, to have something to seize and redistribute, and will almost certainly have more control over such businesses' decisions.

 

[woolfe9998]

Why should those who are allowed to work have a *much* higher living standard?

Because they're mostly luckier than other people with roughly equal skill sets?

None of us are the special snowflakes we like to think we are. Everybody is replaceable. What happens when nearly all of us are replaced by machines?

Should we allow wealth & income to simply accumulate in the ownership class while they cut us out?

My post had nothing to do with how things ought to be. It was an observation of how things are and how I predict they will be in the future.

 

[Jaskalas]

So sorry folks, it's not society's job to create purpose for you...

Screw purpose, the people want water, food, shelter, etc. They want to share in the wealth of production that made this happen even as their wages turn to ash.

Go make yourself actually valuable by doing the hard work to be scientists...

"Make yourself", you mean College? Who is going to pay for the masses without wages to pass this barrier to entry? Why would enough money go into sciences to for _everyone_ to make a "living" at it?

And if scientists became dime a dozen, why wouldn't they make minimum wage... or worse? Supply, demand, and efficiency. Take a job, eliminate the cost of labor... because you can. Because people NEED to eat, and if deprived of nothing they'll take whatever !@#$ scraps are left over, no matter how meager. College grads work for peanuts when left with no other choice.

your value will remain in the future AI world because your value isn't tied to someone else...

1: That's exactly what a wage is. Tied to someone else willing to pay.
2: That's also exactly what robotics will rapidly eliminate this century.

 

[michal1980]

Why should those who are allowed to work have a *much* higher living standard?

Because they're mostly luckier than other people with roughly equal skill sets?

None of us are the special snowflakes we like to think we are. Everybody is replaceable. What happens when nearly all of us are replaced by machines?

Should we allow wealth & income to simply accumulate in the ownership class while they cut us out?

Hi Marx, welcome back to the land of the living.


Why should the people that don't work, and don't produce have the same income and wealth as those that do?

 

[glenn1]

Screw purpose, the people want water, food, shelter, etc. They want to share in the wealth of production that made this happen even as their wages turn to ash.

"Make yourself", you mean College? Who is going to pay for the masses without wages to pass this barrier to entry? Why would enough money go into sciences to for _everyone_ to make a "living" at it?

And if scientists became dime a dozen, why wouldn't they make minimum wage... or worse? Supply, demand, and efficiency. Take a job, eliminate the cost of labor... because you can. Because people NEED to eat, and if deprived of nothing they'll take whatever !@#$ scraps are left over, no matter how meager. College grads work for peanuts when left with no other choice.

But your 1: That's exactly what a wage is. Tied to someone else willing to pay.
2: That's also exactly what robotics will rapidly eliminate this century.

Sure, we can feed and house people like they're animals at the zoo. But your own post seems to imply that you want those folks to have an equity share in the future economy where they produce nothing of value via either their labor or creativity and 'socialism' is how that will happen. We don't give equity in our current economy for 3rd world folks in Africa and other places that sit around and wait for a missionary to build them a well, why the hell would we do it in the future when it's some former UAW worker in Detroit? Hell, does socialism help any of those 3rd worlders now? See Venezuela for an example of how it's "helped".

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings Sonikku,

If a variant of classical socialism doesn't take hold soon, then we are headed toward one of several scenarios.

One of these scenarios places the middle class in the direction it is headed in now, in almost complete extinction. The wealthy in its greed conquest will not only control the economy they will own it and the impoverished will continue to grow. Under this scenario, the poor and displaced are complacent and will fight and kill each other (sound familiar to any of the urbanites here?) for the scraps that the elite will dole out.

The second is a rising up of the people in a full "Bolshevik" revolution probably spelling an end to Democracy and the financiers to be replaced with a new governmental elite.

A possible third involves the ones controlling our economy suddenly waking up and forecasting the need for a viable middle class in order to sustain their own livelihood. This, I am afraid is not likely given the amount of greed observable over the last 4 decades as the "greatest generation" has died out and their heirs do not feel the same kindred spirit that once held this affluent nation together in an economy that offered some degree of hope in its future.

There are more, and as I have not read all of the responses in this thread, if I have duplicated anyone, my sincere apologies.

 

[sm625]

Low IQ people vote for socialism. Low IQ people outbreed high IQ people. Therefore socialism is logically proven to be inevitable.

 

[repoman0]

Low IQ people vote for socialism. Low IQ people outbreed high IQ people. Therefore socialism is logically proven to be inevitable.

Only low IQ people classify other people by IQ level.

 

[dullard]

Low IQ people vote for socialism. Low IQ people outbreed high IQ people. Therefore socialism is logically proven to be inevitable.

