So socialism

[Lexicus]

You need a success story. Just prove it elsewhere

that a lot of what you think of as the "success story" of capitalism actually reflects the success of socialism

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not baiting and switching and I'm not saying "capitalism has all these successes". Socialists have a model that's much deeper than what they've achieved by helping modify capitalist countries slightly. They need an actual success story, wooing us instead of threatening to force us. If it's good, it will work.
I'm well aware that modern capitalism needs tweaks. The large scale experiments, especially the riskier ones, should be done elsewhere.

Hey, if there was a place that was closer to your beliefs, you'd move there to contribute. And that itself would be a sign of success. All the socialists I know that move are moving because of wanting a better support system, not so that they can contribute more. You even posit a macroeconomic policy that gets superior growth, that would be self-reinforcing.

 

[bernie14]

As for the so-called materialist interpretation of history, it has provided us with a number of interesting insights and suggestions, but it has no explanatory value. In its strong, rigid version, for which one may find considerable support in many classical texts, it implies that social development depends entirely on the class struggle that ultimately, through the intermediary of changing “modes of production,” is determined by the technological level of the society in question. It implies, moreover, that law, religion, philosophy, and other elements of culture have no history of their own, since their history is the history of the relations of production. This is an absurd claim, completely lacking in historical support.

Leszek Kołakowski

 

[innonimatu]

Demographics will make this increasingly difficult.

You seem to think that people need to spend all their income and not save any. People are not like that. Many, like my wife, are ardent savers. Why are you opposed to people saving for the future?

You still do not get it.

Why would demographics make that difficult? Because "there wouldn't be enough active population to support the retired? That, if it ever becomes the case, will be a hard limit, a real limit, one that no capitalization or savings can affect. The pool of available resources at a given moment is what it is, financial "savings" do not increase it. What you get is inflation, and those savings being show as an illusion.

In terms of real resource use, a social security system must always balance on the present. Unless resources, not money, are stockpiled. But there are obvious limits to that. And the best stockpiling of resources is in fact investing in good infrastructure, and good production capacity. Those tend to last a few decades.
Saving funds to hand over to bankster speculators is counterproductive to that, has has been repeatedluy shown. They go for short-term profits, and take a share of it to sustain their own luxuries. Pension funds have bene a destructive force for economies since the 1970s. They were the original funders of corporate raiders bent on buying "undervalued companies" and tearing them apart. See "the Mayfair Set" from Adam Curtis, for a history of that.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not baiting and switching and I'm not saying "capitalism has all these successes". Socialists have a model that's much deeper than what they've achieved by helping modify capitalist countries slightly. They need an actual success story, wooing us instead of threatening to force us. If it's good, it will work.

I suppose this is where we get into the fact that the world system exists and attempts to create a "good example" outside of it will be swiftly kneecapped by all the hard and soft power the global hegemon can bring to bear.

But more importantly I think there is an argument to be made that corporate capitalism is an early stage of socialism, still marked by the feudal relic of the appropriation of value from enterprise by the master or "shareholder", but clearly laying the foundation for a democratic organization of production through institutional consolidation (it's easier to nationalize a monopoly than to regulate a highly fragmented market).

In this sense Marx is absolutely correct about the trajectory of history: the socialization of production along democratic lines is inevitable as the feudal model of shareholder value extraction is increasingly obviously an impediment to growth and ultimately to production and enteprise itself.

 

[innonimatu]

my timetable for that crisis moved up a bit after seeing gpt write papers better than most college students can, and machine learning beat pros at fairly sophisticated games despite incomplete information. you don't need to be comparable or better than top pros in irl vocations to displace...nearly the entire labor force in a particular one.

