Socialist or liberal?

Kirblar said:

You can say no to a contract you dont like.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You don't have to work in something you don't like. Work should be about pursuit of personal fulfilment with no economic factors forcing you to pick something you don't want to. With massive strives in automation, there will soon come a point where industrial workers (for example) are not necessary. They should be allowed to pursue their passions and drives to improve themselves and their community free from coercion.

mnz said:

Honestly, it''s communism and it's kinda weird how some Americans suddenly embrace it. And scary.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

tbh it's quite understandable if their model only gave them a choice between right-wing liberalism and hard conservatism. It's not exactly a great success either.

OPs definition of socialism is actually the definition of communism.

Also I'm all for communism (no not Stalinism before some liberal makes a dumb, lazy comparison we've all heard a million times before.)

hydrophilic attack said:

social democrat, taking the best of both worlds

free market and free enterprise can efficiently balance supply and demand of commodities and consumer products ,but certain utilities and services will more equitably and efficiently be provided by the government. furthermore, aggressive transfer systems help balance out excessive economic stratification caused by the free market. heavy regulations help preserve the environment and workers' rights

civil liberties should be protected and preserved by the government

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You described me. OP, add this.

TemplarDante said:

You described me. OP, add this.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

They did add it. Social democracy is a form of liberal capitalism.

I'm a social democrat, there's truly a place for capitalism but some things should not be controlled by companies for personal gains. That's human life (all kind of health care) and education, those should be owned by the state and payed via taxes by the people.

Spuck- said:

OPs definition of socialism is actually the definition of communism.

Also I'm all for communism (no not Stalinism before some liberal makes a dumb, lazy comparison we've all heard a million times before.)

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Can you show examples in history of communism being properly enacted?

MadJakeChurchill said:

You don't have to work in something you don't like. Work should be about pursuit of personal fulfilment with no economic factors forcing you to pick something you don't want to. With massive strives in automation, there will soon come a point where industrial workers (for example) are not necessary. They should be allowed to pursue their passions and drives to improve themselves and their community free from coercion.

Sorry for the argument ad dictionary, but: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".

If you think that can be brought about by democratic elections and political reform: democratic socialist.
If you think mass revolution orchestrated and sustained by a vanguard party: authoritarian socialist.
If you think the vanguard party will replicate the same dynamics of capitalism and lead to further oppression: libertarian socialist (anarchy baby).

There are a million different labels that blur these positions, but I'd say they're the fundamental three pillars.​

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

How can we sustain a society if everybody just works on what they feel like working on? I bet that for a lot of us here that would mean playing video games a lot. If we're going to live in a self sustaining society we are going to need Fully Automated Luxury Communism or some form of capitalism where people work to pay for themselves. And full automation is not as close as you think

shnurgleton said:

How can we sustain a society if everybody just works on what they feel like working on? I bet that for a lot of us here that would mean playing video games a lot. If we're going to live in a self sustaining society we are going to need Fully Automated Luxury Communism or some form of capitalism where people work to pay for themselves

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You can't.

People who advocate for full blown socialism and communism always pre-face it with the growth in automation and thinking everyones jobs will be gone in 15 years, when in reality one of the biggest economic needs in 15 years is something that can't be automated, which is the baby boomer generation needing assisted care and living as they grow older and older and don't die.

shnurgleton said:

How can we sustain a society if everybody just works on what they feel like working on? I bet that for a lot of us here that would mean playing video games a lot. If we're going to live in a self sustaining society we are going to need Fully Automated Luxury Communism or some form of capitalism where people work to pay for themselves. And full automation is not as close as you think

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's pretty dang close and it'd get a lot closer if working class people were given equality of opportunities to learn engineering, computer science, etc. rather than chasing their next pay cheque on two jobs with barely any free time to develop themselves how they wish.

tulpa said:

They did add it. Social democracy is a form of liberal capitalism.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

So what kind of mechanisme for distribution of resources and planning of production does your socialism entail.

Because right now you have only described your model by what it prohibits, not by how it works.

MadJakeChurchill said:

You don't have to work in something you don't like. Work should be about pursuit of personal fulfilment with no economic factors forcing you to pick something you don't want to. With massive strives in automation, there will soon come a point where industrial workers (for example) are not necessary. They should be allowed to pursue their passions and drives to improve themselves and their community free from coercion.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Life is coercion. Imagine you are alone in the jungle. No one else around. All civilization is gone and its the worlds crappiest version of Survivor.

