Is socialism an inevitable future?

[FA_Q2]

Oh...I agree. That's why I was outraged at the Citizen's United ruling. That's why I want publicly funded elections. Get corporate, union and special interest dollars out of our elections. I would also like to see the Electoral College done away with. Government is involved too much because when our elected officials have no other choice but to take huge donations from huge corporations, it compromises their integrity. Get all of that "legal" money out of politics, and it will be a heck of a lot easier to watchdog against corruption.

I'm grow weary of people complaining about government, but don't seem to ever want to change the rules that are the basis for the problems within government.

EDIT: Not saying you specifically...just speaking in general

This is repeated enough all over USMB and here in this thread to deserve a thread of its own.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239125-funding-of-federal-elections.html#post5768966

 

[candycorn]

To what exactly?

First realize I'm talking several generations into the future. Basically, a civilization that places no or little value on money and more value on what is contributed to the whole. Basically Star Trek if you want a short answer.

Eventually we will knock our heads together enough to know that we're running out of resources and what little remain on earth have to be rationed or alternate resources need to be developed. Rationing isn't going to work. We don't trust 1/2 of the people in this country--whoever "we" are so screw that. No way we're trusting anyone outside of the borders to take only their fair share.

Development is costly so mankind will have to remove the cost factor. Instead of paying the workers with greenbacks, why not pay them a small stipend and the promise that they will not have to pay for the electricity (or alternate fuel or life-saving drug ) they help develop?

Once those technologies are developed; make them available in return for services to be rendered.

Pipe dream I know but the alternative is to continue down this self-defeating road we are on.

Sorry guess Im not done with this post.

Money is simply the means by which we trade our labor. You can call it dollars or stipends or lollipops, it doesnt change the fact that one must produce goods or services in order to trade for other goods or services. And as long as that is a reality, any system, be it economic or political, must account for human greed.

Quite so, yes.
Obviously the future I speak of may be a post-socialist one. Eventually, mankind will either accept that there is limited resources and seek to develop different ones or fight wars over what is left. Eventually, you run out of logs to put on the fire of conflict--i.e. usually males between 18 and 30.

At some point, an epiphany will take place and we will realize just how stupid we've been.

We will always have greedy SOBs and those who want and take more than their fair share. Safeguards will have to be put in place.

This--what I speak of--comes only after a new mentality is forged.

 

[Wiseacre]

First realize I'm talking several generations into the future. Basically, a civilization that places no or little value on money and more value on what is contributed to the whole. Basically Star Trek if you want a short answer.

Eventually we will knock our heads together enough to know that we're running out of resources and what little remain on earth have to be rationed or alternate resources need to be developed. Rationing isn't going to work. We don't trust 1/2 of the people in this country--whoever "we" are so screw that. No way we're trusting anyone outside of the borders to take only their fair share.

Development is costly so mankind will have to remove the cost factor. Instead of paying the workers with greenbacks, why not pay them a small stipend and the promise that they will not have to pay for the electricity (or alternate fuel or life-saving drug ) they help develop?

Once those technologies are developed; make them available in return for services to be rendered.

Pipe dream I know but the alternative is to continue down this self-defeating road we are on.

Sorry guess Im not done with this post.

Money is simply the means by which we trade our labor. You can call it dollars or stipends or lollipops, it doesnt change the fact that one must produce goods or services in order to trade for other goods or services. And as long as that is a reality, any system, be it economic or political, must account for human greed.

Quite so, yes.
Obviously the future I speak of may be a post-socialist one. Eventually, mankind will either accept that there is limited resources and seek to develop different ones or fight wars over what is left. Eventually, you run out of logs to put on the fire of conflict--i.e. usually males between 18 and 30.

At some point, an epiphany will take place and we will realize just how stupid we've been.

We will always have greedy SOBs and those who want and take more than their fair share. Safeguards will have to be put in place.

This--what I speak of--comes only after a new mentality is forged.

Don't hold your breath. I don't think as a species we're ready to make those kinds of changes until after we've suffered enormous losses of life and property. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Intense]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

Wold employment is based on things lie man hours which is a measurement of the needed work and time that is needed to accomplish the job by a worker. A century or so ago manual labor was the only way to complete task, and workers or slaves were required to do things. We are heading down a road of technology where less and less human workers are required to reach goals due to machines. in some cases machines are much more efficient and able to handle the tass of many workers.

