To Anti-Socialists/Communists/Anarchists: It's either that, or extinction

[samoyed]

I've read this whole thread and any proposed climate benefit is either idealistic as fuck or something that will cause a counter revolution quicker than you can say Marx .

Click to shrink...

The exact same counterrevolutionary tendencies exist under capitalism (from capitalists/consumers) as does under hypothetical revolutionary socialism. There will be people trying to preserve the status quo out of self interest in either case, it is not a meaningful weakness of socialism unless it is also a meaningful weakness of capitalism and even in the worst case both systems are equally vulnerable to counterrevolutionary tendencies. As I wrote earlier, this is the price we pay for democracy, not a price associated with socialism or capitalism, which can be democratic or authoritarian.

 

[svacina]

Eastern Europe wants a word with you before the fall of the Soviet Union.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, but what do we know. We should've tried harder, obviously. The failure was ours.

 

[Canucked]

Climate Change could be possible under capitalism if oil didn't currently run the world.

Oil ruins everything.

 

[Deleted member 7130]

Most liberal democracies that I'm aware of have some form of legal protection for the free press, for example the US has it as part of the Bill of Rights. The vast majority of Americans have reliable access to the internet (obviously this could be a lot better) and can for the most part visit any website they choose. Yeah you have the Kennedys, the Clintons, and the Bushs, but the level of power these families had pales in comparison to the unchallenged control the Castros have. Point is, no one who doesn't have a stake in Cuba is going to move there. It's a horrible example of a successful communist country and a few successful institutions don't erase that.

Click to shrink...

The press in many lib democracies is consolidated in the hands of a few corporate conglomerates and oligarchs. They are free to toe the line for capital's interests, and the system works to drown out independent press telling truths. This is not free press, and I'll prioritize people having food, shelter, and medical needs -- which are fundamental human rights -- met universally over Rupert Murdoch being able to own another media company. The Castros have more consolidated control over Cuba but American presidents have/had more far reaching power than them, and Castro alone oversaw many more beneficial programs than multiple presidents combined. And yes. people used to their consumerist life style and enticement of opulence in capitalist countries are hard pressed to give that up to move to communist run countries which have been derailed from achieving more progress by global capital.

Can you provide evidence as to theory as to why the most of the world can't be one? Technology continues to push us towards SocDem because it makes it easier to produce & share essential goods, whilst environmental disasters & renewables will change how we produce energy, where we manufacture and how distribute goods. Hyper capitalism is unlikely to remain in its current form without extreme legislation and / or autocracy in 10-20 years time. Unfortunately populism and technology enable increasingly totalitarian states in the short term, but that's not likely to last either, when working class proponents of it become the victims of it.

SocDem is not an exact point on the Capitalism/Socialism spectrum, and so if the world increasingly embraces it, it's more plausible that a total cap on personal wealth could be introduced. if anything, a truly successful eco-political model needs to regularly re-adjust the balance of the two (accumulation & redistribution) to solve any challenges it faces without sacrificing its goals of democracy, personal freedom, etc. And the more stable a place is, the less severe the tweaking.

Alternatively, I don't think it's possible for the world to switch over to a purely socialist / communist structure right now because the world is no imbalanced. Technology taking over the majority of essential goods production and transport is likely to be the minimum requirement for us to embrace these models.

Alternatively, what model would you put forward for the world to switch ASAP & to solve what challenges?

Click to shrink...

It's the very nature and history of capitalism. Capitalists don't just makes a million bucks and then put it in a bank and go home. No, they reinvest it in property, in more companies. The disparity we see today in wealth and resources is not a bug, that's the feature. Capitalists have shown they are perfectly willing and able to override the will of the public and overcome such limitations like wealth caps, and they aren't just going to stand by and let every country on earth vote all their wealth away either. The problem isn't isolated to a few individuals with a bit more capital than everyone else. You have whole wealthy families and an entire aristocratic class who are unbound by borders and who can act as a class in their shared financial interests to accumulate even more wealth and destroy any obstacle in their way of that pursuit. The problem is capitalism is fundamentally hierarchical and incompatible with equality on a local and global scale.