You have two choices: You work, and you hunt food and create shelter, or you let yourself die.

The idea that you should "do what you love" is horrible advice for most people. Do what you are good at so and can sell to others so that you can do what you love the rest of the time.

TheLostBigBoss said:

Can you show examples in history of communism being properly enacted?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This isn't really the way Marxists view communism. They view it at a part of a historical transition, almost as an inevitability, as capitalism is swept away by its inherent contradictions and instability. It's a bit like asking someone living in a feudal society if they can show any example in history of capitalism being properly enacted before capitalism came into being as an economic system.

Kirblar said:

Life is coercion. Imagine you are alone in the jungle. No one else around. All civilization is gone and its the worlds crappiest version of Survivor.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Kirblar said:

You have two choices: You work, and you hunt food and create shelter, or you let yourself die.

The idea that you should "do what you love" is horrible advice for most people. Do what you are good at so and can sell to others so that you can do what you love the rest of the time.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Life in a jungle is pre-state. We're talking about post-state. Don't strawman.

Nowadays I normally side with the liberal green party, depending on the issues sometimes with the social democrats. The social democrats are losing their battles, they are becoming less and less progressive and more and more reactionary. It's unfortunate, but it's hard to support them when they don't have solid solutions for our retirement system, for health reform and transport. I feel many social democrats can't cope with the fast pace of technological progress.

This is a bit like pre-industrial nobles debating the pros/cons of craftsman guilds. Automation is going to make a mockery of all labour-based economic models, capitalism and communism both.

tulpa said:

This isn't really the way Marxists view communism. They view it at a part of a historical transition, almost as an inevitability, as capitalism is swept away by its inherent contradictions and instability. It's a bit like asking someone living in a feudal society is they can show any example in history of capitalism being properly enacted before capitalism came into being as an economic system.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ok, so the previous working examples of communism weren't real communism, so we're just going to work of pure hypotheticals of an economic model which, when "attempted" to be implemented turned out to be rapid highways of corruption and drops in quality of life for the average citizen.

I think most people agree on a long enough timeline, if scarcity becomes obsolete, that there will be some type of economic model where people get assisted living and basic income, but that future is a longs ways off.

People are actually advocating for the destruction of capitalism in the present tense with little to no real system to replace it because the current system is flawed.

shnurgleton said:

How can we sustain a society if everybody just works on what they feel like working on? I bet that for a lot of us here that would mean playing video games a lot. If we're going to live in a self sustaining society we are going to need Fully Automated Luxury Communism or some form of capitalism where people work to pay for themselves. And full automation is not as close as you think

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

As an automation engineer.. you'd be surprised by how many jobs are going away due to automation, and how fast.

Crispy75 said:

This is a bit like pre-industrial nobles debating the pros/cons of craftsman guilds. Automation is going to make a mockery of all labour-based economic models, capitalism and communism both.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Someone still owns, maintains and develops all the automation hardware and software. And people work there.

Spuck- said:

As an automation engineer.. you'd be surprised by how many jobs are going away due to automation, and how fast.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What kind of jobs? I'm geniunely curious about what is being automated besides manufacturing, self checkout, and, uhhh, roombas

Also I'd argue that automation does create a new bucket of jobs like yours. Maybe not as many as are being eliminated but I think it isn't insignificant

zoukka said:

Someone still owns, maintains and develops all the automation hardware and software. And people work there.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Exactly this. Which is why my societal views are a bit closer to the ground. Let's start with providing socialized education (and healthcare) and see where we go from there

I think these definitions / choices are too rigid. I live in a country with plenty of socialism, but is capitalist with a heavy regulation by government (at times). And a weird democracy in which every vote doesn't strictly matter because an electoral college is still in place for some bizarre reason to provide a greater voice to smaller states because reasons - meaning a presidential candidate can receives millions more votes and still lose, every state regardless of population or production is allowed two senators. Within this country I would be considered very liberal, but I also believe in our form of capitalism over the outright communism OP outlined as "socialist" - while still wanting plenty of socialist policies in place within our capitalist society.

TheMadTitan said:

I'm the "people have the right to be as rich as they want, just as long as everyone else can meet their bare minimum needs comfortably on a single job" camp.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think this is good essentials. I don't think people praising Nordic model understand that it wouldn't work on majority of Nations because taxable base just isn't there. I can't really speak for other Nordic countries but Finland has been on big deficit for nearly a decade with no end in sight so i doubt will have nordic model 10 years from now. I don't really know deeply about other Nordic countries but in Sweden growth is mostly happening in public sector so they are planting the seeds of unsustainability. Norway has oil money for now, which leaves Denmark but i don't know really anything about it's economy situation. Ofc some countries like Netherlands are pretty much Nordic model at least in terms of welfare.

