socialism

[Enforcer Talen]

assuming an AI with absolute power, is a working commune possible?

[Falcon]

assuming an AI with absolute power, is a working commune possible?

assuming you brainwash everyone and sap their free will or lul them with drugs (brave new world)


So in reality, NO, socialism doesn't work

[jaeger115]

I doubt it if the AI isn't all-powerful. The AI would have to brainwash EVERY human being of his inner nature and give him one that's more compatible to socialism (ie. no more selfishness). If not, then the humans inevitably will rebel and bring the system down.

[lgot]

You people are crazy ? Socialism is not the same or the contrary of freedom or democracy. Its just a system that assume the economic power must be shared between all not just the producers only (It is a joke. Capitalism is full of brainwashing as any system. ) And there is a lot of socialists ideas used in the moderm world and this did not asked for anything you people claim to be necessary.
Every place the governament use public resourses to help the lower economic class for example (Giving health, security, study) they are acting in the socialist way.

[Falcon]

You people are crazy ? Socialism is not the same or the contrary of freedom or democracy. Its just a system that assume the economic power must be shared between all not just the producers only (It is a joke. Capitalism is full of brainwashing as any system. ) And there is a lot of socialists ideas used in the moderm world and this did not asked for anything you people claim to be necessary.
Every place the governament use public resourses to help the lower economic class for example (Giving health, security, study) they are acting in the socialist way.

You see, sharing economic power with non-producers encourages more people to produce less. Most socialistic systems are either resounding failures in terms of efficiency, service, quality, or they simply encourage a class of dependent people living off the dole. I know I won't work at all if economic power is shared with the 'non-producers'

[lgot]

That is a joke, isnt ?
With the higher technological power we have and the more humanitary systems, we have been working less already and the production did not fail.
Most of the socialists politics are not failure in the production or have you not payied attention. All europe and USA and Brazil have adopted this socialist features.
And China, a socialist place is jumping in industrial production to the higher places as well.
The Socialist does not encourage less dedication of the workers and is not bad for profits.

[SWPIGWANG]

If you have AI that smart, do you even need people working?????

[Darth Wong]

Socialism and communism are different concepts. All capitalist countries incorporate some socialist elements (public education, welfare safety nets, etc), whereas communism takes the next step beyond socialism and outlaws capital.

Of course it's possible to make communism "work" if you have absolute power. It just won't work well; the system is inherently contradictory to human nature, and it is a manifestly totalitarian dictatorship under this scenario.

[weemadando]

Socialism and communism are different concepts. All capitalist countries incorporate some socialist elements (public education, welfare safety nets, etc), whereas communism takes the next step beyond socialism and outlaws capital.

Of course it's possible to make communism "work" if you have absolute power. It just won't work well; the system is inherently contradictory to human nature, and it is a manifestly totalitarian dictatorship under this scenario.

Indeed, this scenario is just dictatorship under another form.

But, this is a chance for a rant of sorts...

What truly pisses me off is people ignoring/confusing the differences between socialism and communism. And worse, claiming that communism has failed. We have never seen communism (what we've seen are derivations of extreme socialism and dictatorships)! And unless someone perfects an immortality formula I'm willing to wager that none of us will. Merely because man is inherently greedy, however, is this the result of being raised in a predominantly capitalist world? Marx and Engels theorised that given enough time with a gradual evolution (following WORLD revolution) communism would appear, however they granted that it would likely take many generations and several centuries.

What pisses me off even more are people saying: Marxism wouldn't work nowadays so Communism is a trashed theory. Well, no shit. Marxism was tailored for the late 19th century, in a world where the workers had little or no rights. I mean, look at today, its a different scenario, unions and other groups have guaranteed the strength of the workers, it is other groups that fall into the "oppressed" category. A new theory of communism is needed, I'm not saying that I can provide one, I'm just saying that Marxism is no longer applicable, this is accepted by all political scientists, but those who oppose communism use the founding theories of Marx to show that it will never work in the modern world.

Well, how about I apply the founding theory of democracy to the modern world? Thats right, the Greek theory of democracy, specifically that practiced in Athens.

1) Only males of a certain age and social status can be a citizen [Yeah, right, lets see that get past every single fucking lobby group in existance].

2) Only those who attend the meeting in person have the right to vote [Not so much of a problem due to modern transport times, but still a bit of an issue due to the sheer number of males of appropriate age in the world].

3) Standard majority rule [Tyranny of the majority, one of the accepted problems with democracy in any situation].

OK, thats just a basic outline, one can see where the problems might arise, so what do we do? We adapt the theory over time to take into account changes in society, technology and culture. So why are people so goddamn reluctant to do this with communism? Don't say that communism is a utopian ideal, though in its "pure" form it might be seen at utopian, it will never reach that level, much like demos in its true form as espoused by Pericles may be seen as utopian, but not only is that vision un-obtainable, but its flaws for application to modern society have already been outlined.

Anyhow, thats enough of a rant from me. Feel free to flame away, as I know how much you people like to laugh at "communists".

[lgot]

Actually even Marxism and Communism are not quite the same...Marxism is not even a politic system, but a set of beliefs that include materialism for example...

But well, Marx - which was not the first person to talk about socialism - did a good job in the study of socialism (which is just in the end a capitalism adaptation ) because it was something he could see happening.
But then he got draw in his utopic wishes and did the Communism stuff. It is a utopia, nothing more.

That is why we do not need a new theory of Communism. Becuase if you ask for a theory, you asks for scietific study and there is nothing in our society that ever lead to form communism and its not the duty of science to study utopias as something real...

