User Controls
Communism
-
2017-07-03 at 2:21 AM UTCCould it actually work, or is it just a utopian fairytale?
-
2017-07-03 at 2:27 AM UTCIt can't work. But socialism is the logical end game of economics.
-
2017-07-03 at 2:28 AM UTCI don't think it's possible. It requires a dictator to enforce it and the inability to be significantly rewarded for excelling would lead to technological and social stagnation.
Keep in mind that the 'communism has never worked' meme isn't quite fair either, as many of the historic failures are largely due to external sabotage.
Socialism has a chance I guess, as long as it's proponents don't decide to follow on to pure communism -
2017-07-03 at 2:33 AM UTCthat socialism thing works great until you run out of other peoples money.
detroit.
commiefornia. -
2017-07-03 at 2:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock that socialism thing works great until you run out of other peoples money.
detroit.
commiefornia.
that's a fucked up mixed system; there's no reason why having high taxes to provide amenities wouldn't work if it was consistent across the state (even if I personally wouldn't find it preferable). Iran's a good example, actually. Libya too before they got freedom'd. -
2017-07-03 at 2:38 AM UTCNo. It could never maintain modern civilization. At best it could function on a small scale, with highly selected individuals (Very questionable whether this authority would qualify it as genuine communism), but it would still be undesirable and produce a standard of living/quality of life with a multitude of highly problematic, likely intractable, aspects.
-
2017-07-03 at 2:41 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-07-03 at 2:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I don't think it's possible. It requires a dictator to enforce it and the inability to be significantly rewarded for excelling would lead to technological and social stagnation.
Keep in mind that the 'communism has never worked' meme isn't quite fair either, as many of the historic failures are largely due to external sabotage.
Socialism has a chance I guess, as long as it's proponents don't decide to follow on to pure communism
Socialism is the logical end game. It's already begun. Automation is going to kill off many low skill jobs for stupid shitters in the coming decades. Then the smug fags who think they are immune right now too; lawyers, doctors, engineers. Eventually, even industrialists. In the early stages, the unemployed populace will necessarily lead to voting in stuff like Universal Basic Income. -
2017-07-03 at 2:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra that's a fucked up mixed system; there's no reason why having high taxes to provide amenities wouldn't work if it was consistent across the state (even if I personally wouldn't find it preferable). Iran's a good example, actually. Libya too before they got freedom'd.
neither of them are good examples because of large amounts of petroleum income. -
2017-07-03 at 2:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Socialism is the logical end game. It's already begun. Automation is going to kill off many low skill jobs for stupid shitters in the coming decades. Then the smug fags who think they are immune right now too; lawyers, doctors, engineers. Eventually, even industrialists. In the early stages, the unemployed populace will necessarily lead to voting in stuff like Universal Basic Income.
Do you think that (state) socialism is a sustainable condition for an advanced technological civilization? -
2017-07-03 at 2:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock neither of them are good examples because of large amounts of petroleum income.
I don't see how that invalidates their 'success', especially since Iran's been out of the oil market for decades*
*I have no idea how much oil they were able to trade with their neighbours avoiding the embargos over the years -
2017-07-03 at 2:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by inb4l0pht Do you think that (state) socialism is a sustainable condition for an advanced technological civilization?
It's the only sustainable condition, because like 99% of jobs will be unnecessary due to technological progress. Resources will be abundant and excessive.
The only decision left to make will be to decide what we will do with this newfound state of plenty. That'll be a problem because we are not built to handle abundance. Biologically, our bodies are built to survive scarcity. We store fat like we won't have a next meal.
But perhaps with further research into technologies like CRISPR we could change even that. After all, we will have all the time in the world to pursue any artistic or scientific endeavours that we want. -
2017-07-03 at 3:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Socialism is the logical end game. It's already begun. Automation is going to kill off many low skill jobs for stupid shitters in the coming decades. Then the smug fags who think they are immune right now too; lawyers, doctors, engineers. Eventually, even industrialists. In the early stages, the unemployed populace will necessarily lead to voting in stuff like Universal Basic Income.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon It's the only sustainable condition, because like 99% of jobs will be unnecessary due to technological progress. Resources will be abundant and excessive.
Wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/35m6i5/low_hanging_fruit_rfuturology_discusses/cr6utdu/?st=j4nk73iv&sh=13cd489e -
2017-07-03 at 3:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/35m6i5/low_hanging_fruit_rfuturology_discusses/cr6utdu/?st=j4nk73iv&sh=13cd489e
I don't really put much stock in what economists have to say on technological unemployment, because most of them don't know shit about technology and how fast AI is growing. They also don't seem to grasp that as jobs become more complex, the average person can't just go out and train for something else, because the new jobs are literally beyond their level of cognitive ability. This didn't really come into play when we replaced the horse and cart with the automobile, but what role does a 90 IQ professional driver have in a society with self-driving cars?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-07-03 at 3:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/35m6i5/low_hanging_fruit_rfuturology_discusses/cr6utdu/?st=j4nk73iv&sh=13cd489e
skimming over it, guy looks at it as a pure-economics argument; he doesn't appear to understand the scope (and/or potential scope) of automation and gets caught up in buzzwords like 'singularity'The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-07-03 at 3:18 AM UTC
China. Nuff said. -
2017-07-03 at 3:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/35m6i5/low_hanging_fruit_rfuturology_discusses/cr6utdu/?st=j4nk73iv&sh=13cd489e
The entire response is predicated on the idea that the coming waves of automation will be anything like the historical advances in automation, and the OP's response to "the proposed automation is different" was "no it's not".The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-07-03 at 3:19 AM UTC
-
2017-07-03 at 3:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I don't see how that invalidates their 'success', especially since Iran's been out of the oil market for decades*
*I have no idea how much oil they were able to trade with their neighbours avoiding the embargos over the years
because socialism success is skewed when massive influxes of cash alter the balance of economics...such as in saudi arabia.
iran never had problems exporting oil...even during hussein-times. theyd lose a tanker now and then...but theyd get a lot more through. -
2017-07-03 at 3:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The entire response is predicated on the idea that the coming waves of automation will be anything like the historical advances in automation, and the OP's response to "the proposed automation is different" was "no it's not".
Fundamentally it's not different. Humans have limitless desires and machines aren't going to be able to meet them all any time soon. There have repeatedly been radical shifts in the composition of economies, in occupational employment, throughout history. The classic example is the percentage of people that were farmers and how drastically it was reduced. At the time, no one could have accurately predicted what changes would occur, what occupations would replace those jobs lost from the redundancy and lack of economic viability of most farming jobs.
Particularly with large increases in productivity and disposable income (Of course distribution of profits should be questioned, but the cost of living would drop to the floor.), or really regardless of it, there are endless possibilities you could imagine. Labor is freed to meet other demands/desires. Occupation in the service sector, entertainment, anything humans find pleasurable, would likely increase considerably, and this is a good thing. Use your imagination to speculate what new jobs could be created.
