Zone1 Predatory Capitalism

[TruthNotBS]

TL; DR!

You lack vision.

 

[dblack]

Will they see the futility of their avarice and learn to enjoy menial labor?

All labor won't be "menial" and understand that advanced automation and AI will be eliminating most menial tasks and doing most, if not all of the heavy lifting. In a modern, high-tech socialist society, you have many options as to what type of work you're going to do.

In a country where robots and artificial intelligence do most, if not all of the mining, construction, farming, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, delivery, warehousing, and distributing, 24/7, without resting, will eliminate scarcity and poverty. Everyone will have a very high standard of living, thanks to advanced technology and living in a society that is oriented toward satisfying human needs. Those needs include recreation, entertainment, athletics, art, hobbies..etc.

That doesn't answer my question or address the concern raised. Ambitious people will still exist under socialism, they'll just be in government instead of business. And they'll have even more power as a result.

You can skip all the photos and memes if you like, unless it's just for PR purposes. I don't look at them.

When power isn't distributed by the market, and instead by the party...
Power isn't "distributed by the party", but is rather earned and elected by the electorate.

That's laughably naive. Are you seriously suggesting that every agent of the government will be elected by popular vote? Even if that were feasible, how would it address my concern? Greedy, ambitious people win elections. You may have noticed.

...greedy people will navigate the political power structure rather than work the market.

Unlike in our current system, under socialism, the electorate can "recall" a government official if they're not doing their job correctly. All leadership is elected and accountable to those they serve.

We can do that now. Voters choose not to. That won't change under socialism. Your faith in the wisdom of the majority is wildly misplaced.

Eventually, the bastards who want it most will find their way to the top - pretty much like it ends up in a free market.

There are no markets when technology becomes advanced enough to automate production.

Right. That's what I'm supposing. Eliminating the market won't eliminate greedy people. All you're doing is changing the power struggle from economic competition to political maneuvering.

Except that, in a free market, Bill Gates can't have you thrown in jail if you don't do what he wants.

In a democratic socialist state, no one can throw you in jail either, unless you commit a criminal offense worthy of being incarcerated.

Where did you get that idea? What makes democratic socialism special in that regard?

If he's achieved his wealth and power via government, he can. And will. And, unlike in the free market, the state has doesn't have to worry about competitors (it kills them).

Not when it's a democratic, worker-run state, and all citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. There's no reason why we can't keep our second amendment rights, and our right to assemble.

Yep. We have that "freedom" now. But no one exercises it. I wouldn't want them to. Armed insurrection is horrible and bloody, even if it's justified.

Under a free market, however, no violence is necessary. If you don't like what Bill Gates is up to, you can simply not give him your money. End of story.

Unless, as you would have it, he's running the government instead of a business. In that case your only recourse is political activism. Plead with your neighbors to stop voting for Bill Gates. Maybe they'll listen. If you're persistent, well-funded (hmmm, wait a minute ...) and good at politics maybe, in a few years, you can manage to get him "recalled". Maybe you'll still be alive to see it.

It's literally the only game in town. But, oh yeah, every few years, you get to vote
Socialism will replace it sooner than you might think.

Don't be specious. I'm pointing out the time-consuming futility of "democratic action", not debating how long it will take before socialism replaces freedom. I've already agreed with you that it's where we're headed. I'm showing why it's a mistake.

The point you're steering around is that the ability to change the government via democracy is onerous and unreliable. And it only happens if the majority agrees with you. And won't be "implemented" until the next election cycle.

Changing who you do business with, unlike changing government, is instantaneous and requires no consent or agreement from anyone else. If you don't like Bill Gates and don't want to give him your money, you simply stop. No need to lobby your neighbors, no need for an election or a vote. No need to be in the majority.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That doesn't answer my question or address the concern raised. Ambitious people will still exist under socialism, they'll just be in government instead of business. And they'll have even more power as a result.

You can skip all the photos and memes if you like, unless it's just for PR purposes. I don't look at them.


That's laughably naive. Are you seriously suggesting that every agent of the government will be elected by popular vote? Even if that were feasible, how would it address my concern? Greedy, ambitious people win elections. You may have noticed.


We can do that now. Voters choose not to. That won't change under socialism. Your faith in the wisdom of the majority is wildly misplaced.


Right. That's what I'm supposing. Eliminating the market won't eliminate greedy people. All you're doing is changing the power struggle from economic competition to political maneuvering.


Where did you get that idea? What makes democratic socialism special in that regard?




Yep. We have that "freedom" now. But no one exercises it. I wouldn't want them to. Armed insurrection is horrible and bloody, even if it's justified.