IQ isn't inherited, despite what the movie Idiocracy implies. High IQ people tend to have average IQ children. Low IQ people tend to have average IQ children.

Your first sentence should be proven as well. Do you have any evidence of that? Or are you just making up gibberish?

 

[feralkid]

Low IQ people vote for socialism. Low IQ people outbreed high IQ people. Therefore socialism is logically proven to be inevitable.

Wow, that's a brilliant observation, Bob.

 

[dullard]

Newsflash, a lot of aspects of our society are already socialized.

Exactly. Socialism in of itself isn't necessarily bad and in at least some form socialism is essentially required for all societies.

The real question is how MUCH socialism is proper and will that level change over time.

 

[repoman0]

IQ isn't inherited, despite what the movie Idiocracy implies. High IQ people tend to have average IQ children. Low IQ people tend to have average IQ children.

Indeed. A recent study I was reading about:

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-affecting-genetic-make-up.html

That guy has never been interested in facts or knowledge though.

 

[flexy]

"They" never had to deal with the prospect of an A I. We aren't even there yet and things like this are happening. https://www.techinasia.com/foxconn-robots-china-job-losses

I don't think the steam engine people had a debacle half the scale of this one.

By pure coincidence I am currently reading Michio Kaku's "The Future of the Mind", currently the chapter about AI and robots.

It makes me realize how incredibly far we are still from actual AI, or at least AI that would deserve this name. We're not as enthusiastic and optimistic anymore about creating real, thinking and conscious "robots" as we've been some decades ago.

(The most advanced robots we have today are still far inferior to even the tiniest bug)

 

[flexy]

Low IQ people vote for socialism. Low IQ people outbreed high IQ people. Therefore socialism is logically proven to be inevitable.

Yea, looking at all the trailer-trashing Nobel prize laureates Trump voters...you are soooooo correct. Totally.

 

[flexy]

Yesterday when I read the OP, the first thing that came to mind was actually...DO WE EVEN NEED an "economy"?

Say for a future society, how important is it to actually have an "economy", such as trade, existence of money, exchanging of money vs. services/goods.

Is it essential for a society to function...or do we merely assume that?

Asked differently:

Let's imagine a far, future society that is "entirely socialist" where "everyone has everything" (and nothing) and everyone is equal. Would from such a society "economy" arise again, simply because people are never happy, as a natural result of human nature? (In this hypothetical socialist society, would people start to trade and to exchange, aka "economy" simply because they want to personally enrich themselves or stand out). Or would at some point there be alternatives so that what we call economy now becomes obsolete?

(As in..say if only robots "do" economy, is there even a need for people to participate? If so, why?)

 

[dullard]

Let's imagine a far, future society that is "entirely socialist" where "everyone has everything" (and nothing) and everyone is equal.

Do you know what socialism is (government ownership)? You just described something far closer to communism (sharing everything).

I think the biggest problem with socialism is that people think it is communism.

 

[Sonikku]

By pure coincidence I am currently reading Michio Kaku's "The Future of the Mind", currently the chapter about AI and robots.

It makes me realize how incredibly far we are still from actual AI, or at least AI that would deserve this name. We're not as enthusiastic and optimistic anymore about creating real, thinking and conscious "robots" as we've been some decades ago.

(The most advanced robots we have today are still far inferior to even the tiniest bug)

Yes, that's true. And even those far inferior robots just destroyed 60,000 jobs in China where the wages are far more paltry than even the $7.25 an hour paid here in America. The question is if mindless machines are doing this now, what will happen when we have an actual A I decades down the road? Will there even be a need for a human element in the economy?

Even the hard working can do Americans earnestly doing his damnest to create value in the economy could be sidelined by a thinking robot. What happens to Capitalism then? Our economy could become so efficient that sufficient goods could be produced for the entire population without anyone even needing to work. If that were to happen, Capitalism could break.

 

[glenn1]

Yesterday when I read the OP, the first thing that came to mind was actually...DO WE EVEN NEED an "economy"?

Say for a future society, how important is it to actually have an "economy", such as trade, existence of money, exchanging of money vs. services/goods.

Is it essential for a society to function...or do we merely assume that?

Asked differently:

Let's imagine a far, future society that is "entirely socialist" where "everyone has everything" (and nothing) and everyone is equal. Would from such a society "economy" arise again, simply because people are never happy, as a natural result of human nature? (In this hypothetical socialist society, would people start to trade and to exchange, aka "economy" simply because they want to personally enrich themselves or stand out). Or would at some point there be alternatives so that what we call economy now becomes obsolete?

(As in..say if only robots "do" economy, is there even a need for people to participate? If so, why?)

