Socialism Is Inevitable

[Dragon]

A simple thought, set out in numbered points.

1) An industrial economy requires broadly dispersed wealth in order to generate the consumer demand necessary for prosperity. Without that, inventory cannot be sold, and the economy breaks down.

2) The main method used in a capitalist economy to distribute wealth is wages paid for work. Although some wealth is dispersed by other methods, wages for work is the way that the vast majority of wealth distribution takes place.

3) As long as production requires full employment, and as long as wages are kept high through such means as labor unions and worker protection laws, distribution of wealth in a capitalist economy works reasonably well.

4) However, over time a capitalist economy shows a trend of replacing labor with automation. We have seen this happen in both the agricultural and manufacturing sectors. As agriculture was mechanized, displaced farm workers moved into the factories. As manufacturing has been mechanized (and outsourced), displaced factory workers have moved into the service industries.

5) With advanced computer and artificial-information technologies, it becomes increasingly possible to automate service industries, too. Already many sales clerks, grocery clerks, legal assistants, typists, bank tellers, and customer-service telephone agents have been replaced by computerized, automated services.

6) If all three sectors of the economy, farming, manufacturing, and services, become highly automated, we will see a permanent reduction in the number of paid jobs. Those three sectors are all of the economy there is. While there will certainly be some jobs that cannot be automated or aren't worth automating, the number of remaining jobs will be drastically reduced.

7) See point number 3. A capitalist economy's way of distributing wealth, wages for work, depends on full employment. If we no longer have full employment due to automation, a capitalist economy will break down in a permanent depression.

8) The only way to restore prosperity under those circumstances when labor has become far less necessary to create wealth, and so no longer serves to distribute wealth, is to render today's privately-owned publicly-traded corporations into publicly-owned operations, and distribute the profits to the people as an owner's share.

Thus: socialism is inevitable.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

STupid is not inevitable.


Marx and the rest of the loons have been predicting the inevitability of stupid for generations. It is freedom which is advancing over time, not socialism.

Point one is idiotic. 'Demand' is not the driver for progress. Economic needs are. As long as there are problems to be solved, there will demand for new solutions. Economic progress is not made by creating every larger piles of crap. Economic progress is created by ever better solutions to human needs.

point 2 is inane. Wealth is not distributed in a capitalist society. Wages, rent and profits are paid out depending on the needs of the economy.

3 is a non sequitor. It depends on the nonsensical point two.

4 Automation has been going on since the days the first proto human shaped the first piece of obsidian into an axe. Automation replaces muscle with brains. The result of automation is always to move labor into more socially useful areas. And incidentally to make more useful things. Nowadays people have more clothing than they know what to do with. 150 years ago people had two sets. Sunday and the rest of the week.

5 and the labor is sent to more productive areas. Eliminating jobs that are boring, repetitive and in a modern era pointless.

6) does not follow. And for the length of human history has been disproved. Automation makes more jobs available, not less.

7) does not follow. You have goofy premisses, you have insane conclusions.

8) idioti conclusion. Your solution to a non problem is to have machines work and the rest of us buy useless stuff to keep the machines busy.

Socialism was not meant to be the concept that the productive parts of society, in your view machines, supporting the unproductive. Socialism was ment to be the productive parts of society got paid a reasonable return on their labor.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0"]Jeez louise...[/ame]

 

[Samson]

The "socialism is inevitable" crowd is the same group that spends their life getting a PhD in sociology, and then finds their degree useless except for one purpose: Teaching that "Socialism is Inevitable."

 

[Dragon]

It is freedom which is advancing over time, not socialism.

False dichotomy. Freedom is antithetical to autocracy, aristocracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, monarchy, slavery, and other words antithetical to freedom in some sense. Socialism and freedom are not antonyms and the advance of one is not the retreat of the other.

'Demand' is not the driver for progress. Economic needs are. As long as there are problems to be solved, there will demand for new solutions.

As long as there are problems to be solved and money in people's hands to pay for the solutions, there will be demand for those solutions. Demand is not merely the desire to buy. It is the desire plus the ability to buy. Without money, no one represents demand, no matter how great his desires may be.

Wealth is not distributed in a capitalist society.

Of course it is. Your statement here is as nonsensical as "in a capitalist economy, no one breathes."

When you receive a paycheck, wealth is distributed: it goes from the company to you. That's all I'm saying here. And that is necessary in order to keep the economy running.