TheLostBigBoss said:

You can't.

People who advocate for full blown socialism and communism always pre-face it with the growth in automation and thinking everyones jobs will be gone in 15 years, when in reality one of the biggest economic needs in 15 years is something that can't be automated, which is the baby boomer generation needing assisted care and living as they grow older and older and don't die.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yup. And you are going to have to offer people a bunch of money because those jobs suuuuuuck and very few people would deliberately choose it as a career.

MadJakeChurchill said:

Life in a jungle is pre-state. We're talking about post-state. Don't strawman.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Its not a strawman. The distinction is arbitrary when it comes to basic needs. We still need to kill to eat. We still have to protect ourselves from the violence of others. The structure changes, the core needs are still the same.

White voters in the US defund public education because they sent their kids to private school in the wake of school integration. Male lions and monkeys kill unfamiliar infants on sight because they aren't the father. Hoarding resources and taking out potential competition. Different animal, same core instinct.

Swede here, consider myself a liberal from your description of it.

I'm an independent, but I typically lean left I suppose.

TheLostBigBoss said:

Ok, so the previous working examples of communism weren't real communism, so we're just going to work of pure hypotheticals of an economic model which, when "attempted" to be implemented turned out to be rapid highways of corruption and drops in quality of life for the average citizen.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I am absolutely not a fan of mass-murdering, gulaging Stalin but this is completely not true.

Do you even know what it was like to be a peasant under the Tsar? Mass starvation was rampant (millions dead ever winter), the vast majority of people couldn't read and never went to school. Industry? Ha. That didn't exist. Russia was the poor man of the world. The USSR brought skyrocketing literacy rates, mass employment, urbanization and development at rates unseen before.

Right before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russians were on 1000 calories a day more than Americans, and were much more educated on average.

There are a million things you can criticise the USSR for (crimes against humanity and cruel displacement of minorities) and you totally should. However, they were ruthlessly efficient at industrialising and educating the largest country in the world.

Oheao said:

Liberalism - An ideology rooted in capitalism, and generally based upon the principles of freedom of speech, rule of law, equality of opportunity, etc. The state plays a necessary role in liberalism, with its legislative system providing the legitimacy to property and speech rights and its judicial system which punishes those who break the laws, along with a police force that uses violence in order to maintain the system.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is basically me. Thank you for using the term "liberal" in its classical sense here.

illamap said:

I think this is good essentials. I don't think people praising Nordic model understand that it wouldn't work on majority of Nations because taxable base just isn't there. I can't really speak for other Nordic countries but Finland has been on big deficit for nearly a decade with no end in sight so i doubt will have nordic model 10 years from now. I don't really know deeply about other Nordic countries but in Sweden growth is mostly happening in public sector so they are planting the seeds of unsustainability. Norway has oil money for now, which leaves Denmark but i don't know really anything about it's economy situation. Ofc some countries like Netherlands are pretty much Nordic model at least in terms of welfare.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's only unsustainable without taxes. The solution is to get taxes. Apple shouldn't be the world's first trillion dollar company because proper taxation in "western" nations would mean that trillion dollar companies couldn't exist because people wouldn't have a collective trillion to shove into a single company. The money that helped Apple reach it's trillion dollar valuation would be better served to make sure that everyone in Apple's network, from the janitors to the people who work in the factories could actually afford basic needs in their respective countries without living in poverty.

TheMadTitan said:

I'm the "people have the right to be as rich as they want, just as long as everyone else can meet their bare minimum needs comfortably on a single job" camp.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This falls in the realm of pure fantasy though, as resource scarcity is a thing. There's a line where a wealthy person becoming more wealthy is coming at the expense of those who are at the bottom.

TheLostBigBoss said:

Ok, so the previous working examples of communism weren't real communism, so we're just going to work of pure hypotheticals of an economic model which, when "attempted" to be implemented turned out to be rapid highways of corruption and drops in quality of life for the average citizen.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No, I think your response is an attempt to railroad me down the "not real communism" rhetorical rabbithole rather than engage with the materialist conception of history that Marxism operates under. What are the working examples of communism you refer to? Even the USSR didn't refer to itself as communist, but rather as a Union of Socialist Soviet Republics ruled by a Communist party. Once again, those who follow this model view communism as a system that society will transition into once the historical conditions for it exist, rather than something that people can suddenly declare.