There are still areas and reasons to use humans in manufacturing positions. Despite the advances of machines the human being is still able to perform multiple very different functions that make them versatile enough to be superior to machines in some cases. This is coming to an end in many areas as machines are becoming more and more versatile, and much less expensive.

As we advance our technology in machine versatility including robots and improved computing abilities due to better learning computers and networking we need less and less man hours to accomplish our tasks. This advancement is accelerating, and each year we have more and more people in the world and less work to do.

In my opinion we have already come to a point where the forty hour workweek is already obsolete. humans can accomplish much more than they used to in 40 hours due to our advancements, and we just simply need less manufacturing and farming labor to keep up with the needs of the human race even in this day where we have more things than ever. One of the reasons i see that the US is presently in a unemployment problem is that we simply do not need the labor here in the country to keep up with our needs.

of course, it is cheaper to hire a person from another country at a lower wage than it is to develop some of our technology further.

Even areas like customer service and call center work have seen a decrease in the need for workers. As we look in areas of things like customer service we are using automated machines to answer simple commonly asked questions that eliminate the need for phone operators. The movie rental business is all but wiped out by media streaming, and things like redbox.

The way I see it is as our technology advances we have to admit to needing less human work. This leads me to realize that a more socialist view becomes far more applicable to our society than capitalistic working for a paycheck. Right now capitalism and the old ideas of a full workweek are keeping unemployment up because the few people who get jobs can easily accomplish what is needed leaving the rest of the people out in the cold and fighting for work that just simply no longer exists. Efficiency has made our need for wor hours less, and we need to examine our future as a technological species and recognize that although hard work and doing a good job were great values that made people strong, that hard work simply is not as necessary as it was.

Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for.

What I envision is an eventual move away from the society of monetary rewards for labor expended.

To what exactly?

I think we end up with "The Carrot And The Stick" minus the carrot.

 

[Intense]

Sorry guess Im not done with this post.

Money is simply the means by which we trade our labor. You can call it dollars or stipends or lollipops, it doesnt change the fact that one must produce goods or services in order to trade for other goods or services. And as long as that is a reality, any system, be it economic or political, must account for human greed.

Quite so, yes.
Obviously the future I speak of may be a post-socialist one. Eventually, mankind will either accept that there is limited resources and seek to develop different ones or fight wars over what is left. Eventually, you run out of logs to put on the fire of conflict--i.e. usually males between 18 and 30.

At some point, an epiphany will take place and we will realize just how stupid we've been.

We will always have greedy SOBs and those who want and take more than their fair share. Safeguards will have to be put in place.

This--what I speak of--comes only after a new mentality is forged.

Don't hold your breath. I don't think as a species we're ready to make those kinds of changes until after we've suffered enormous losses of life and property. Hope I'm wrong.

There is nothing new under the Sun, only repetitive cycles, and denial.

 

[candycorn]

Sorry guess Im not done with this post.

Money is simply the means by which we trade our labor. You can call it dollars or stipends or lollipops, it doesnt change the fact that one must produce goods or services in order to trade for other goods or services. And as long as that is a reality, any system, be it economic or political, must account for human greed.

Quite so, yes.
Obviously the future I speak of may be a post-socialist one. Eventually, mankind will either accept that there is limited resources and seek to develop different ones or fight wars over what is left. Eventually, you run out of logs to put on the fire of conflict--i.e. usually males between 18 and 30.

At some point, an epiphany will take place and we will realize just how stupid we've been.

We will always have greedy SOBs and those who want and take more than their fair share. Safeguards will have to be put in place.

This--what I speak of--comes only after a new mentality is forged.

Don't hold your breath. I don't think as a species we're ready to make those kinds of changes until after we've suffered enormous losses of life and property. Hope I'm wrong.

Well, those who doubt global warming will have to see Manhattan disappear before they accept that the polar ice caps were melting. Even then they will claim this is a natural progression; as the elevator of the Empire State Building becomes a water slide.

Yes there will be a touchstone event. Hopefully it will have a body count that belies its importance.

 

[FA_Q2]

To what exactly?

First realize I'm talking several generations into the future. Basically, a civilization that places no or little value on money and more value on what is contributed to the whole. Basically Star Trek if you want a short answer.

Eventually we will knock our heads together enough to know that we're running out of resources and what little remain on earth have to be rationed or alternate resources need to be developed. Rationing isn't going to work. We don't trust 1/2 of the people in this country--whoever "we" are so screw that. No way we're trusting anyone outside of the borders to take only their fair share.