The problem isn't that a system of stringing together bits of text is "intelligent" and able to replace humans. The problem is that college students have been trained to be dump, stringing together text they don't understand and avoiding the use of any critical thought. I see it here too... the mindless parroting of the "news".
This is the sole reason why ChatGPT or whatever can seem "intelligent". It isn't. It's the supposedly "msmart" humans who are being educated to be dumbed down. There is no "singularity" coming to threaten humans. There is an excess of employment in useless paper pushing and "influencing" that can be automated, yes. But if history is any guuide this will only lead to more paper and more senseless play-acting. Until some horde of barbarians overruns the place.

 

[Lexicus]

And the best stockpiling of resources is in fact investing in good infrastructure, and good production capacity.

And education, that is arguably even more important. Human beings are the best asset we have.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm assuming I don't need to tell you the long list of things we don't have in common with cows, but the main overlap is really just genetics (and uh being a mammal with a vertebrae, I guess). That's kind the point. We have a lot in common with cats, too, but we also have a lot that's different.

If we're going to say "anything exhibiting three rather generalised sets of behaviour means they're all territorial in the same way", I'm gonna raise an eyebrow. We even have a branched concept for humans that (however valid it is, I haven't done the research) is very different to how it manifests in animals. The studies we have are overwhelmingly done r.e. animals (primarily birds, according to that source), and not humans, and you'd think that'd be a shoe-in if we were so similar.

I have a layer of skin and flesh underneath, with bones throughout. This doesn't make me analogous to a marshmallow on a stick. Picking and choosing behaviour because it reinforces what we think of humanity is good and well as an opinion, but it's not exactly proof of anything.

No, it's not mainly just genetics. Though those are very similar. Mammals are more like each other than traits they don't share. They didn't diverge that far down the trees. And yes, if we get exhaustive they don't share plenty. We're dimorphic. We lactate. We're placentals. We're social animals. We have similar stress responses. We have fur. We have same quadrant hormones. It goes on and on. A few more items than that marshmallow on a stick, even if it's made out of hooves.

I guess you would like to just narrow it down to things that are socially different? That's fine. Being territorial isn't a divergence.

 

[innonimatu]

As for the so-called materialist interpretation of history, it has provided us with a number of interesting insights and suggestions, but it has no explanatory value. In its strong, rigid version, for which one may find considerable support in many classical texts, it implies that social development depends entirely on the class struggle that ultimately, through the intermediary of changing “modes of production,” is determined by the technological level of the society in question. It implies, moreover, that law, religion, philosophy, and other elements of culture have no history of their own, since their history is the history of the relations of production. This is an absurd claim, completely lacking in historical support.

Leszek Kołakowski

Not only is it not absurd, "globalization" stringly backs it. How else do you explain the doing away with differences due to past history, culture, religion, etc, the tendency towards uniformalization across the world?
It is a matter of what drives things. Economic interestsm, the clash of those, are in the center of it. A fan of capitalism should be able to see that plainly...

 

[innonimatu]

And education, that is arguably even more important. Human beings are the best asset we have.

I am deeply disenchanted regarding education. Jacques Ellul was right...

Ironically, the best news in years by a head of state regarding higher education is censored in the "west" because it was delivered by an "enemy". And anyway nothing can be allowed to question that we live in the best possible world, otherwise our own rulers wouldn't be the very best, huh? So we're stuck with the bologhene dish of useless courses meant to keep young people occupied and distracted. Education is turning into outright tourism in the EU. And I do believe we copied the failed american and british ideas.

 

[FriendlyFire]

In this sense Marx is absolutely correct about the trajectory of history: the socialization of production along democratic lines is inevitable as the feudal model of shareholder value extraction is increasingly obviously an impediment to growth and ultimately to production and enteprise itself.

I dont think Marx envisioned highly advanced Robotic workforce, generating capital and humans being ruled over by an AI Polity government
All hail our robot overlords.

 

[Lexicus]

I am deeply disenchanted regarding education. Jacques Ellul was right...

Ironically, the best news in years by a head of state regarding higher education is censored in the "west" because it was delivered by an "enemy". And anyway nothing can be allowed to question that we live in the best possible world, otherwise our own rulers wouldn't be the very best, huh? So we're stuck with the bologhene dish of useless courses meant to keep young people occupied and distracted. Education is turning into outright tourism in the EU. And I do believe we copied the failed american and british ideas.