[SyntaxVorlon]

Socialism is a viable system when people can be motivated not to be greedy or undermining of the system. All systems of governing and economics work the same way. Socialism is a viable economic system when production can be high enough to give support to the entire nation and not concentrate the money in the top 10% of the population. Also when a situation is volitile enough that socialism which requires a good deal of social injustice to be considered completely(as a complete change of economy and govenment) as with many South American countries, the system can go towards complete injustice or equality under fairer government(even a democratically elected one). But because capitalist countries fear the idea of losing possible lines of profit they will try and keep socialism from gaining ground. Argentina, Chile, and most recently, Venuezuela are examples of the US trying to regulate other countries for their own profit. And all of these examples lead to complete subjugation of the common population.
The thing is a socialist economy leads to much higher standards of living where possible, Norway and Sweden had extremely fair and even handed economy during the great depression and the highest standards of living in the world up to the mid 80's. Norway and Sweden are examples of where people can live in a Socialist govenment that is fair.
Assuming a highly advanced AI running things instead of a greedy human being, then there is an even better chance then in a democratic socialism for success. Now assuming this computer is dropped in a poor nation with the ability to provide plenty of power to this computer and keep it maintained then this country could have a very effective infrastructure in place to run agriculture and industry, one that promotes fairness and equality and continuing increase in industrial advancement. One thing that this AI could do to ensure this, creating better school environments to continue to advance the population.
One of the main problems with capitalism is that advancement in an industry can mean fiscal death for hundreds or thousands while the people at the top prosper further, this is because under capitalism people eat up money, producer class people, those in the factories or on the fields, eat up a good deal of money but those who own 'means of production'. When there is advancement in the industry the owners can make more money by laying off workers. This limits capitalism because if the industry advances too quickly it can kill consumerism among workers when the workers get laid off, creating a vacuum in sales. However, in a well run socialism where the entire population is provided for, advancement in an industry(greater production/cheaper production) will not make the producers or the ones who coordinate the producers lower production because they will not be motivated by profit. They will actually want to keep people working because this INCREASES benefits for the entire population.

[Shinova]

I'm not sure if this is socialism, but if the central AI and its factories produced everything that the country's citizens needed or wanted, then it'd be a somewhat peaceful socialism, wouldn't it?

[ArmorPierce]

In a thousand years (assuming that we survive that long) how would it be like? The computers are many, many times smarter than us and robots could do all the work that humans would normally do. I see that the elite would be well off who actually owned the companies but what would the average joe do for work?

[Darth Wong]

In a thousand years (assuming that we survive that long) how would it be like? The computers are many, many times smarter than us and robots could do all the work that humans would normally do. I see that the elite would be well off who actually owned the companies but what would the average joe do for work?

Maintain the computers and the robots. Design newer, better, computers and robots. Design products since computers and robots have no concept of aesthetics or ergonomics or taste. Make a whoooole lot of porno.

Perhaps the service industry would hold most of the labour force.

[Sea Skimmer]

In a thousand years (assuming that we survive that long) how would it be like? The computers are many, many times smarter than us and robots could do all the work that humans would normally do. I see that the elite would be well off who actually owned the companies but what would the average joe do for work?

Maintain the computers and the robots. Design newer, better, computers and robots. Design products since computers and robots have no concept of aesthetics or ergonomics or taste. Make a whoooole lot of porno.

Perhaps the service industry would hold most of the labour force.

We all know what kind of services your thinking of.

[Shinova]

In a thousand years (assuming that we survive that long) how would it be like? The computers are many, many times smarter than us and robots could do all the work that humans would normally do. I see that the elite would be well off who actually owned the companies but what would the average joe do for work?

Maintain the computers and the robots. Design newer, better, computers and robots. Design products since computers and robots have no concept of aesthetics or ergonomics or taste. Make a whoooole lot of porno.

Perhaps the service industry would hold most of the labour force.

We all know what kind of services your thinking of.

Legalized prostitution???

[ArmorPierce]

Seems a bit monogamous to me, and a bit boring.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ultimately, socialism hurts the poor more than it helps them. Communism and its watered down sidekick socialism are together the greatest evil of theories in history, simply because it appears rational at the very first glance; or at least it did.

To put it very simply (and this is a gross simplification) in economic terms, the rich generate capital by investment. They also stimulate innovation with capital, which is inherently necessary to make concepts become technology. Focusing of technological innovation in one sector reduces competition; (competition creating a rather darwinian process of bringing the best technological concepts to the fore) and therefore reduces successful innovation as a whole.

So in a perfectly, or nearly so, capitalist society, the economic condition of that society advances at a rapid pace, due to the investment of the wealthy, and the technological development of the society is also rapid. What this means is that, though the gap between the rich and poor remains the same, as the absolute capital of the society increases, the economic prosperity of the poor likewise increases - And they further benefit from the technological innovation spurred on by the wealth of the rich. Altogether, for example, one might rather live in a studio apartment of 2002, with all the furnishings thereof, and one's own belongings - Than in an 18th century southern plantation house, with all the furnishings thereof, slaves or not.

Essentially, a capitalist society is one wherein the people with the ability to be successful, and gain wealth, then have the ability to use that wealth to improve the condition of the society overall on a macro scale; and though gains are only registered in the long term, granted, looking at things from a span of decades or centuries one can see massive improvements in the condition of even the poorest people in a capitalist society, and those improvements come from the investment and innovation, created and spurred, by the capital of the wealthy.

Now, in a Communist society, wealth - capital - is taken from everyone, rich and poor alike, and redistributed equally, at least in theory. And in some cases this might actually hold up, briefly or on the small scale. Now, in such a system, one might think that - and in theory this would be true - the economic advance of the society would be the same as in a capitalist society; the more successful people supporting the less successful, and with the advantage, no less, of the wealth being redistributed so there is no gap between the rich, and the poor. But considerable problems begin to emerge with a Communist system.

