What Is American Socialism, Communism, and Marxism: Open Q&A

[Red Front]

I never said that American principles exclude socialism. The U.S. has been semi-socialist for a very long time. Only posturing idiots believe that we're pure Capitalist.

However, those posturing idiots are trying hard to turn this into a Neo-Monarchy.

As far as Communism...it's been a complete failure everywhere it's been tried. It only survives by a brute force police state. The USSR was a police state for most of it's existence, when it liberalized it collapsed.

Even China couldn't survive as a pure Communist state. They had to rely on mass executions to maintain stability. Finally, they introduced some degree of capitalism & free market as the only way they could continue.

Note: There is no single text that lists American Principles like the Ten Commandments. You'll have to do some reading to figure them out. Sorry, but the founding Fathers were not simpletons and none believed they had all the answers.

As far as Communism...it's been a complete failure everywhere it's been tried. It only survives by a brute force police state. The USSR was a police state for most of it's existence, when it liberalized it collapsed.

Unfortunately, you're allowing your emotions to undermine your reasoning. Communism is the objective of socialism, hence there are socialists like myself, who identify as "communists", as a way of keeping the goal in view and reminding us of what is at the heart of our socialism. The desire for a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. That is the raw definition of communism. If the USSR was a "police state" then it wasn't actually "communist". The term "communist police state" is an oxymoron, a misnomer.

USSR = UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? No. They were socialists, not yet communists. They might have used the term communist or communism in Russian, "kommunizm - коммунизм ", but they weren't actually, politically, economically, communist. They were on the path of socialism to communism. Many Soviet citizens proudly identified themselves as "kommunisty", for the aforementioned reason of simply identifying with the objective of their socialism. Communism.

In addressing the claim that communism has been a "complete failure" and that the USSR was predominantly a police state, it's essential to consider the broader historical and geopolitical context.

1. Historical Context: The portrayal of Soviet Russia in the West, particularly during the Cold War era, has been heavily influenced by capitalist propaganda. While it's undeniable that the USSR had its authoritarian tendencies, it's crucial to understand the reasons behind them.
   
   • Foreign Interventions: Immediately after its inception in 1917, Soviet Russia faced invasions from multiple countries, including the United States, Britain, and France. The newly formed Red Army had to defend the nation against both foreign invaders and internal adversaries like the Tzarist bourgeoisie. This state of constant warfare persisted into the 1920s, delaying the nation's economic development until the late 20s.
2. Centralization of Power: The centralization of power in the USSR was, to a significant extent, a response to these external threats. When a nation is under siege, it often resorts to more authoritarian measures to ensure its survival. This phenomenon isn't unique to socialist states.
   
   • U.S. during WWII: For instance, during World War II, the United States, a beacon of democracy, took measures that could be deemed authoritarian. The internment of Japanese Americans and the imposition of rationing and price controls are a testament to this.
3. Economic Achievements: Despite its tumultuous beginnings, the USSR made remarkable economic strides. By 1970, it had become a nuclear superpower with the world's second-highest GDP. This transformation from an agrarian society with a significantly illiterate population to an industrial juggernaut is noteworthy.
   
   • Stalin's Five-Year Economic Plans: While controversial, Stalin's economic policies played a pivotal role in industrializing the nation. The five-year plans, in particular, significantly improved the standard of living for many Soviet citizens.
4. Comparison with the U.S.: It's also worth noting that the USSR's industrial achievements were realized in a much shorter timeframe compared to the U.S., which had a head start of over a century in terms of industrialization.

The fact that the USSR was eventually dissolved by its own government, doesn't imply that it was a "complete failure", on the contrary, it was a very impressive effort by socialists who overcame insurmountable odds, establishing a socialist society at a national scale, the size of Russia for almost a century. Its eventual defeat doesn't imply socialism is a failure or that it won't provide solutions for us here in the United States to address our socioeconomic problems.

Even China couldn't survive as a pure Communist state. They had to rely on mass executions to maintain stability. Finally, they introduced some degree of capitalism & free market as the only way they could continue.