Development is costly so mankind will have to remove the cost factor. Instead of paying the workers with greenbacks, why not pay them a small stipend and the promise that they will not have to pay for the electricity (or alternate fuel or life-saving drug ) they help develop?

Once those technologies are developed; make them available in return for services to be rendered.

Pipe dream I know but the alternative is to continue down this self-defeating road we are on.

Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need.

And it will NEVER work. Human nature wont allow it. Even with Replicator technology.

That was kind of why you needed the replicator and the holodeck in star trek. Communism can work when you have the super majority of goods that was originally envisioned when Marks came up with the idea in the first place. In other words, the only time that communism can work is when no one actually needs to produce and you can have anything you want without expending any effort whatsoever to get it.

Essentially, never

 

[editec]

What we are cvalling "socialism" on this board seems to be ANYTHING any government does.

So, the question is really this:

Given the complexity that this society is headed toward, much thanks to technological advances that are changing the way we do business, and given that those technologies reward FEWER WORKERS, while putting many of workers out of work, WHAT is our solution to this trend?

More cutthroat capitalism clearly is NOT the solution.

I suspect we WILL have a more intrustive police state as our society tries to deal with the fact that fewer and fewer workers can find work.

Because lord knows the capitalists aren't going to sign onto sharing this new wealth, that's for damned sure.

So either way, if we stick to cutthroat capitalism, or if we elect to share this new wealth, we ARE going to have more government.

We'll either have more social workers or more cops and prison guards.

 

[candycorn]

To what exactly?

First realize I'm talking several generations into the future. Basically, a civilization that places no or little value on money and more value on what is contributed to the whole. Basically Star Trek if you want a short answer.

Eventually we will knock our heads together enough to know that we're running out of resources and what little remain on earth have to be rationed or alternate resources need to be developed. Rationing isn't going to work. We don't trust 1/2 of the people in this country--whoever "we" are so screw that. No way we're trusting anyone outside of the borders to take only their fair share.

Development is costly so mankind will have to remove the cost factor. Instead of paying the workers with greenbacks, why not pay them a small stipend and the promise that they will not have to pay for the electricity (or alternate fuel or life-saving drug ) they help develop?

Once those technologies are developed; make them available in return for services to be rendered.

Pipe dream I know but the alternative is to continue down this self-defeating road we are on.

Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need.

And it will NEVER work. Human nature wont allow it. Even with Replicator technology.

In the earth we know; you're right. As I said, it will require a new mentality to be forged. "Give what you can, take what you need." is the best way I've heard it put. Kudos.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need. "


Upon what do you base this opinion? As a life long trekkie, there is no evidence to support the contention that Earth was communistic.

 

[tjvh]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

Wold employment is based on things lie man hours which is a measurement of the needed work and time that is needed to accomplish the job by a worker. A century or so ago manual labor was the only way to complete task, and workers or slaves were required to do things. We are heading down a road of technology where less and less human workers are required to reach goals due to machines. in some cases machines are much more efficient and able to handle the tass of many workers.

There are still areas and reasons to use humans in manufacturing positions. Despite the advances of machines the human being is still able to perform multiple very different functions that make them versatile enough to be superior to machines in some cases. This is coming to an end in many areas as machines are becoming more and more versatile, and much less expensive.

As we advance our technology in machine versatility including robots and improved computing abilities due to better learning computers and networking we need less and less man hours to accomplish our tasks. This advancement is accelerating, and each year we have more and more people in the world and less work to do.

In my opinion we have already come to a point where the forty hour workweek is already obsolete. humans can accomplish much more than they used to in 40 hours due to our advancements, and we just simply need less manufacturing and farming labor to keep up with the needs of the human race even in this day where we have more things than ever. One of the reasons i see that the US is presently in a unemployment problem is that we simply do not need the labor here in the country to keep up with our needs.

of course, it is cheaper to hire a person from another country at a lower wage than it is to develop some of our technology further.

Even areas like customer service and call center work have seen a decrease in the need for workers. As we look in areas of things like customer service we are using automated machines to answer simple commonly asked questions that eliminate the need for phone operators. The movie rental business is all but wiped out by media streaming, and things like redbox.

The way I see it is as our technology advances we have to admit to needing less human work. This leads me to realize that a more socialist view becomes far more applicable to our society than capitalistic working for a paycheck. Right now capitalism and the old ideas of a full workweek are keeping unemployment up because the few people who get jobs can easily accomplish what is needed leaving the rest of the people out in the cold and fighting for work that just simply no longer exists. Efficiency has made our need for wor hours less, and we need to examine our future as a technological species and recognize that although hard work and doing a good job were great values that made people strong, that hard work simply is not as necessary as it was.

Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for.

Sorry comrade...(See highlight above^) I think you are sadly mistaken if you believe Socialism is the answer to your desire to stroll through life with your decidedly poor work ethics.

 

[Twofox]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

Wold employment is based on things lie man hours which is a measurement of the needed work and time that is needed to accomplish the job by a worker. A century or so ago manual labor was the only way to complete task, and workers or slaves were required to do things. We are heading down a road of technology where less and less human workers are required to reach goals due to machines. in some cases machines are much more efficient and able to handle the tass of many workers.

There are still areas and reasons to use humans in manufacturing positions. Despite the advances of machines the human being is still able to perform multiple very different functions that make them versatile enough to be superior to machines in some cases. This is coming to an end in many areas as machines are becoming more and more versatile, and much less expensive.

As we advance our technology in machine versatility including robots and improved computing abilities due to better learning computers and networking we need less and less man hours to accomplish our tasks. This advancement is accelerating, and each year we have more and more people in the world and less work to do.

In my opinion we have already come to a point where the forty hour workweek is already obsolete. humans can accomplish much more than they used to in 40 hours due to our advancements, and we just simply need less manufacturing and farming labor to keep up with the needs of the human race even in this day where we have more things than ever. One of the reasons i see that the US is presently in a unemployment problem is that we simply do not need the labor here in the country to keep up with our needs.

of course, it is cheaper to hire a person from another country at a lower wage than it is to develop some of our technology further.

Even areas like customer service and call center work have seen a decrease in the need for workers. As we look in areas of things like customer service we are using automated machines to answer simple commonly asked questions that eliminate the need for phone operators. The movie rental business is all but wiped out by media streaming, and things like redbox.

The way I see it is as our technology advances we have to admit to needing less human work. This leads me to realize that a more socialist view becomes far more applicable to our society than capitalistic working for a paycheck. Right now capitalism and the old ideas of a full workweek are keeping unemployment up because the few people who get jobs can easily accomplish what is needed leaving the rest of the people out in the cold and fighting for work that just simply no longer exists. Efficiency has made our need for wor hours less, and we need to examine our future as a technological species and recognize that although hard work and doing a good job were great values that made people strong, that hard work simply is not as necessary as it was.

Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for.

Sorry comrade...(See highlight above^) I think you are sadly mistaken if you believe Socialism is the answer to your desire to stroll through life with your decidedly poor work ethics.

"Do you hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability..."

-Agent Smith

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!

 

[Wiseacre]

" Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for. "


These economic models failed because they do not incentivize risk taking entrepenuership, innovation and ingenuity, or diligence and perserverence. And they failed because a large central gov't that controls the economy is woefully not up to the job.

 

[FA_Q2]

" Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need. "


Upon what do you base this opinion? As a life long trekkie, there is no evidence to support the contention that Earth was communistic.

Well, poverty does not exist and in capitalism poverty is inevitable. You might not like that little fact but it is a given. Some must do the work that is not valued and therefore there will be some people that are poor. In communism, there should be no poor because all share the pie equally. Unfortunately, in practice, that means that all are poor but ideally that is not the case.

Well…. This is off topic so I’ll stop there.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need. "


Upon what do you base this opinion? As a life long trekkie, there is no evidence to support the contention that Earth was communistic.

Well, poverty does not exist and in capitalism poverty is inevitable. You might not like that little fact but it is a given. Some must do the work that is not valued and therefore there will be some people that are poor. In communism, there should be no poor because all share the pie equally. Unfortunately, in practice, that means that all are poor but ideally that is not the case.

Well…. This is off topic so I’ll stop there.

I would dispute your claim that in a capitalistic society poverty is inevitable. Good governance is more responsible for whatever poverty exists, and we would have to debate the definition of poverty and poor.

PS: how do you know that poverty did not exist in the Star Trek scenario?

 

[Vidi]

" Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need. "


Upon what do you base this opinion? As a life long trekkie, there is no evidence to support the contention that Earth was communistic.

The entire philosophy of Earths economic structure in Star Trek was based on what the individual can contribute to the collective.

But hey, dont take my word for it.

Check out this site:

Star Wars vs Star Trek Essays: The Economics of Star Trek


Yes, I am a geek.

