What is the goal of capitalism?

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's in the wikipedia... not really hard to find.

State-owned enterprises of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks for the link.

Do any of the "banks" accept deposits?
Can I get a checking account or credit card from the Export-Import Bank?

 

[Red Front]

You said we won't use money but we'll use something that sounds just like money.

What's the difference?

Work in communism is not equivalent to money. When we discuss working 20 hours a week, it's more about contributing to society, participating in the community, maintaining human dignity, and perhaps handling tasks that machines can't do or tasks that we, as a society, decide should be done by humans for ethical or aesthetic reasons.

In modern communism, people's "wages" aren't currency, but rather guaranteed access to a high standard of living. These "rights" aren't based on the "market value" of your work, because there aren't any markets or paying consumers. This distinction is crucial, as the rewards of labor in this system aren't distributed based on surplus market value, but on a socially determined standard of living that is guaranteed for all.

So, when we talk about using a chip card that allows access to goods and services, it's not "money" in a traditional sense. It is merely a means to access the benefits guaranteed to you as a member of the society. The essence of this system is not transactional but participatory and inclusive.

In essence, the card isn't a representation of "surplus value" as money is under capitalism. There is value in work, but it's not determined by "the market".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Work in communism is not equivalent to money. When we discuss working 20 hours a week, it's more about contributing to society, participating in the community, maintaining human dignity, and perhaps handling tasks that machines can't do or tasks that we, as a society, decide should be done by humans for ethical or aesthetic reasons.

In modern communism, people's "wages" aren't currency, but rather guaranteed access to a high standard of living. These "rights" aren't based on the "market value" of your work, because there aren't any markets or paying consumers. This distinction is crucial, as the rewards of labor in this system aren't distributed based on surplus market value, but on a socially determined standard of living that is guaranteed for all.

So, when we talk about using a chip card that allows access to goods and services, it's not "money" in a traditional sense. It is merely a means to access the benefits guaranteed to you as a member of the society. The essence of this system is not transactional but participatory and inclusive.

In essence, the card isn't a representation of "surplus value" as money is under capitalism. There is value in work, but it's not determined by "the market".

Work in communism is not equivalent to money.

Sounds like it is.

 

[Red Front]

Work in communism is not equivalent to money.

Sounds like it is.

You ignored every point I made in that post. You obviously don't know what money is under capitalism.

 

[Quentin111]

In Soviet times, in the 1970s-1980s, there was no famine among the population. According to the UN, almost 9 million Russians are now malnourished, hundreds of thousands live on the verge of starvation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You ignored every point I made in that post. You obviously don't know what money is under capitalism.

Does everyone get the same amount of purchasing power for their 20 hours of work?

 

[Red Front]

In Soviet times, in the 1970s-1980s, there was no famine among the population. According to the UN, almost 9 million Russians are now malnourished, hundreds of thousands live on the verge of starvation.

The Soviets only had famines during its wars and close famine when it decided to implement "perestroika". The market reforms, with the "glasnost", and all of that trash. The road to the Soviet Union's demise began after Stalin's death, when the fifth column of "revisionist" and undercover capitalists, began to break down the USSR. The more socialist the USSR was the stronger it was. The closer it was to capitalism, the weaker it became, until it dissolved in the early 90s. I believe in the next 50 years or so, Russia is going to return to socialism. I wouldn't be surprised if the USSR is resurrected.

 

[task0778]

I don't think so. Countries like Yemen, Nigeria , Ethiopia, and Lebanon have a very low government and are very corrupt.
Taiwan also has a low spending and it is ranked as a low-corruption country.
Then we have countries like France, Australia , Sweeden, UK with high spending and low corruption.

Government spending and corruption seem to be inversely correlated which makes it very hard to prove a causal relation.

List of countries by government spending as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The rule of law has something to do with the level of corruption regardless of the size of the country' economy. Which is why some OECD countries don't have much corrupt cuz they can't get away with it. As you say, it's hard to prove causality, but all other things being equal and for the most part, it's difficult to ignore the probability that a larger economy with a greater amount of money in circulation isn't going to experience more corruption. But there are other factors involved. Places like France, Sweden, and the UK are established democratic countries and that makes a difference too.