Education is still important even if capital has warped it.

 

[Lexicus]

I dont think Marx envisioned highly advanced Robotic workforce,

Of course he did lmao, this is exactly what he envisioned.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@innonimatu Collectivism seems to ignore the variety of human needs, especially at later stages of life. State mandated "production" (of services and products) is not able to meet the variety of demand humans desire. Your system will always curtail peoples' wants to those planned by the State. Person A will want to retire to a quiet life in the country after 40 years in the city; Person B will want to take 2 $10,000 vacations a year in distant places. Person C will want to move to be with grandchildren. Now multiply that by a few million other options. The state has a record of being able to meet collective needs (keep the trains running on time) but fails miserably at meeting individual needs. It is those individual needs that increase the happiness of people and families.

Personal savings are similar to corporate investments but just happen on a different scale. by not consuming now I hope to put off that consumption until later when I can better enjoy it or will need it. Should delaying such consumption earn a saver any reward? (interest) Is there a risk to the saver's delay? (inflation) Is there a cost to the saver? (penalty) Does your system allow private companies? If so, can they save for some future need? Scaled up from personal savers. Where do such savings sit? Do I keep the $10 not spent under my mattress? Does the state just not give it to me? Where does a company keep its money not spent?

Maybe your system does away with money altogether. I don't know. You talk a lot at the macro level, but people don't live at the macro level. They live at the micro level where each transaction is important to them. Can you describe how your collectivism works at the individual level? I work in some factory or service run by the state. How do I plan and pay for the 300 person wedding in Cancun for my daughter? How many different kinds of cars will be available for me to buy? Do I get a benefit from consuming less than average? I could go on. Your socialism is like a big puzzle that you have put all the pieces together, but when that is done, there is no picture. It's blank. The pieces all fit but....

@innonimatu I would like your reply to this post.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Of course he did lmao, this is exactly what he envisioned.

Iam serious, I expect robots will be increasingly take over larger roles in the economy and less jobs for Humans
Eventually a large part of the economy will be robot driven, profits taxed by government and used for social spending.
Hopefully the robots wont want to seize the means of production

The robotics sector has seen veritable growth in the past two years
Japan is a highly robotised country and a global frontrunner in the use of robots for everyday life

Here's why Japan is now the world's biggest robot maker

The robotics sector has seen veritable growth in the past two years despite a number of key challenges facing all suppliers, but one country stands tall above the rest in the field of industrial robotics - robots used in the manufacturing sector...

industryeurope.com

 

[amadeus]

The TINA defense. Communists didn't ever claim that even in Stalin's "socialism in one country" days.

Point of order: communists wouldn’t claim that because the point Stalin writes in “Socialism in One Country” is not socialism in only one country, but socialism in the Soviet Union now and the world revolution later.

 

[Narz]

Where did you encounter this idea? At best we do not have the evidence to support this claim but I would go further and say it is almost certainly false.

Some anthropology book I think.

All you're showing here is that if you assume humans are territorial in the first place you can interpret virtually any human behavior in terms of territoriality.

Are you disputing that most sports, games and even the game that brought you here involve solo or tribal 'wars' over the control of territory?

Doing some cursory research on this question it is striking how circular the basic argument appears to be: we know that property rights are an evolution of territory because humans are territorial, and we know that humans are territorial because of property.

I'm not making a comment on property rights specifically.

anyway, I was under the impression that socialists are not against personal property?

Anyway, i read through the wikipedia article on animal territoriality and having done so it seems obvious to me that humans do not exhibit the behaviors that define territoriality.

Instead of reading wiki about animals why not just observe actual humans?

 

[Narz]

Fear of outsiders. Competition for mates. Aggressive competition for food when scarce?

What apes are you looking at?