Under a free market, however, no violence is necessary. If you don't like what Bill Gates is up to, you can simply not give him your money. End of story.

Unless, as you would have it, he's running the government instead of a business. In that case your only recourse is political activism. Plead with your neighbors to stop voting for Bill Gates. Maybe they'll listen. If you're persistent, well-funded (hmmm, wait a minute ...) and good at politics maybe, in a few years, you can manage to get him "recalled". Maybe you'll still be alive to see it.


Don't be specious. I'm pointing out the time-consuming futility of "democratic action", not debating how long it will take before socialism replaces freedom. I've already agreed with you that it's where we're headed. I'm showing why it's a mistake.

The point you're steering around is that the ability to change the government via democracy is onerous and unreliable. And it only happens if the majority agrees with you. And won't be "implemented" until the next election cycle.

Changing who you do business with, unlike changing government, is instantaneous and requires no consent or agreement from anyone else. If you don't like Bill Gates and don't want to give him your money, you simply stop. No need to lobby your neighbors, no need for an election or a vote. No need to be in the majority.

That doesn't answer my question or address the concern raised. Ambitious people will still exist under socialism, they'll just be in government instead of business. And they'll have even more power as a result.

You just ignore everything that is said to you, and continue asking the same stupid questions. In a socialist society, leadership is elected by the worker councils and if a government official proves to be incompetent, or commits an act of malfeasance, he or she can be recalled from office and replaced. Workers have a lot more control over their government than we now have under our present system.


You can skip all the photos and memes if you like unless it's just for PR purposes. I don't look at them.

I'm not necessarily responding to your disingenuous inquiry to convince you of anything, but rather for others who are genuinely interested in the truth.

That's laughably naive. Are you seriously suggesting that every agent of the government will be elected by popular vote? Even if that were feasible, how would it address my concern? Greedy, ambitious people win elections. You may have noticed.

No, not every single government official will be elected but the legislators and judges will. Bureaucrats are held to a high, strict standard of integrity and performance, so if they're proven to be incompetent or corrupt, they'll lose their jobs, and if they commit a crime, they'll be charged and if proven guilty, thrown in prison.


We can do that now. Voters choose not to. That won't change under socialism. Your faith in the wisdom of the majority is wildly misplaced.

When advanced automation and artificial intelligence begin to take millions of jobs, people will see socialism as the obvious solution. Adopting a non-profit, publicly owned, democratically run system of production that is centrally planned with the latest technology, in collaboration with worker-managed co-ops will allow everyone to maintain a high-standard of living, eliminating scarcity, among many other social ills.

The majority vote wins the election. If you don't like being in the minority or on the fringe, then get to work. Start propagating your ideas and presenting your arguments, and if people agree with you, you'll eventually become the majority.


Right. That's what I'm supposing. Eliminating the market won't eliminate greedy people. All you're doing is changing the power struggle from economic competition to political maneuvering.

Since advanced automation and artificial intelligence will greatly reduce human labor, even eliminating it altogether, capitalism will collapse and force society by necessity, to adopt a publicly owned system of production. The old aristocracy and elites, just like in the past, will have to adapt to a new system. The populace will be educated about socialism and hence will know why society is socialist and will recognize its important and vital role in facilitating human survival and progress. There's a greater sense of social unity, mission, and purpose in socialism. Human solidarity and brotherhood are taught in school, from the time the child enters preschool.


Where did you get that idea? What makes democratic socialism special in that regard?

With respect to criminal law? People don't go to prison in a socialist society unless they're proven guilty in a court of law.


Yep. We have that "freedom" now. But no one exercises it. I wouldn't want them to. Armed insurrection is horrible and bloody, even if it's justified. Under a free market, however, no violence is necessary. If you don't like what Bill Gates is up to, you can simply not give him your money. End of story.

Modern markets can't be "free", they have to be regulated by a government authority and provided with a medium of exchange. The chaos of the market should be replaced by rational central planning by the state in close collaboration with worker-managed factories and enterprises. The people who work in the factory or productive enterprise should manage it. Both the worker-state and the productive enterprises are under the heel and authority of the worker councils, which all citizens can join.


Unless, as you would have it, he's running the government instead of a business. In that case your only recourse is political activism. Plead with your neighbors to stop voting for Bill Gates. Maybe they'll listen. If you're persistent, well-funded (hmmm, wait a minute ...) and good at politics maybe, in a few years, you can manage to get him "recalled". Maybe you'll still be alive to see it.

In a socialist society, the worker councils elect their government representatives.