Firstly, it's important to clarify a common misconception: China was never a 'pure Communist state'. According to Marxist theory, communism is a stateless, classless society without the need for money. So, it's contradictory to label any state as 'communist'. What China and the USSR were striving for was socialism, a step towards the eventual goal of communism.

Now, addressing China's historical trajectory:

1. Famines: China did face famines during the Cultural Revolution, but it's essential to remember that famines were historically frequent in China. By the late 1960s, under socialist leadership, these famines were eradicated, marking a significant achievement.
2. Living Standards: Post the socialist revolution, there was a noticeable upliftment in the living conditions for the majority of Chinese citizens, a stark contrast to the challenges they faced under British colonialism, feudalism, and the dynastic systems.
3. Economic Reforms: China's economic pivot in the late 20th century wasn't an outright embrace of capitalism. It was more of a shift towards a mixed economy, where the state still held significant sway. This approach has been pivotal in China's meteoric economic rise in recent decades.

Now, let's contrast this with Russia post the dissolution of the USSR:

Russia, in the 1990s, underwent what's termed 'shock therapy', a rapid transition to free-market capitalism. This led to the wholesale privatization of its economy. The result? The nation's assets were essentially plundered by oligarchs, buying up resources at a fraction of their value. By the late 1990s, Russia was in economic and social turmoil. It was Putin's intervention, applying socialist principles, that stabilized the nation. Nationalizing key sectors, especially energy, played a pivotal role in this recovery.

Your claim that capitalism 'saved' China can be juxtaposed with the argument that socialism, in many ways, 'saved' Russia post the USSR's dissolution.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that many Western European nations, despite not labeling themselves as such due to geopolitical pressures, have effectively integrated socialist principles into their governance. Countries like Germany, Spain, and Portugal, led by socialist parties, have policies that heavily lean towards social welfare.

As far as your scary campfire stories about Mao the monster who supposedly massacred millions of people. There's plenty of information exposing this Western Cold War rhetoric against Mao and communism in general:

Watch this video for more info:

​

Wars, especially class warfare are bloody. A lot of people die. Civil wars kill millions of people. Britain lost 20% of its population in the English civil wars of the 1600s. Death toll arguments against communism, made by capitalist apologists are disingenuous at best. Capitalism has its own mountain of rotting, stinking corpses. You have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists. You're just as prone to violence, if not more so than we are. Look carefully in the mirror, you don't have a halo glowing over your head, and neither do we.

Death toll arguments don't work, especially when presented by the defenders of capitalism.​

Note: There is no single text that lists American Principles like the Ten Commandments. You'll have to do some reading to figure them out. Sorry, but the founding Fathers were not simpletons and none believed they had all the answers.

“We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.”

– Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn

Sounds like the MAGA idiots got their playbook from the Soviet Politburo!!!

 

[SeaMajor7]

Unfortunately, you're allowing your emotions to undermine your reasoning. Communism is the objective of socialism, hence there are socialists like myself, who identify as "communists", as a way of keeping the goal in view and reminding us of what is at the heart of our socialism. The desire for a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. That is the raw definition of communism. If the USSR was a "police state" then it wasn't actually "communist". The term "communist police state" is an oxymoron, a misnomer.

USSR = UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? No. They were socialists, not yet communists. They might have used the term communist or communism in Russian, "kommunizm - коммунизм ", but they weren't actually, politically, economically, communist. They were on the path of socialism to communism.

In addressing the claim that communism has been a "complete failure" and that the USSR was predominantly a police state, it's essential to consider the broader historical and geopolitical context.

1. Historical Context: The portrayal of Soviet Russia in the West, particularly during the Cold War era, has been heavily influenced by capitalist propaganda. While it's undeniable that the USSR had its authoritarian tendencies, it's crucial to understand the reasons behind them.
   