Personally, I'm more concerned with what is necessary as opposed to limiting our options only to what is possible within liberal democracy of any variety. What is necessary to have people, who have a broader interest in not poluting their own water or the lands they live on, in control of production? What is necessary to stop the atomization of people as individuals and alienating them from each other and their labor? What is necessary to end neo-colonialism and avert resource wars that leave millions of people as refugees of untenable living conditions? What is necessary to finally work towards addressing the foundational injustices capitalism? To me, the answer is communism. I cannot say exactly how that will come about or how quickly it can happen. The answer depends on how hard Liberal hegemony fights it.

 

[samoyed]

Its the people that are shit. Not the systems.(though they are shit because the people running them are shit too)

Click to shrink...

There is no non-genocidal solution to "the people are shit". Being committed to anti-genocide/democracy means believing in people's capacity to become non-shit.

 

[fanboi]

In this case I wouldn't say causation = correlation. I think we were heading towards better "living standards" regardless. Also, only a small part of the world has been afforded that increase in living standards while many other feel the squeeze to continue that standard.

Click to shrink...

I agree that standard of living would increase either way, just the pace of it that I believe would be slower with other models. And yes the distribution is a big problem.

 

[yogurt]

Yes. Systemic issues are difficult to solve but we're also seeing those restrictions loosen up, especially as Cuba begins to trend toward liberal policy making.

We don't know to what extent the US meddles with Cuba at the present because anything of the sort would be covert, but we do know the US very literally still assists in destabilizing socialist states in Latin America. Bolivia?

The threat will always seemingly be there.

Click to shrink...

Okay. This all started with you asserting that Cuba functions "extraordinarily well" as a "healthier democracy" than the US. No amount of whataboutism about US atrocities (of which there are many) or indictments of US meddling (which is valid) changes that that characterization is completely absurd. Extraordinary, healthy, functioning democracies do not jail journalists and dissidents.

Let's step back here.

No, when we say nobody has never lived under communism, it's because nobody has. People have lived under socialist states run by communists, but never in a communist society.

Click to shrink...

I'm not here to defend Tito as I'm not very knowledgeable on Yugoslavia. But often, the problems many see as endemic to socialist systems are not endemic, they are the result of individual regimes coopting the ideology.

Click to shrink...

This is literally no true scotsman. You are portraying issues with communist regimes as the failures of individuals, but issues with capitalistic regimes as the failures of the system. Do you really not see the insanity here?

I could use the same tired strategy to argue that every failure of every capitalistic society ever was just evil people in unfortunate circumstances. I won't, because I don't believe that, but it would be just as tired as you arguing that every single state that has ever striven for full socialism or communism in the past two centuries doesn't count.

Surely you must see how absurd this is.

 

[Serpens007]

In this case I wouldn't say causation = correlation. I think we were heading towards better "living standards" regardless. Also, only a small part of the world has been afforded that increase in living standards while many other feel the squeeze to continue that standard.

Click to shrink...

One thing that people need to remember in this regard is that capitalism vs socialism is, above all, a matter of ownership of means of production.

High standards of living are achieved via innovation and labor, not by any "ism," and both can exist in both systems (and do). Labor and innovation are motivated differently, where in capitalism is motivated with selfish behavior. This selfish behaviour shoulnd't really be supressed in socialism, but there is a point where it needs to be put in check (for example, the thread about insulin we had in the gaming forum).

So if a big breakthrough in medicine is achieved, who should benefit from it? The "owner" should be the inventor and the one that decides how to operate it in spite of the general population?

 

[Musubi]

There are many alternatives to "extinction". In the 1950s economists were sure the world was doomed, food production was not coming even close to demand and people theorized about Malthusian Economics, where population growth far exceeds food supply and most of the world begins to starve. Then new advances in agriculture yielded much higher crop yields, we produce far more food than we need even to this day although we are not good about distribution, waste, etc which is why people still starve - but not nearly as bad as its been in the past, when a bad winter could mean significant death worldwide from starvation.

In the 1970s economists were absolutely sure we were reaching peak oil, as discovered oil reserves were dwindling and they were sure that oil would cost over $50 a gallon and trigger massive global wars between superpowers. It never came to pass, shale oil and other technological advances have led to an absolute glut of oil and we have more oil available today and in the future than we can possibly use.

There are tons and tons of other examples of this kind of "WE ARE DOOMED" thinking from nuclear war to Islamic Terrorism. Maybe climate change will be the one that diminishes humanity. Its unlikely (barring a massive asteroid, black holes, etc) we will go extinct as a species, even if 99% of humans die that still leaves A LOT OF PEOPLE. But there are a million possible diversions, from technological solutions to global warming (heat sinks, clean energy, living in the ocean) to space exploration to asteroid mining to things we can't even dream of. The true heroes of the future will be the ones who figure out solutions that make life best for as many people as possible, as heroes have done in the past, and not the ones who constantly predict we are doomed or think that restructuring society is the only option.

