5 ms·

Maybe they don't have Vietnam or North Korea in mind, but that's one possible end. The comment "...distribute the profits evenly.Not going to happen under capi

by tharne 6y ago

Maybe they don't have Vietnam or North Korea in mind, but that's one possible end. The comment "...distribute the profits evenly.Not going to happen under capitalism." strongly implies a communist or socialist solution to this very real issue around automation. It's trendy to bring up socialist solutions and then re-label them or put the ever-cleansing phrase "democratic" in front. But it's important to note when talking about redistribution as a solve, that for every Sweden or Denmark, there's a Cuba or North Korea.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
So tired of this old chestnut. Do yoy think the fact that Cuba and North Korea is a dictatorship maybe has some relevance to the fact that they are not nice places to live? There are plenty of capitalist dictatorships, are they great? Maybe thats the key differentiator?
- tharne 6y ago
  Capitalist countries can be free and open democracies or they can be brutal dictatorships, but they at least have a path to a free society if they so choose it. A country where wealth is primarily controlled and distributed by state cannot, by definition, ever be free, even if the people doing the redistribution got elected at one point. That's simply mob rule with no respect or regard for the individual. Socialism or social democracy, or whatever you want to call it requires constant state coercion of individuals to work at all. This type of coercion may happen in capitalism systems like those in dictatorships, but it's not a built in requirement of the system itself.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    There is no modern state without collectively funded education, police, fire service, justice system, military, reseach, environmental protection, FDA,FAA, etc. So where is this magical line, once we cross it, the system suddently becomes oppressive?
    - stale2002 6y ago
      The magic line would be when the majority of privately owned businesses are illegal. Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production". Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal. Collectively funding some services has nothing to do with socialism.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        If that's the magic line, then it's a thousand miles away. I can't find a single country (maybe North Korea?) still in existence, that has outlawed private business. We aren't just talking social democracy, even Cuba and Venesuela allow private business.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > that has outlawed private business. From my original comment: "the majority". The examples you have given, have indeed outlawed many private businesses, in the past. Although, I agree that those countries have become significantly more capitalistic over the years. You also skipped the most famous example of socialism, which was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union absolutely banned almost all forms of private enterprise. But sure, socialism has significantly decreased in relevancy over the last few decades, to the point where basically all old socialist countries are becoming more and more capitalistic. Socialism is dying, all throughout the world.
        mc32 6y ago
        Also _when_ socialistic government allow some controlled capitalism (usually heavily regulated-meaning it applies to small business and not just your sulfur emoting power plants), they do it as a temporary concession on the way to complete abolition of private business. Before Stalin forced the kulaks out of their farms Lenin allowed private farming as a means to an end. Stalin lost patience and forced it.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
- mc32 6y ago
  Has communism been able to exist outside dictatorships? Or has it been unlucky in that regard and always attracted authoritarianism. I guess the question would be, if given a chance to choose would people living in those regimes keep the economic system and reform government or would they vote for a different kind of system altogether?
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Communism has never existed at all, lets start there. Whether the dictators where honestly trying to create communism, or they were using it to fool the populace much the same as monarchs used religion, is debatable.
    - mc32 6y ago
      It appears that from their minutes and other notes and such that Soviet leaders truly believed what they were doing was communism. It wasn’t a case of them pretending and then in secret they’d laugh at the sham they were executing. No, they truly believed they were being marxists.

by tharne 6y ago

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

So tired of this old chestnut. Do yoy think the fact that Cuba and North Korea is a dictatorship maybe has some relevance to the fact that they are not nice places to live? There are plenty of capitalist dictatorships, are they great? Maybe thats the key differentiator?

tharne 6y ago
Capitalist countries can be free and open democracies or they can be brutal dictatorships, but they at least have a path to a free society if they so choose it. A country where wealth is primarily controlled and distributed by state cannot, by definition, ever be free, even if the people doing the redistribution got elected at one point. That's simply mob rule with no respect or regard for the individual. Socialism or social democracy, or whatever you want to call it requires constant state coercion of individuals to work at all. This type of coercion may happen in capitalism systems like those in dictatorships, but it's not a built in requirement of the system itself.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  There is no modern state without collectively funded education, police, fire service, justice system, military, reseach, environmental protection, FDA,FAA, etc. So where is this magical line, once we cross it, the system suddently becomes oppressive?
  - stale2002 6y ago
    The magic line would be when the majority of privately owned businesses are illegal. Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production". Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal. Collectively funding some services has nothing to do with socialism.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      If that's the magic line, then it's a thousand miles away. I can't find a single country (maybe North Korea?) still in existence, that has outlawed private business. We aren't just talking social democracy, even Cuba and Venesuela allow private business.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > that has outlawed private business. From my original comment: "the majority". The examples you have given, have indeed outlawed many private businesses, in the past. Although, I agree that those countries have become significantly more capitalistic over the years. You also skipped the most famous example of socialism, which was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union absolutely banned almost all forms of private enterprise. But sure, socialism has significantly decreased in relevancy over the last few decades, to the point where basically all old socialist countries are becoming more and more capitalistic. Socialism is dying, all throughout the world.
        mc32 6y ago
        Also _when_ socialistic government allow some controlled capitalism (usually heavily regulated-meaning it applies to small business and not just your sulfur emoting power plants), they do it as a temporary concession on the way to complete abolition of private business. Before Stalin forced the kulaks out of their farms Lenin allowed private farming as a means to an end. Stalin lost patience and forced it.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
mc32 6y ago
Has communism been able to exist outside dictatorships? Or has it been unlucky in that regard and always attracted authoritarianism. I guess the question would be, if given a chance to choose would people living in those regimes keep the economic system and reform government or would they vote for a different kind of system altogether?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Communism has never existed at all, lets start there. Whether the dictators where honestly trying to create communism, or they were using it to fool the populace much the same as monarchs used religion, is debatable.
  - mc32 6y ago
    It appears that from their minutes and other notes and such that Soviet leaders truly believed what they were doing was communism. It wasn’t a case of them pretending and then in secret they’d laugh at the sham they were executing. No, they truly believed they were being marxists.