These problems are firstly that innovation is very poor, because the system is centralized. All innovation is State-directed; and so there would be no competition to pare away the bad from the good, so to speak, when one is refining designs for new technology or introducing it, etc. This would tend to lead to a stagnation of innovation, and poor consumer products. The USSR historically partially solved it, however. They had competing design bureaus in the same fields, which did create somewhat of a field of competition. The problem was that it was quite open to patronage and favouritism, since all of the design bureaus were still directly controlled by the State; but still it was a considerable improvement, and so we shall grant that this problem can be partially solved.

The second problem, however, is much more serious. Now, in a communist society the economic condition of the society may advance at the same rate as a capitalist society; but this assumes that those who, in a capitalist society, would have been the wealthy, continue to work as hard, in either a physical or an intellectual capacity, as to generate the same sort of results for the benefit of society. This assumption encounters trouble in human nature, which we shall after the fashion of Clausewitz, call "Friction". Clausewitz, understanding the effect of human nature on complex systems, chose a very intelligent term for it, and I shall reuse it here with my credit towards his genius. I think him the first psychologist, in truth.

Friction in this case acts against the system in the fashion of the reduced desire of the most productive individuals, to produce at the levels they theoretically could. Humans, originally being hunter-gatherers, had a nature fashioned around short bursts of activity, followed by periods of laziness: Humanity is capable of considerable exertion, but is naturally lazy, and in general prefers a condition of laziness to that of activity, unless motivated towards the latter. So, the needs, and in cases the minimum of wants, of a person being provided by the State, they have no motivation to work beyond the degree to which anyone else works. Indeed, there is a tendency for people in the system to progressively work less, as the State must still provide their needs; therein is the tendency of Communist countries for economic collapse.

Obviously there is a solution to this, and that is to compel people to work. This has limitations; some, though, can be compelled by psychological means (in terms of ideological), but these remain a minority of any population. The majority must be compelled by force, and in either case you must have individuals who are capable of compelling. Once you do the system is sustainable, that is to say that the first application of friction is overriden.

However, to override the first application of friction you create the second application of friction. By placing certain individuals in power over others, you give them opprotunity for corruption. That is to say that the system can now become no longer equal; that those who compel the others can "skim off the top" and nothing can be done about it; they are in the position to compel, and that is that. Indeed, the motivation for gain would naturally be an attraction to such a position, though no always. One would tend to see the most corrupt persons in a society rise to positions of power in a Communist country; and those that are not would be inefficient unless a system of systemized corruption (IE: The privilages of dachas, cars, and etc, instituted in the USSR that ended socialist equality before it had ever really begun) is instituted to motivate those people in the upper-level power structure to work as well - Which is of course absolutely vital if you are to compel the rest of society as a whole to produce at the level necessary to maintain the society from collapse.

So we see in the end that the evolutionary traits that make humanity, humanity, also make communism impossible, and provide for the inevitability of a Soviet-style dictatorship in any country that attempts to implement true Communism.

So the final system is the "Welfare State", or simply, Socialism. That is to say, a country which taxes the wealthy - or redistributes part of their income - to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

Now, many people think of this as an excellent compromise. And it looks good in the short-term, this cannot be denied. But in truth in long term this has very negative effects on the poor, as well as on the whole of society.

The problem is that the reduction of available capital in the hands of the wealthy, to be placed into investment, and innovation, reduces the rate of economic improvement in society. It of course continues (to improve), at least as long as the system is not such an approximation of Communism, that the working poor are not motivated to stop working. This can happen if welfare is raised to a point that it pays more than the lowest paying job which is available (full time of course); at that time the society is in danger of economic collapse, as more and more of the working poor would, according to friction, stop working and instead apply for welfare, relying on the government to care for their needs. (This is happening in several European countries; since in democratic societies the friction element of greed may also come into play by demands of the welfare bloc - citizen voters - to increase the amount they receive, which of course increases the percentage of society which finds "the dole" preferable to work, this is a danger which can rapidly expand...)

However, even for a society where the level of welfare-statism is not that severe, there is still the simple fact that as the amount of investment is reduced, and the technological innovation is likewise reduced, we see a lessening in the economic advance of the society. Eventually this reaches the point where a true capitalist society would have a superiour standard of living for its lower social classes, than their equivlants in a welfare-state, despite the large amounts of money the welfare-state provides to support a higher standard for those classes in comparison to its rich; as its overall economic condition has been retarded by that practice. This would probably happen over the course of a few decades.

So altogether, we can see that a true capitalist society, or at least one with all but the very minimum of State intervention into the social aspects, is the ideal for the maximum betterment of humanity; as humanity, operating on principles of greed and self-betterment that have existed as long as we have existed, will always do a better job of bettering its self than any philosophy, ideology, or State bureaucratic programme.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Ultimately, socialism hurts the poor more than it helps them. Communism and its watered down sidekick socialism are together the greatest evil of theories in history, simply because it appears rational at the very first glance; or at least it did.

To put it very simply (and this is a gross simplification) in economic terms, the rich generate capital by investment. They also stimulate innovation with capital, which is inherently necessary to make concepts become technology. Focusing of technological innovation in one sector reduces competition; (competition creating a rather darwinian process of bringing the best technological concepts to the fore) and therefore reduces successful innovation as a whole.

Essentially, a capitalist society is one wherein the people with the ability to be successful, and gain wealth, then have the ability to use that wealth to improve the condition of the society overall on a macro scale; and though gains are only registered in the long term, granted, looking at things from a span of decades or centuries one can see massive improvements in the condition of even the poorest people in a capitalist society, and those improvements come from the investment and innovation, created and spurred, by the capital of the wealthy.