Automation has been going on since the days the first proto human shaped the first piece of obsidian into an axe. Automation replaces muscle with brains. The result of automation is always to move labor into more socially useful areas.

That's only true as long as there remain "socially more useful areas" for labor to move to. As I said, automating the farms moved workers into the factories; automating the factories has moved labor into services. Automate services, and labor will move -- where? Answer that question in any coherent fashion and I will rethink my hypothesis here.

6) does not follow. And for the length of human history has been disproved.

Impossible, as we have been able to automate services only quite recently.

7) does not follow. You have goofy premisses, you have insane conclusions.

7 most certainly DOES follow from the premises; if we have no more jobs, the economy will break down. You may contest the premises, and you have done so although thus far not very successfully, but that doesn't mean the conclusion doesn't follow from them.

Your solution to a non problem is to have machines work and the rest of us buy useless stuff to keep the machines busy.

Well, if there are no jobs, then it's either that or we all starve.

In a non-automated economy, everyone has two economic functions: to produce and to consume. But if all the production can be done with no workers, or with only a fraction of the work force we have now, then the production function is no longer needed. But the consumption function will always be needed. So the two will have to be disconnected.

Socialism was not meant to be the concept that the productive parts of society, in your view machines, supporting the unproductive. Socialism was ment to be the productive parts of society got paid a reasonable return on their labor.

True. All previous conceptions of socialism have depended on full employment, just as capitalism does. So it could be that I've mislabeled what I'm talking about, but I can't think of another term for it.

 

[Avorysuds]

To deny free markets, capitalism and personal responsibility/freedoms of a people as the best solution to a society trying to be prosperous, creative and an ability to produce the most efficient advanced products is like trying to deny evolution…

In fact free markets and capitalism is nothing more than the theory of evolution placed upon our society/economy.

Socialism is like killing all the wolves and outlawing the killing of deer, or ridding the world of bee’s because they can sting you. There will be an obvious correction no matter how hard you try and fight it. We are currently going through a global correction and no amount of bailouts/stimulus or laws will stop it. The correction might not happen today, or this year… but the correction is coming. The welfare state that plagues all levels of our society, from rich who get bailouts and subsidies to poor who get never ending hand outs will soon become extinct.


In the end it is more about how many have to die because some believe Government was the answer.

 

[Dragon]

To deny free markets, capitalism and personal responsibility/freedoms of a people as the best solution to a society trying to be prosperous, creative and an ability to produce the most efficient advanced products is like trying to deny evolution…

In fact free markets and capitalism is nothing more than the theory of evolution placed upon our society/economy.

Socialism is like killing all the wolves and outlawing the killing of deer, or ridding the world of bee’s because they can sting you. There will be an obvious correction no matter how hard you try and fight it. We are currently going through a global correction and no amount of bailouts/stimulus or laws will stop it. The correction might not happen today, or this year… but the correction is coming. The welfare state that plagues all levels of our society, from rich who get bailouts and subsidies to poor who get never ending hand outs will soon become extinct.


In the end it is more about how many have to die because some believe Government was the answer.

Did you read the OP at all? It looks to me as if you're reacting to the term "socialism" without in any way bothering to understand what I'm saying here.

Go back, read the OP, understand the argument, and try again.

 

[alan1]

Socialism makes fools and thinkers equal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look at all the good Socialism has done for North Korea, Cuba, East Germany and Detroit!

 

[Avorysuds]

To deny free markets, capitalism and personal responsibility/freedoms of a people as the best solution to a society trying to be prosperous, creative and an ability to produce the most efficient advanced products is like trying to deny evolution…

In fact free markets and capitalism is nothing more than the theory of evolution placed upon our society/economy.

Socialism is like killing all the wolves and outlawing the killing of deer, or ridding the world of bee’s because they can sting you. There will be an obvious correction no matter how hard you try and fight it. We are currently going through a global correction and no amount of bailouts/stimulus or laws will stop it. The correction might not happen today, or this year… but the correction is coming. The welfare state that plagues all levels of our society, from rich who get bailouts and subsidies to poor who get never ending hand outs will soon become extinct.


In the end it is more about how many have to die because some believe Government was the answer.

Did you read the OP at all? It looks to me as if you're reacting to the term "socialism" without in any way bothering to understand what I'm saying here.

