What do you think of socialism, robots? With the rise of automation continuously phasing people out, I wonder whether it'll be an inevitability. Otherwise unemployment further and further burdens the country. I'm curious to see how everything plays out from my NEET fortress.
it is quite literally the only sensible way to organize a technological society, but people here will shit on it because they associate it with the left and the left with tumblr because they think in memes
It's shit but it has a few good ideas.
Social democracy is the true way. Socialism is not. Capitalism already proved itself to be better and the best to create wealth while socialism deals better with other issues.
I'm not totally opposed to it. I think healthcare being socialized makes perfect sense assuming you control cost. I'm not totally in favor of free college but I can't deny that it would be a net gain for society as a whole but if you don't control the cost then what's the point. we put too much emphasis on how we pay for stuff and not enough on why it cost so much.
It's a shame they'd associate it with Tumblr. Regular Tumblr folk certainly don't really understand the inner-mechanics. Heck, even Stephen Hawking talked on this, about technology consuming the work force. And about the defining moment being whether corporations will lap it all up while the unemployed further expand and starve, or some sense of redistribution will come to term.
Socialism is democracy. I live within one of these, 'social democracy'-esque countries, and the fat still sit on the top crushing the lower. I'm on unemployment benefits and jobs are becoming short in supply. Articles appearing wondering whether my generation will be the ones to live in the cracks of the past generations. Only 50% are expected to own a singular home in their lifetime, because of the inflationary costs of property bubbles.
>it is quite literally the only sensible way to organize a technological society
>letting a bureaucracy govern technology instead of the people
Also, say goodbye to all those homegrown technological innovations when no investors or rich people live here anymore. Technology is progressed only with copious amounts of money.
If you mean the government meant to "represent" the workers. All forms of political ideologies have someone at the top pulling the strings. Only in a democratic/libertarian society do the most people hold power.
>"left wing" "progressives" call me literally hitler
>right wingers call me literally bernie
Who /maoistthirdworldist/ here?
I also live in a supposed "social democratic" country and we have the same problem. The good social democratic ideas will never work if there's rampant corruption because they will never deliver anything that has been promised. Austerity was one of big problems where i lived and that's no economic policy that's supposed to come from someone that calls himself a social democrat.
>Technology is progressed only with copious amounts of money.
Provided by the state 9 times out of 10.
>Technology is progressed only with copious amounts of money.
Incorrect. Commercialization of technology is incentivized by copious amounts of money. Plenty of technological breakthroughs have been the work of passion. Professors relentlessly work on information systems and theorems to improve and refine. You've been tricked, friend. You've forgotten passion exists in this world.
You obviously don't understand how socialism IS democracy. Jesus Christ.
>If you mean the government meant to "represent" the workers.
leninism and the ideologies derived from it are only one strand of socialism, and arguably do not fit the criteria because the means of production are held by the state and the state is not democratically elected. this is a view promoted by many socialists prior to and after the bolshevik seizure of power.
>Government takes my private property under the threat of incarceration and ultimately death
Of course, because the government will overall have the most money to throw around, the idea is that companies in a free market will compete more when it benefits others and not just the state. This also allows different groups to go after their own projects not just what the state desires.
What form of socialism doesnt involve coercion?
What I don't understand is why all modern socialism has to be "more immigration/open borders!," "racial equality!," "gender equality!" and "save the world!"
How about something like, I don't know Social Capitalism? Take the best of both worlds. Why are people so autistic when it comes to politics, it's like "IT MUST BE COMPLETELY BLACK AND WHITE OR I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT WAHHHH!"
It is completely possible to have some socialist policies while not being as radically socialist as Sweden or France. And here's a real shocker, it is 100% possible to have some socialist policies while still preserving the first and second amendments AND not allowing any third world immigration.
Maybe it's because our media is so controlled, but it seems like everyone with socialist tendencies is a fucking "SAVE THE REFUGEES! WHITES ARE GONNA BE THE MINORITY YAYYYYY!" piece of shit, and nearly everyone with nationalist tendencies is a "HARD WORK MAKES A MAN, SENTENCE ALL THE DAMN DRUGGIES TO HARD LABOR, END WELFARE, NO FREELOADERS!" moron.
Oh, and if you wanna really piss off these SJW nu-male faggots and call them out on their shit, tell them that you think we should give refugee status to White South Africans and tell Syrians to go fuck themselves, because the whites in SA are literally victims of genocide. Watch the SJW get a dumb look on his face and cry "muh racism!"