A very theoretical idea indeed, since no one seems to have heard of Adam Smith's second book dealing with ethics. Capitalism also generates incredible amounts of capital for the rich and mediochre amounts for the poor. Really if your family could afford to own a plantation house in the 18th century by today's standards they would live in a large mansion or penthouse and control the business from there. A socialist society is one in which everyone contributes to the wealth of the society. In capitalism there is a choice and given greedy human nature they probably will not. And if you've seen the state of business in the US lately there is a movement to deregulate or selfregulate, profit would go up because companies could have the choice to stop using costly safety procedure. Doubtless the gains in the economy are great, but the state of living will decrease especially for the poor who have to by the cheapest, lowest quality products. Sure you get to by more stuff but the meat will kill you.
Also job security is much lower because, to maximize profit, you can fire as many people as you like.

These problems are firstly that innovation is very poor, because the system is centralized. All innovation is State-directed; and so there would be no competition to pare away the bad from the good, so to speak, when one is refining designs for new technology or introducing it, etc. This would tend to lead to a stagnation of innovation, and poor consumer products. The USSR historically partially solved it, however. They had competing design bureaus in the same fields, which did create somewhat of a field of competition. The problem was that it was quite open to patronage and favouritism, since all of the design bureaus were still directly controlled by the State; but still it was a considerable improvement, and so we shall grant that this problem can be partially solved.

Assuming that the AI runs things then innovation would mean greater improvements that reach to the rest of society. The pool of wealth extends everywhere. A capitalist society runs "hot," it burns off a great deal of capital and investment in poor ventures, capitalist society gains a great deal using the darwin method of innovation, but it ends up going through cycles where so many people invest in so many bad ventures that the economy slumps, it's happening now, it happened in the 20's. But this method allows large amounts of capital to pool in the pockets of certain 'smart' or lucky investors. Assuming design changes help production(via speed or capital use) then society on the whole improves, when innovation happens in a capitalist society, then the lot of many can be lost to layoffs, because the owners of the means want to maximize their own profit.

The second problem, however, is much more serious. Now, in a communist society the economic condition of the society may advance at the same rate as a capitalist society; but this assumes that those who, in a capitalist society, would have been the wealthy, continue to work as hard, in either a physical or an intellectual capacity, as to generate the same sort of results for the benefit of society. This assumption encounters trouble in human nature, which we shall after the fashion of Clausewitz, call "Friction". Clausewitz, understanding the effect of human nature on complex systems, chose a very intelligent term for it, and I shall reuse it here with my credit towards his genius. I think him the first psychologist, in truth.

People who are wealthy don't work hard. Have you ever heard of the idle rich, they do no work and simply live of inheiritance creating a small unproductive area of the population. Those who do work do so to add vast amounts to their copious funds. They soak up wealth like spounges and they don't need to add anything to society if they don't want to, Bill Gates for instance is one of those few businessmen who is commited to this sort of philanthropy, but he and the others are a SLIM minority. And to continue with Gates, Monopolies! Yes, the big guys who control an entire field and keep little guys with any ideas out if they won't sell them the ideas.

Friction in this case acts against the system in the fashion of the reduced desire of the most productive individuals, to produce at the levels they theoretically could. Humans, originally being hunter-gatherers, had a nature fashioned around short bursts of activity, followed by periods of laziness: Humanity is capable of considerable exertion, but is naturally lazy, and in general prefers a condition of laziness to that of activity, unless motivated towards the latter. So, the needs, and in cases the minimum of wants, of a person being provided by the State, they have no motivation to work beyond the degree to which anyone else works. Indeed, there is a tendency for people in the system to progressively work less, as the State must still provide their needs; therein is the tendency of Communist countries for economic collapse.

Friction will not happen in a good socialist system or it will be little to none, because if labor stagnates and not enough people work, then there is a decrease in quality of life. That decrease means people start working harder or they begin to lose benefits. The AI in control would be able to inform the populace of this decrease and warn them against further loss of benefits if they do not preform better. If competition on a small scale can help production then it can be used in the work place.
Also, H/G societies work in much the same manner as socialist ones, decrease in labor means decrease in benefits. If not as many hunt, then not as many eat. The problem is that capitalist societies punish people for not hunting when there is an abundance of food. This does not happen in socialist societies, if the population can be provided for easily even with a body of unemployed labor, then it is provided for, if the population cannot be sustained then a greater work force is employed.

That is to say that the system can now become no longer equal; that those who compel the others can "skim off the top" and nothing can be done about it; they are in the position to compel...
So we see in the end that the evolutionary traits that make humanity, humanity, also make communism impossible, and provide for the inevitability of a Soviet-style dictatorship in any country that attempts to implement true Communism.

Now you are getting into social darwinism, the gross and evil basterdization of Natural Selection that allowed the aristocratic ruling class during the 19th and early 20th century to lord over the poor and lower class. Calling them the inferior people or even race as darwinism alludes to differing species. They believed that because they were rich they were somehow better, because they had risen to the top. So what human trait are you talking about, baldness, bipedalism, racism, hatred, greed, sentience? Don't go into evolution in respect to societies, the complexity of social interaction and engineering is far greater than that of natural selection.
True communism cannot be implemented until there is a way to completely overcome scarcity. A dictatorship run by a greedy human would, but here we are assuming an artificial intelligence.