Go back, read the OP, understand the argument, and try again.

Yes, you gave an idiotic prediction of what you think the world will look like… Everything is automated, no one builds anything machines build, program, repair design themselves.

It was like reading what I’d expect a child to dream up.

You’re argument assumes that all tools destroy jobs… Try plowing a field with your fucking hands, sure you will need hundreds of people to get the job done but fact is you can’t afford it so the jobs never existed.

It’s amazing how you can’t see the possibilities and independence that tools provide. It’s also amazing that you think these tools make themselves.

 

[Toro]

A simple thought, set out in numbered points.

1) An industrial economy requires broadly dispersed wealth in order to generate the consumer demand necessary for prosperity. Without that, inventory cannot be sold, and the economy breaks down.

2) The main method used in a capitalist economy to distribute wealth is wages paid for work. Although some wealth is dispersed by other methods, wages for work is the way that the vast majority of wealth distribution takes place.

3) As long as production requires full employment, and as long as wages are kept high through such means as labor unions and worker protection laws, distribution of wealth in a capitalist economy works reasonably well.

4) However, over time a capitalist economy shows a trend of replacing labor with automation. We have seen this happen in both the agricultural and manufacturing sectors. As agriculture was mechanized, displaced farm workers moved into the factories. As manufacturing has been mechanized (and outsourced), displaced factory workers have moved into the service industries.

5) With advanced computer and artificial-information technologies, it becomes increasingly possible to automate service industries, too. Already many sales clerks, grocery clerks, legal assistants, typists, bank tellers, and customer-service telephone agents have been replaced by computerized, automated services.

6) If all three sectors of the economy, farming, manufacturing, and services, become highly automated, we will see a permanent reduction in the number of paid jobs. Those three sectors are all of the economy there is. While there will certainly be some jobs that cannot be automated or aren't worth automating, the number of remaining jobs will be drastically reduced.

7) See point number 3. A capitalist economy's way of distributing wealth, wages for work, depends on full employment. If we no longer have full employment due to automation, a capitalist economy will break down in a permanent depression.

8) The only way to restore prosperity under those circumstances when labor has become far less necessary to create wealth, and so no longer serves to distribute wealth, is to render today's privately-owned publicly-traded corporations into publicly-owned operations, and distribute the profits to the people as an owner's share.

Thus: socialism is inevitable.

Simply not true. If it were true, it would mean that efficiency and productivity are enemies of growth. If that were true, then the weaving loom and the steam engine would have put the entire population out of work centuries ago.

All economic growth is a function of technological innovation. Technological innovation which improves efficiency eliminates labour but frees up resources which can be reinvested elsewhere in the economy, employing people.

A quarter of all jobs that exist today didn't exist as a job classification in 1970. The economy evolves over time. It always has in the past and will so in the future. In fact, it must evolve. Otherwise we will stop growing.

 

[Dragon]

You’re argument assumes that all tools destroy jobs…

Automation does destroy jobs, but as long as jobs can be created in a not-yet-automated sector of the economy no net number of jobs is lost. But within a particular sector of the economy that is not true.

We have far fewer agricultural jobs than we once did -- there has been a net loss of agricultural jobs.

We have far fewer manufacturing jobs than we once did -- there has been a net loss of manufacturing jobs.

Neither of these produced a net loss of jobs overall because people could move first into the factories and then into the service industries. But if the service industry is also automated, what happens then? Other than agriculture, manufacturing, and services, what fourth sector of the economy exists for displaced service workers to move into?

Explain where new jobs are to come from under those circumstances, and I'll revise my thinking. So far, no one has done that. Don't bother saying "history shows" anything, because this circumstance, the automation of services, is unprecedented; there is no relevant history to show us anything unless we're able to extrapolate logically from what happened.

 

[Avorysuds]

You’re argument assumes that all tools destroy jobs…

Automation does destroy jobs, but as long as jobs can be created in a not-yet-automated sector of the economy no net number of jobs is lost. But within a particular sector of the economy that is not true.

We have far fewer agricultural jobs than we once did -- there has been a net loss of agricultural jobs.

We have far fewer manufacturing jobs than we once did -- there has been a net loss of manufacturing jobs.

Neither of these produced a net loss of jobs overall because people could move first into the factories and then into the service industries. But if the service industry is also automated, what happens then? Other than agriculture, manufacturing, and services, what fourth sector of the economy exists for displaced service workers to move into?

