Is Socialism inevitable?

[Jhhnn]

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.

And your concerns are fundamentally classist, claiming superiority on the basis of ownership alone.

Reminds me of the differences claimed under the rights of nobility.

 

[glenn1]

And your concerns are fundamentally classist, claiming superiority on the basis of ownership alone.

Reminds me of the differences claimed under the rights of nobility.

The serfs farmed to feed themselves, people like you no longer even want to do that.

 

[Atreus21]

Technology is making labor so cheap that even those settling for minimum wage seem to have their jobs at risk. Foxconn doesn't even want the dirt cheap labor they have in China so great is the impact technology and automation is having on the economy. Can Capitalism really endure as we continue to follow this path?

Even those that still have a job seem to be made to settle for same or less income as cost of living becomes ever greater. Automation continues to destroy more jobs than it creates. Could a breaking point be simmering that will boil over in the decades to come? What is really scary to me is the prospect of an AI.

It's probably coming this century. And when it arrives, it will have all kinds of bugs and people will laugh at it. But those bugs will get ironed out and I suspect when businesses start installing Engineering skillset software or any number of skillsets on a whim as needed that society is going to have to brace itself for the kind of upheaval no economy in history has ever had to face.

The sticking point comes when an AI drone can maintain other drones and itself. There could well come a point where the entire economy could run with only 20% of the population, or less. Will the other 80% resign themselves to their obsolescence and quietly die in the gutter or would there be mass protests? Possibilities like these are probably a long ways off and yet it seems clear that they're coming.

Can Capitalism endure? Is Socialism inevitable? Or is there a third option we've all overlooked?

Edit: Can't seem to edit the poll. The first option is supposed to say "Capitalism is fine as it is".

If there's one thing about capitalism I've noticed, it's that its death knell is always predicted as imminent.

According to socialists, yes, socialism is inevitable.

 

[Sonikku]

If there's one thing about capitalism I've noticed, it's that its death knell is always predicted as imminent.

imminent /= inevitable

 

[bshole]

If there's one thing about capitalism I've noticed, it's that its death knell is always predicted as imminent.

According to socialists, yes, socialism is inevitable.

As previously noted, socialism has been here for a pretty long while already. We have a mix o both. We will always be on the sliding scale between them.

Just remember that if you support Capitalism, you are spitting in the face of Jesus. It was VERY clear what he thought of private property (see Acts 2,4&5 to start). He was a pure communist. Christians love to regale us with verses that talk about homosexuality (their favorite subject) but seem to believe that Bible verses attacking capitalism don't apply. It is a smorgasbord religion. Ignore the 90% that flies in the face of your worldview, latch on to the 10% that reinforces your world view. If you are a good capitalist, you are a BAD Christian by DEFINITION.

 

[Jaskalas]

Pure Capitalism would be Wall Street owning the economy.
Pure Socialism would be Washington DC owning the economy.

America has long strived for a middle ground, a balance between billionaire interests and common interests. Back when labor was highly valued these interests made for a nice pair. Americans enjoyed a post-war golden age. Then we opened up Asian markets and laid off American workers. We imported impoverished labor and flooded American markets.

We sank the American wage while cost of living continues to rise. But Wall Street is more profitable than ever. That is "income inequality" in a nutshell. The gilded barons have more profit and more production and the people on the street have less. The symbiotic relationship between laborer and CEO is being abused. The wheels on our economy are breaking.

Economy is liquidity. It is the movement of value throughout a society. We place that value into dollars and make purchases. It used to be that business was simple and value obtained from purchases mostly circled back into wages... government need not apply, not much help was needed.

Then someone, or a group of someones, got greedy. Wall Street kept more of its profits for itself and then offshored that value. They use our purchases NOT to return that value to the American worker but to grow their own portfolio with investments in other countries. Your lost wages are in other countries. The difference between this generation and the Boomers is the money you send to a business is not kept as liquidity for our society.