>Sweden or France
oh how I'm laughing
If socialism is so great, why is it that westerners that support it are almost always those of low intellect and those who have a lack of understanding on how economies work.
except this is a wholly hypothetical, ahistorical notion. you're right that this is an "idea", and that's all it is. history demonstrates that businesses seek to maximize short term profit and investing in emerging technologies is something they have rarely done. large corporations - the ones with the most funds to throw around - are obligated to maximize profits for shareholders. this is why they chart such a safe course. the only sector which is inclined to engage in risky behavior is the financial sector, and that's only because they know the capitalist state will bail them out when they fuck up. history shows that leaps in technological advancement come from the state, usually in a period of war when it is necessary to defeat competing powers. that is why the cold war produced such leaps in technology.
no society is free of coercion.
socialist authoritarianism is the only reasonable system
capitalists see how easy it is to control your thoughts and so they dump millions into propaganda campaigns and social movements to keep you subservient
At least with a totalitarian state, they'll have your best interests in mind instead of theirs.
We don't like slaving, not like how normalfags do nor do we want the responsibility that comes with the power of the jewish overlords.
says it best, when actual mechanical robots do the work is the time for the NEETs to rise to the top.
>those of low intellect and those who have a lack of understanding on how economies work
I don't give a damn about this thread, but you know you could've compressed this to just three words, 'economy-misunderstanding retards'?
>thinks the bourgeoisie isn't coercion
Don't fear your Walmart overlords, pal. Because they collectively own more finances and assets than the bottom 50% of the US citizens combined.
Since your country is full of ignorant idiots, when they discovered Sanders and heard his policies and the word "socialism" they start to associate socialism to him and convince themselves that the social ownership of the means of production is a good thing while they have no fucking idea what they're talking about and have no idea that Sanders is a social democrat that denied many times that he wants that.
coercion as in violating the rights of another person. Im not advocating an utopia without crime but a society that is built on freedom of property and freedom contract.
Socialism is the ideology of the weak, stupid, and lazy. They'd rather steal and leech off of hard workers than better themselves. Socialist make my blood boil literally anyone can make upwards of 60k a year if they even remotely apply themselves.
I think people of low intellect would let their opinions be swayed by a carefully-assembled propaganda piece.
that's a redefinition of "coercion"
there has never been a society which does not use violence
>They'd rather steal and leech off of hard workers
you've just defined capitalists
>left full of cucks
>right full of retards
>tfw no third way
Inequality itself isnt good or bad. Its important to look at how a specific inequality was created/achieved.
There is inequality created by coercion like government bailouts of big banks, they received trillions and mainstreet got nothing. The obvious solution is no bailouts or not keeping interest rates artificialy low. Subsidies or taffis are other examples.
Inequality by voluntary exchange also exists. If someone invents a great product or service he will become much richer than the average guy because many people will voluntarily buy the invention. Whats wrong with that?
What power does walmart have over me without the power of the state?
didn't you hear? everybody is lazy except billionaires, who personally produce goods at a thousand times the rate of every assembly line in the country.
Has to become viable soon, as more and more employment opportunities are minimising immensely.
>anyone can make upwards of 60k a year
Either you're from an older generation with decent job security or you're still in education, tbqh.
>no third way
you're correct, there isn't
national socialist and fascist economics in practice resembled reaganomics
Oh yeah because that burger flipper works waaay harder than the executive that has to keep a major corporation afloat.
Implying 40% of people are massive retards it's not my responsibility nor my problem that they can't or won't better themselves
>history demonstrates that businesses seek to maximize short term profit and investing in emerging technologies is something they have rarely done
That really depends on the business. Many technology companies are making great strides in technology, computer companies and many aerospace companies are a great example. We've seen leaps and bounds in the technology sector in the last 30 years even though there have only been a few conflicts here and there. These gains benefit the consumer and the common person just as much as the businesses and the state itself.
>capitalist state will bail them out when they fuck up
Not in a truly free market. The market doesn't bail them out the government does.
Can a libertarian please explain to me how their ideal world would be functionally different to what we already had under feudalism for most of history?
>The person working 80 hour weeks in three different 110 degree kitchens does less work than the guy who sits in his office getting sucked off by his secretary, then plays golf on Fridays.
Socialism only works when limited to few fields, namely education, medicine, infrastructure and security. The state should keep out of everything else. It works like a medicine to capitalism, which would be sick when left on its own. But too much of a good medicine can kill the host, just look at Europe.