Don't be specious. I'm pointing out the time-consuming futility of "democratic action", not debating how long it will take before socialism replaces freedom. I've already agreed with you that it's where we're headed. I'm showing why it's a mistake.

The alternative to socialism when advanced automation and artificial intellience, replace human wage-labor, is techno-feudalism. In high-tech feudalism, the wealthy capitalist elites own all of the robots, artificial intelligence, the factories and every other facility and machinery of mass production, consignig their former employees to serfdom at best, and the compost heap at worst.

The point you're steering around is that the ability to change the government via democracy is onerous and unreliable. And it only happens if the majority agrees with you. And won't be "implemented" until the next election cycle.

There are no election cycles in socialism. The councils elect their government reps as needed and recall those who are no longer needed or who need to be replaced due to incompetence or malfeasance.

Changing who you do business with, unlike changing government, is instantaneous and requires no consent or agreement from anyone else. If you don't like Bill Gates and don't want to give him your money, you simply stop. No need to lobby your neighbors, no need for an election or a vote. No need to be in the majority.

Markets will be rendered obsolete by advanced automation.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't answer my question or address the concern raised. Ambitious people will still exist under socialism, they'll just be in government instead of business. And they'll have even more power as a result.

You just ignore everything that is said to you, and continue asking the same stupid questions.

I'm asking questions that point out what I consider dangerous flaws of socialist, majoritarian thinking. They're worth asking. It's worth discussing. If you hope to persuade me to give socialism a chance, they'll need to be answered.

You can skip all the photos and memes if you like unless it's just for PR purposes. I don't look at them.

I'm not necessarily responding to your disingenuous inquiry to convince you of anything, but rather for others who are genuinely interested in the truth.

So it is propaganda. That's a shame. I thought we were having a discussion.

That's laughably naive. Are you seriously suggesting that every agent of the government will be elected by popular vote? Even if that were feasible, how would it address my concern? Greedy, ambitious people win elections. You may have noticed.

No, not every single government official will be elected but the legislators and judges will. Bureaucrats are held to a high, strict standard of integrity and performance, so if they're proven to be incompetent or corrupt, they'll lose their jobs, and if they commit a crime, they'll be charged and if proven guilty, thrown in prison.

Heh... yeah. Right. Again, as noted, laughably naive.

The majority vote wins the election.

That doesn't mean they get to "rule". And if you think it does, you won't have me on your side.

If you don't like being in the minority or on the fringe

I don't mind being in the minority. I prefer it. That doesn't mean I have to forfeit my rights to the mob. And I won't.

...,then get to work. Start propagating your ideas and presenting your arguments, and if people agree with you, you'll eventually become the majority.

No.

If the government fails to recognize my rights, I'll revoke consent and refuse to cooperate. I'm not going to dick around pleading with the "majority", hoping they'll see things my way.

Right. That's what I'm supposing. Eliminating the market won't eliminate greedy people. All you're doing is changing the power struggle from economic competition to political maneuvering.

Since advanced automation and artificial intelligence will greatly reduce human labor, even eliminating it altogether, capitalism will collapse and force society by necessity, to adopt a publicly owned system of production. The old aristocracy and elites, just like in the past, will have to adapt to a new system. The populace will be educated about socialism and hence will know why society is socialist and will recognize its important and vital role in facilitating human survival and progress. There's a greater sense of social unity, mission, and purpose in socialism. Human solidarity and brotherhood are taught in school, from the time the child enters preschool.

State indoctrination notwithstanding, eliminating the market won't eliminate greedy people. All you're doing is changing the power struggle from economic competition to political maneuvering.

Where did you get that idea? What makes democratic socialism special in that regard?

With respect to criminal law? People don't go to prison in a socialist society unless they're proven guilty in a court of law.

Mkay. All governments make that claim. What makes democratic socialism special in that regard?

Unless, as you would have it, he's running the government instead of a business. In that case your only recourse is political activism. Plead with your neighbors to stop voting for Bill Gates. Maybe they'll listen. If you're persistent, well-funded (hmmm, wait a minute ...) and good at politics maybe, in a few years, you can manage to get him "recalled". Maybe you'll still be alive to see it.

In a socialist society, the worker councils elect their government representatives.

So what? Greedy, ambitious people win elections. You may have noticed.

You have a very unrealistic adoration for democracy. The majority isn't always right. In fact, they're usually wrong.

Don't be specious. I'm pointing out the time-consuming futility of "democratic action", not debating how long it will take before socialism replaces freedom. I've already agreed with you that it's where we're headed. I'm showing why it's a mistake.

