5 ms·

Socialism is the only answer to the future of work if we want that a majority of people have a good life.

by azaras 7y ago

FakeComments 7y ago
Socialism hasn’t ever worked so far, and has killed over a hundred million people in the attempts. What’s the basis for your comment? Why do you believe that a system which doesn’t work — and destroys the countries it’s implemented in — will suddenly work, but none of the models which have worked successfully will continue to work?
mac_was 7y ago
That is funny looking at history where it actually never worked, you can have starving people in North Korea vs China which is a not socilism anymore from market perspective... I come from a post-socialist country, and when growing up in the 90s we and 90% of the society was so poor after 50 years of socialism that my parents could not afford a pair of Nike or Adidas. What me and most mates were wearing was Nice and Adidos... as a pair of oroginal Nike was like 1/3 of my mum or dad salary. So I’ll never say yes to any socialist ideas! As these ruined several countries: Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Poland and at least a dozen of other countries from the other side of the Iron courtain.
- kmlx 7y ago
  like most people nowadays you’re confusing socialism with communism. socialism is already everywhere. communism on the other hand failed on all fronts.
  - mac_was 7y ago
    Nope the person confusing communism and socialism is the person I am replying to hence my usage of word socialism.
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    Welfare-state capitalism is everywhere (at least in Europe). The economic system in communist countries was generally called socialism, while 'communism' is used for the political movement and its ideology.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      the welfare-state is social democracy. liberte, egalite, fraternite are essential socialist values. in the US medicare/medicaid are socialist programs.
- dorfsmay 7y ago
  It'd be interesting to compare the costs of production, sale prices, and work/life conditions of the people who produced an adidos vs an adidas.
- rapind 7y ago
  Socialism and capitalism have their warts. Thinking there's a perfect system is naive. Being uncritical of either system is a mistake. As soon as your system turns into a religion (faith) it's pretty much screwed. Naming things is important and all, but I'd prefer to evaluate policies on their individual merits instead of simply classifying them as X is part of Y and total Y is bad therefore X is also bad. Are worker co-ops bad just because they are socialist? Is it bad to regulate a company dumping chemicals in your drinking water because it saves them a few bucks? On the flipside, is it bad to have reasonable pay discrepancies (not 300x, but maybe 8x) which markets naturally produce? I think as a general rule we should strive to avoid concentrations of power in the hands of the few. Which has been a side effect of both capitalism and communism.
  - c-smile 7y ago
    I'd think about all this from slightly different perspective. Humanity evolution is clearly follows the trajectory with well known "strong points" (in math sense) Slaveholding, Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, … Point (in math sense) has no dimensions so you cannot say "we are exactly at Capitalism now" but rather somewhere on that trajectory between strong points. Closer to Capitalism, closer to Socialism are the right terms I think. It is obvious that, let's say, Europe now is somewhere in between of Capitalism and Socialism. And in 1900 it was around pure Capitalism point, in some countries between Feudalism and Capitalism. And "Robots economy" will move us closer to Communism where 95% of population will not participate in goods/services production activities. So that will be that famous "... to each according to his needs" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
    - rapind 7y ago
      Assuming "Robots economy" comes true, you're probably right, and it's a really interesting way to think about it. Definitely a bit scary.
- harimau777 7y ago
  I think that the parent poster was most likely referring to democratic socialism as practiced in much of the EU and Nordic countries as opposed to totalitarian communism or Stalinism as practiced in the countries that you listed.
  - sorenn111 7y ago
    Those EU and Nordic countries are not democratic socialist though. The Prime Minister of Denmark repudiated Bernie's comments saying so. They even say they are capitalist with strong safety nets, which is not socialism.