Thus the symbiotic relationship is either strained or broken.

And in their desperate need, our people turn to the government to replace that lost liquidity. Right now our people are too poor to survive without handouts - and they know it. They simply are not paid as much value as their parents. And at this rate their children will be paid even less.

Whether our people have enough economic value to survive isn't even a matter of Socialism. You don't have to own production to tax production. You just have to maintain a good system that provides enough base liquidity for our people to enjoy decent lives.

 

[Jhhnn]

The serfs farmed to feed themselves, people like you no longer even want to do that.

When your self righteousness won't serve on its own you resort to false attribution. I'm one of the fortunates who managed to be employed my whole life until I retired 2.5 years ago.

It's not like people have an overwhelming desire to not work today, either. It''s just that the power elite don't require their services to the same degree that they once did. Given the glut of labor, they don't have to pay as well in relative terms, either. So an increasing number of people work only intermittently & at reduced wages. What capitalism offers to bridge those gaps is credit, thus increasing overhead when people do get a job. Interest insures that the financial elite get a bigger share of working people's income. Wash, rinse & repeat to arrive at today where people have enormous debt loads & the whole system threatens collapse when credit is over extended as during the so-called ownership society. It also inhibits people's ability to gain equity when they're underwater on their houses after making payments for 10 years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pure Capitalism would be Wall Street owning the economy.
Pure Socialism would be Washington DC owning the economy.

America has long strived for a middle ground, a balance between billionaire interests and common interests. Back when labor was highly valued these interests made for a nice pair. Americans enjoyed a post-war golden age. Then we opened up Asian markets and laid off American workers. We imported impoverished labor and flooded American markets.

We sank the American wage while cost of living continues to rise. But Wall Street is more profitable than ever. That is "income inequality" in a nutshell. The gilded barons have more profit and more production and the people on the street have less. The symbiotic relationship between laborer and CEO is being abused. The wheels on our economy are breaking.

Economy is liquidity. It is the movement of value throughout a society. We place that value into dollars and make purchases. It used to be that business was simple and value obtained from purchases mostly circled back into wages... government need not apply, not much help was needed.

Then someone, or a group of someones, got greedy. Wall Street kept more of its profits for itself and then offshored that value. They use our purchases NOT to return that value to the American worker but to grow their own portfolio with investments in other countries. Your lost wages are in other countries. The difference between this generation and the Boomers is the money you send to a business is not kept as liquidity for our society.

Thus the symbiotic relationship is either strained or broken.

And in their desperate need, our people turn to the government to replace that lost liquidity. Right now our people are too poor to survive without handouts - and they know it. They simply are not paid as much value as their parents. And at this rate their children will be paid even less.

Whether our people have enough economic value to survive isn't even a matter of Socialism. You don't have to own production to tax production. You just have to maintain a good system that provides enough base liquidity for our people to enjoy decent lives.

Well said.

There's more to it than offshoring, however. Automation & consolidation play a huge role in that as well.

 

[jackstar7]

Technology will cause a paradigm shift in economic ideas, and it will come via the end of scarcity.

If a true "replicator" (energy into matter) comes to be... then that's when a chaotic upheaval is going to force all previous economic thought out the window and it will likely require a global response, rather than one of imaginary nations.

 

[bshole]

Technology will cause a paradigm shift in economic ideas, and it will come via the end of scarcity.

If a true "replicator" (energy into matter) comes to be... then that's when a chaotic upheaval is going to force all previous economic thought out the window and it will likely require a global response, rather than one of imaginary nations.

WTF? Do you want to translate that into something intelligible for the rest of us?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

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

Help me understand. Why would anyone want to work if they're going to have the same compensation as someone who doesn't work?

If the government decided tomorrow to pay every US citizen an amount equivalent to my salary every year, regardless of whether you work or not, I wouldn't be able to quit my job fast enough.