And one could argue academics are at their lowest point ever thanks to these professors.
>OH NO A SMALL GRAMMAR MISTAKE MADE ON A LAOTIAN CAT FISHING BOARD, NOW MY ARGUMENT IS INVALID
It just makes sense that someone with more responsibility over more of what is making the GDP should have more money to themselves. The cook supplies food and services to hundreds in a day, while the executive provides food and services to millions every day.
companies making those strides are using technology which was initially developed in the state sector. they are developing that technology only because it is profitable to do so. without the initial investment by the state, those technologies they're building on would not have emerged. emerging technologies which show no signs of being profitable do not draw investment, regardless of how beneficial they might become to society as a whole. "only a few conflicts here and there"? the united states has been in unceasing war since WWII, and many technological advancements in that period owe their existence to military investment. in fact, you'll find many scientists seeking funding for their research are forced to produce evidence that it has a military application. they don't turn to the market instead, because then they would have produce evidence that it can be made into a profitable commodity, which is even less likely. yes, in a market without any state intervention the financial sector's risky behavior wouldn't result in them getting bailed out. but that is exactly my point - the financial sector takes risks because the state permits them to do so. businesses without this backing do not take the same risks.
>anyone can do something
>except most people don't
>ITS THEIR FAULT FUCK THOSE RETARDS I DON'T CARE.
For calling people retards you don't have much of an understanding of survivorship bias.
I partially agree with you but you have no idea what happened in Europe. Does fiscal austerity, deregulation, extensive privatization and massive reduction in government spending sound socialist to you?
because this time they'd be on top of the food chain
Under medieval European feudalism most people were serfs that were made to work for their feudal lord at sword point.
In the types of societies that libertarians typically advocate people would be free to do (mostly) what they want.
Basically, there are no similarities whatsoever and I don't really get where this post is coming from.
dont agree with socialism as it gives people the argument to be NEET for years and years without having to lift a single finger and just live off the income that they get from child benefits.
in britain nationalisation of the railways is a must and common sense and the NHS has been free since the 40's, but we are letting in so many immigrants that the NHS is going to shit and will probably be privatised. Quite inevitable.
Distribution of wealth is unfair as it is done 9 times out of 10 unwillingly and foreign aid is bull. Foreign aid from britain goes to places like India who have a space program and we dont. Ridiculous
An honest libertarian, (at least those in America), would still want to follow the rules of the US Constitution, which was written to give the majority of the power to the individual citizen and only allow the centralized government certain powers over how the States themselves can interact with one another and how foriegn entities can interact with the United Sates as a whole. Government works best for the people when it is localized and the people have a stronger role in how their local government can govern the individual. The US was supposed to be a nation of individuals governed by their own unique government bodies, not a shadowy, distant centralized government with unlimited power over every individual and a blank check of tax revenue to pay for it. Basically libertarians just want localized government if any government at all. The end result would be certain states being liberal tax havens for the poor and other states being GDP growing capitalist hubs. Every state would be completely unique, but all would have to honor the rights given to the people by the US constitution and bill of rights. I have no idea how the rest of the world would do libertarianism without founding documents protecting the rights of the individual.. maybe they just want anarchy.
5.5% unemployment rate in the US, 9.6% in Europe, 7% Canada, 5.8% Australia.
There is no trend of there being less jobs, just less time spent at work which is a good thing.
Also, some people are just unemployable.
>if you don't work you die, but now you get to choose your feudal lord.
It's the same thing, with private property there is essentially no difference as it's not possible to live off the land so to speak.
>massive reduction in spending
I don't think Greece fell apart because the government did too little. Countries like that fall apart because only the central government makes decisions and they are often wrong.
Democracy democratizes the law, the rules we live by. Socialism democratizes the economy, the means by which goods are efficiently distributed. If education, knowledge of the world, is necessary for a healthy democracy, than it is even more so for a healthy social economy (and in particular, financial, economic, and political literacy). If a free voice is necessary to a healthy democracy, than even more so is the ability acquire goods freely. Just as we self censor to maintain civil order, we would have to self-control our consumptive habits to maintain economic order.
I think it could be done, but I think it would require some very hefty changes and cooler minds than those that think that building a nuke is a good idea.
The worst thing that happened to national socialism was Hitler.
but at the end of the day the state cannot be deemed responsible for making the product, the individual is. Just as the government pays groups to make things, so do businesses. Different groups of people affecting different things instead of one central group. The person making the product or fulfilling the goal is the main driving force behind it, not the thing providing the fuel. I also see that due to our animal nature, we are inherently selfish. We all want the larger piece of the pie because it benefits us the most, we're not truly focused on helping each other as a whole as much as we are helping ourselves. It's this dynamic that makes capitalism great because it's the idea that we are all fighting for our own survival just as we would in nature.
