8 ms·

we'll need socialism much earlier than when all jobs are gone. the only problem is how to marry this transition with incentives for further technological develo

• diminoten 13y ago
  We'll need less people, or smarter people, not socialism. Socialism, as a whole, leads to Bad Things. Sprinklings of socialism help and are good, but if you subscribe fully to any specific socialist doctrine, history shows your group will be harmed by it.
  • tartle 13y ago
    first of all, it depends what you define as socialism. what seems more important, history shows that there are no Iron Laws Of History Written In Capital Letters. what we see is always an outcome of particular circumstances. like - "trying to establish a particular form of socialism (i would rather say this was communism, not socialism, but let's not open an argument here...) in an isolated, pre-capitalist country, that was recently destroyed by war, and has no democratic culture, produces shitty effects". that doesn't tell much about choices we have today.
  • vacri 13y ago
    Patent nonsense. The 'specific socialist doctrine' of Social Democracy is what the countries with the highest quality of life currently run. If you mean 'communist', then say 'communist'.
    • smsm42 13y ago
      That's like saying Lance Armstrong took performance drugs, so if you want to bike like Armstrong then drugs is the best way to get there. In fact, for most people drugs would much faster get you into the hospital then into the Olympics. Same with socialism - some rich countries can take a lot of it and still maintain health, but less rich countries would just collapse.
      • vacri 13y ago
        Stop trying to shoehorn all of the kinds of socialism into the same bucket - it's a disease of modern American political discourse. Not to mention that there isn't any system which survives your counterargument.
        • smsm42 13y ago
          There's only one kind of socialism - one that is based on forcibly taking the resources from producers and redistributing them by political whim. Everything else is a window dressing. >>> Not to mention that there isn't any system which survives your counterargument. If you can't distinguish good from harm or follow casual links - maybe. Fortunately, many people can.
          • vacri 13y ago
            It is comments like this that make people think libertarianism is simple-minded twaddle.
            • smsm42 13y ago
              I am impressed by the depth of your analysis. Obviously, anybody who says "twaddle" on the internet immediately wins the argument. Congratulations!
              • vacri 13y ago
                You called me a moron, but you did it in 'civil' language. Exactly what kind of deep analysis did you expect?
                • smsm42 13y ago
                  No I didn't. But I must admit I didn't expect any depth of analysis from a socialist - if a socialist were capable of depth of analysis, he'd stop being a socialist. Socialism if a very natural feel-good idea, but it completely disintegrates as soon as one considers how it is actually supposed to work. That's why the only way it can exist is to be a parasite on capitalist systems in some rich country. Given to its own devices, socialism produces North Korea.
    • diminoten 13y ago
      Average quality of life is not the goal of the US, nor should it be the goal of any country interested in creating wonders and advancing the whole of humanity.
  • saraid216 13y ago
    If you define worker processes as workers, virtually all software is creating little socialist empires. This is basically a premise of jamesaguilar's comment.
• ams6110 13y ago
  We've never tried socialism where all the workers are replaced by automation. I suppose it could work, but I'm doubtful. People just aren't meant to live that way.
  • tartle 13y ago
    people aren't "meant to" live in cities, use wheel, spend life in front of computer screens... but we're not hunters-gatherers any more, which suggests that what we are is far more determined by current form of society than innate "human nature". living a TaskRabbit life in the techno-capitalist dystopia is no more "natural" than some hypothetical form of democratic socialism - not to mention far less desirable for the majority.