The alternative to socialism when advanced automation and artificial intellience, replace human wage-labor, is techno-feudalism. In high-tech feudalism, the wealthy capitalist elites own all of the robots, artificial intelligence, the factories and every other facility and machinery of mass production, consignig their former employees to serfdom at best, and the compost heap at worst.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, or how it addresses my comment. I'm pointing out the time-consuming futility of "democratic action". Freedom is far better.

The point you're steering around is that the ability to change the government via democracy is onerous and unreliable. And it only happens if the majority agrees with you. And won't be "implemented" until the next election cycle.

There are no election cycles in socialism. The councils elect their government reps as needed and recall those who are no longer needed or who need to be replaced due to incompetence or malfeasance.

The point you're steering around is that the ability to change the government via democracy is onerous and unreliable. And it only happens if the majority agrees with you.

Changing who you do business with, unlike changing government, is instantaneous and requires no consent or agreement from anyone else. If you don't like Bill Gates and don't want to give him your money, you simply stop. No need to lobby your neighbors, no need for an election or a vote. No need to be in the majority.

Markets will be rendered obsolete by advanced automation.

That would be a mistake, for the reasons I've been noting. In a free market changing who you do business with is instantaneous and requires no consent or agreement from anyone else. If you don't like Bill Gates and don't want to give him your money, you simply stop. No need to lobby your neighbors, no need for an election or a vote. No need to be in the majority.

 

[Grumblenuts]

In a free market changing who you do business with is instantaneous and requires no consent or agreement from anyone else. If you don't like Bill Gates and don't want to give him your money, you simply stop. No need to lobby your neighbors, no need for an election or a vote. No need to be in the majority.

Sure, if you don't like to eat, drink, or breath, simply stop..

"Freedom" baby. It really is all about you. Bill Gates called to say he agrees.. except it's really all about him.. so he doesn't appreciate you wasting his vital resources..

You two should really get together and have a self-pity party.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Sure, if you don't like to eat, drink, or breath, simply stop..

"Freedom" baby. It really is all about you. Bill Gates called to say he agrees.. except it's really all about him.. so he doesn't appreciate you wasting his vital resources..

You two should really get together and have a self-pity party.

Pitty is for those who leave all of the technology and facilities in the hands of capitalist elites. Private property is the problem (not personal property). Private and personal property are two different things.

 

[dblack]

Pitty is for those who leave all of the technology and facilities in the hands of capitalist elites. Private property is the problem (not personal property). Private and personal property are two different things.

I don't know what hair you're splitting, and I can't care. Government shouldn't be in charge of our economic decisions.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm asking questions that point out what I consider dangerous flaws of socialist, majoritarian thinking. They're worth asking. It's worth discussing. If you hope to persuade me to give socialism a chance, they'll need to be answered.

So it is propaganda. That's a shame. I thought we were having a discussion.

Heh... yeah. Right. Again, as noted, laughably naive.


That doesn't mean they get to "rule". And if you think it does, you won't have me on your side.
I don't mind being in the minority. I prefer it. That doesn't mean I have to forfeit my rights to the mob. And I won't.
No.

If the government fails to recognize my rights, I'll revoke consent and refuse to cooperate. I'm not going to dick around pleading with the "majority", hoping they'll see things my way.


State indoctrination notwithstanding, eliminating the market won't eliminate greedy people. All you're doing is changing the power struggle from economic competition to political maneuvering.


Mkay. All governments make that claim. What makes democratic socialism special in that regard?


So what? Greedy, ambitious people win elections. You may have noticed.

You have a very unrealistic adoration for democracy. The majority isn't always right. In fact, they're usually wrong.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, or how it addresses my comment. I'm pointing out the time-consuming futility of "democratic action". Freedom is far better.The point you're steering around is that the ability to change the government via democracy is onerous and unreliable. And it only happens if the majority agrees with you.

That would be a mistake, for the reasons I've been noting. In a free market changing who you do business with is instantaneous and requires no consent or agreement from anyone else. If you don't like Bill Gates and don't want to give him your money, you simply stop. No need to lobby your neighbors, no need for an election or a vote. No need to be in the majority.

I'm asking questions that point out what I consider dangerous flaws of socialist, majoritarian thinking.