So the final system is the "Welfare State", or simply, Socialism. That is to say, a country which taxes the wealthy - or redistributes part of their income - to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

You really think this is Socialism? Socialism is about pooling productivity so that human greed won't taint the system, and equality will allow a greater standard of living for a greater amount of people. Epicurian in a word. The dole dies when people don't work or not enough people work, employment of shifts would keep people working and allow growth. Also the initial centralization of capital by the AI would be used to create the industry and production to sustain the social benefits, and innovate new products and technology to keep the industry moving.(Development of more efficient machines and recreation means that society benefits)

So altogether, we can see that a true capitalist society, or at least one with all but the very minimum of State intervention into the social aspects, is the ideal for the maximum betterment of humanity; as humanity, operating on principles of greed and self-betterment that have existed as long as we have existed, will always do a better job of bettering its self than any philosophy, ideology, or State bureaucratic programme.

True capitalism benefiting from greed? Smith's second book detailed ethics to be used in capitalist societies. Ethics in a capitalist society are the backbone, but if people are really as greedy and selfish as you say then what reason would they have to be philanthropic. The concentration of wealth with the rich creates the poor, and when you mix in social darwinism and bootstrapism to the philosophies of these rich then there is no reason for the rich to aid society. Most of the rich simply take as much as they can, and buy a great deal of useless items from other rich people. Ex: Kenny Boy had 5+ houses filled with art and collectables and expensive designer furniture, the buying of which supplied money only to other rich people. How much of his money has gone to those who lost their retirement money, to those put out of work when he decided to screw as many people as possible and make buttloads of money?
Greed helped very few, but rich, people on this occasion.
Capitalism, or really monetarism. is one big experiment in mass greed, giving the richest greediest bastards the ability to get more money and the least rich people a limited ability for upward movement.

[The Nomad]

Powerful AI in power ? Reminds me of the Culture...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A very theoretical idea indeed, since no one seems to have heard of Adam Smith's second book dealing with ethics. Capitalism also generates incredible amounts of capital for the rich and mediochre amounts for the poor.

No, it doesn't. It generates wealth in the same proportion; that is to say that, yes, the poor do stay poor, but they do remain poor in the same proportion of "poorness" or whatever you'd tag it to the rich and their wealth. Even Trotsky admitted that. Though of course maybe you did not mean otherwise.

Really if your family could afford to own a plantation house in the 18th century by today's standards they would live in a large mansion or penthouse and control the business from there.

What I meant by that is that capitalism has increased the standard of living so that a very poor person has a better standard of living today than a very rich person did 220 years ago. IE: Capitalism is the best system for improving the lot of the poor in the long term, and when balanced over a scale of decades, capitalism is superiour to communism or welfare-statism in improving the lot of the poor.

A socialist society is one in which everyone contributes to the wealth of the society. In capitalism there is a choice and given greedy human nature they probably will not.

That is incorrect. Everyone contributes to the wealth of society simply by working. People who do not work do not contribute to the wealth of society, so in a welfare-statist (A socialist) society, the largest number of people of the three listed do not contribute to the wealth of the society. A capitalist society has the highest level of contribution because people are the most motivated to contribute in one.

And if you've seen the state of business in the US lately there is a movement to deregulate or selfregulate, profit would go up because companies could have the choice to stop using costly safety procedure.

Only if the safety procedures cost them more money than they gained by keeping skilled workers healthy and alive.

Doubtless the gains in the economy are great, but the state of living will decrease especially for the poor who have to by the cheapest, lowest quality products. Sure you get to by more stuff but the meat will kill you.

Well, I never once proposed eliminating health standards. We've had a surgeon general's post for a bloody long time.

Also job security is much lower because, to maximize profit, you can fire as many people as you like.

This will actually be good for job market growth in the long term, as it will then allow companies to use their profit to expand and hire additional workers in other fields. And overall economic growth will create additional companies.

Assuming that the AI runs things then innovation would mean greater improvements that reach to the rest of society.

One AI, designing things by its self; the same thing still applies. It's centralized innovation. Totally worthless - And without human ingenuity no less!

The pool of wealth extends everywhere. A capitalist society runs "hot," it burns off a great deal of capital and investment in poor ventures, capitalist society gains a great deal using the darwin method of innovation, but it ends up going through cycles where so many people invest in so many bad ventures that the economy slumps, it's happening now, it happened in the 20's.

Yes, and Communist societies do the same thing. Do I need to list every three- five- and seven- year plan in every little Communist nation over the world which has failed or been cancelled?

But this method allows large amounts of capital to pool in the pockets of certain 'smart' or lucky investors.

That makes no sense. The scenario is for a communist society, not for a capitalist dictatorship run by an AI.

Assuming design changes help production(via speed or capital use) then society on the whole improves, when innovation happens in a capitalist society, then the lot of many can be lost to layoffs, because the owners of the means want to maximize their own profit.

Exactly, which is then put back into the economy. Capitalist economies are self-correcting. This proposed system relies on an apparently omniscent, dictatorial AI to work. And the first part of that sentence was incomprehendable: Can you clarify it, please?

People who are wealthy don't work hard.

That is a lie. A fat lie perpetuated by communists. A lot of rich people have worked very hard to get where they're at; the idea that wealth they have is all inheiritance they use on trivial things and partying is purely propaganda, and the fact that the media likes to follow the few people like that who really exist.

Those who do work do so to add vast amounts to their copious funds. They soak up wealth like spounges and they don't need to add anything to society if they don't want to, Bill Gates for instance is one of those few businessmen who is commited to this sort of philanthropy, but he and the others are a SLIM minority.