I mean hell even Thanos had a solution, global warming would disappear tomorrow if 50% of the humans vanished. Thats a horrific solution, and one that something like an AI or even nation-state may decide is the "best" solution for the most people, in the future.

Click to shrink...

All the technology in the world will not save us if we dont act extremely quickly.
Parts of the Antarctic Ice shelf just recently collapsed. There is no putting that genie back in the bottle. And plenty more irreparable damage will happen soon. There is no other option than extinction unless we radically change as a society in the very near future.

 

[yogurt]

There is no non-genocidal solution to "the people are shit". Being committed to anti-genocide/democracy means believing in people's capacity to become non-shit.

Click to shrink...

Right, but that change needs to happen before the revolution. A revolution won't magically change it.

Heck, that change happening in people may preclude the necessity of a revolution altogether. Revolution without popular support is, uh, very bad.

 

[Deleted member 7130]

.

Click to shrink...

Sweet avatar 👍

 

[fanboi]

One thing that people need to remember in this regard is that capitalism vs socialism is, above all, a matter of ownership of means of production.

High standards of living are achieved via innovation and labor, not by any "ism," and both can exist in both systems (and do). Labor and innovation are motivated differently, where in capitalism is motivated with selfish behavior. This selfish behaviour shoulnd't really be supressed in socialism, but there is a point where it needs to be put in check (for example, the thread about insulin we had in the gaming forum).

So if a big breakthrough in medicine is achieved, who should benefit from it? The "owner" should be the inventor and the one that decides how to operate it in spite of the general population?

Click to shrink...

Fully agree. From my point of view, I believe capitalism model speeds up the process du to human greed and financial (possible) gain.

 

[Haze]

Okay. This all started with you asserting that Cuba functions "extraordinarily well" as a "healthier democracy" than the US. No amount of whataboutism about US atrocities (of which there are many) or indictments of US meddling (which is valid) changes that that characterization is completely absurd. Extraordinary, healthy, functioning democracies do not jail journalists and dissidents.

Let's step back here.





This is literally no true scotsman. You are portraying issues with communist regimes as the failures of individuals, but issues with capitalistic regimes as the failures of the system. Do you really not see the insanity here?

I could use the same tired strategy to argue that every failure of every capitalistic society ever was just evil people in unfortunate circumstances. I won't, because I don't believe that, but it would be just as tired as you arguing that every single state that has ever striven for full socialism or communism in the past two centuries doesn't count.

Surely you must see how absurd this is.

Click to shrink...

Assessing how well a democracy functions on the basis of the freedom of the press alone is an interesting way to approach this. It also ignores the very reasons why Cuba and other socialist states have had to be restrictive with their press that has often but subverted against them.

The reason Cuba is extraordinary is because they literally should not be able to exist. Cuba's government is able to make progress in such swift capacities in many areas and that is due supremely to how they function as a democracy.

Pointing out that specific regimes have had supreme failings and that those failings are not the causation of the ideology is not no true Scotsman. There have been no communist societies. Nobody has lived under communism. That is a demonstrable fact. The thread is discussing why capitalism is destroying the world (which it is) and how that is based in the mechanisms of the ideology itself.

 

[Kthulhu]

The press in many lib democracies is consolidated in the hands of a few corporate conglomerates and oligarchs. They are free to toe the line for capital's interests, and the system works to drown out independent press telling truths. This is not free press, and I'll prioritize people having food, shelter, and medical needs -- which are fundamental human rights -- met universally over Rupert Murdoch being able to own another media company. The Castros have more consolidated control over Cuba but American presidents have/had more far reaching power than them, and Castro alone oversaw many more beneficial programs than multiple presidents combined. And yes. people used to their consumerist life style and enticement of opulence in capitalist countries are hard pressed to give that up to move to communist run countries which have been derailed from achieving more progress by global capital.

Click to shrink...

As long as the trains run on time you're okay with massive suppression of information? You can't seriously compare Cuba's state ran news to the most countries who have private, publicly funded (but still independent), and non profit based news outlets that can for the most part be as critical as they like? That is not a democracy or a free society and certainly not one that could ever achieve communism. It's a totalitarian state with a few successful welfare policies.

