5 ms·

I don't think that's the precise way people feel. Socialism/etc HAS "failed", and capitalism HAS "succeeded", for certain definitions of failed and succeeded. W

I don't think that's the precise way people feel. Socialism/etc HAS "failed", and capitalism HAS "succeeded", for certain definitions of failed and succeeded. What people assume is that socialism today would fail (and I agree). But if presented with new facts, e.g. here is a robot that can produce food, gather solar power, and manufacture goods for you, and there is one per household, suddenly the literal definition of socialism can become much more pallatable.

coldtea 7y ago
Well, modern capitalism is socialism (the US for example or EU are hardly "free markets", there are all sorts of protections, interventions, tarrifs - hardly a Trump novelty -, things like copyright (another artificial government given restriction on trade and manufacturing, central monetary policy, huge armies and postcolonial negotiations to secure favorable deals, mass surveillance, and so on. And modern socialism (whether what the US calls as such in the nordic countries or France, or what they have in China) is also a whole lotta of capitalism, so there's that too.
- helpPeople 7y ago
  Many believe those protections you describe is the cause of inequality. For example,when only 300k/yr physicians can give you access to medicine, it's not capitalism.
helpPeople 7y ago
The literal definition of socialism is an impossibility, power always gets concentrated among the few. "This time will be different" crowd hadn't been compelling. Human nature hadn't changed.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  Socialism is essentially only an extension of democracy to the economic system. Since democracy seems to work relatively decently (warts and all) for most prosperous societies, I don't see why human nature is a good argument for saying it's impossible.
  - chr1 7y ago
    Capitalism is also an extension of democracy, the difference is that with capitalism you get to choose how to vote, by giving part of your vote to someone who have created a better product, and get someone elses vote by doing something useful. With socialism you get the same amount of votes whether you do something useful or not, and can spend that vote on the only type of product whether you like it or not. This is actually rather similar to the form of democracy we have in our governing system, where you get to choose between two bundles of policies you do not like, and i'd say we need to make our governing democracy more similar to our economic democracy instead!
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Capitalism is also an extension of democracy An extension where the more money you have, the more influence you get. Unless it's 1 person, 1 vote, it's not democracy.
      - chr1 7y ago
        > Unless it's 1 person, 1 vote, it's not democracy Let's say every person has one vote And there are thousands and thousands of elections going on every day. Most of the people are not interested in most of elections, so they ignore elections because it is not possible to follow everything. Which means we end up with 1 person 0 votes most of the time. Now to improve the situation we can agree to collaborate i'll vote the way you want for the issue you care and you'll help me in return. Money is simply a way to make this kind of collaboration easier. Saying that any kind of cooperation should be banned doesn't help anyone, and leads to a stalemate in the case when there are many issues to vote on. In fact if our governments were real democracies where votes could decide real policies instead of picking someone who is going to lie for the next 4 years, we would have a system very similar to money to help us to deal with the large amount of issues to vote on.
    - tsimionescu 7y ago
      Buying is an extremely indirect form of voting. What socialism means is that workers inside a corporation would democratically decide how to run that corporation, instead of being handed down directions from an absolute ruler (the CEO/Board of directors).
tsimionescu 7y ago
I get the point in principle that technology can make new social systems possible, and it seems plausible. But I don't get what the example you give has to do with making socialism (worker control of corporations) more workable. The major problems of socialism have always seemed to be 2: 1 - how to transition from current society to a socialist one without violent revolution, which usually ends in dictatorships, instead of the radical democracy of socialism. 2 - how to maintain a socialist project in a capitalist world usually focused on destroying it, often with military power. I don't see how a wonder robot would help with either of these problems. Or, I'm wondering what do you mean by socialism and what problems do you perceive that version of socialism to have that could be fixed by a UBI robot?
chr1 7y ago
It's still not palatable, because when you get your food and charge your phone you still need to decide what to do with your free time and how to convince others to help you. Capitalism is essentially a system of voting on what is important. When food becomes abundant enough to not cost much, everyone will get it independently of the system, same as everyone gets free email now. But capitalism will still be needed to decide what else is important to do. Of course capitalism is not perfect and lots of people still choose to waste their vote on pointless activities like watching sports or reality shows instead of science and space travel, but because unlike socialism the vote is transferable they end up transferring at least part of their vote to useful things.
pdonis 7y ago
> here is a robot that can produce food, gather solar power, and manufacture goods for you, and there is one per household, suddenly the literal definition of socialism can become much more pallatable That's not socialism; the robots are not collectively owned. Each household owns its own.