You're confusing charity with economic stimulus. The very rich put a lot back into the economy by continuing to invest, and thus further generating wealth, and expanding the economy; creating jobs, spurring innovationg, etc. That happens no matter how greedy or no matter how devoted to charity they are:

All the millionaires in the world could have never given a single dime to charity in the whole history of the 20th century, and capitalism would still be a better system for the poor than communism or welfare-statism, because in the long term it improves their lot over a period of time far better than either of the other two systems does! It's a macro effect, it has nothing to do with the charity of the rich.

Friction will not happen in a good socialist system or it will be little to none, because if labor stagnates and not enough people work, then there is a decrease in quality of life.

Then what do you call the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Oh, wait, it collapsed for precisely the reasons I stated. Sure, it didn't help that they spent themselves to death on an army budget, but, hey, the system was inherently flawed to begin with, okay?

That decrease means people start working harder or they begin to lose benefits.

Do you really think the average person has enough of a brain to conclude that? Bzzt. No; the system collapses and a new one takes its place. That has happened several times now. When your daily expenditures don't come out of your own pocket, from your own labour, the average person does not and will not make a connection between them and the work the government makes them do. Who would? "We pretend to work, and our managers pretend to pay us," they would say in the old USSR. It began a farce, a ironic game, until the entire system collapsed of its own inept weight.

The AI in control would be able to inform the populace of this decrease and warn them against further loss of benefits if they do not preform better.

And then a mob would show up outside the AI and destroy it. Just like there was a revolution in which the people in Moscow kept the hardliners from getting back in power, and ended the USSR.

If competition on a small scale can help production then it can be used in the work place.

Not if you're not competing for anything! And if you are, then you're not a communist country.

Also, H/G societies work in much the same manner as socialist ones, decrease in labor means decrease in benefits. If not as many hunt, then not as many eat.

Yes, but they only work precisely as much as-is necessary to insure their survival. If the government is giving you everything you need in a check in the mail every month, then your survival is insured by walking to your mailbox!

The problem is that capitalist societies punish people for not hunting when there is an abundance of food. This does not happen in socialist societies, if the population can be provided for easily even with a body of unemployed labor, then it is provided for, if the population cannot be sustained then a greater work force is employed.

Yes, demanding that people support others in the society, who then do nothing. "When there is an abundance of food" - That excess production is created by the voluntary hard work of a few. That voluntary hard work will cease when it is taken from them, and so when you allow a part of the population to be idle on the bounty of the rest, that bounty will dry up! And once you have a bunch of idle people surviving on the largesse of the State, only State violence can reasonably be expected to motivate them to work, or, alternatively, the threat of death by starvation - IE, taking away their dole again.

Now you are getting into social darwinism, the gross and evil basterdization of Natural Selection that allowed the aristocratic ruling class during the 19th and early 20th century to lord over the poor and lower class. Calling them the inferior people or even race as darwinism alludes to differing species.

WHAT? I said that humanity as a whole is naturally lazy and greedy - How the fuck is that social darwinianism!? Those are simply inherent traits of humanity which we got from being hunter-gatherers, for whom being lazy and greedy are good things!

They believed that because they were rich they were somehow better, because they had risen to the top. So what human trait are you talking about, baldness, bipedalism, racism, hatred, greed, sentience? Don't go into evolution in respect to societies, the complexity of social interaction and engineering is far greater than that of natural selection.

I see that you are now reading things that are not there. This is pretty good. Hail Comrade Lenin!

True communism cannot be implemented until there is a way to completely overcome scarcity.

I explained it - Put people in positions to compel everyone else, so they can overcome human nature. That's been done, and it was called the USSR. The USSR was a true Communist society. Pull your fingers out of your ears and get out of la-la land. Unless all of humanity evolves to the point that we no longer possess the traits that make us human as we currently understand humanity to be, the USSR will be the epitome of a "True Communist" society as we can achieve it.

You really think this is Socialism?

Da, Comrade.

Socialism is about pooling productivity so that human greed won't taint the system,

Which is impossible, and that's Communism, btw; socialism was the middle stage in Marxist theory.

The dole dies when people don't work or not enough people work,

Exactly, which will invariably happen when you make the dole sufficiently generous, which always remains a threat in a democracy.

employment of shifts would keep people working and allow growth.

Can someone tell me why this was part of the above sentence?

Also the initial centralization of capital by the AI would be used to create the industry and production to sustain the social benefits, and innovate new products and technology to keep the industry moving.(Development of more efficient machines and recreation means that society benefits)

Centralization is an inefficient means of innovation. And again we give this AI not only dictatorial powers but veritably omniscent powers, or even omnipotent ones. As the socialist's fantasy fails, the AI becomes godlike, providing the industry and production necessary to sustain the socialist benefits.

The AI becomes the brain at the center of the UFP, what makes that implausible society tick, and the society we speak of, indeed, the North Korean model village which is the UFP.

True capitalism benefiting from greed? Smith's second book detailed ethics to be used in capitalist societies. Ethics in a capitalist society are the backbone, but if people are really as greedy and selfish as you say then what reason would they have to be philanthropic.

They don't need to be philanthropic for a capitalist society to improve the lot of the poor; they just need to try and get richer and generate more wealth, and the lot of the poor will invariably improve over time!

The concentration of wealth with the rich creates the poor,

No, it doesn't. It just maintains the same ratio between the rich and the poor. Fuck, even Leon Trotsky admitted this.

and when you mix in social darwinism and bootstrapism to the philosophies of these rich then there is no reason for the rich to aid society. Most of the rich simply take as much as they can, and buy a great deal of useless items from other rich people. Ex: Kenny Boy had 5+ houses filled with art and collectables and expensive designer furniture, the buying of which supplied money only to other rich people.

Firstly, philanthropic activities are unnecessary to improve the lot of the poor in a capitalist system. Secondly, that is not the average rich person; and thirdly even such a person generally places a far more considerable amount of their money back into the economy (Indeed, they must, or else economies like those of the USA would have collapsed a long time ago).