The existing empirical evidence suggests that in low-income economies, an increase in government spending leads to a reduction of growth. This article aims to explain this empirical fact by considering a growth model that incorporates a two-way relationship between corruption and government spending. That is, government spending gives rise to corruption and rent seeking, which feeds back by distorting the structure and size of government spending. In addition, the cost of corruption depends on the wage rate. Therefore, in low-income economies, increases in government spending tend to generate larger social losses caused by a higher level of rent dissipation and a concomitant rise in corruption and government inefficiency. Consequently, in such economies, an increase in government spending is more likely to result in a decline of economic growth.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coep.12025

The implication IMHO is that rising gov't spending leads to more corruption and rent seeking.




According to the World Bank, the average income in countries with a high level of corruption is about a third of that of countries with a low level of corruption. Also, the infant mortality rate in such countries is about three times higher and the literacy rate is 25% lower. No country has been able to completely eliminate corruption, but studies show that the level of corruption in countries with emerging market economies is much higher than it is in developed countries.


The map below illustrates the varying levels of corruption perception in 2016 in different countries. The darker colors represent higher levels of corruption perception and lighter colors represent lower levels. Based on this map, we see the regions with developed economies—North America, Western Europe, and Australia—have low levels of corruption perception. In contrast, a high perception of corruption is reported in almost all countries with emerging economies.

How Corruption Affects Emerging Economies

Corruption results in inefficiencies in the operations of emerging economies and prevents such economies from reaching the maximum level of development.

www.investopedia.com

IOW, more money generally leads to more corruption, other factors being equal. I didn't bother showing the map cuz it ain't central to the discussion.



Let me ask you and everyone else this: do you believe that if the US Gov't spent a trillion dollars less in a given year that the amount of corruption would not change? I think the amount would decrease.

 

[Red Front]

Does everyone get the same amount of purchasing power for their 20 hours of work?

There's no purchasing, markets, wages, profits, paying consumers, money fetishism, or commodity fetishism. Everyone that chooses to just work 20 hours weekly gets access to the same resources and has the same rights as everyone else that chooses to work just 20 hours weekly, five days a week.

We don't have one, small class of people who exploit the labor of others and have much more resources, than those who do most of the work. Production is for the purpose of meeting human needs, not monetary gain or private capital accumulation. Money in the way that you think about it, is a transactional medium of exchange in a capitalist-run, for-profit market economy. In communism, production is just to meet human needs, and whatever productive or logistical tools are used to produce and deliver goods and services to the consumer, aren't based on market surplus value or profits.

If a person needs more than what they have access to with 20 hours of labor weekly, society can provide that person with different opportunities to increase the amount and type of resources they have access to. Those opportunities aren't focused on profits or determined by a marketplace.

For example, if those three gallons of milk weekly are not enough, because the person is suffering from a"milk fetish", desiring to drink a gallon of milk a day, then they can increase their access to resources by donating more of their time and effort at the hospital. They work 20 hours weekly monitoring the convoys of self-driving eighteen-wheelers, with high-speed drones from their computer at home and they also volunteer an extra few hours a week at the hospital. Now they have access to more resources, including an extra three gallons of dairy weekly.

With advanced automation and artificial intelligence, there's no more need for wages or markets, hence the production of goods and services takes a different character (large-scale production is a social endeavor not a private one). If you insist on equating human labor and communist, non-profit, publicly owned production to capitalist for-profit, privately owned production, and markets, that's fine. You can believe such nonsense if you wish. That's your prerogative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's no purchasing, markets, wages, profits, paying consumers, money fetishism, or commodity fetishism.

Does everyone get the same amount of handouts for their 20 hours of work?

 

[Red Front]

Does everyone get the same amount of handouts for their 20 hours of work?

Your disingenuous inquiries only prove your pearl-clutching stubbornness and flippant dismissal of reality. If anyone is receiving a "free handout" it's the capitalist parasites who rely on the labor of others to generate an income and amass wealth. In a communist society everyone that can work, works, hence no one is a leech. People have the right to access resources, it's not a "handout" in the negative, if not facetious sense that you ascribe to it.