He's not looking, he's 'seeing' thru a lens that blocks vision

Also you have to keep in mind that most people who are well off live in a very artificial environment where even indirect conflict can be avoided (of course conflict is a human need therefore social media, forums etc), each child has their own bedroom, food and resources are provided daily w/o fail, territory doesn't necessarily need to be defended because there's plenty for everyone. They mistake the veener of polite society for human nature & its only a few bad greedy apples ruining it for the majority of good people. Kind or like original sin in reverse (instead or humans are wicked save for God its humans are gentle and good save for 'the man')

 

[Yeekim]

Anyway, i read through the wikipedia article on animal territoriality and having done so it seems obvious to me that humans do not exhibit the behaviors that define territoriality.

That is an intriguing claim. Care to share how you reached that conclusion?

Great apes are a mixed bag in general: chimpanzees are territorial, while gorillas and orangutans are not.
EDIT: Other sources say gorillas are somewhat territorial too, just less so.

For entire written history, humans have been sort of hyper-territorial, constantly fighting wars over territory. Sure, written history is just a tiny bit of our total history, but what makes you think there has been a late and radical turnaround in human behavior? Why do you think early humans were more akin to gorillas than chimps in this?

 

[Gorbles]

He's not looking, he's 'seeing' thru a lens that blocks vision

At times like this, I sincerely miss the laugh react.

Also you have to keep in mind that most people who are well off live in a very artificial environment where even indirect conflict can be avoided (of course conflict is a human need therefore social media, forums etc), each child has their own bedroom, food and resources are provided daily w/o fail, territory doesn't necessarily need to be defended because there's plenty for everyone. They mistake the veener of polite society for human nature & its only a few bad greedy apples ruining it for the majority of good people. Kind or like original sin in reverse (instead or humans are wicked save for God its humans are gentle and good save for 'the man')

Famously, the peasant class in medieval times was known for wiping itself out repeatedly in bloody conflict over scant resources and terrible living conditions.

(except that, y'know, didn't happen)

Peasants went to war for their nobles. Nobles liked gold. Gold was mined by other peasants (or slaves, etc). This isn't territorialism, it's "I want more of the shiny thing". That's greed. Look up some history around any country's crown jewels (for countries that have had them). Stop looking through your lens that blocks vision

No, it's not mainly just genetics. Though those are very similar. Mammals are more like each other than traits they don't share. They didn't diverge that far down the trees. And yes, if we get exhaustive they don't share plenty. We're dimorphic. We lactate. We're placentals. We're social animals. We have similar stress responses. We have fur. We have same quadrant hormones. It goes on and on. A few more items than that marshmallow on a stick, even if it's made out of hooves.

I guess you would like to just narrow it down to things that are socially different? That's fine. Being territorial isn't a divergence.

Well, there's a reason we're called mammals, because certain things are shared, but it doesn't make us a duck-billed platypus. Nor does it grant many animals the ability to think anywhere near our level. We have a pretty unique brain, all told. Other animals have other unique things. The idea that we're similar in reasoning and "primal urges" or whatever hokum Narz ascribes to doesn't map, because we've been given a thinking tool (however abused) that affords us a massive degree of reasoning compared to, say, a cat.

I don't ascribe to human exceptionalism, or that we are made in the image of a creator, etc, et al (not meant caustically, I'm a heathen, it kinda follows on from that - there are plenty of people that ascribe to human exceptionalism without being religious). But on the other hand I don't liken us too much to animals, because (as linked) a lot of the concepts don't line up. Territorialism in animals is not territorialism in humans. Territorialism is a separate concept to aggression. Greed is another concept entirely. Competition is perhaps another thing - my cats are territorial within my garden, but they also play-fight with each other. Groups have dynamics. We have sports teams. It's not evidence of territorialism as an animal concept.

Like in this thread, the reasoning is easy enough to follow. It comes out of socialism being "unworkable" because we're "territorial" and not "collectivist", so we're not even discussing science. We're discussing in service to an ideology (or specifically, an opposition to). I appreciate the tangent though. Honestly more interesting.