I don't know if you're really engaging with the comparison to feudalism, but let me have another go at it. Someone living in and supporting a feudal society would treat the concept of capitalism with the same skepticism and disdain you subject communism to. Since capitalism did not exist at the time, any economic system other than feudalism might seem impossible. But the inherent contradictions within feudalism eventually caused its transition into capitalism. That is the materialist dialectic. I'm not arguing for communism, I argue for socialism. Marxists don't believe communism is something people sit together and decide to establish, but rather a process of the withering away of the structures of the state in a post-socialist society. I think the way your line of questioning is framed suggests you might not have studied Marx in much detail.

TheLostBigBoss said:

I think most people agree on a long enough timeline, if scarcity becomes obsolete, that there will be some type of economic model where people get assisted living and basic income, but that future is a longs ways off.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Then perhaps the question is whether we enable a system where the technological process that enables post-scarcity is monopolized by a relatively small group of people who have appropriated those resources from the commons, or whether that automated production process is taken into collective ownership.

MadJakeChurchill said:

No we don't. We can eat a plant-based and mycoprotein diet just fine. Coercion is no longer necessary. This is what I mean by pre and post. You're refusing to engage with our current material conditions and are arguing from a purely non-existent view of humanity.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I was certain somebody was going to twist this to make a point about vegetarianism. Whether we eat animals or plants we are an exploitative species, and somebody has to raise the animals or till the soil, which requires large scale farming. Whether or not you think this can be collectively managed without abuse and the production fairly distributed is the debate

shnurgleton said:

Social democracy seems preferable to full blown marxian socialism. I do still enjoy picking up a paycheck issued by someone other than the government and I like owning property

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

- You would still get a paycheck from your company. Owning the means of production doesn't mean the government redistributes the entire wealth of all productions, just that you "own" your own labour, and are compensated fairly for it

- You are still entitlted to property. Private property is not the same as personnal property, and it's astounding that people still don't get that when talking about marxism/socialism/communism

shnurgleton said:

I was certain somebody was going to twist this to make a point about vegetarianism. Whether we eat animals or plants we are an exploitative species, and somebody has to raise the animals or till the soil, which requires large scale farming. Whether or not you think this can be collectively managed without abuse and the production fairly distributed is the debate

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I knew you'd just turn it back to an appeal to "human nature". That's not a valid critique of anything, let alone an economic model. You're also assuming that nobody likes farming. I know quite a few farmers that love it. They wish they'd be able to live off it alone, but they have to work a weekend job too. Wouldn't it be great if they could pour their entire passion into it?

MadJakeChurchill said:

I knew you'd just turn it back to an appeal to "human nature". That's not a valid critique of anything, let alone an economic model. You're also assuming that nobody likes farming. I know quite a few farmers that love it. They wish they'd be able to live off it alone, but they have to work a weekend job too. Wouldn't it be great if they could pour their entire passion into it?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Of course it'd be nice, but people gotta eat. Can a society depend on having what amounts to enough hobbyists to support the caloric needs of a population? Maybe your friends would have their dream job but there is a strong possibility that some people will have to do it who would prefer a different job

Swedish and liberal. Many believe we're a socialist country or something, but that's very far from the truth. We only have one socialist party, the small one furthest to the left. The ruling Social Democrats are faaaaar from it.

shnurgleton said:

Of course it'd be nice, but people gotta eat. Can a society depend on having what amounts to enough hobbyists to support the caloric needs of a population?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

So the best way to feed a population is to force farmers to compete with each other in a race to the bottom for maximum yields, minimum quality and requiring them to get a second job leading to overwork and reduced productivity? Seems a bit bizarre.

While this may suck for 'Western' farmers, it's deadly for farmers in the developing world. They're coerced to make cash crops rather than providing a local source of nutrition for their population, aggravating food shortages. Capitalism kills millions every year, yet no one bats an eye.