Advanced autonomous, intelligent machines work 24/7, and if that is coordinated with an advanced system of data collection, parsing, and accounting, using powerful computers, there's no need for markets or capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your disingenuous inquiries only prove your pearl-clutching stubbornness and flippant dismissal of reality. If anyone is receiving a "free handout" it's the capitalist parasites who rely on the labor of others to generate an income and amass wealth. In a communist society everyone that can work, works, hence no one is a leech. People have the right to access resources, it's not a "handout" in the negative, if not facetious sense that you ascribe to it.

Advanced autonomous, intelligent machines work 24/7, and if that is coordinated with an advanced system of data collection, parsing, and accounting, using powerful computers, there's no need for markets or capitalism.

Is my question too difficult to answer?

Does everyone get the same amount of stuff for their 20 hours of work?

Does the cardiac surgeon get the same as the guy pushing a broom at the hospital?

 

[Red Front]

Is my question too difficult to answer?

Does everyone get the same amount of stuff for their 20 hours of work?

Does the cardiac surgeon get the same as the guy pushing a broom at the hospital?

Is my question too difficult to answer?

It was answered, despite your unwillingness to recognize that. You also ignore most of the points that I make, firing away at the first thing you read that you disagree with.

Does everyone get the same amount of stuff for their 20 hours of work?

Everyone would have access to the same type and amount of stuff if they work 20 hours weekly, with the exception of certain tasks that are considered hazardous or require extensive training. Such people would get access to special goods and services that may not be available to others. Nonetheless, everyone will still have a good standard of living.

Does the cardiac surgeon get the same as the guy pushing a broom at the hospital?

Answered above, but you should also keep in mind that in the society of the future, people won't become physicians or surgeons to "make a lot of money", or out of fear of being poor or in a state of scarcity. People who are already living well will become doctors, nurses, and engineers. etc, to serve their community, and in return, they get the satisfaction of helping others and enriching their lives with meaning and purpose. Eventually, heart surgeons will be replaced with autonomous robot surgeons and nanobots.

​

None of the above will occur overnight. Since you only focus on the first few words that I write, ignoring everything else, you ask me questions without factoring in even half of what I actually say. There's a process that involves not just advanced technology and its efficient, automated production of goods and services, but a new culture that elevates and emphasizes the value of human life, community, serving others, drawing meaning, purpose, and satisfaction from contributing one's work to society, to a higher cause. Out of necessity, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we're going to have to evolve a new set of priorities and values.

I'm curious, how old are you? Are you in your 70s, 80s? If you're older, maybe you're still stuck in the past. The future demands new approaches to how we organize society and the production of goods and services. This offends you, but it's nonetheless necessary, lest we fall into a form of techno-feudalism. Which is much worse than anything I've proposed.

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was answered, despite your unwillingness to recognize that. You also ignore most of the points that I make, firing away at the first thing you read that you disagree with.



Everyone would have access to the same type and amount of stuff if they work 20 hours weekly, with the exception of certain tasks that are considered hazardous or require extensive training. Such people would get access to special goods and services that may not be available to others. Nonetheless, everyone will still have a good standard of living.



Answered above, but you should also keep in mind that in the society of the future, people won't become physicians or surgeons to "make a lot of money", or out of fear of being poor or in a state of scarcity. People who are already living well will become doctors, nurses, and engineers. etc, to serve their community, and in return, they get the satisfaction of helping others and enriching their lives with meaning and purpose. Eventually, heart surgeons will be replaced with autonomous robot surgeons and nanobots.

​

None of the above will occur overnight. Since you only focus on the first few words that I write, ignoring everything else, you ask me questions without factoring in even half of what I actually say. There's a process that involves not just advanced technology and its efficient, automated production of goods and services, but a new culture that elevates and emphasizes the value of human life, community, serving others, drawing meaning, purpose, and satisfaction from contributing one's work to society, to a higher cause. Out of necessity, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we're going to have to evolve a new set of priorities and values.

I'm curious, how old are you? Are you in your 70s, 80s? If you're older, maybe you're still stuck in the past. The future demands new approaches to how we organize society and the production of goods and services. This offends you, but it's nonetheless necessary, lest we fall into a form of techno-feudalism. Which is much worse than anything I've proposed.

​

Everyone would have access to the same type and amount of stuff if they work 20 hours weekly, with the exception of certain tasks that are considered hazardous or require extensive training. Such people would get access to special goods and services that may not be available to others. Nonetheless, everyone will still have a good standard of living.