   • Foreign Interventions: Immediately after its inception in 1917, Soviet Russia faced invasions from multiple countries, including the United States, Britain, and France. The newly formed Red Army had to defend the nation against both foreign invaders and internal adversaries like the Tzarist bourgeoisie. This state of constant warfare persisted into the 1920s, delaying the nation's economic development until the late 20s.
2. Centralization of Power: The centralization of power in the USSR was, to a significant extent, a response to these external threats. When a nation is under siege, it often resorts to more authoritarian measures to ensure its survival. This phenomenon isn't unique to socialist states.
   
   • U.S. during WWII: For instance, during World War II, the United States, a beacon of democracy, took measures that could be deemed authoritarian. The internment of Japanese Americans and the imposition of rationing and price controls are a testament to this.
3. Economic Achievements: Despite its tumultuous beginnings, the USSR made remarkable economic strides. By 1970, it had become a nuclear superpower with the world's second-highest GDP. This transformation from an agrarian society with a significantly illiterate population to an industrial juggernaut is noteworthy.
   
   • Stalin's Five-Year Economic Plans: While controversial, Stalin's economic policies played a pivotal role in industrializing the nation. The five-year plans, in particular, significantly improved the standard of living for many Soviet citizens.
4. Comparison with the U.S.: It's also worth noting that the USSR's industrial achievements were realized in a much shorter timeframe compared to the U.S., which had a head start of over a century in terms of industrialization.

The fact that the USSR was eventually dissolved by its own government, doesn't imply that it was a "complete failure", on the contrary, it was a very impressive effort by socialists who overcame insurmountable odds, establishing a socialist society at a national scale, the size of Russia for almost a century. Its eventual defeat doesn't imply socialism is a failure or that it won't provide solutions for us here in the United States to address our socioeconomic problems.



Firstly, it's important to clarify a common misconception: China was never a 'pure Communist state'. According to Marxist theory, communism is a stateless, classless society without the need for money. So, it's contradictory to label any state as 'communist'. What China and the USSR were striving for was socialism, a step towards the eventual goal of communism.

Now, addressing China's historical trajectory:

1. Famines: China did face famines during the Cultural Revolution, but it's essential to remember that famines were historically frequent in China. By the late 1960s, under socialist leadership, these famines were eradicated, marking a significant achievement.
2. Living Standards: Post the socialist revolution, there was a noticeable upliftment in the living conditions for the majority of Chinese citizens, a stark contrast to the challenges they faced under British colonialism, feudalism, and the dynastic systems.
3. Economic Reforms: China's economic pivot in the late 20th century wasn't an outright embrace of capitalism. It was more of a shift towards a mixed economy, where the state still held significant sway. This approach has been pivotal in China's meteoric economic rise in recent decades.

Now, let's contrast this with Russia post the dissolution of the USSR:

Russia, in the 1990s, underwent what's termed 'shock therapy', a rapid transition to free-market capitalism. This led to the wholesale privatization of its economy. The result? The nation's assets were essentially plundered by oligarchs, buying up resources at a fraction of their value. By the late 1990s, Russia was in economic and social turmoil. It was Putin's intervention, applying socialist principles, that stabilized the nation. Nationalizing key sectors, especially energy, played a pivotal role in this recovery.

Your claim that capitalism 'saved' China can be juxtaposed with the argument that socialism, in many ways, 'saved' Russia post the USSR's dissolution.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that many Western European nations, despite not labeling themselves as such due to geopolitical pressures, have effectively integrated socialist principles into their governance. Countries like Germany, Spain, and Portugal, led by socialist parties, have policies that heavily lean towards social welfare.

As far as your scary campfire stories about Mao the monster who supposedly massacred millions of people. There's plenty of information exposing this Western Cold War rhetoric against Mao and communism in general:

Watch this video for more info:

​

Wars, especially class warfare are bloody. A lot of people die. Civil wars kill millions of people. Britain lost 20% of its population in the English civil wars of the 1600s. Death toll arguments against communism, made by capitalist apologists are disingenuous at best. Capitalism has its own mountain of rotting, stinking corpses. You have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists. You're just as prone to violence, if not more so than we are. Look carefully in the mirror, you don't have a halo glowing over your head, and neither do we.