Do you prefer a small group of elitists calling all of the shots? Democracy curtails that and places the power to rule in the hands of the majority. The good thing about that is that most people have the common sense to identify what is good for them and society in general. A lot of what constitutes "good policy" is simply common sense. If we lived in a democracy, everyone would have healthcare as a human right, everyone would have an education, everyone would be fed and housed, and everyone would be employed in the public sector if they can't find a job in the private sector. The list goes on and on when it comes to simple, intuited common sense. Instinctually we know what is good and what isn't. Sometimes, we may need some extra information or to be educated on a particular subject, but in general, people have enough common sense to know what is good for them and what isn't. Allowing the majority to determine the course of law and policy for a community, is much better than allowing the minority to decide.

The majority doesn't have to be 51%, it can be 70%, or even 90%+ on some important issues that affect everyone.


They're worth asking. It's worth discussing. If you hope to persuade me to give socialism a chance, they'll need to be answered.

The question was answered. As technology advances, our economy becomes gradually less oriented towards private profits and ownership of the means of production and becomes increasingly oriented towards a non-profit, publicly owned model, that is rationally, centrally planned, and computed in collaboration with worker-run factories and productive enterprises. That's what automation and artificial intelligence eventually forces us to do by necessity unless you want to live in a techno-feudal society, where only a small group of wealthy elitist own all of the robots and AI, rendering you, your children, and me and everyone I care about, worthless. The rich capitalist class won't need us anymore, replacing us with advanced autonomous machines and artificial intelligence, to extract the minerals from the mines and process the raw materials and transport it to the factories ..etc. They will farm the food and everything, without us. No human labor or employees are needed, hence what will come of you and your children? We must all own this technology together, or no one owns it.

Either we all own it and run the productive enterprise together, or no one owns it. The people will have to take the means of production by force of arms. Social unrest will lead to a bloody revolution, to assert true democracy. A small group of elites will not own all of the mines, factories, stores, robots, artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles..etc. It will be owned by everyone in the community.

So it is propaganda. That's a shame. I thought we were having a discussion.

Your questions have been answered and you begin arguing that a market or market forces (and Bill Gates??????), should govern a nation when I'm telling you that markets eventually become superfluous and absurd when production is fully or mostly automated by advanced technology. You just don't want to reflect on what I'm saying. You need to listen, or we can't have a discussion.

Socialism is the process that leads to the consumer having most of the control over production. So eventually, an individual or a family will be able to produce everything that they consume at home. They won't be allowed to use that technology (the nanobots operating in atomic precision manufacturing machines), to build an atomic bomb and blow up the whole community or space colony. There will be a government and the technology will be regulated, but nonetheless, it will allow individuals to produce everything that they consume, like air, water, food, all of the materials that they might need to build something, all of the components and elements that comprise a product and the product itself. Everything will be able to be produced, by the consumer, hence there is no need for markets. The need for markets will actually be eliminated way before the consumer has the ability to produce everything at home or wherever they might be. 21st-century robotics and artificial intelligence will render markets obsolete before we have the nanobots and APMMs i.e. Atomic Precision Manufacturing Machines.

Think. Capitalism is built upon human wage labor. The foundation of capitalist production is human wage labor. Eliminate the wage labor or reduce it enough and capitalism collapses. We are forced by necessity to adopt socialism, whether we like it or not unless we prefer to hand everything to the present ruling class and go the way of the dodo bird.

Heh... yeah. Right. Again, as noted, laughably naive.

No, you're just stubborn.

That doesn't mean they get to "rule". And if you think it does, you won't have me on your side.

Use the word, "manage" or some other word. Whatever you want to use, it doesn't matter. The majority and not a minority as we have today, will determine what laws and policies are enacted. There are certain powers that a simple majority doesn't have, like changing the Constitution or stripping people of their human rights. That doesn't change. You have a right to file a lawsuit against the government if you believe it has violated your rights and the Constitution.

I don't mind being in the minority. I prefer it. That doesn't mean I have to forfeit my rights to the mob. And I won't.

Of course not, and I never suggested that. American socialism isn't Russian or Chinese. We have our own way of doing things here and our own culture, temperament. What occurred in Russia or China, will not occur here. One of the reasons for that is that we won't have to face the challenge of a capitalist empire trying to destroy us as we tried to destroy Russia. We are the capitalist empire, transitioning, transforming itself into a socialist economy and country. We won't have the pressure of centralizing power or democracy as the Soviets did, because we are the big scary gorilla becoming a socialist. There are no gorillas trying to destroy us, we are the gorilla in the room, converting to socialism.


If the government fails to recognize my rights, I'll revoke consent and refuse to cooperate. I'm not going to dick around pleading with the "majority", hoping they'll see things my way.