 

[Twofox]

" Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need. "


Upon what do you base this opinion? As a life long trekkie, there is no evidence to support the contention that Earth was communistic.

The entire philosophy of Earths economic structure in Star Trek was based on what the individual can contribute to the collective.

But hey, dont take my word for it.

Check out this site:

Star Wars vs Star Trek Essays: The Economics of Star Trek

Yes, I am a geek.

Since Star Trek is a work of fiction, i'll leave out (insert scifi novel/trilogy/etc here) if you leave out Star Trek.

While a lofty goal to have, totally eliminating poverty does depend on the individual wanting to make something of themselves. I'm not saying all, but there are always those that choose not to make something of themselves.

 

[Vidi]

" Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need. "


Upon what do you base this opinion? As a life long trekkie, there is no evidence to support the contention that Earth was communistic.

The entire philosophy of Earths economic structure in Star Trek was based on what the individual can contribute to the collective.

But hey, dont take my word for it.

Check out this site:

Star Wars vs Star Trek Essays: The Economics of Star Trek

Yes, I am a geek.

Since Star Trek is a work of fiction, i'll leave out (insert scifi novel/trilogy/etc here) if you leave out Star Trek.

While a lofty goal to have, totally eliminating poverty does depend on the individual wanting to make something of themselves. I'm not saying all, but there are always those that choose not to make something of themselves.

Lol Star Trek was brought in as an ideal by another poster. I'm simply pointing out that ideal is communism.

As far as making something of ourselves, well...in a world of replicators and holodecks ( instant gratification ) I'd be one of the first to turn to sloth and holodeck addiction, of that I am sure. I do not work so hard to "better" myself. I work so hard to provide for my family. Remove that need and I'll be lost in a holo deck for the next ten years.

 

[FA_Q2]

The entire philosophy of Earths economic structure in Star Trek was based on what the individual can contribute to the collective.

But hey, dont take my word for it.

Check out this site:

Star Wars vs Star Trek Essays: The Economics of Star Trek

Yes, I am a geek.

Since Star Trek is a work of fiction, i'll leave out (insert scifi novel/trilogy/etc here) if you leave out Star Trek.

While a lofty goal to have, totally eliminating poverty does depend on the individual wanting to make something of themselves. I'm not saying all, but there are always those that choose not to make something of themselves.

Lol Star Trek was brought in as an ideal by another poster. I'm simply pointing out that ideal is communism.

As far as making something of ourselves, well...in a world of replicators and holodecks ( instant gratification ) I'd be one of the first to turn to sloth and holodeck addiction, of that I am sure. I do not work so hard to "better" myself. I work so hard to provide for my family. Remove that need and I'll be lost in a holo deck for the next ten years.

You can count me in on that scenario. Imagine the possibilities

 

[Darkwind]

Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for.

The rest of your post doesn't really jive with this. If i could sum up your post in two sentences, it would be this:

Sentence 1: Technology is pretty awesome, huh?
Sentence 2: Don't you think we can use it to do some socialism?

Yea, technology is pretty awesome but you're largely wrong. It does eliminate man hours but it only divides labor, doesn't destroy it. Let's use your example of movie rental stores being put out of business by NetFlix (and throw RedBox in there too). Someone needs to run NetFlix and employ a lot of people that handle the legal considerations, technical, business, etc. The bigger NetFlix gets, the more people it'll need to hire to keep up with the workload. Also, the bigger it gets and the more people use it, the more the infrastructure needs to be beefed up to handle it. That filters to the communication industry that needs to employ people to lay more wire, etc. But yea, it'll take a smarter, more specially trained person to work at NetFlix or create communication grids than to stock shelves in alphabetical order with BluRays.

So, what you're searching for but just didn't do a good job of articulating really was to correctly identify that the US economy in particular is becoming much more about information than it is manufacturing. As such, you're going to be hired more for what you know and less for what you can do physically.

However, none of this makes the theory of socialism any more viable. Everyone's worked with that one person who doesn't pull his/her weight as much as they should. Whether it be a work group in a class or at your job, whatever. Socialism only makes it easier for that person to get away with it, borderline encouraging them to do little to nothing, and reap even larger rewards for it. The people around that person go "why am i busting my ass for the same reward as that person?" and they stop busting their ass. Soon after, no one is busting their ass and nothing is getting done but people expect to get "what's owed to them." It simply doesn't work.

I would argue that a more technological society would only help expedite the failure.