What kind of special goods? How much? Who decides?

I'm curious, how old are you? Are you in your 70s, 80s? If you're older, maybe you're still stuck in the past.

The past? When the Soviet Socialist Republics killed tens of millions of their own people?
Are you saying younger people are ignorant of socialism's failures and want to repeat them?

 

[Mexicano]

Communism has the same dream as free market capitalism, i.e., a classless society brought about by an abundance of resources. One believes it can be done through cooperation and the other through competition.

It is different, free markets and its failures have been studied and tested thoroghly for hundreds of years. We know how free markets work , in which conditions they fail ( externalities, monopolic competition, oligopolic competition ,inelastic demand, revolving door, entry barriers...). We know what measures can be used as alternatives. We know free markets are an ideal model hard to replicate in real life but that can be approximated.
Socialism ( collective ownership of the means of production) has also been tested and studied and revised, it is a form of delivering goods and services that exists throughout the world even to a lesser extent in the US through state-owned enterprises like the postal services.
Communism as outlined by Marx ( a classless society) has never existed, it has never been tested or even simulated. It is just a very sketchy idea. I just wish people stopped calling socialist dictatorships "communism". It doesn't even addreess how to cope with full automation something we may see become true in many countries in the next 50 years.

Communism vs. Socialism: What’s the Difference?

Communism and socialism are political and economic systems that are historically related but often confused with each other. Here’s how they compare.

www.investopedia.com

 

[Mexicano]

The rule of law has something to do with the level of corruption regardless of the size of the country' economy. Which is why some OECD countries don't have much corrupt cuz they can't get away with it. As you say, it's hard to prove causality, but all other things being equal and for the most part, it's difficult to ignore the probability that a larger economy with a greater amount of money in circulation isn't going to experience more corruption. But there are other factors involved. Places like France, Sweden, and the UK are established democratic countries and that makes a difference too.



The existing empirical evidence suggests that in low-income economies, an increase in government spending leads to a reduction of growth. This article aims to explain this empirical fact by considering a growth model that incorporates a two-way relationship between corruption and government spending. That is, government spending gives rise to corruption and rent seeking, which feeds back by distorting the structure and size of government spending. In addition, the cost of corruption depends on the wage rate. Therefore, in low-income economies, increases in government spending tend to generate larger social losses caused by a higher level of rent dissipation and a concomitant rise in corruption and government inefficiency. Consequently, in such economies, an increase in government spending is more likely to result in a decline of economic growth.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coep.12025

The implication IMHO is that rising gov't spending leads to more corruption and rent seeking.

Extremely suspicious: The consumption GDP formula states:

GDP = Final consumption + investment + government spending + net exports.
By definition, if you cut government spending you reduce GDP.
The other fact is the article is limited to " low-income economies". It does not state the same applies to mid-income or high-income economies.

I would like to read the full article in order to debunk it (since in principle it shows contradictory data, but it is behind a paywall.

There is a case where government spending does cause stagnation: if government spending is fueled by foreign debt. This means the country is importing more than what it exports hence reducing government spending ( as imported goods don't count as spending) and reducing net exports.

According to the World Bank, the average income in countries with a high level of corruption is about a third of that of countries with a low level of corruption. Also, the infant mortality rate in such countries is about three times higher and the literacy rate is 25% lower. No country has been able to completely eliminate corruption, but studies show that the level of corruption in countries with emerging market economies is much higher than it is in developed countries.

That's the correlation I spoke about between poverty and corruption. I have a pending task: map the correlation between corruption and growth. If corruption decreases with growth then the causal link can be established. Until then I will leave it as a correlation between poverty and corruption.
This just shows the relation between per-capita-gdp and corruption, not between government spending and corruption. So it is preposterous to establish the conclusion that government spending causes corruption.

The map below illustrates the varying levels of corruption perception in 2016 in different countries. The darker colors represent higher levels of corruption perception and lighter colors represent lower levels. Based on this map, we see the regions with developed economies—North America, Western Europe, and Australia—have low levels of corruption perception. In contrast, a high perception of corruption is reported in almost all countries with emerging economies.