Depending upon what you're complaint is, perhaps the majority can make concessions or accommodate you, but if you insist on giving power to a few capitalists or devolving into capitalism, that's not happening without a bloody war. The means of production, all of the facilities, autonomous machines, robots, vehicles..etc, will remain publicly owned and managed by the democratic worker's government. Central planning and logistics are done with supercomputers and onsite sensors that collect data, allowing for the accurate accounting of what is being consumed and how much needs to be produced to meet consumption needs. Until we are advanced enough to place production in the hand of the individual consumer with nanobots and APMMs, we will have to organize production through the central planning office, in collaboration with worker-run mines, processing plants, and factories. The productive enterprise is no longer producing for a profit or to sell goods and services in a marketplace, but simply to meet human consumption needs.

People work 20 hours weekly in whatever field is available (there will be many to choose from), and you get EVERYTHING. For example, you get a right to three gallons of milk weekly. Your wife gets three gallons, and your children, get two gallons each. You get a right to two new pairs of shoes every two weeks. Four pairs monthly. How many people will hoard milk and shoes? There are idiots that will do that, but most people aren't idiots. Crazy hoarders, who fill their house with shoes. The artificial intelligence will eventually identify such people after they've hoarded 250 shoes, and it will bar them from getting two pairs every two weeks. Now they can only get two new pairs every six months. Four pairs yearly, until a psychiatrist can evaluate them, and give them some counseling to stop doing that. Then they can go back to having the right of withdrawing two new pairs every two weeks from the store.

You work 20 hours weekly and you have a house, even a plot of land, with all of the amenities. You have healthcare, education, your own robots, even a boat slip and a fishing boat. It's a high-tech world, where robots are producing everything 24/7, we have so much shit, we don't even know what to do with it. Hey buddy, you want an extra computer or more smartphones? We have a factory full of smartphones, and we don't know what to do with them. Here are two extra smartphones. Want more milk, than three gallons? Volunteer an extra two hours at the hospital and get two extra gallons. You're a certified childcare giver, go volunteer at the children's athletics center. At the children's music school. That's how work will be organized. Want to be an astronaut? Want to join an expedition team to the asteroid belt to find some new spots for the next mining colony? Enlist in space-corps, and join a survey team. It doesn't matter if you're 84, we have the technology to reverse aging and make you 30 again. You're never too old.

This is the world, the America we could create, but people are just ignorant of socialism. High-tech socialism will improve everyone's life, especially in America, the capitalist empire. Like I mentioned earlier, we're the big gorilla in the room, so no one is going to mess with American socialists. We won't be bullied around like the Russian Soviets were, at the hand of THE GORILLA and his friends. We are now the capitalist gorilla, and once we become socialist, it will be much easier for us. Karl Marx predicted incorrectly, that the US and UK would be the first socialist nations. The most modern, industrialized, capitalist nations would become the first socialist nations. He would've never imagined that Russia, which was at the time of Marx, a backwater, under-industrialized, agrarian society, mostly inhabited by illiterate country peasants living under Kulak rule (feudal lords), would become the first socialist experiment at a national scale. The Russian socialists, turned Russia into a superpower, despite of all of the challenges and obstacles.

The Russian socialist experiment was in a state of war for all of its history against THE GORILLA, and his friends. The US and 14 other countries invaded Soviet Russia in 1918. Over 200 thousand foreign troops, from the US, UK, France, Netherlands, Greece, Romania, Japan, and several other countries, were fighting the red army, on behalf of what was called then the "white army", a coalition of Russian anti-socialists, mostly comprised of the minions of the former ruling class. Class warfare can be very bloody.

It took centuries for capitalism to replace feudalism, and the kings and nobility of Europe and it has taken centuries for socialism to eventually defeat and replace capitalism. Socialism is inevitable, to become the successor of capitalism, due to advanced technology. There is no reason to continue with capitalism, we have more than enough advanced technology to produce everything we need and want. We can eradicate hunger, and homelessness, and improve everyone's standard of living. We can live in a society of extreme abundance, with robots and artificial intelligence, working for us, 24/7, producing and delivering all of the goods and services that we consume, on a daily basis. The transition from capitalism to socialism has to be gradual. We can start with worker-owned and operated cooperatives, competing in the market with privately owned businesses. We can slowly nationalize certain heavy industries like energy, mining, the banks.

The process can take twenty or thirty years, maybe even forty or fifty years, but eventually socialism will clearly, obviously be perceived by most Americans, in the not-too-distant future, as the best option and alternative to capitalism. I believe Americans will realize this before 2040. Socialism will be commonly recognized to be the successor of capitalism.