Explain where new jobs are to come from under those circumstances, and I'll revise my thinking. So far, no one has done that. Don't bother saying "history shows" anything, because this circumstance, the automation of services, is unprecedented; there is no relevant history to show us anything unless we're able to extrapolate logically from what happened.

Read what Toro said.... How did we get to this point in history and still have any jobs...?

 

[Mr Natural]

Fewer jobs through automation and offshoring + an ever increasing population + $14 trillion in debt.

Something's got to give.

 

[Avorysuds]

Fewer jobs through automation and offshoring + an ever increasing population + $14 trillion in debt.

Something's got to give.

Yes, we should live in the 1900's with a giant Government....

 

[Dragon]

Simply not true. If it were true, it would mean that efficiency and productivity are enemies of growth.

Incorrect. It means that efficiency and productivity BECOME enemies of growth when pushed to the point that there are no more sectors of the economy that require enough work to make for full employment.

Again: When the agricultural sector was automated, workers moved to the factories. When the factories were automated, they moved to services. As services are automated, they are moved -- where?

The automation of ALL THREE sectors of the economy creates an EMERGENT PROPERTY of permanent unemployment that DOES NOT EXIST as long as ONLY ONE OR TWO of them are automated. This is something new. Arguments along the lines of "If that were true then . . . " hold no water because this has never happened before.

Again: specify where workers will find jobs if all three sectors of the economy are automated and I will revise my thinking. That is the only good refutation to what I'm saying here. No one has offered any such thing so far.

 

[Toro]

You’re argument assumes that all tools destroy jobs…

Automation does destroy jobs, but as long as jobs can be created in a not-yet-automated sector of the economy no net number of jobs is lost. But within a particular sector of the economy that is not true.

We have far fewer agricultural jobs than we once did -- there has been a net loss of agricultural jobs.

We have far fewer manufacturing jobs than we once did -- there has been a net loss of manufacturing jobs.

Neither of these produced a net loss of jobs overall because people could move first into the factories and then into the service industries. But if the service industry is also automated, what happens then? Other than agriculture, manufacturing, and services, what fourth sector of the economy exists for displaced service workers to move into?

Explain where new jobs are to come from under those circumstances, and I'll revise my thinking. So far, no one has done that. Don't bother saying "history shows" anything, because this circumstance, the automation of services, is unprecedented; there is no relevant history to show us anything unless we're able to extrapolate logically from what happened.

The problem with the "where are the jobs going to come from?" question is that the answer is simply unknowable. If you'd asked that question 50 years ago, and you said "The information technology industry, an industry where people are going to order their food off the Internet," people would have looked at you like you were nuts.

I think the answer is better understood looking at the nature of jobs, not in viewing it as an evolution of tasks, i.e. agriculture ---> manufacturing ---> services ---> ???. Instead, understand that the nature of work is creating something at a level of effort, or in econospeak, inputs to outputs. As society has become richer, we are able to produce more with less, i.e. greater outputs for lesser inputs. The evolution of the economy from an agarian to industrial to services is merely a manifestation of humanity harnessing greater outputs from lesser inputs through specialization. As long as this continues in the future - and there is no reason why it shouldn't - then we will continue to grow richer.

As pertaining to the distribution of this wealth creation, that is an interesting question. One when looks at the global economy, one must understand that the world has experienced a seismic shock of unprecedented proportions, matched perhaps only by the opening of America in the 19th century. And that is the inclusion of China into the global economy. China has shifted cost curves down in an incredible way. This has benefited the global economy in aggregate, but the distribution of losses - there are always losers in the economy - has fallen heavily on the uneducated in the rich world as corporations have shifted low productivity activities offshore. This will not last forever, but Western societies must be careful in that while the brunt of the shift has fallen hardest on the lower socioeconomic classes, as China becomes richer and more educated, the pressure will start to be felt by the educated middle and upper classes.

 

[Toro]

BTW, as it pertains to the question "Is socialism inevitable," the answer is probably yes, and has almost certainly been answered, depending on what you define as "socialism." In the rich world, 30%-55% of the economy is government spending. So, one could argue socialism is already here.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Well, that twists the meaning of socialism around a lot. The government provides lots of services, but they are the same services just on a larger scale as they did in Roman times.