How much of his money has gone to those who lost their retirement money, to those put out of work when he decided to screw as many people as possible and make buttloads of money?
Greed helped very few, but rich, people on this occasion.

The artists might have been starving until commissioned; and collectibles go through a process which would employ a fair number of lower-level people to process.

I should note however that many capitalists are quite ethical, and can exist in an ethical fashion totally ignoring the system in which they operate, contributing a fair amount of money to charity. But that is totally irrelevant in truth to the discussion.

Capitalism, or really monetarism.

Cute. Did that come from Stalinism USA's website or something?

is one big experiment in mass greed, giving the richest greediest bastards the ability to get more money and the least rich people a limited ability for upward movement.

In a capitalist republic like the USA, full upward mobility is possible and evidenced in many of the stories of the richest individuals in the nation. Of course, though, it is an experiment in mass greed:

But what's wrong with that?

Capitalism is brilliant because it harnesses the nature of humanity - The carrot and stick of greed and laziness - and uses it to drive our society forward.

[Skelron]

What I meant by that is that capitalism has increased the standard of living so that a very poor person has a better standard of living today than a very rich person did 220 years ago. IE: Capitalism is the best system for improving the lot of the poor in the long term, and when balanced over a scale of decades, capitalism is superiour to communism or welfare-statism in improving the lot of the poor.

No [progres has changed the standard of living in the western countries. Can you say that the standard of living has improved world wide? Also has the standard of living risen in REAL terms or has it incresed only in relative terms. Yes a Person in the west has a better life than they did 220 years ago but has this increase shown any gains upon the standard of the rich or has it risen in proprtion, so that as person A's standard has risen so has Person's B, but always the proportionate difference remained the same? Finnally prove that these gains have been because of Capitalism and not despite it, for instance Public Education, is Socialist in nature not Capitalist. Pensions and Social Welfare, Socialist. And in many countries the National Health Service is Socialisat nonre of these services make sense from a Capitalist point of view and yet they have led directly to an increase in the stanard of living across the board.... These increases are inspite of Capitialism not because of it.

That is incorrect. Everyone contributes to the wealth of society simply by working. People who do not work do not contribute to the wealth of society, so in a welfare-statist (A socialist) society, the largest number of people of the three listed do not contribute to the wealth of the society. A capitalist society has the highest level of contribution because people are the most motivated to contribute in one.

Welfare started in the Uk because of a Problem in the Capitalist system where people through NO FAULT of their own where made unemployed on regular cycle's it is called Cyclical unemployment. It was deemed unfair that vast portions of the workforce, due to a flaw in the Capitalist system, suddenly had to survive on their savings, since this would occur regularly, it ment these people probs had nothing put aside for their old age. Capitalism generates wealth for those higher up in society, many people become unemployed due to a flaws in capitalism, and Socialst/Welfare ideas are the only TRUE method to stop these people Starving. Capitalism does not keep generating wealth, there has to be a MArket, and the problem still exists today as did then.

Only if the safety procedures cost them more money than they gained by keeping skilled workers healthy and alive.

Why keep happy in your society it's easy to sack and rehire, look at the industial revolution, in most society's in the west espeically, you have vast proportions of society unemployed dying for a Job... This situation by the way is not natural in nature, at least not 100% the New Right of the 80's (Thatcher, Regan etc) Saw inequality not only as unavoidable but Desirable that some people should be kept down... The NEw Right was Capitalism rampent, it caused more unemployemnt than anything else as they dumped Socialism and Welfare ideas, without thinking of the consequences' in the UK fully two decades later some Towns are still econmic blackholes, because of this 'caring' Capitalism... and now we face third Generation unemployment.... The creation of an underclass.
In america it's worse They have one the worst WORLD wide Child Mortality rates.

Doubtless the gains in the economy are great, but the state of living will decrease especially for the poor who have to by the cheapest, lowest quality products. Sure you get to by more stuff but the meat will kill you.

Well, I never once proposed eliminating health standards. We've had a surgeon general's post for a bloody long time.

'The life span of the poor is significantly less than that of the rich, the low quality food on offer the standard of living, that is why the Queen Mum and the Queen in the UK live for so very long, being poor kills you...

Also job security is much lower because, to maximize profit, you can fire as many people as you like.

This will actually be good for job market growth in the long term, as it will then allow companies to use their profit to expand and hire additional workers in other fields. And overall economic growth will create additional companies.
[/Quote]
Great, hay your being fired and your family will lose their home, your children will do without, and you'll live on £48 pounds for a fortnight, ) (96 for a couple) BUT It's good for the econmy! A convinvincing argument for Rampent Capitalism...

Yes, and Communist societies do the same thing. Do I need to list every three- five- and seven- year plan in every little Communist nation over the world which has failed or been cancelled?
[/Quote]
Or which worked Russia went from nothing to having a very industralised society because of it's plans, besides Socialism is not Communism, and Socialism is not a 'Watered down Version' As it is for a start OLDER than Communism, and/or Marxism.

That is a lie. A fat lie perpetuated by communists. A lot of rich people have worked very hard to get where they're at; the idea that wealth they have is all inheiritance they use on trivial things and partying is purely propaganda, and the fact that the media likes to follow the few people like that who really exist.