State indoctrination notwithstanding, eliminating the market won't eliminate greedy people. All you're doing is changing the power struggle from economic competition to political maneuvering.

You drank the capitalist Kool-Aid about the "evil state" vs the supposed "good capitalist Inc". You've been indoctrinated by your capitalist masters to hate everything that is related to government or the state. This anti-government sentiment serves them well because it replaces a democratic social apparatus or democratic state with a totalitarian capitalist corporation i.e the vested interests of the rich and powerful vs the public good.

Advanced automation renders markets obsolete, so your insistence on preserving markets is untenable unless as mentioned earlier, you want to live under a techno-feudal state run by capitalist elites.


Mkay. All governments make that claim. What makes democratic socialism special in that regard?

No government is perfect, but it nonetheless, can be made better and more in tune with the public's needs. A government that serves the people, is what we are aiming for, rather than one that serves the rich at the expense of everybody else.


So what? Greedy, ambitious people win elections. You may have noticed.

Especially under our current system and in a culture that celebrates mindless consumerism and extreme, narcissistic individualism, and "looking out for #1" in a dog-eat-dog world. We self-perpetuate that world by cultivating these types of sociopathic ideals and values. In a socialist society, there's an increased sense of human solidarity, community purpose, and mission. We're all striving to create a more humane world. Life isn't all about "numero uno - #1", "Me, Myself & I" in a "dog-eat-dog world". It's not all about meee, and that is good because I live in a community where others feel the same way. I am the object of their concern, as they are of mine. I have an army of people around me that care about me, and I care about them. That's socialism.

The early Christians under the leadership of Jesus and His apostles, were theistic-communists. They were extreme-socialists, they were God-centered communists.

Act 4:32-37 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (33) And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. (34) For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need. (36) And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race, (37) having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Act 2:42-47 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. (43) And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. (44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (45) and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. (46) And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.

You have a very unrealistic adoration for democracy. The majority isn't always right. In fact, they're usually wrong.

If we had an actual democracy in this country, rather than the plutocratic oligarchy that we are currently living under, everyone would be housed, fed, and have a job, healthcare, and education. All utility companies would be owned and run by municipalities or state governments, rather than private companies, because under such public ownership utilities are always cheaper and more reliable. You show people the data, and in general, most people will vote for what is good for everyone. We're human, hence in general, we all have the same needs and when given the opportunity to vote, most people, vote for what is good for everyone. Look at the polls for issues like healthcare and education. So you're wrong in emphasizing the policies of the minority vs the majority.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, or how it addresses my comment. I'm pointing out the time-consuming futility of "democratic action". Freedom is far better.The point you're steering around is that the ability to change the government via democracy is onerous and unreliable. And it only happens if the majority agrees with you.
That would be a mistake, for the reasons I've been noting. In a free market changing who you do business with is instantaneous and requires no consent or agreement from anyone else. If you don't like Bill Gates and don't want to give him your money, you simply stop. No need to lobby your neighbors, no need for an election or a vote. No need to be in the majority.

Your theory of unregulated markets replacing government makes no sense. It's LOCO:

​

 

[TruthNotBS]

I don't know what hair you're splitting, and I can't care. Government shouldn't be in charge of our economic decisions.

Democratic governments aren't in charge of our decisions, rather they reflect, actualize and manage them at a large scale.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Government shouldn't be in charge of our economic decisions.

When WalMart, Home Depot, Amazon, McDonald's, Whole Foods,.. Multinational Corporations.. moved into your neighborhood and put hundreds of mom & pops out of business, apparently all you thought was, Gee, must be the government! Shirley it couldn't be the Jeff Bezos's, the Waltons, the Kochs, the Mercers, the Sacklers, the Bill Gates's, the Trumps, etc. limiting my "economic decisions"! No, not my spoiled, insane, white, mostly male, minority billionaire comPatriots! Never!

The early Christians under the leadership of Jesus and His apostles, were theistic-communists. They were extreme-socialists, they were God-centered communists.

Well supported, excellent point.

A lot of it is common sense. If we lived in a democracy, everyone would have healthcare as a human right, everyone would have an education, everyone would be fed and housed, and everyone would be employed in the public sector if they can't find a job in the private sector. The list goes on and on when it comes to simple, intuited common sense. Instinctually we know what is good and what isn't. Sometimes, we may need some extra information or to be educated on a particular subject, but in general, people have enough common sense to know what is good for them and what isn't. Allowing the majority to determine the course of law and policy for a community, is much better than allowing the minority to decide.

The majority doesn't have to be 51%, it can be 70%, or even 90%+ on some important issues that affect everyone.