>being this delusional.
There are less jobs, this is undisputed. There are more people, this is undisputed. The income many people make off their jobs(which they work harder at now then before) isn't sufficent to provide a high quality of life.
Vast numbers of people are making close to minimum wage and there is no avenue to substantially increase their income.
Fact is, there is too much labor and its value continues to plummet.
>In the types of societies that libertarians typically advocate people would be free to do (mostly) what they want.
How would that freedom be maintained without regulations? What's to stop someone having serfs and slaves on his property unless some kind of government intervenes to prevent that?
I come with statistics and you respond with feelings. Typical liberal.
Only the value of lazy and stupid people (you have to be both to somehow end up with a minimum wage job) plummets under capitalism.
Much of the finance sector is useful and very hard work.
Mergers and acquisitions people work really hard and are an important part of the economy.
Also financing for different projects and such is a vital part of the economy.
The parts that are pretty useless and just designed to leech large amounts of money without contributing anything have pretty hard work too.
Income redistribution isn't about joblessness. It's about compensation for contributing to society. Time sunk/opportunity costs of taking a regular job, of any kind, that the market can support, deserves compensation commensurate with what is needed to maintain the ability to live healthily and return to that job the next day. That's the minimum wage. If you have to redistribute to get there, so be it. If entire companies are wiped from the face of the planet because they can't maintain themselves in the face of paying a living wage, so be it. But I would rather see the former than the latter.
Swecuck student here. I am drowning in government funding, playing in a band with all means of success, because we get support even though our parents can't afford giving us shit because of greedy companies robbing them.
Socialist government with a pretty decent GDP, expanding economy and most immigrant friendly and accepting of cultures.
Tell me more about that freedom
Greece is a special case since they didn't even have the requirements to join the Euro but could do so anyway by rigging their balances/accounts and yes, they were spending a lot when they shouldn't have done so. So when they decided for austerity it was already late but the Euro tried to suck what little life Greece had left by imposing their rules.
The European Central Bank, in Greece's case should have provided help with a montary stimulus but they didn't. They didn't give a fuck about Greece, they just cared about sucking off the what little they had left and let them fail, but it doesn't matter since Germany is growing right? :) :) :)
I wish i could explan myself better but english isn't even my third language, sorry.
I really think that you always want what another country has. I live in a very socialistic country. 21% VAT on almost everything, 54% tax rate on income over 57k. High other taxes on owning a house.
Meanwhile, people who refuse to work and refugees pay a fourth of the rent I do for an apartment that has the same size. My neighbours literally pay 570E per month while I pay 2100E.
I guess I'm lucky that my parents are fairly well off and that I'm only a little autistic. I'm also smart and will start a decent finance master in London next year. Can't wait to leave this fucking shit hole of a country and I don't plan to return.
Really only viable in smaller nations with conservative social values. i.e., no Western country.
>its your own fault!
Which is why a significant portion of the US population is making close to minimum wage?
Surely its not because of a broken system because muh capitalism is perfect.
Anyway as pointed out, working hard is independent from the money made. The capitalist system doesn't have many opportunities for increases in wages. There are can only be so many managers, you will always need more people to manage.
While that is definitely true, socialistic/leftist governments often favour immigration because statistically speaking these people cannot find work and vote on socialistic parties. In my country 85% of the immigrants have not held a job for longer than six months after 20 years and over 82% votes for a leftist party.
>Which is why a significant portion of the US population is making close to minimum wage?
Because we need more minimum wage jobs than anything else. Do you honestly think we can all be lawyers or doctors and still have a functional society?
>little or no government.
Little as compared to the ridiculously bloated current usa federal government.
Still big enough to cover the essentials, which slavery prevention definitely falls under.
Depends on the type of Libertarian.
I, personally, simply want much less government, and I want the one we have to be as local as possible. This local government would address that issue.
Some, like Stefan Molyneux, believe government is inherently unethical, as it requires the initiation of force in order to impose its wills and regulations, and therefore don't want anarchy out of DUDE FREEDOM LOL but because they want less violence in the world. Stefan, if I'm not mistaken, would basically let the free market decide run everything, from police forces to judiciary committees that would enforce contracts between people, etc.