 

[TheHunter]

There is no non-genocidal solution to "the people are shit". Being committed to anti-genocide/democracy means believing in people's capacity to become non-shit.

Click to shrink...

Why is it that every discussion on human behavior and the fact we have bad apples always lead to Malthusian discussion on genocide and Thanos solutions?

I would expect more imagination from people who want to replace a system with a theory than assuming because people are bad we must now kill them.

 

[Haze]

Why is it that every discussion on human behavior and the fact we have bad apples always lead to Malthusian discussion on genocide and Thanos solutions?

I would expect more imagination from people who want to replace a system with a theory than assuming because people are bad we must now kill them.

Click to shrink...

Unfortunately, Malthus was hugely influential and even the underpinnings of his philosophy impact policy making today.

 

[svacina]

Assessing how well a democracy functions on the basis of the freedom of the press alone is an interesting way to approach this. It also ignores the very reasons why Cuba and other socialist states have had to be restrictive with their press that has often but subverted against them.

Click to shrink...

Yes, that's the reason. Jesus fucking Christ. Can't trust them sneaky jurnous not to besmirch your politburo. Or not write about inconvenient trivialities, like famines. Those cheeky buggers.

Brb gonna calm my nerves by reading about the Five Year Plan being implemented at 135% in the current issue of Rudé Právo. Ať žije mír.

 

[TheHunter]

Unfortunately, Malthus was hugely influential and even the underpinnings of his philosophy impact policy making today.

Click to shrink...

That's fine.

I am not making a Malthusian argument by simply saying people can be shit.

 

[Serpens007]

Fully agree. From my point of view, I believe capitalism model speeds up the process du to human greed and financial (possible) gain.

Click to shrink...

Yup. It does. And it became a problem. Growth for the sake of growth creates the moment of history we are living in.

 

[Haze]

Yes, that's the reason. Jesus fucking Christ. Can't trust them sneaky jurnous not to besmirch your politburo. Or not write about inconvenient trivialities, like famines. Those cheeky buggers.

Brb gonna calm my nerves by reading about the Five Year Plan being implemented at 135% in the current issue of Rudé Právo. Ať žije mír.

Click to shrink...

Uh yes, that is a very large reason. One of the main vectors for destabilizing newly formed socialist states used by actors like the US has been to use their press to spread counter-revolutionary propaganda and dissent. That's objectively true.

 

[samoyed]

Actually. If being environmentally conscious becomes the best way to maximize profits, Capitalism could have an answer for climate change.

Click to shrink...

I don't actually disagree with this but I'm skeptical of it working after observing capital's response to blm. Capital loves to shirk responsibility while pretending to help. I'll give two examples here:

NPR - How Big Oil Misled The Public Into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled (to sell more plastic) News

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled The article goes into detail about how in the late 80's, there was a growing outcry against plastics and how much plastic trash there was. Promoting recycling was part of an effort...

www.resetera.com

I don't get what a proletarian revolution in the US is going to do to stop emissions rates in third-world and developing nations though? If India and China continue to be the world's largest emitters, then what? Bring the western revolution to them? Sounds like... Imperialism?

Click to shrink...

Reduces consumption. Why do you think emission rates are as high as they are in the developing world? They're trying to "keep up with the Joneses" after we infiltrated their economy with our supply chain. Remove the Jonses and you remove one of the impetuses to maximize development. I'm just going to post this again.

If we believe that every human life is equally valuable, then we can't put the onus on developing countries to remain undeveloped just to preserve the QoL of developed countries. Even if you genocided 90% of the poorest people in the world, emissions would still be going out of control. Income is the main predictor of per capita emissions.

 

[Haze]

Why is it that every discussion on human behavior and the fact we have bad apples always lead to Malthusian discussion on genocide and Thanos solutions?

I would expect more imagination from people who want to replace a system with a theory than assuming because people are bad we must now kill them.

Click to shrink...

The poster is making the point that if we throw away any criticism of any system as "people are shit", it's a very nihilistic way to look at the world and can nullify the potential for any progress.

 

[IpKaiFung]

most countries who have private, publicly funded (but still independent), and non profit based news outlets that can for the most part be as critical as they like?

Click to shrink...