Adding poll results with links for each item couldn't hurt. Just a suggestion since you seem to have so much info readily available at your fingertips if not from memory. Show that Americans really do support these ideals. Quote the exact wording of the poll questions.

 

[initforme]

A massive amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few is a plutocracy. And they cannot endure.

 

[TruthNotBS]

When WalMart, Home Depot, Amazon, McDonald's, Whole Foods,.. Multinational Corporations.. moved into your neighborhood and put hundreds of mom & pops out of business, apparently all you thought was, Gee, must be the government! Shirley it couldn't be the Jeff Bezos's, the Waltons, the Kochs, the Mercers, the Sacklers, the Bill Gates's, the Trumps, etc. limiting my "economic decisions"! No, not my spoiled, insane, white, mostly male, minority billionaire comPatriots! Never!

Well supported, excellent point.

Adding poll results with links for each item couldn't hurt. Just a suggestion since you seem to have so much info readily available at your fingertips if not from memory. Show that Americans really do support these ideals. Quote the exact wording of the poll questions.

Healthcare:

Poll: 69 percent of voters support Medicare for All

Support for Medicare for All has remained consistently strong over the past two years, according to a new Hill-HarrisX poll.Sixty-nine percent of registered voters in the April 19-20 survey su…

thehill.com

Majority in U.S. Still Say Gov't Should Ensure Healthcare

A majority of U.S. adults continue to think the federal government should ensure universal healthcare coverage, while they also prefer that the U.S. healthcare system be based on private insurance rather than government-run.

news.gallup.com

------------------------------

Education:

Polling

www.freecollegenow.org

That's with all of the misinformation against these policies, the Republican rhetoric. If there was a concerted effort to educate the public on these issues, the numbers would be even higher in favor of these policies. The capitalist-funded propaganda wouldn't be nearly as effective in convincing working-class conservatives as it is now. I'm a socially conservative Christian, who studied capitalism vs socialism and came to the conclusion that the leftists are correct when it comes to economics. Right-wing, neo-liberal economics is wrong and leads to gross inequality and increases all of the social ills that Christians want to eliminate. The wealthy elites are so good at promoting their agenda, that they have conservative working-class people essentially voting against their own interests, serving the vested interests of their capitalist employers/exploiters.

 

[dblack]

A massive amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few is a plutocracy. And they cannot endure.

Wealth and power concentrated in the heads of the government is called socialism. Why do you think it's an improvement? Because you get to vote? Seriously?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Wealth and power concentrated in the heads of the government is called socialism. Why do you think it's an improvement? Because you get to vote? Seriously?

No, because the wealth is in the hands of the people, who work in the facilities of production and control all of the raw materials and machinery. The head of state and other government functionaries are all elected and accountable to the people or appointed by those who are elected and directly accountable to the electorate. I would rather have the government created by the people and for the people, managing our large-scale socioeconomic affairs and projects than an unregulated market or your buddy and idol, Bill Gates (a Malthusian psychopath).

 

[Grumblenuts]

Word of caution: I put no link behind the word "Amazo*" in my previous post. The house software must allow the evil bastard's bots to create such links on the fly automatically after hitting "Post reply" or something..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wealth and power concentrated in the heads of the government is called socialism.

Since you're so goddamned confident about that, why not go ahead and provide your compelling supportive links and quotes..

No, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Since you're so goddamned confident about that, why not go ahead and provide your compelling supportive links and quotes..

No, I won't be holding my breath.

The evidence showing how unregulated markets and Bill Gates should replace all government lol.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Majority in U.S. Still Say Gov't Should Ensure Healthcare

A majority of U.S. adults continue to think the federal government should ensure universal healthcare coverage, while they also prefer that the U.S. healthcare system be based on private insurance rather than government-run.

news.gallup.com

Cognitive dissonance writ large. One can only presume the pollster's deliberately avoided trying to explain what terms like "universal healthcare", "single payer", and "Medicare for All" actually mean.. since they likely had no idea what they meant either.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Cognitive dissonance writ large. One can only presume the pollster's deliberately avoided trying to explain what terms like "universal healthcare", "single payer", and "Medicare for All" actually mean.. since they likely had no idea what they meant either.

You can look at the polls. Most people affirm that healthcare should be a human right and Medicare should be extended to everyone. Most people also agree with the idea of education being a human right that should be tuition-free in all public schools, from Kindergarten to Ph.D. It's a societal investment. Having a healthy populace that is educated and skilled, is good for everyone. It allows the US to compete with China and Russia.

 

[dblack]

No, I won't be holding my breath.

Please, do.