Yes, because even in a "post-scarcity" world there are still some goods which by their nature are finite. We can't all have the most desirable seats to a concert for example because by definition all seats can't be the most desirable. A future economy will still need to address how the lesser number of scare resources are distributed, it just means that what is currently scarce (food, shelter, etc) may not be a scarcity item in the future.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yes in sci-fi movies, like in this movie "I-robot" that shows robots gathering trash as effective if not more so than any garbageman in effect eliminating that specific job for humans.

This is the real world

10 reasons why human level Artificial Intelligence is a false promise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyrUC0biqTA

They were right though...

We have garbage trucks with forklifts and everyone has a specific type of trash can in los angeles. It drives up and lifts each one into the big bin and its done. No need for humans except a driver. If I recall there would be like 2 guys hanging on the back of the garbage truck before now we have 1 guy.

I can imagine in the future we will have driverless garbage trucks doing this work with a "field rep" who is in charge of 10 trucks or something who will drive around to problems.

 

[Genx87]

I think this is where UBI can become a major contributor to keeping the unskilled at a standard of living. Capitalists will still be able to create vast amounts of wealth. Some of it with automation.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, we can feed and house people like they're animals at the zoo. But your own post seems to imply that you want those folks to have an equity share in the future economy where they produce nothing of value via either their labor or creativity and 'socialism' is how that will happen. We don't give equity in our current economy for 3rd world folks in Africa and other places that sit around and wait for a missionary to build them a well, why the hell would we do it in the future when it's some former UAW worker in Detroit? Hell, does socialism help any of those 3rd worlders now? See Venezuela for an example of how it's "helped".

It's not like we grant equity on the basis of work at all. We grant equity on the basis of successful exploitation of capital & the work of others. We also grant unearned equity on the basis of inheritance. Witness Trump.

We also grant equity at a higher level, at the level of public goods & shared resources. That's a basic characteristic of civilization. As society has become wealthier & more complex we've added features to that & will inevitably do so to a greater degree in order to serve the common good & preserve domestic tranquillity. We do so only when capitalism fails to provide for that on its own.

 

[Genx87]

Yesterday when I read the OP, the first thing that came to mind was actually...DO WE EVEN NEED an "economy"?

Say for a future society, how important is it to actually have an "economy", such as trade, existence of money, exchanging of money vs. services/goods.

Is it essential for a society to function...or do we merely assume that?

Asked differently:

Let's imagine a far, future society that is "entirely socialist" where "everyone has everything" (and nothing) and everyone is equal. Would from such a society "economy" arise again, simply because people are never happy, as a natural result of human nature? (In this hypothetical socialist society, would people start to trade and to exchange, aka "economy" simply because they want to personally enrich themselves or stand out). Or would at some point there be alternatives so that what we call economy now becomes obsolete?

(As in..say if only robots "do" economy, is there even a need for people to participate? If so, why?)

How does this AI determine what to produce for the consumers? What you seem to describing is over producing everything to the point everybody can have everything. That is highly inefficient. And would absolutely destroy wealth and natural resources.

 

[Grooveriding]

Socialism is already prevalent in first world nations. Even in the great capitalist bastion of the USA where you get pundits using the word like it's heretical, all the while oblivious to the fact that the USA has what is the highest funded socialist program around.

I view capitalism as a stopgap measure until collectively a better system is realized. The least stinky turd of what has been a collection of turds. We are seeing its flaws come to bear, from much the same as communism, being wide open to corruption leading to abuses of power. The political process is corrupted due to capitalistic interests. It is a sociopathic system at odds with the interests of individuals. Currently it is the least functionally broken system to incentivize people to get off their asses and do something though.

Perhaps after one or two more major financial collapses that can't be fixed by printing more money, where debtors of the collapsed nation call in their chits that can't be paid, something will be done to change things.

 

[glenn1]

Sure, we can feed and house people like they're animals at the zoo. But your own post seems to imply that you want those folks to have an equity share in the future economy where they produce nothing of value via either their labor or creativity and 'socialism' is how that will happen. We don't give equity in our current economy for 3rd world folks in Africa and other places that sit around and wait for a missionary to build them a well, why the hell would we do it in the future when it's some former UAW worker in Detroit? Hell, does socialism help any of those 3rd worlders now? See Venezuela for an example of how it's "helped".

It's not like we grant equity on the basis of work at all. We grant equity on the basis of successful exploitation of capital & the work of others. We also grant unearned equity on the basis of inheritance. Witness Trump.

We also grant equity at a higher level, at the level of public goods & shared resources. That's a basic characteristic of civilization. As society has become wealthier & more complex we've added features to that & will inevitably do so to a greater degree in order to serve the common good & preserve domestic tranquillity. We do so only when capitalism fails to provide for that on its own.

So your concern is basically the serving size for the poors in the Zoo, you still expect them to be fed by their 20% betters.