Back in Roman days the way they dealt with felony was toss the felon to the lions in the amphitheater. These days we house them in zoos.

In Roman days the government built roads. The government still builds roads, only more of them and fancier ones.

And in Roman times the Army, up until the time Caesar was entirely compulsory and privilege in society was based on your ability fo fund your own military force. Nowadays the military is entirely state funded and has lots cooler toys.

The modern economy allows for a larger government because we can afford one and we find government services to be worth the cost.

Socialism broadly defined is government owning the means of production. This always has been and always will be a recipe for disaster. Quite a few government functions over time have been leased out to the private sector because of greater efficiencies, but more externatlites.

 

[Avorysuds]

Restrained socialism is not the enemy. If we turn our country into what the OP suggests then it’s a horrible and very damaging socialism.

To me the idea is to always do away with socialism as much as possible, allow markets and free people to thrive. The OP argues against themselves in other threads I would assume. I’m willing to bet the OP wants Universal Health Care or Obamacare and would argue technology is the answer to making it more affordable and cheaper… Yet in this very thread the OP makes technology out to be the enemy and a job destroying force… meaning Government would not be investing in progress in terms of Health care due to a possible destruction in jobs…. Making HC advances stagnate and costly.

So what is it? You either admit “machines” provide lower costs for items that are superior as they evolve or you see this very basic evolution backed up by the real reality of the world as a bad thing…

This is why I said the OP’s idea of the future comes off as if a child wrote it. The OP is in conflict with their own ideology and is being very inconsistent.

 

[RoccoR]

Toro, Dragon, et al,

I tend to follow the general belief behind "Toro's" comment. Socialism is inevitable; but, it also may be the case that no single and pure economic model is a correct answer. Not society can be perfect if it involves decisions based on the deliberation by humanity. Because, humanity is not perfect.

A simple thought, set out in numbered points.

INSERT:(Reference Points 1 through 7) and:

8) The only way to restore prosperity under those circumstances when labor has become far less necessary to create wealth, and so no longer serves to distribute wealth, is to render today's privately-owned publicly-traded corporations into publicly-owned operations, and distribute the profits to the people as an owner's share.

Thus: socialism is inevitable.

Simply not true. If it were true, it would mean that efficiency and productivity are enemies of growth. If that were true, then the weaving loom and the steam engine would have put the entire population out of work centuries ago.

All economic growth is a function of technological innovation. Technological innovation which improves efficiency eliminates labour but frees up resources which can be reinvested elsewhere in the economy, employing people.

A quarter of all jobs that exist today didn't exist as a job classification in 1970. The economy evolves over time. It always has in the past and will so in the future. In fact, it must evolve. Otherwise we will stop growing.

(COMMENT)

What the American economy now faces is the culmination of decades in which the goal has been to maximize the wealth of the shareholder - at all cost. It is an individual utilitarian principle. And is has no other faith in humanity except that of greed.

America needs and seek to rejuvenate their nation based on everyones commitment to the national effort (including solving unemployment, education, scientific research and development, health and infrastructure issues). It is more of a Patriotic goal (as opposed to an economic concept) in which Americas citizens are bound together - in common pride - as a coordinated effort with a vision of a strong, prosperous and challenging nation as an outcome. It is a national belief that sets aside derivative conflicts arising from ancestry, culture, religion, social standing, and blood, to achieve this this end. It is mantra of ideas, people, and systems to overcome the social ills, decadence and degeneration of the country. It advocates a government (Congress and the Administration) that cooperatively seeks the mass mobilization of citizenry that creates national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

This is the source of the nations troubles. We, America, do not have the united spirit, and vitality to regenerate a strong and viable nation; that is second to none. If we (as a nation) had this single mindedness and overwhelming will of the people, a patriotic belief in the fundamentals of the nation and it guiding principles, --- AND --- the leadership to organize us, there is nothing that we could not accomplish. We babble a good story, spin a good theme, and speak loftily from the mighty halls of power; but we don't act. Neither do the captains of industry. They will export any job, crush any opponent, break-up any production outlet, and exploit any opportunity, if it will add to the earnings of the top one percent.

Socialism is not in the cards. It is parasitic to the objectives and motivations of the Captains of Industry that seek to earn a profit of those less fortunate. Without a prosperous middle class (which is declining by the day), there will be no real source to support and fund a socialized economy.

Just My Thought,
R