Social democrat

hydrophilic attack said:

social democrat, taking the best of both worlds

free market and free enterprise can efficiently balance supply and demand of commodities and consumer products ,but certain utilities and services will more equitably and efficiently be provided by the government. furthermore, aggressive transfer systems help balance out excessive economic stratification caused by the free market. heavy regulations help preserve the environment and workers' rights

civil liberties should be protected and preserved by the government

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

bsclly this

zoukka said:

Someone still owns, maintains and develops all the automation hardware and software. And people work there.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yes. Automation will not eliminate all jobs. But the number of people who are usefully employable will become vanishingly small. In such a world, it becomes meaningless to make human labour the fundamental building block of your economic system. You can't analyse it with Adams, Keynes or Marx. What does it matter if the robot developers are being exploited of the true worth of their labour, when there are 10 million unemployed people for every one of them?

hydrophilic attack said:

social democrat, taking the best of both worlds

free market and free enterprise can efficiently balance supply and demand of commodities and consumer products ,but certain utilities and services will more equitably and efficiently be provided by the government. furthermore, aggressive transfer systems help balance out excessive economic stratification caused by the free market. heavy regulations help preserve the environment and workers' rights

civil liberties should be protected and preserved by the government

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Same here, even though I still think we should eat the rich.

hydrophilic attack said:

social democrat, taking the best of both worlds

free market and free enterprise can efficiently balance supply and demand of commodities and consumer products ,but certain utilities and services will more equitably and efficiently be provided by the government. furthermore, aggressive transfer systems help balance out excessive economic stratification caused by the free market. heavy regulations help preserve the environment and workers' rights

civil liberties should be protected and preserved by the government

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

How do you prevent that free market mentality from seeping over into this sacred realm of "equitably distributed utilities"? The EPA just legalized the use of asbestos. Money buys politics. Your best intentions do not negate the oligarchy and gradual stripping of people's right to life.

Crispy75 said:

Yes. Automation will not eliminate all jobs. But the number of people who are usefully employable will become vanishingly small. In such a world, it becomes meaningless to make human labour the fundamental building block of your economic system. You can't analyse it with Adams, Keynes or Marx. What does it matter if the robot developers are being exploited of the true worth of their labour, when there are 10 million unemployed people for every one of them?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's not that simple. Building, maintaining and updating an automated factory to sew dirt cheap clothing isn't necessarily cheaper than exploiting cheap labour in india for example. And you probably highly underestimate the amount of people needed to develop and maintain a country wide infrastructure of automated production. Someone has to write the code and fix the equipment. Also industries don't just grow on "what we need", take for example a hipster cafe that employs young passionate people whose passion is to make the best coffee they can.

MadJakeChurchill said:

So the best way to feed a population is to force farmers to compete with each other in a race to the bottom for maximum yields, minimum quality and requiring them to get a second job leading to overwork and reduced productivity? Seems a bit bizarre.

While this may suck for 'Western' farmers, it's deadly for farmers in the developing world. They're coerced to make cash crops rather than providing a local source of nutrition for their population, aggravating food shortages. Capitalism kills millions every year, yet no one bats an eye.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

My point is that society without coersion is not a practical possibility. Individuals' personal pastimes do not neatly line up with societal needs. Unfettered capitalism is bad I agree but the solution is principled and extensive regulation, not the overthrow of the system. Maybe incentivise co-op company structures over typical corporations as well

I don't know the definitions, connotations and consequences of either to properly identify with one of these, I'm afraid.

I suppose you could say my "realistic" ideal would be a system where basic living necessities and civil liberties are guaranteed by government (and thus wherein healthcare etc. cannot be monetized) but a free market exists for non-residential goods and services.

Basically capitalism where being "poor" can be a valid way to live, I suppose. I realize how stupid that sounds but the most plausible way to go about this, for me, is having publicized, affordable, accessible healthcare/transport/utilities while establishing a livable UBI.

shnurgleton said:

My point is that society without coersion is not a practical possibility.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Why? You're mischaracterizing non-exploitative work as "pastime" when it's what they will be voluntarily devoting their time to do.

MadJakeChurchill said:

Why? You're mischaracterizing non-exploitative work as "pastime" when it's what they will be voluntarily devoting their time to do.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What if somebody doesn't want to volunteer? Will they be made to volunteer if workers are needed?

shnurgleton said:

What if somebody doesn't want to volunteer? Will they be made to volunteer if workers are needed?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

So someone is not going to do anything at all. Enjoy being democratically excluded by assembly vote.

Horp said:

Results of the poll scares me.
I'm a social democrat from sweden, which is the swedish left but not -hard- left.
The socialism described in OP is not social democrat-socialism, it's actual socialism. The fact that so many people vote for that really does scare me. Like, did you have history classes growing up?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm sure a lot of people aren't reading OP and just voting.

shnurgleton said:

My point is that society without coersion is not a practical possibility.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This may or may not be true, but what society or method of economic organization is not coercive?

Both