This is not entirely correct, while journalists in liberal democracies are not thrown in jail or murdered, there are certain stories you will not be allowed to publish due to commercial sensitivities and also many many factors. The video someone posted earlier in this thread is a great explainer on this.

Ultimately, your personal freedom in this world is directly proportional to the size of your wallet and the colour of your skin.

 

[svacina]

Uh yes, that is a very large reason. One of the main vectors for destabilizing newly formed socialist states used by actors like the US has been to use their press to spread counter-revolutionary propaganda and dissent. That's objectively true.

Click to shrink...

When you live in a democracy, you get dissent. You don't mind it, because people can have opinions.

When you live in a workers' paradise, you do not fear dissent, because the reality will always speak for itself.

Oh wait.

 

[Orb]

I wish all these online leftist scientists would stop the gloom and doom, we'll figure something out.

 

[TheHunter]

The poster is making the point that if we throw away any criticism of any system as "people are shit", it's a very nihilistic way to look at the world and can nullify the potential for any progress.

Click to shrink...

Nihilistic would mean I say there's no way to fix said people or systems.

 

[Haze]

When you live in a democracy, you get dissent. You don't mind it, because people can have opinions.

When you live in a workers' paradise, you do not fear dissent, because the reality will always speak for itself.

Oh wait.

Click to shrink...

Why do you think the CIA would spend so much time and money using other nations' press to spread subversive counter-revolutionary messages?

 

[Serpens007]

When you live in a democracy, you get dissent. You don't mind it, because people can have opinions.

When you live in a workers' paradise, you do not fear dissent, because the reality will always speak for itself.

Oh wait.

Click to shrink...

Or you can live in a democracy that fear dissent and crushes it's people anyway

 

[fanboi]

Yup. It does. And it became a problem. Growth for the sake of growth creates the moment of history we are living in.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, and that is why I want strong regulations towards it. I still want people to be able to make bank on innovations and tech. (sure not Bezos bank mind you), but regulated where goverments can put incensitives towards green innovations and so on.

 

[samoyed]

I would expect more imagination from people who want to replace a system with a theory than assuming because people are bad we must now kill them.

Click to shrink...

Okay, what is your non-genocidal/non-authoritarian solution to "people are shit". Spoiler alert: whatever your proposal, I'm going to respond with "it won't work because people are shit", which is the average level of discourse from pro-capitalism people.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Why do you think the CIA would spend so much time and money using other nations' press to spread subversive counter-revolutionary messages?

Click to shrink...

 

[svacina]

Why do you think the CIA would spend so much time and money using other nations' press to spread subversive counter-revolutionary messages?

Click to shrink...

Why did so many people sentenced for spreading dissent get rehabilitated later?

How is printing actual news dissent anyway?

But hey, it's CIA, don't question it. Something goes wrong? CIA. Something might go wrong? The murderers from Wall Street. Warszaw Pact invades you? Err... not an invasion, saving your from a NATO putsch, yeah.

 

[Kthulhu]

This is not entirely correct, while journalists in liberal democracies are not thrown in jail or murdered, there are certain stories you will not be allowed to publish due to commercial sensitivities and also many many factors. The video someone posted earlier in this thread is a great explainer on this.

Ultimately, your personal freedom in this world is directly proportional to the size of your wallet and the colour of your skin.

Click to shrink...

Any legitimate news organization will have editorial independence. This is something unions and journalists have fought to achieve.

Sure not everything can be hard hitting journalism, but that's the case with any news agency. Random gossip and other simple pieces fund investigative journalism.

 

[Serpens007]

Okay, what is your non-genocidal/non-authoritarian solution to "people are shit". Spoiler alert: whatever your proposal, I'm going to respond with "it won't work because people are shit", which is the average level of discourse from pro-capitalism people.

Click to shrink...

Most of people really underestimates how strong and important State Policies can be. People really believe that the consumerism that holds the current demand of goods and services is "just the way people are", it's a State Policy. It's incentivized in multiple ways to keep the wheel spinning.

 

[samoyed]

Right, but that change needs to happen before the revolution. A revolution won't magically change it.

Click to shrink...

I would prefer if it happens before "the revolution" but I confess I do not think that is guaranteed. As I said earlier, I see multiple revolutions in our future, which can broadly be split into right wing ones and left wing ones, while I would prefer a left wing one, I'd give the better odds to the right wing ones if asked.