Here's a good video on the different flavors, and there's at least one other like it.
Drop the minimum wage, let the market decide what you should be payed, watch as prices drop to match. A lot of the problems we have nowadays are because the government thinks it can do things right without a profit motive. When both sides are allowed to exchange their goods or labor in ways the both see as beneficial, both come out better.
>the radical idea of giving a janitor and a cardiologist the same standard of living(which is utter shit in both cases)
I would consider it an inevitability once technology and automation make the vast majority of the workforce irrelevant. It's not a good system where humans are the ones cleaning the toilets though, and I find it likely that socialism/communism will be an odd sidebar conversation looking back historically after capitalism has largely elevated us all to the level of industry captains while the machines are the new proles, making Marx and the communistic revolutions largely irrelevant.
Not him but most jobs pay over minimum wage even though they don't have to, so why would dropping the minimum wage change that? If they wanted to pay you less they'd already be going down to minimum wage. Even McJobs pay over minimum these days.
Here's the thing capitalist don't understand: they only have their wealth because the majority allow them to have it.
When enough people get angry over the wealth disparity(which is very real) they will literally cut the capitalist heads off, like they did before.
Trump, Sanders, theses are the manifestations of the peoples discontent with the current system and it will only grow.
It's a clear message that people don't believe in libertard logic and won't put up with any more, not even republicucks support it.
Implying the Norwegian model of democractic pseudocommunism of spending oil wealth on public interests isn't the primary reason Norway has the highest median standard of living.
i believe that right wingers are cucks of the rich
i dont care if all the stupid PC shit and feminism is on the left
the right seem like they just exist to suck rich dick and i really dont like that. the rich can do no wrong, gotta cater to the rich etc etc
>In the types of societies that libertarians typically advocate people would be free to do (mostly) what they want.
Not at all senpai. Dont lie yourself.
>dont agree with socialism as it gives people the argument to be NEET for years and years without having to lift a single finger and just live off the income that they get from child benefits.
This is quite literally wrong desu
the way it should be
also, how do you expect the commune to be able to survive without violating property laws? both of those situations wouldn't be possible so it's yet another strawman comic from the fags who believe in bosses and private security and only call themselves anarchists to seem edgy
It looks good on paper, that's about it.
The only way the human race can survive is if it is united under on banner of pure hatred against a single entity.
What we need is for a man to conduct evil.
>socialism is democracy
>the fat still sit on the top crushing the lower
>I'm on unemployment benefits
You and your kind are the only ones who are a burden on workers. The people you bitch about help grow the economy and create employment opportunities for others.
>I'm going to live within the boundaries of a society and not follow its rules by trying to purposefully undercut a member in order to profit. Hopefully the man whose job I take by means such as predatory pricing (it is, after all, an anarchist society) will decide to work for me as a wage slave so I can skim lucre from his work and eventually get by on doing nothing
w-why are you angry guys?
In capitalism, you have to either produce and create labor and actually contribute or you die
In socialism, you can be a NEET and worthless but still get paid just to be alive by the government.
Offer a counterpoint instead of covering your ears and closing your eyes.
Socialism is a ponzi-scheme. Just look at Europe.
>high cost of living
>low birth rates as a result of all the taxes
>immigrants come in and instead of taking jobs, just subsist on welfare
>breed like roaches
Your system is so bad that you have to keep bringing in more and more people into the scam.
But how can I counterpoint a simply false argument?
You need to work in socialism like in other systems. You trying to imply that people in the Soviet Union did nothing other than being a NEET?
Low birth rates are not a consequence of the high taxes.
It just amazes me so much I need to ask you if you really are American, because in your so fucked up political spectrum you consider Europe to be socialist, which is simply wrong.
I have no idea of who is this Sanders dude, but it always amazes me how /pol/lacks associate communism with jews, proving once more the lack of reasoning of its visitors.
Jews are not the hard workers of the everyday, not at least the ones you hate so much, they are the rich and owners of big companies, which in communism/socialism would be fucked....
>You trying to imply that people in the Soviet Union did nothing other than being a NEET?
Actually, they might as well have, for all the good it did. The economic results are apparent.
Career advancement under socialism didn't come from productivity, only from political and social maneuvering. That got all the wrong people to the top, from where they critically misplaced the labor of those at the bottom.
It should be noted it wasn't entirely because of incompetence, as factory managers had to operate in an environment where prices weren't a reliable indicator of the value of commodities, and where they were cut off from the global market.
All in all, believing in planned economies in this century is retarded.