 

[WHAMPOM]

So after the socialists was the problem revolt to overthrow the rich then what? The 80% who had no economic value before will continue to have no value under socialism as well. And will be worse off without the contributions of those now dead 20% who were still creating economic value.

You confuse those who profit off economic vale and those that create it.

 

[bshole]

Help me understand. Why would anyone want to work if they're going to have the same compensation as someone who doesn't work?

If the government decided tomorrow to pay every US citizen an amount equivalent to my salary every year, regardless of whether you work or not, I wouldn't be able to quit my job fast enough.

To what end? You could survive knowing that you were completely useless in society? Much of my satisfaction in life comes from doing work that makes a difference. I couldn't imagine anything other than depression if my life was spent on idleness rather than productive work.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

To what end? You could survive knowing that you were completely useless in society? Much of my satisfaction in life comes from doing work that makes a difference. I couldn't imagine anything other than depression if my life was spent on idleness rather than productive work.

You're not looking at the big picture. Sure, there will be some people who would sit around and get drunk all day. But for someone like me, the opposite is true - if the government decided to pay me my current salary whether I work or not, I would quit my job and occupy my time with things I am truly passionate and care about. The barrier to doing many of those things now is that 1) those activities may be difficult to monetize or 2) if you can monetize them, they don't pay enough to live well.

 

[jackstar7]

WTF? Do you want to translate that into something intelligible for the rest of us?

What part don't you understand, amigo?

Scarcity is the reason we have the economic paradigm that exists today. When scarcity is removed from the equation... in short, no one is prepared for that change.

The very concept of value will shift so dramatically that it will likely take a couple generations for things to realign into a workable society, one that I expect will be global, rather than limited to nations.

 

[bshole]

You're not looking at the big picture. Sure, there will be some people who would sit around and get drunk all day. But for someone like me, the opposite is true - if the government decided to pay me my current salary whether I work or not, I would quit my job and occupy my time with things I am truly passionate and care about. The barrier to doing many of those things now is that 1) those activities may be difficult to monetize or 2) if you can monetize them, they don't pay enough to live well.

Why the hell do you have a job that you don't care about? There is nothing other than my family that I am more passionate about than my job. Software engineering IS the meaning of existence. I pity that you lack of a meaningful occupation. That is truly sad.

 

[bshole]

What part don't you understand, amigo?

Scarcity is the reason we have the economic paradigm that exists today. When scarcity is removed from the equation... in short, no one is prepared for that change.

The very concept of value will shift so dramatically that it will likely take a couple generations for things to realign into a workable society, one that I expect will be global, rather than limited to nations.

I guess I am too stupid get it. Scarcity will never be removed from the equation IMHO.

 

[dullard]

Help me understand. Why would anyone want to work if they're going to have the same compensation as someone who doesn't work?

You are correct, that an equal salary leads to little work. Your imagined example of a fully equal salary scale leads to far less motivation to really produce. Why work if it won't raise your standard of living? That is a bad thing for you and for society. We need unequal salaries to encourage work and especially good work.

But, far too many people ignore the opposite problem. Image the opposite where it is a very unequal society (where a few people get everything and the rest of us are in poverty). Too much inequality means that no matter how hard you work, someone else will get the bulk of the rewards (Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or the Koch brothers). That too is bad for you and for society. Why work hard if you won't benefit and Bill Gates gets all the extra profit?

Thus there is a balance where working more or working harder gets you more. This encourages those who are motivated by money to work as hard as possible. Where is that balance? I don't think there is an exact answer. But almost all golden ages (including some of the best times of our society) tend to be somewhat near 10:1 (on average, there is no hard limit). Work hard (or even just be lucky) and you can get 10 times more than the lazy bums (or the unlucky). That gives a strong incentive to work more.

Above 10:1 you start to get diminishing returns. 20:1 may work quite well too, but 100:1 (close to where we are now) starts to get some strongly simmering class issues.