 

[Chadtwo]

Capitalism and imperialism are a rot but that won't stop liberals from insisting that you be thrilled about Biden and his explicit plan to maintain the status quo

 

[StraightToHell]

It's the very nature and history of capitalism. Capitalists don't just makes a million bucks and then put it in a bank and go home. No, they reinvest it in property, in more companies. The disparity we see today in wealth and resources is not a bug, that's the feature.

Click to shrink...

And pure socialism, communism and / or anarchism doesn't have downsides? Each of these and capitalism in their purest forms are systems designed to promote certain behaviours and are also open to manipulation and longterm issues.

I'm arguing that if the world embraced flexible mixed economy that more closely aligned to those in Scandinavian countries, you're likely to see a better world than one that swings the balance heavily towards any of the aforementioned systems or embraces them in their purest forms.

Personally, I'm more concerned with what is necessary as opposed to limiting our options only to what is possible within liberal democracy of any variety. What is necessary to have people, who have a broader interest in not poluting their own water or the lands they live on, in control of production? What is necessary to stop the atomization of people as individuals and alienating them from each other and their labor? What is necessary to end neo-colonialism and avert resource wars that leave millions of people as refugees of untenable living conditions? What is necessary to finally work towards addressing the foundational injustices capitalism? To me, the answer is communism. I cannot say exactly how that will come about or how quickly it can happen. The answer depends on how hard Liberal hegemony fights it.

Click to shrink...

The answer cannot exist in a vacuum and without context of the wider world. Such an extreme change forced upon the world as it is is likely to be defeated or defeat itself along that journey before it reaches maturation and then swings the social-political pendulum back to the right.

Nor does it consider how jobs are distributed across the world and how they are changing. As countries and technologies mature the population moves from working in primary and secondary industries (agriculture and manufacturing) to services. For countries where the majority of the population work in services, how do you encourage a portion to give up their jobs to care about production and become part of the production process? For countries where populations mainly work in primary and secondary industries, how do you say to some of that population "Well, some of you can move into services, but the rest of you need to remain in the fields and factories"?.

And looking ahead, any talk of communism, services and production becomes increasing irrelevant as technology improves to the point where they can be fully automated by AI and innovated guided by AI, both to design new products and to adjust to match consumer needs. We're going to need a new social-political-economic model that accepts that that majority of the population won't be working for the majority of their lives.

 

[Netherscourge]

Capitalism with Social Safety Nets and Regulation is fine by me.

There's too much hyperbole with these all-or-nothing threads.

 

[yogurt]

Assessing how well a democracy functions on the basis of the freedom of the press alone is an interesting way to approach this. It also ignores the very reasons why Cuba and other socialist states have had to be restrictive with their press that has often but subverted against them.

The reason Cuba is extraordinary is because they literally should not be able to exist. Cuba's government is able to make progress in such swift capacities in many areas and that is due supremely to how they function as a democracy.

Click to shrink...

Even if it's true that Cuba's existence is extraordinary and that they have succeeded in many ways despite it all ... they still are not a healthy democracy. They are a one party state that forbids dissent and jails opposition. Freedom of speech and assembly, and the resulting free electoral system, are literally the definition of democracy. Cuba does not function "extraordinarily well" as a democracy nor is it a "healthier democracy" than the US.

Pointing out that specific regimes have had supreme failings and that those failings are not the causation of the ideology is not no true Scotsman. There have been no communist societies. Nobody has lived under communism. That is a demonstrable fact. The thread is discussing why capitalism is destroying the world (which it is) and how that is based in the mechanisms of the ideology itself.

Click to shrink...

So you're arguing that it's not a "no true scotsman" fallacy because there actually isn't a true scotsman. That is not a compelling argument.

 

[IrishNinja]

no gods, no masters

I mean hell even Thanos had a solution, global warming would disappear tomorrow if 50% of the humans vanished. Thats a horrific solution, and one that something like an AI or even nation-state may decide is the "best" solution for the most people, in the future.

Click to shrink...

this is eco-fascism, and any nation-state advocating it should be burned to the ground, then salt that earth

 

[RocketKiss]

When you live in a democracy, you get dissent. You don't mind it, because people can have opinions.

Oh wait.

Click to shrink...

You don't mind dissent, because people can have opinions, which is why the government isn't currently sending in federal agencies to quell dissent in major cities like Portland.

Oh wait.