  - ZhuanXia 7y ago
    The Nordic countries are not socialist. They have not seized the means of production and handed it to a poorly-incentivized bureaucracy that claims to speak for the public. If you have private ownership of production you are still capitalist. All the Nordic countries do this. They are not so much socialists as welfare states. If we must have a welfare state, I would much prefer the "citizens as shareholders of the country" model with a basic income, rather than the overweening paternalism of current welfare states.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I come from a post-socialist country, and when growing up in the 90s we and 90% of the society was so poor after 50 years of socialism that my parents could not afford a pair of Nike or Adidas. Did they have a house though?
kmlx 7y ago
socialism is already present in most countries, including the US. and people are still unhappy. i personally think there will no difference. automation has been happening for at least two centuries, and so far it’s been a major success on all fronts. i think this fear of automation just shows how conservative people really are.
chr1 7y ago
If by "socialism" you mean government owning all the robots, deciding what to build, and how much everyone should get, then the majority of people will not get good life. (we'd be lucky if people don't forget how to build robots in generation or two!). If you mean that when majority of work is free, people simply by existing will produce enough value for other people to deserve UBI large enough to live(1), then yes, but it is not a system that is called socialism today. (1) the value for other people will be produced simply by increasing the likelihood of new science and art being created, so like investors are happy to waste lots of money to get one really successful startup, people as a whole would be happy to waste lots of money on UBI to many people, to get some really talented scientists.
- azaras 7y ago
  By socialism I mean "social ownership of the means of production".
  - chr1 7y ago
    This idea works very well, as long as it is applied to a tiny group of people who know each other well (one family). With larger groups it doesn't work at all because of game theory. The people who work hard to build better "means of production" or use them more effectively, as a reward get all of their work seized by people who do not want or know how to use these "means of production". As a result the production goes down and the quality of life of the people goes down too. If you allow people to leave your country the best workers leave it, dragging the quality of live of the remaining people too, if you want to not allow that you have to build a police state, and the quality of life becomes even worse. This is a simple theory, which have been tested multiple times, and sadly in my country too, and i hope the next time this idea gets tested it is tested on people who wilfully join the test and have the ability to leave it.
    - azaras 7y ago
      > as a reward get all of their work seized by people who do not want or know how to use these "means of production". This is only true in some kind of socialism, counterexample: mutalism.
ekr 7y ago
I see so much arguing over terms and definition, while the basic premises and dynamics of the system should be familiar to everyone. It's a fact that we're witnessing the concentration of capital into the hands of fewer and fewer. You can see that by looking at what the top 1%, 0.1% own compared to the bottom 80%, 50% etc. It's also a fact that the bottom 60+% rely on work to get their needs met, to sustain their lives. So it only follows that should the rate of automation explode, devaluing the work that currently sustains a huge portion of the population, we've got a huge problem on our hands, making the system unsustainable. But we're also seeing governments, especially in northern Europe, employing taxation policies that are in a way trying to prevent this growing inequality. And in fact, the level of inequality of a nation has been correlated with a lot of undesirable problems. UBI is a natural extension of that.
cronix 7y ago
I watched some of the DSA convention. I don't think we have anything to worry about. They couldn't organize themselves out of a paper bag.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Socialism is the only answer to the future of work if we want that a majority of people have a good life.