 

[jackstar7]

To what end? You could survive knowing that you were completely useless in society? Much of my satisfaction in life comes from doing work that makes a difference. I couldn't imagine anything other than depression if my life was spent on idleness rather than productive work.

You took him quitting his job as an indication that he wanted to do nothing.

Those two things couldn't be less related.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Why the hell do you have a job that you don't care about? There is nothing other than my family that I am more passionate about than my job. Software engineering IS the meaning of existence. I pity that you lack of a meaningful occupation. That is truly sad.

At the end of the day, most of us work for someone else and it is just a job. Most people don't love their job - in fact, most dislike their jobs. I don't mind my job, but there are probably 1,000,000 things I'd rather be doing. I have the intelligence and had the grades to do anything I wanted and chose something that I did enjoy and paid the most straight out of college (engineering). My true passions lie elsewhere but don't pay well because in our current society, they're hard to profit off of.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You are correct, that an equal salary leads to little work. Your imagined example of a fully equal salary scale leads to far less motivation to really produce. Why work if it won't raise your standard of living? That is a bad thing for you and for society. We need unequal salaries to encourage work and especially good work.

But, far too many people ignore the opposite problem. Image the opposite where it is a very unequal society (where a few people get everything and the rest of us are in poverty). Too much inequality means that no matter how hard you work, someone else will get the bulk of the rewards (Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or the Koch brothers). That too is bad for you and for society. Why work hard if you won't benefit and someone else will?

Thus there is a balance where working more or working harder gets you more. This encourages those who are motivated by money to work as hard as possible. Where is that balance? I don't think there is an exact answer. But almost all golden ages tend to be somewhat near 10:1. Work hard (or even just be lucky) and you can get 10 times more than the lazy bums (or the unlucky). That gives a strong incentive to work more.

Oh yeah, I totally agree that there are many examples of people who are WAY overcompensated. Most CEOs fall into this category IMO.

 

[jackstar7]

I guess I am too stupid get it. Scarcity will never be removed from the equation IMHO.

You should read up on it. It's a fascinating concept and technology is heading in that direction. Just look at 3D printers as the first small step...

 

[jackstar7]

At the end of the day, most of us work for someone else and it is just a job. Most people don't love their job - in fact, most dislike their jobs. I don't mind my job, but there are probably 1,000,000 things I'd rather be doing. I have the intelligence and had the grades to do anything I wanted and chose something that I did enjoy and paid the most straight out of college (engineering). My true passions lie elsewhere but don't pay well because in our current society, they're hard to profit off of.

To piggyback on this... some of us take jobs that aren't fulfilling in the work because they are fulfilling in that we take care of our families.

I'm mid-transition into what I hope will be a job that I will find more satisfying in the work AND take care of my family financially, but those opportunities are rare.

 

[repoman0]

Why the hell do you have a job that you don't care about? There is nothing other than my family that I am more passionate about than my job. Software engineering IS the meaning of existence. I pity that you lack of a meaningful occupation. That is truly sad.

Why is it so hard to imagine that someone could have a meaning for existence that isn't their job? I am an engineer as well and like it well enough but I would find it pretty sad if it was my entire meaning for existence. If I could make the same money without coming into work, I would spend my time raising horses, playing classical piano, biking and hiking in the middle of nowhere ... maybe even building, coding, or working on a new mathematical idea. You know, engineering and science without being required to do it.

 

[realibrad]

What part don't you understand, amigo?

Scarcity is the reason we have the economic paradigm that exists today. When scarcity is removed from the equation... in short, no one is prepared for that change.

The very concept of value will shift so dramatically that it will likely take a couple generations for things to realign into a workable society, one that I expect will be global, rather than limited to nations.

I understood every part.

I dont think a change in terms of scarcity will happen quickly though. The market should be able to adjust and we would have a different economy not based on scarcity. You already see some signs of this. Some things have gotten so cheap to produce that they are given away as marketing to get others to buy something else.