Death toll arguments don't work, especially when presented by the defenders of capitalism.


View attachment 812856​

Are you a subverted zombie?
Or, are you a subversive troll?

It's one or the other, either way.

 

[Red Front]

Are you a subverted zombie?
Or, are you a subversive troll?

It's one or the other, either way.

I'm just kicking your ass and you don't like it.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I'm just kicking your ass and you don't like it.

Gaslight zombie, you've got nothing.
All you're doing is exposing your demented subversion.
I'll say it again, EVERY retarded communist revolution in the 20th century needed MASS MURDER to come to be!
What's your plan?

 

[Red Front]

Gaslight zombie, you've got nothing.
All you're doing is exposing your demented subversion.
I'll say it again, EVERY retarded communist revolution in the 20th century needed MASS MURDER to come to be!
What's your plan?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Yep.



In communism, the factories are under the management of both the workers and their government. The worker-councils, along with the labor unions, collaborate with the Central Logistics Department or CLD (CLOUD), to manufacture all of the lawnmowers. The whole process from mining the materials that comprise the lawnmower to the processing of those raw materials, to the transporting of those processed materials to the factory, and then the manufacturing of the lawnmower, is completely automated with very little human labor or "sweat" input. The human worker's role in the process of producing goods and services is mostly supervisorial.

When this American communist society is first establishing itself, before the supply chain and logistical infrastructure is fully developed and in place, there will be more human input or even labor-intensive work to be done, but eventually, when all of the intelligent automation systems are in place, the production of goods and services will be incredibly efficient and easy, requiring very little human labor, compared to today.




First question. In the beginning, before technology is advanced enough to maintain itself, people will maintain it. We still have to work 20 hours weekly, so there would be people working with the lawnmowers and other equipment at your local community center. Preferably, you would have this lawnmower robot at home, and you would maintain it.

Second question. These robot lawnmowers are already invented and they're being further developed now. But under communism in the future, people will innovate (teams of scientists and engineers) and so will artificial intelligence. AI has already invented a few things:

Can machines invent things? AI reveals the answer is 'yes'

AI could transform the process of invention and careful thought needs to be given to how the innovation system adapts

www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au

​

The robots will be owned by the people, not by the government. The government authorities are elected or appointed to their positions by elected officials and are all subject and accountable to the people.




You will either have the robot lawnmower or a regular lawnmower at home, allowing you to take care of your own lawn, or you can go to the community center and "check out"/"sign out" a robot lawnmower.

As far as where you would work, for 20 hours weekly, you would receive many options. You can choose what you like best out of those options.



There's still a place for human labor in the area of supporting and supervising automated systems. There are also a few jobs that only a human can do, hence society needs people to work. It's also good for one's mental and physical health, to engage in some type of constructive, creative activity. It also allows people to socialize with one another and develop a sense of community and patriotism. You might meet your spouse at work.



You would have skills if you lived in a communist society. Education and training are tuition-free and considered a right. People are encouraged to learn new skills.



LOL, you're funny man. Either you would have the robot lawnmower or regular lawnmower with you at home, or you would go to the community center store and check one out. How exactly these goods would be stored and distributed would have to be worked out in detail. How automated is the system of storage and distribution? Maybe no one is needed to "man the desk". Maybe it's delivered to the home of the person who requested it online by a self-driven delivery vehicle.




The automated systems/autonomous machines, work 24/7. Production would be extremely high and efficient. The slaves would be intelligent robots. All of that advanced technology would be serving the American public.

So in this fantasy of yours the machines are going to do all of the work, designing newer machines and manufacturing them all to make sure the humans are taken care of.

I hate to point this out but isn’t this the movie script from the Terminator? The machines making themselves and improving themselves until they figure out this lazy ass human isn’t worth having around?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

How is socialism "vile"?

Where is your evidence that Marx himself wanted to disarm the proletariat/working class? Where exactly did he say that?