by azaras 7y ago

Socialism is the only answer to the future of work if we want that a majority of people have a good life.

Socialism hasn’t ever worked so far, and has killed over a hundred million people in the attempts. What’s the basis for your comment? Why do you believe that a system which doesn’t work — and destroys the countries it’s implemented in — will suddenly work, but none of the models which have worked successfully will continue to work?

mac_was 7y ago

That is funny looking at history where it actually never worked, you can have starving people in North Korea vs China which is a not socilism anymore from market perspective... I come from a post-socialist country, and when growing up in the 90s we and 90% of the society was so poor after 50 years of socialism that my parents could not afford a pair of Nike or Adidas. What me and most mates were wearing was Nice and Adidos... as a pair of oroginal Nike was like 1/3 of my mum or dad salary. So I’ll never say yes to any socialist ideas! As these ruined several countries: Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Poland and at least a dozen of other countries from the other side of the Iron courtain.

kmlx 7y ago
like most people nowadays you’re confusing socialism with communism. socialism is already everywhere. communism on the other hand failed on all fronts.
- mac_was 7y ago
  Nope the person confusing communism and socialism is the person I am replying to hence my usage of word socialism.
- zajio1am 7y ago
  Welfare-state capitalism is everywhere (at least in Europe). The economic system in communist countries was generally called socialism, while 'communism' is used for the political movement and its ideology.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    the welfare-state is social democracy. liberte, egalite, fraternite are essential socialist values. in the US medicare/medicaid are socialist programs.
dorfsmay 7y ago
It'd be interesting to compare the costs of production, sale prices, and work/life conditions of the people who produced an adidos vs an adidas.
rapind 7y ago
Socialism and capitalism have their warts. Thinking there's a perfect system is naive. Being uncritical of either system is a mistake. As soon as your system turns into a religion (faith) it's pretty much screwed. Naming things is important and all, but I'd prefer to evaluate policies on their individual merits instead of simply classifying them as X is part of Y and total Y is bad therefore X is also bad. Are worker co-ops bad just because they are socialist? Is it bad to regulate a company dumping chemicals in your drinking water because it saves them a few bucks? On the flipside, is it bad to have reasonable pay discrepancies (not 300x, but maybe 8x) which markets naturally produce? I think as a general rule we should strive to avoid concentrations of power in the hands of the few. Which has been a side effect of both capitalism and communism.
- c-smile 7y ago
  I'd think about all this from slightly different perspective. Humanity evolution is clearly follows the trajectory with well known "strong points" (in math sense) Slaveholding, Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, … Point (in math sense) has no dimensions so you cannot say "we are exactly at Capitalism now" but rather somewhere on that trajectory between strong points. Closer to Capitalism, closer to Socialism are the right terms I think. It is obvious that, let's say, Europe now is somewhere in between of Capitalism and Socialism. And in 1900 it was around pure Capitalism point, in some countries between Feudalism and Capitalism. And "Robots economy" will move us closer to Communism where 95% of population will not participate in goods/services production activities. So that will be that famous "... to each according to his needs" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
  - rapind 7y ago
    Assuming "Robots economy" comes true, you're probably right, and it's a really interesting way to think about it. Definitely a bit scary.
harimau777 7y ago
I think that the parent poster was most likely referring to democratic socialism as practiced in much of the EU and Nordic countries as opposed to totalitarian communism or Stalinism as practiced in the countries that you listed.
- sorenn111 7y ago
  Those EU and Nordic countries are not democratic socialist though. The Prime Minister of Denmark repudiated Bernie's comments saying so. They even say they are capitalist with strong safety nets, which is not socialism.
- ZhuanXia 7y ago
  The Nordic countries are not socialist. They have not seized the means of production and handed it to a poorly-incentivized bureaucracy that claims to speak for the public. If you have private ownership of production you are still capitalist. All the Nordic countries do this. They are not so much socialists as welfare states. If we must have a welfare state, I would much prefer the "citizens as shareholders of the country" model with a basic income, rather than the overweening paternalism of current welfare states.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I come from a post-socialist country, and when growing up in the 90s we and 90% of the society was so poor after 50 years of socialism that my parents could not afford a pair of Nike or Adidas. Did they have a house though?

kmlx 7y ago

socialism is already present in most countries, including the US. and people are still unhappy. i personally think there will no difference. automation has been happening for at least two centuries, and so far it’s been a major success on all fronts. i think this fear of automation just shows how conservative people really are.

chr1 7y ago

If by "socialism" you mean government owning all the robots, deciding what to build, and how much everyone should get, then the majority of people will not get good life. (we'd be lucky if people don't forget how to build robots in generation or two!). If you mean that when majority of work is free, people simply by existing will produce enough value for other people to deserve UBI large enough to live(1), then yes, but it is not a system that is called socialism today. (1) the value for other people will be produced simply by increasing the likelihood of new science and art being created, so like investors are happy to waste lots of money to get one really successful startup, people as a whole would be happy to waste lots of money on UBI to many people, to get some really talented scientists.

azaras 7y ago
By socialism I mean "social ownership of the means of production".
- chr1 7y ago
  This idea works very well, as long as it is applied to a tiny group of people who know each other well (one family). With larger groups it doesn't work at all because of game theory. The people who work hard to build better "means of production" or use them more effectively, as a reward get all of their work seized by people who do not want or know how to use these "means of production". As a result the production goes down and the quality of life of the people goes down too. If you allow people to leave your country the best workers leave it, dragging the quality of live of the remaining people too, if you want to not allow that you have to build a police state, and the quality of life becomes even worse. This is a simple theory, which have been tested multiple times, and sadly in my country too, and i hope the next time this idea gets tested it is tested on people who wilfully join the test and have the ability to leave it.
  - azaras 7y ago
    > as a reward get all of their work seized by people who do not want or know how to use these "means of production". This is only true in some kind of socialism, counterexample: mutalism.

ekr 7y ago

I see so much arguing over terms and definition, while the basic premises and dynamics of the system should be familiar to everyone. It's a fact that we're witnessing the concentration of capital into the hands of fewer and fewer. You can see that by looking at what the top 1%, 0.1% own compared to the bottom 80%, 50% etc. It's also a fact that the bottom 60+% rely on work to get their needs met, to sustain their lives. So it only follows that should the rate of automation explode, devaluing the work that currently sustains a huge portion of the population, we've got a huge problem on our hands, making the system unsustainable. But we're also seeing governments, especially in northern Europe, employing taxation policies that are in a way trying to prevent this growing inequality. And in fact, the level of inequality of a nation has been correlated with a lot of undesirable problems. UBI is a natural extension of that.

cronix 7y ago

I watched some of the DSA convention. I don't think we have anything to worry about. They couldn't organize themselves out of a paper bag.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]