How Corruption Affects Emerging Economies

Corruption results in inefficiencies in the operations of emerging economies and prevents such economies from reaching the maximum level of development.

www.investopedia.com

Same problem as above: this is just a link between per-capita gdp and corruption. Most third-world countries have problems collecting taxes, which in turn means governments in poor countries usually have low expenditure.

IOW, more money generally leads to more corruption, other factors being equal. I didn't bother showing the map cuz it ain't central to the discussion.



Let me ask you and everyone else this: do you believe that if the US Gov't spent a trillion dollars less in a given year that the amount of corruption would not change? I think the amount would decrease.

 

[Red Front]

Everyone would have access to the same type and amount of stuff if they work 20 hours weekly, with the exception of certain tasks that are considered hazardous or require extensive training. Such people would get access to special goods and services that may not be available to others. Nonetheless, everyone will still have a good standard of living.

What kind of special goods? How much? Who decides?

I'm curious, how old are you? Are you in your 70s, 80s? If you're older, maybe you're still stuck in the past.

The past? When the Soviet Socialist Republics killed tens of millions of their own people?
Are you saying younger people are ignorant of socialism's failures and want to repeat them?

What kind of special goods? How much? Who decides?

What does "making a lot of money" equate to? Having a high standard of living? That's already present, in a society employing advanced automation and AI. You're approaching the issue under the misconception, that society won't be able to find people who will train to become medical professionals unless they're guaranteed to make "a lot of money". You're missing the point, that in a high-tech communist society, everyone already has a high standard of living, without markets or money.

There are many countries in the world where doctors, including surgeons, don't make that much money. They don't live in luxury and yet they're committed to their professions. Such people don't exist here in America?

The so-called "special goods" that I mentioned, can take the form of public and social recognition, being a member of the vanguard, when it comes to serving the nation and hence being considered a leader in the community. The benefits of membership in a guild, fraternity, or union, of medical professionals that offers its members opportunities to associate and socialize with others of their profession, who are at their intellectual level and education, sharing their passion for good medicine, providing healthcare to the country.

Access to medical conventions, and vacations that are exclusive for medical professionals. Access to working with the latest medical technology, access to "field-missions", where they travel to other countries to serve in disaster relief or some other mission. People dedicate their lives to professions that require an immense amount of sacrifice, without being paid much money. Our men and women in uniform, who serve in our military, get paid peanuts and yet risk their lives serving their country. This notion that you have that without capitalist markets there aren't any medical professionals is absurd.

The past? When the Soviet Socialist Republics killed tens of millions of their own people?
Are you saying younger people are ignorant of socialism's failures and want to repeat them?

Where is the evidence that "tens of millions" of Russians were killed by the red army? How many tens of millions of people did capitalist-run countries kill in their pursuit of controlling resources? Ever heard of colonialism and imperialism?

​

Death toll arguments won't help your critique of communism, because as a capitalist, you're standing on a mountain of dead rotting corpses. You have no moral high ground upon which to levy your charges or point your finger, at anyone.

For the sake of argument, let's assume communists killed tens of millions of people in Russia. Who determined that those people were innocent little lambs? Were they violent? Did they murder socialists? Did they burn down collective farms, sabotage farming equipment, and murder farmers? Did they join the capitalist, monarchist "white armies" and fight the socialists, alongside the American, British, and French invaders? Millions of people might die in a civil war, but that doesn't imply that everyone or even most people who die are innocent victims.

Nothing that you've said so far, justifies society embracing techno-feudalism or allowing the ruling capitalist elites to own all of the robots and factories, while America suffers mass unemployment and socioeconomic collapse. Do you actually believe you're going to remain wealthy like that?

 

[Red Front]

It is different, free markets and its failures have been studied and tested thoroghly for hundreds of years. We know how free markets work , in which conditions they fail ( externalities, monopolic competition, oligopolic competition ,inelastic demand, revolving door, entry barriers...). We know what measures can be used as alternatives. We know free markets are an ideal model hard to replicate in real life but that can be approximated.
Socialism ( collective ownership of the means of production) has also been tested and studied and revised, it is a form of delivering goods and services that exists throughout the world even to a lesser extent in the US through state-owned enterprises like the postal services.
Communism as outlined by Marx ( a classless society) has never existed, it has never been tested or even simulated. It is just a very sketchy idea. I just wish people stopped calling socialist dictatorships "communism". It doesn't even addreess how to cope with full automation something we may see become true in many countries in the next 50 years.