Just because certain countries identify their economies as Marxist - socialist, doesn't imply that they are perfectly aligned with every single opinion Marx held or agree with every single observation that Marx made about socialism and how to implement it. Marx himself was always for the working class to have access to weapons. He never said anything that contradicted that.

Do capitalists always agree with Adam Smith the father of modern capitalism? In order to be a capitalist, do you need to follow every single concept expressed in Adam Smith's book "The Wealth Of Nations"? Smith didn't like landlords and he identified capitalists as "masters". Do you believe capitalists are the masters of their employees? Smith also identified employees as both workmen and "servants". The people who work are workmen/servants. The people who rent them are masters. Master and Servant. That's vile.

Those who work in the enterprise should own and run it together. You want unelected, unaccountable leadership in one of the most important areas of our lives. The workplace.

All unelected, unaccountable leadership is vile. That's the system that you support and defend. One of employers/exploiters and employees/exploitees. When was the last time you participated in an election in the workplace? Democracy for you is only appropriate in politics not in the workplace, where millions of Americans spend most of their waking hours. No one who defends such a vile system is truly a champion of freedom and liberty. You defend tyranny.

You do realize Marx was a worthless unemployed moron who was kept in a rich guys spare room for entertainment like a personal clown right? Kinda sounds like Bernie doesn’t it?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Unfortunately, you're allowing your emotions to undermine your reasoning. Communism is the objective of socialism, hence there are socialists like myself, who identify as "communists", as a way of keeping the goal in view and reminding us of what is at the heart of our socialism. The desire for a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. That is the raw definition of communism. If the USSR was a "police state" then it wasn't actually "communist". The term "communist police state" is an oxymoron, a misnomer.

USSR = UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? No. They were socialists, not yet communists. They might have used the term communist or communism in Russian, "kommunizm - коммунизм ", but they weren't actually, politically, economically, communist. They were on the path of socialism to communism. Many Soviet citizens proudly identified themselves as "kommunisty", for the aforementioned reason of simply identifying with the objective of their socialism. Communism.

In addressing the claim that communism has been a "complete failure" and that the USSR was predominantly a police state, it's essential to consider the broader historical and geopolitical context.

1. Historical Context: The portrayal of Soviet Russia in the West, particularly during the Cold War era, has been heavily influenced by capitalist propaganda. While it's undeniable that the USSR had its authoritarian tendencies, it's crucial to understand the reasons behind them.
   
   • Foreign Interventions: Immediately after its inception in 1917, Soviet Russia faced invasions from multiple countries, including the United States, Britain, and France. The newly formed Red Army had to defend the nation against both foreign invaders and internal adversaries like the Tzarist bourgeoisie. This state of constant warfare persisted into the 1920s, delaying the nation's economic development until the late 20s.
2. Centralization of Power: The centralization of power in the USSR was, to a significant extent, a response to these external threats. When a nation is under siege, it often resorts to more authoritarian measures to ensure its survival. This phenomenon isn't unique to socialist states.
   
   • U.S. during WWII: For instance, during World War II, the United States, a beacon of democracy, took measures that could be deemed authoritarian. The internment of Japanese Americans and the imposition of rationing and price controls are a testament to this.
3. Economic Achievements: Despite its tumultuous beginnings, the USSR made remarkable economic strides. By 1970, it had become a nuclear superpower with the world's second-highest GDP. This transformation from an agrarian society with a significantly illiterate population to an industrial juggernaut is noteworthy.
   
   • Stalin's Five-Year Economic Plans: While controversial, Stalin's economic policies played a pivotal role in industrializing the nation. The five-year plans, in particular, significantly improved the standard of living for many Soviet citizens.
4. Comparison with the U.S.: It's also worth noting that the USSR's industrial achievements were realized in a much shorter timeframe compared to the U.S., which had a head start of over a century in terms of industrialization.