coldtea 7y ago

Well, modern capitalism is socialism (the US for example or EU are hardly "free markets", there are all sorts of protections, interventions, tarrifs - hardly a Trump novelty -, things like copyright (another artificial government given restriction on trade and manufacturing, central monetary policy, huge armies and postcolonial negotiations to secure favorable deals, mass surveillance, and so on. And modern socialism (whether what the US calls as such in the nordic countries or France, or what they have in China) is also a whole lotta of capitalism, so there's that too.

helpPeople 7y ago
Many believe those protections you describe is the cause of inequality. For example,when only 300k/yr physicians can give you access to medicine, it's not capitalism.

helpPeople 7y ago

The literal definition of socialism is an impossibility, power always gets concentrated among the few. "This time will be different" crowd hadn't been compelling. Human nature hadn't changed.

tsimionescu 7y ago
Socialism is essentially only an extension of democracy to the economic system. Since democracy seems to work relatively decently (warts and all) for most prosperous societies, I don't see why human nature is a good argument for saying it's impossible.
- chr1 7y ago
  Capitalism is also an extension of democracy, the difference is that with capitalism you get to choose how to vote, by giving part of your vote to someone who have created a better product, and get someone elses vote by doing something useful. With socialism you get the same amount of votes whether you do something useful or not, and can spend that vote on the only type of product whether you like it or not. This is actually rather similar to the form of democracy we have in our governing system, where you get to choose between two bundles of policies you do not like, and i'd say we need to make our governing democracy more similar to our economic democracy instead!
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Capitalism is also an extension of democracy An extension where the more money you have, the more influence you get. Unless it's 1 person, 1 vote, it's not democracy.
    - chr1 7y ago
      > Unless it's 1 person, 1 vote, it's not democracy Let's say every person has one vote And there are thousands and thousands of elections going on every day. Most of the people are not interested in most of elections, so they ignore elections because it is not possible to follow everything. Which means we end up with 1 person 0 votes most of the time. Now to improve the situation we can agree to collaborate i'll vote the way you want for the issue you care and you'll help me in return. Money is simply a way to make this kind of collaboration easier. Saying that any kind of cooperation should be banned doesn't help anyone, and leads to a stalemate in the case when there are many issues to vote on. In fact if our governments were real democracies where votes could decide real policies instead of picking someone who is going to lie for the next 4 years, we would have a system very similar to money to help us to deal with the large amount of issues to vote on.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    Buying is an extremely indirect form of voting. What socialism means is that workers inside a corporation would democratically decide how to run that corporation, instead of being handed down directions from an absolute ruler (the CEO/Board of directors).

tsimionescu 7y ago

I get the point in principle that technology can make new social systems possible, and it seems plausible. But I don't get what the example you give has to do with making socialism (worker control of corporations) more workable. The major problems of socialism have always seemed to be 2: 1 - how to transition from current society to a socialist one without violent revolution, which usually ends in dictatorships, instead of the radical democracy of socialism. 2 - how to maintain a socialist project in a capitalist world usually focused on destroying it, often with military power. I don't see how a wonder robot would help with either of these problems. Or, I'm wondering what do you mean by socialism and what problems do you perceive that version of socialism to have that could be fixed by a UBI robot?

chr1 7y ago

It's still not palatable, because when you get your food and charge your phone you still need to decide what to do with your free time and how to convince others to help you. Capitalism is essentially a system of voting on what is important. When food becomes abundant enough to not cost much, everyone will get it independently of the system, same as everyone gets free email now. But capitalism will still be needed to decide what else is important to do. Of course capitalism is not perfect and lots of people still choose to waste their vote on pointless activities like watching sports or reality shows instead of science and space travel, but because unlike socialism the vote is transferable they end up transferring at least part of their vote to useful things.

pdonis 7y ago

> here is a robot that can produce food, gather solar power, and manufacture goods for you, and there is one per household, suddenly the literal definition of socialism can become much more pallatable That's not socialism; the robots are not collectively owned. Each household owns its own.