 

[Haze]

Even if it's true that Cuba's existence is extraordinary and that they have succeeded in many ways despite it all ... they still are not a healthy democracy. They are a one party state that forbids dissent and jails opposition. Freedom of speech and assembly, and the resulting free electoral system, are literally the definition of democracy. Cuba does not function "extraordinarily well" as a democracy nor is it a "healthier democracy" than the US.


So you're arguing that it's not a "no true scotsman" fallacy because there actually isn't a true scotsman. That is not a compelling argument.

Click to shrink...

Right. The country with a direct democracy that makes substantial policy with the intent on maximizing prosperity for its people isn't healthier than the country dominated by oligarchs that often only lines the pockets of its elite class at the expense of its most vulnerable citizens. Gotcha. What you are describing is a liberal democracy btw, not democracy as a whole.

Idk what else to tell you on the second part. Communism has never been reached and as such nobody has ever lived under Communism. Socialist states may be governed by a communist party, but they are only communist in ideals and goals. That doesn't mean that they've attained that yet.

 

[samoyed]

As countries and technologies mature the population moves from working in primary and secondary industries (agriculture and manufacturing) to services.

Click to shrink...

Only in the modern capitalist style of development.

For countries where the majority of the population work in services, how do you encourage a portion to give up their jobs to care about production and become part of the production process?

Click to shrink...

By tying financial stability to those productive jobs, same as in market economies really.

For countries where populations mainly work in primary and secondary industries, how do you say to some of that population "Well, some of you can move into services, but the rest of you need to remain in the fields and factories"?.

Click to shrink...

This is primarily a question of "fairness" and it is a tough one. I've only gotten as far as "lottery assignment" as a "solution".

And looking ahead, any talk of communism, services and production becomes increasing irrelevant as technology improves to the point where they can be fully automated by AI and innovated guided by AI, both to design new products and to adjust to match consumer needs. We're going to need a new social-political-economic model that accepts that that majority of the population won't be working for the majority of their lives.

Click to shrink...

Not at all. The more labor is automated away, the more relevant socialism becomes, because almost all socialist tendencies care about the question of "who gets control over the product?" and this question will still be around in a post-labor automated society or are we expecting the owners of the robots to benevolently distribute food and shelter to non-owners? Automated socialism (basically luxury communism), such as it is, involves giving control of the means of production (the robots) to the people because they won't have their jobs any more.

Bezos needs people to buy his stuff. People need wages to buy stuff. The more we automate away our labor needs, the less wages there will be to buy his stuff, because we tie wages to labor. It is a self destructive cyclical progression.

 

[Encephalon]

You don't mind dissent, because people can have opinions, which is why the government isn't currently sending in federal agencies to quell dissent in major cities like Portland.

Oh wait.

Click to shrink...

This government doesn't want democracy. That's kind of the whole point.

 

[svacina]

You don't mind dissent, because people can have opinions, which is why the government isn't currently sending in federal agencies to quell dissent in major cities like Portland.

Oh wait.

Click to shrink...

If it wasn't totally obvious, I'm not from the US and don't give a fuck about your current hellscape (we have our very own hellscape to torment us, thank you very much). Finding the defense of totalitarian policies on the grounds of "just doing what we need to survive" laughable does not mean I am a fan of your mentally deficient liar in chief, unchecked capitalist policies or the rise of fascism. But do go off.

 

[TheHunter]

Okay, what is your non-genocidal/non-authoritarian solution to "people are shit". Spoiler alert: whatever your proposal, I'm going to respond with "it won't work because people are shit", which is the average level of discourse from pro-capitalism people.

Click to shrink...

Education, integration and Democracy.

I never said socialism can't work. My issue is people incorrectly assuming just replacing the system will fox all.

 

[RocketKiss]

This government doesn't want democracy. That's kind of the whole point.

Click to shrink...

Yes. This was a sarcastic response to the sarcastic response of that poster.

 

[IpKaiFung]

Any legitimate news organization will have editorial independence. This is something unions and journalists have fought to achieve.

Click to shrink...

While ideal, this is not the reality.

Editors are appointed by the owner e.g. Rupert Murdoch and for that editor to still get wages they are probably going to publish the stories the owner wants published.

 

[Wrapped in Black]

Socialism isn't going to save the climate lmfao

 

[Encephalon]

Yes. This was a sarcastic response to the sarcastic response of that poster.

Click to shrink...

What exactly were you trying to argue with that sarcastic post?