The fact that the USSR was eventually dissolved by its own government, doesn't imply that it was a "complete failure", on the contrary, it was a very impressive effort by socialists who overcame insurmountable odds, establishing a socialist society at a national scale, the size of Russia for almost a century. Its eventual defeat doesn't imply socialism is a failure or that it won't provide solutions for us here in the United States to address our socioeconomic problems.



Firstly, it's important to clarify a common misconception: China was never a 'pure Communist state'. According to Marxist theory, communism is a stateless, classless society without the need for money. So, it's contradictory to label any state as 'communist'. What China and the USSR were striving for was socialism, a step towards the eventual goal of communism.

Now, addressing China's historical trajectory:

1. Famines: China did face famines during the Cultural Revolution, but it's essential to remember that famines were historically frequent in China. By the late 1960s, under socialist leadership, these famines were eradicated, marking a significant achievement.
2. Living Standards: Post the socialist revolution, there was a noticeable upliftment in the living conditions for the majority of Chinese citizens, a stark contrast to the challenges they faced under British colonialism, feudalism, and the dynastic systems.
3. Economic Reforms: China's economic pivot in the late 20th century wasn't an outright embrace of capitalism. It was more of a shift towards a mixed economy, where the state still held significant sway. This approach has been pivotal in China's meteoric economic rise in recent decades.

Now, let's contrast this with Russia post the dissolution of the USSR:

Russia, in the 1990s, underwent what's termed 'shock therapy', a rapid transition to free-market capitalism. This led to the wholesale privatization of its economy. The result? The nation's assets were essentially plundered by oligarchs, buying up resources at a fraction of their value. By the late 1990s, Russia was in economic and social turmoil. It was Putin's intervention, applying socialist principles, that stabilized the nation. Nationalizing key sectors, especially energy, played a pivotal role in this recovery.

Your claim that capitalism 'saved' China can be juxtaposed with the argument that socialism, in many ways, 'saved' Russia post the USSR's dissolution.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that many Western European nations, despite not labeling themselves as such due to geopolitical pressures, have effectively integrated socialist principles into their governance. Countries like Germany, Spain, and Portugal, led by socialist parties, have policies that heavily lean towards social welfare.

As far as your scary campfire stories about Mao the monster who supposedly massacred millions of people. There's plenty of information exposing this Western Cold War rhetoric against Mao and communism in general:

Watch this video for more info:

​

Wars, especially class warfare are bloody. A lot of people die. Civil wars kill millions of people. Britain lost 20% of its population in the English civil wars of the 1600s. Death toll arguments against communism, made by capitalist apologists are disingenuous at best. Capitalism has its own mountain of rotting, stinking corpses. You have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists. You're just as prone to violence, if not more so than we are. Look carefully in the mirror, you don't have a halo glowing over your head, and neither do we.

Death toll arguments don't work, especially when presented by the defenders of capitalism.


View attachment 812856​

Once socialism killed off about 30 million people the ones still alive were pretty damn happy being poor and starving. Great sales pitch.

 

[Red Front]

So in this fantasy of yours the machines are going to do all of the work, designing newer machines and manufacturing them all to make sure the humans are taken care of.

I hate to point this out but isn’t this the movie script from the Terminator? The machines making themselves and improving themselves until they figure out this lazy ass human isn’t worth having around?

So in this fantasy of yours the machines are going to do all of the work.....

That's your cheap rhetoric and "fantasy", not mine. Your attempt to gaslight me for stating the fact that advanced automation is going to eliminate a significant % of jobs within the next fifteen years, isn't a fantasy but 100% real:

​

You're the one "fantasizing" that it's not going to happen. You have your head in the sand like an ostrich.

designing newer machines and manufacturing them all to make sure the humans are taken care of.

Eventually, intelligent machines will be able to repair themselves and even manufacture themselves as well. But human beings will always be in control, by setting limits to what they can and can't do.

I hate to point this out but isn’t this the movie script from the Terminator? The machines making themselves and improving themselves until they figure out this lazy ass human isn’t worth having around?