I suppose it depends, the self made people of course work hard but can you say in all honestly that the majourity of those that have inherited a Fortune Work, not those that have made their millions personally, but the inheritor's?
All the millionaires in the world could have never given a single dime to charity in the whole history of the 20th century, and capitalism would still be a better system for the poor than communism or welfare-statism, because in the long term it improves their lot over a period of time far better than either of the other two systems does! It's a macro effect, it has nothing to do with the charity of the rich.
[/Quote]
LOL LOL LOL, Until the introduction of Socialist Ideas into Capitalism we had a Terrible state of affairs, where the rich kept getting richer and the poor, well it wasn't good to be poor. Take those Blinker's of, Socialist Ideas in Capitalism ARE the ONLY thing, that make life for a worker a life and not less than existence. Your Rampent Captialism led to such things as the statistic where a Miner in the UK had a Higher chance of a Death caused in the Work Place than a Front Line Soldier! Only By insuring standards of pay, do people actually profit from this Macro effect you talk about... and that Insurance is a Socialist ideal not a Capitalist one!

Then what do you call the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Oh, wait, it collapsed for precisely the reasons I stated. Sure, it didn't help that they spent themselves to death on an army budget, but, hey, the system was inherently flawed to begin with, okay?

[/Quote]Communist not Socialist. Get it straight COMMUNISM is not Socialism, Nor was Communism even Marxist in nature, or anything resembling Marxist. Communism was eventually Stalin's little power play, and his succors continued that tradition

Do you really think the average person has enough of a brain to conclude that? Bzzt. No; the system collapses and a new one takes its place. That has happened several times now. When your daily expenditures don't come out of your own pocket, from your own labour, the average person does not and will not make a connection between them and the work the government makes them do. Who would? "We pretend to work, and our managers pretend to pay us," they would say in the old USSR. It began a farce, a ironic game, until the entire system collapsed of its own inept weight.

Sorry isn't the idea of working harder to get more pay Capitalist as well, Yes I believe it's the corner stone of the idea. So people don't have the intellagence to work it out, guess that means Capitalism is flawed. This part of the argument only says take Capitalism and instead of apoplyoing it just to you apply the gains to everyone. Hardly a difficult concept to get your head around even if you where a retard. Everyone gains if I work harder, including myself. This everyone gains argument including myself is why you join a Union, many capitalists have tried to argue that doing so is pointless, yet people do...

If competition on a small scale can help production then it can be used in the work place.

Not if you're not competing for anything! And if you are, then you're not a communist country.
[/Quote] Where talking Socialist Not FUCKING Communist, Socialism does not prevent small scale profit making, it is not Communism, the to are as similar as being a conservative and being a Fascist. If people keep making the Communism=Socialism mistake I will start saying all conservatives=Fascists and mean it.

Which is impossible, and that's Communism, btw; socialism was the middle stage in Marxist theory.

Actually he took what was already around Socalism, and incorpurated into into his theory, socialism is older than Marxism.

[lgot]

Duchess of Zeon:

Ultimately, socialism hurts the poor more than it helps them. Communism and its watered down sidekick socialism are together the greatest evil of theories in history, simply because it appears rational at the very first glance; or at least it did.

That is not true. For once ,Socialism predates the idea of Communism for decades. Socialism is a step of the Capitalism, not of Communism.
And you are telling that a theory that seems rational is a great evil ? So, All scientific theories, must be rational. And look the theory of capitalism and see the practice. They are not the same.

And they further benefit from the technological innovation spurred on by the wealth of the rich. Altogether, for example, one might rather live in a studio apartment of 2002, with all the furnishings thereof, and one's own belongings - Than in an 18th century southern plantation house, with all the furnishings thereof , slaves or not.

Sorry but that is bullshit.
Go to latin-american favelas. See if they live there with conditions better than 19 century. There is house there still without toilet, no lighting, no phone.
First its blinded. The gap between riches and poor are not a matter of comfort but a matter of moral, exploration, control and education.
Third : You talk like if we never had socialists ideas working in our society (we have because Socialism is only possible inside a capitalist society) and exactly those practices are those who allow the riches to share the comfort, medicine and all that with the poor.

Now, in a Communist society, wealth - capital - is taken from everyone,

There was never a Communist society for you say that. Now Capitalism had societies where all the wealth was taken to a select few group. After all Capitalism was born under absolutists governs.

These problems are firstly that innovation is very poor, because the system is centralized. All innovation is State-directed; and so there would be no competition to pare away the bad from the good, so to speak, when one is refining designs for new technology or introducing it, etc.

Only in your head. Capitalism can be centralized also, with government doing all the innovation. If you have doubt, study about Brazil. It was the govern who brought the first fabrics, more than 80% of all industries ever in brazil are build by the state. It is the Brazilian government who made the highways for the cars, the Miracle of 1970 (a economic phenomena that made brazil jump to be among the top 10 in the industrial production in the world) was made all with government money. Just because in the USA the capitalism is very liberal, does not mean it did not happened under the government.

So altogether, we can see that a true capitalist society, or at least one with all but the very minimum of State intervention into the social aspects, is the ideal for the maximum betterment of humanity; as humanity, operating on principles of greed and self-betterment that have existed as long as we have existed, will always do a better job of bettering its self than any philosophy, ideology, or State bureaucratic programme.

Only someone that did not look what happens in Latin-America and Africa to think that capitalism only bring the betterment of society.
Plus, as it was said, Social Darwinism is a mistake so big…
And you seem to think that socialism societies are magic and they erase greed ?

Plus it’s a big joke to hear that Capitalism is good because it makes the poor better 200 years after…What a joke.
Realize, Germany, Sweden, Holand, etc. They all are socialists also. Explain me how socialism is not possible if it happens there, how it is worse to the population if those 3 have better condition of life better than most of the “capitalists” (under “” because today we have almost no country that was not changed by the socialist influence) places ? How ?
And please: It is basic: There is not only kind of socialist, Marx did not created it and Socialism is not Communism.