Communism vs. Socialism: What’s the Difference?

Communism and socialism are political and economic systems that are historically related but often confused with each other. Here’s how they compare.

www.investopedia.com

View attachment 809150

Socialism is early communism. It's the process that leads to a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money i.e. communism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does "making a lot of money" equate to? Having a high standard of living? That's already present, in a society employing advanced automation and AI. You're approaching the issue under the misconception, that society won't be able to find people who will train to become medical professionals unless they're guaranteed to make "a lot of money". You're missing the point, that in a high-tech communist society, everyone already has a high standard of living, without markets or money.

There are many countries in the world where doctors, including surgeons, don't make that much money. They don't live in luxury and yet they're committed to their professions. Such people don't exist here in America?

The so-called "special goods" that I mentioned, can take the form of public and social recognition, being a member of the vanguard, when it comes to serving the nation and hence being considered a leader in the community. The benefits of membership in a guild, fraternity, or union, of medical professionals that offers its members opportunities to associate and socialize with others of their profession, who are at their intellectual level and education, sharing their passion for good medicine, providing healthcare to the country.

Access to medical conventions, and vacations that are exclusive for medical professionals. Access to working with the latest medical technology, access to "field-missions", where they travel to other countries to serve in disaster relief or some other mission. People dedicate their lives to professions that require an immense amount of sacrifice, without being paid much money. Our men and women in uniform, who serve in our military, get paid peanuts and yet risk their lives serving their country. This notion that you have that without capitalist markets there aren't any medical professionals is absurd.



Where is the evidence that "tens of millions" of Russians were killed by the red army? How many tens of millions of people did capitalist-run countries kill in their pursuit of controlling resources? Ever heard of colonialism and imperialism?

​

Death toll arguments won't help your critique of communism, because as a capitalist, you're standing on a mountain of dead rotting corpses. You have no moral high ground upon which to levy your charges or point your finger, at anyone.

For the sake of argument, let's assume communists killed tens of millions of people in Russia. Who determined that those people were innocent little lambs? Were they violent? Did they murder socialists? Did they burn down collective farms, sabotage farming equipment, and murder farmers? Did they join the capitalist, monarchist "white armies" and fight the socialists, alongside the American, British, and French invaders? Millions of people might die in a civil war, but that doesn't imply that everyone or even most people who die are innocent victims.

Nothing that you've said so far, justifies society embracing techno-feudalism or allowing the ruling capitalist elites to own all of the robots and factories, while America suffers mass unemployment and socioeconomic collapse. Do you actually believe you're going to remain wealthy like that?

Where is the evidence that "tens of millions" of Russians were killed by the red army?

Where did I say Red Army?

Death toll arguments won't help your critique of communism,

Sure, it will.

For the sake of argument, let's assume communists killed tens of millions of people in Russia. Who determined that those people were innocent little lambs?

Your show trials were very convincing.

Were they violent? Did they murder socialists? Did they burn down collective farms, sabotage farming equipment, and murder farmers?

Did they say mean things about Stalin? Keep an extra potato to keep their child from starving?

Did they join the capitalist, monarchist "white armies" and fight the socialists, alongside the American, British, and French invaders?

In the 30s, 40s and 50s?

 

[Red Front]

Where is the evidence that "tens of millions" of Russians were killed by the red army?

Where did I say Red Army?

Death toll arguments won't help your critique of communism,

Sure, it will.

For the sake of argument, let's assume communists killed tens of millions of people in Russia. Who determined that those people were innocent little lambs?

Your show trials were very convincing.

Were they violent? Did they murder socialists? Did they burn down collective farms, sabotage farming equipment, and murder farmers?

Did they say mean things about Stalin? Keep an extra potato to keep their child from starving?

Did they join the capitalist, monarchist "white armies" and fight the socialists, alongside the American, British, and French invaders?

In the 30s, 40s and 50s?

If you want to resort to these disingenuous, hypocritical death-toll arguments then present your evidence, that the communists killed "tens of millions of innocent Russians". At least do that.

Anyways, none of your scary campfire stories in any way undermines the fact that as advanced automation and artificial intelligence replace wage labor, socialism becomes a necessity. The more automated and intelligent our production, the more socialist it becomes.