We will still work, but as far as the production of goods and services, that will be taken care of mostly through intelligent autonomous machines. Workers will supervise the system, with all of its robots, and will also engage in other activities, like space exploration, the establishment of human colonies, and mining operations in space and under our oceans (colonizing and mining underwater at sea can be even more challenging than colonizing and mining in space). There's work to be done, but it's no longer wage labor, because most of the jobs that exist today will be able to be automated by robots. The robots work 24/7, so the output of production will become much higher. There will be material abundance.

 

[Red Front]

You do realize Marx was a worthless unemployed moron who was kept in a rich guys spare room for entertainment like a personal clown right? Kinda sounds like Bernie doesn’t it?

That's nonsense. He was a scholar and writer, not to speak of the head of several socialist organizations. You are resorting to cheap anti-socialist rhetoric, in your attempt to demonize him.

 

[Red Front]

Once socialism killed off about 30 million people the ones still alive were pretty damn happy being poor and starving. Great sales pitch.

Where is your evidence for that? We do have evidence of the many crimes of capitalist-imperialists in their pursuit of profits:

Madeleine Albright justifies the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as "worth it"

Calculating Capitalism's Death Toll​

You have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists. Capitalist imperialists have killed many more innocent people than communists have. Most of the people communists have killed weren't innocent at all. They took up arms against communists and paid the price. You're just a bunch of sore losers whining about the death of the enemies of socialism, who lost in combat against socialist forces. It's no one's fault that you decided to become a bootlicking tool of the US Military Industrial Complex. You love your slavery, you defend it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That's your cheap rhetoric and "fantasy", not mine. Your attempt to gaslight me for stating the fact that advanced automation is going to eliminate a significant % of jobs within the next fifteen years, isn't a fantasy but 100% real:

​

You're the one "fantasizing" that it's not going to happen. You have your head in the sand like an ostrich.



Eventually, intelligent machines will be able to repair themselves and even manufacture themselves as well. But human beings will always be in control, by setting limits to what they can and can't do.



We will still work, but as far as the production of goods and services, that will be taken care of mostly through intelligent autonomous machines. Workers will supervise the system, with all of its robots, and will also engage in other activities, like space exploration, the establishment of human colonies, and mining operations in space and under our oceans (colonizing and mining underwater at sea can be even more challenging than colonizing and mining in space). There's work to be done, but it's no longer wage labor, because most of the jobs that exist today will be able to be automated by robots. The robots work 24/7, so the output of production will become much higher. There will be material abundance.

If that’s all going to happen then what value do you add? Why would machines farm food when it doesn’t benefit them. They don’t need it. Why would they continue to feed parasites? Much like democrats today I wonder what value you bring for me to keep you on welfare. Why waste the time or energy.

The amazing thing about your fantasy is you’re the least worthy of living it. And probably the first to be eliminated due to the lack of any usefulness.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That's nonsense. He was a scholar and writer, not to speak of the head of several socialist organizations. You are resorting to cheap anti-socialist rhetoric, in your attempt to demonize him.

He was a lazy piece of shit who lived by the generosity of the rich he railed against. He was a joker, a joke to be made fun of by those that knew better. Marx couldn’t even hold down a simple job. Yet somehow you think he could run an entire economy. He was a worthless piece of shit. And a moron who never accomplished anything of value. A leach on humanity in search of more useless people to join his lazy worthless cause.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Where is your evidence for that? We do have evidence of the many crimes of capitalist-imperialists in their pursuit of profits:

Madeleine Albright justifies the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as "worth it"

Calculating Capitalism's Death Toll​

You have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists. Capitalist imperialists have killed many more innocent people than communists have. Most of the people communists have killed weren't innocent at all. They took up arms against communists and paid the price. You're just a bunch of sore losers whining about the death of the enemies of socialism, who lost in combat against socialist forces. It's no one's fault that you decided to become a bootlicking tool of the US Military Industrial Complex. You love your slavery, you defend it.

View attachment 812931​

My evidence is there’s never been a socialist country that doesn’t begin with millions of dead people.

 

[miketx]

Where is your evidence for that? We do have evidence of the many crimes of capitalist-imperialists in their pursuit of profits:

You lying bastards don't accept evidence.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That's your cheap rhetoric and "fantasy", not mine. Your attempt to gaslight me for stating the fact that advanced automation is going to eliminate a significant % of jobs within the next fifteen years, isn't a fantasy but 100% real:

​

You're the one "fantasizing" that it's not going to happen. You have your head in the sand like an ostrich.



Eventually, intelligent machines will be able to repair themselves and even manufacture themselves as well. But human beings will always be in control, by setting limits to what they can and can't do.



We will still work, but as far as the production of goods and services, that will be taken care of mostly through intelligent autonomous machines. Workers will supervise the system, with all of its robots, and will also engage in other activities, like space exploration, the establishment of human colonies, and mining operations in space and under our oceans (colonizing and mining underwater at sea can be even more challenging than colonizing and mining in space). There's work to be done, but it's no longer wage labor, because most of the jobs that exist today will be able to be automated by robots. The robots work 24/7, so the output of production will become much higher. There will be material abundance.

Work doing what? Watching the robots do all the work? And if those robots running everything built a rocket to go to Mars why the hell would they send you there? Nostalgia? Let’s just send a monkey and see what happens. The robots don’t need you there. They don’t need you at all. If they do send you you’re the fucking expendable test subject.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You lying bastards don't accept evidence.

My favorite part of talking to this moron is his fantasy of a tech communist existence to make everyone lazy and happy actually results in no need for us to exist at all.

 

[miketx]

Your attempt to gaslight me for stating the fact that advanced automation is going to eliminate a significant % of jobs within the next fifteen years, isn't a fantasy

Who will fix the automation when it breaks down, imbecile? You? Lmao.

 

[skye]

meh..

 

[Red Front]

If that’s all going to happen then what value do you add? Why would machines farm food when it doesn’t benefit them. They don’t need it. Why would they continue to feed parasites? Much like democrats today I wonder what value you bring for me to keep you on welfare. Why waste the time or energy.

The amazing thing about your fantasy is you’re the least worthy of living it. And probably the first to be eliminated due to the lack of any usefulness.

Your perspective on automation and its implications seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of machines. Let me clarify a few things for you:

1. Nature of Machines: Machines, including the most advanced robots and AI, don't have desires, feelings, or motivations (we determine how sophisticated they are). They are mere tools, designed and controlled by humans, to serve human needs. They don't "benefit" from farming food or any other task; they perform these tasks because we program them to.
2. Value Beyond Wage Labor: Defining one's worth solely based on their economic output or job is a narrow viewpoint. In a world where automation handles most of the heavy lifting, our value isn't diminished; it's just redirected. We can engage in:
   • Artistic Pursuits: Painting, writing, music, and other forms of art.
   • Research & Study: Delving into sciences, humanities, or any field of interest.
   • Exploration: Whether it's the depths of our oceans, the vastness of space, or the intricacies of our own planet.
   • Education & Teaching: Sharing knowledge and skills with others.
   • Community Building: Establishing new communities or colonies in various environments.
   • Social & Recreational Activities: Sports, games, socializing, and more.
   • Last but certainly not least. Spirituality. Missionary work, read your Holy Book, go preach the gospel..etc.
3. Work & Purpose: Even with automation, work doesn't disappear; it evolves. With basic needs easily met, we can focus on activities that enrich our lives and the lives of those around us. The idea that we'd become "lazy" is a misconception. Historically, every technological advancement has led to new opportunities and fields of work, rather than a decline in human activity.
4. Collective Ownership: To ensure that the benefits of automation are equitably distributed, the means of production, including all technology, should be collectively owned by the working class. This prevents a techno-feudalistic society where a few control the many.

Missouri Mike, the future I envision isn't one of idleness but of opportunity. It's a future where our basic needs are met, allowing us to pursue our passions, explore new frontiers, and engage in activities that bring meaning to our lives beyond just survival.