• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is socialism inevitable?

Is socialism inevitable within the next 100 years?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • No

    Votes: 15 62.5%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Total voters
    24
Canell

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As world population grows and machines already do most of the hard work, so we don't have to enslave each other or work our butt off on the field plowing and reaping, I come to ask more frequently what the future structure of society would be. Overproduction has become a major issue both in terms of consuming natural resources and stalled market.
Freedom lovers state that "one have the right to ones labor and the products of that labor" in contrast with slavery where they belong to the master. Does that work in over-productive economy or it just applies for the self sufficient 19 century farmer type of man? Are we moving towards some kind of plan economy, some kind of socialism, as labor becomes more and more effective and manual-free?
Is socialism inevitable within the next 100 years?
 
To an extent, but the socialistic policies in many countries have gone far beyond what they should.
 
To what geographic extent? If we're talking globally, I don't see trend toward socialism in any sense worldwide. Some economies might move to the right, some might move to the left.

Also - not sure what you mean by "overproduction." Could you elaborate?
 
in systems such as ours, more and more people become addicted to government entitlements and demand others pay for those entitlements so until the system collapses, there will be a move to more socialism
 
Democracy leads to socialism...
 
I don't see the connections you're trying to make in your OP. Because we have more machines, we'll suddenly nationalize everything?

The overall wealth of the planet is increasing dramatically and technology is playing a major part in that. But just because we become more wealthy doesn't mean that we will want to have the govt run businesses.
 
StillBallin75 said:
To what geographic extent? If we're talking globally, I don't see trend toward socialism in any sense worldwide. Some economies might move to the right, some might move to the left.
Click to expand...

I talking mainly about the Western world.

StillBallin75 said:
Also - not sure what you mean by "overproduction." Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Well, nothing fancy here, just overproduction. :)
OK, for example imagine you are a bread maker making a decent living. But a big bakery plant opens in your town and suddenly part of your customers are attracted there for low prices or whatever it could be. Now, your sales drop dramatically and its not a decent living anymore. Probably the same will happen with lots of bakeries around.
My point is that rising efficiency, automation and new technologies leads to overproduction where decreasing number of people produce ever increasing number of goods and many people become just unneeded. Certainly, new industries can be introduces to employ them but I think there will be a point of saturation.

Simon W. Moon said:
I don't see the connections you're trying to make in your OP. Because we have more machines, we'll suddenly nationalize everything?

The overall wealth of the planet is increasing dramatically and technology is playing a major part in that. But just because we become more wealthy doesn't mean that we will want to have the govt run businesses.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about nationalization. ;) But if more and more financial power is concentrated in the hands of the big folks what would the regular Joe do except playing their game? :roll:
 
Canell said:
I never said anything about nationalization. ;)
Click to expand...
Then you should provide what definition of socialism you're wanting to use. Are you using some newspeak definition?
Cause in OldSpeak, the word socialism means that the govt has the means of production.
define: socialism - Google Search

So, provide your newspeak definition for socialism that has nothing to do with the govt owning the means of production and we can go from there.
Alternatively, you could substitute an OldSpeak word and or words to describe what you mean instead of mis-using the word socialism.

Canell said:
But if more and more financial power is concentrated in the hands of the big folks what would the regular Joe do except playing their game? :roll:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you mean some sort of de facto oligarchy instead of socialism?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I don't see the connections you're trying to make in your OP. Because we have more machines, we'll suddenly nationalize everything?

The overall wealth of the planet is increasing dramatically and technology is playing a major part in that. But just because we become more wealthy doesn't mean that we will want to have the govt run businesses.
Click to expand...

What happens if wealth becomes meaningless...that would be interesting
 
Canell said:
As world population grows and machines already do most of the hard work, so we don't have to enslave each other or work our butt off on the field plowing and reaping, I come to ask more frequently what the future structure of society would be. Overproduction has become a major issue both in terms of consuming natural resources and stalled market.
Freedom lovers state that "one have the right to ones labor and the products of that labor" in contrast with slavery where they belong to the master. Does that work in over-productive economy or it just applies for the self sufficient 19 century farmer type of man? Are we moving towards some kind of plan economy, some kind of socialism, as labor becomes more and more effective and manual-free?
Is socialism inevitable within the next 100 years?
Click to expand...

I think this century has shown that people have an appetite for more and more stuff. Even if we get past the basics, people will want newer and better cars, ipods, fashion, etc. As a race, we like our shiny things.

lpast said:
What happens if wealth becomes meaningless...that would be interesting
Click to expand...

If wealth becomes meaningless, we will invent new definitions of wealth and pretend they matter. We do that already.

Exhibit A : http://www.pandora.net/
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
Then you should provide what definition of socialism you're wanting to use. Are you using some newspeak definition?
Click to expand...

You are totally right. :) Without a proper definition of "socialism" everything else is meaningless. That's a hard task, however, almost impossible. "Socialism" is probably one of the most speculative and abused words out there. Even USSR and Hitler had used it in their way too.
Hm, there is a guy in this forum and perhaps his signature gives the idea of what I mean:

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate the grave evils of capitalism, namely through the esablishment of a socialist economy. A planned economy, adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute work to be done among all those able to work and would gurantee a livelihood to every person." - Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

Simon W. Moon said:
Perhaps you mean some sort of de facto oligarchy instead of socialism?
Click to expand...

Yeah, how could the average person deal with: "we don't need you, we have installed robots. Take care." ? Obviously, one cannot make one's car in the garage but whoever does will have it all. So yes it becomes some form of oligarchy with only several manufacturers.

Along the way: Socialism vs State Socialism
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I think this century has shown that people have an appetite for more and more stuff. Even if we get past the basics, people will want newer and better cars, ipods, fashion, etc. As a race, we like our shiny things.
Click to expand...

Yes but that puts a great presure on the Earth to satisfy our endless desires and mistakes. Meaning, it's not sustainable. ;)
 
Canell said:
As world population grows and machines already do most of the hard work, so we don't have to enslave each other or work our butt off on the field plowing and reaping, I come to ask more frequently what the future structure of society would be. Overproduction has become a major issue both in terms of consuming natural resources and stalled market.
Freedom lovers state that "one have the right to ones labor and the products of that labor" in contrast with slavery where they belong to the master. Does that work in over-productive economy or it just applies for the self sufficient 19 century farmer type of man? Are we moving towards some kind of plan economy, some kind of socialism, as labor becomes more and more effective and manual-free?
Is socialism inevitable within the next 100 years?
Click to expand...

Ok, what would happened in a much more automated economy where a few people produce a lot of stuff. What will happen is that the service economy becomes more important. For instance when people spend less and less of their money on manufactured goods, then they will start spend more money on things like housing, education, therapy, etc.

This may increase income inequality somewhat, but this is not a major factor. There are many countries with a low manufacturing percentage with quite low income inequality.

The major factor is the decline in economic output in western countries. Many developed countries have hardly grown the last 20 years, especially the productivity in the governmental sector has been very low. However, governmental services are sticky downwards and people expect too much. When the economic output fall, then governmental sector just keeps expanding. The governmental workers in the US are still getting higher wage raises than the private sector even though it should have been the opposite way.
 
Camlon said:
Ok, what would happened in a much more automated economy where a few people produce a lot of stuff. What will happen is that the service economy becomes more important. For instance when people spend less and less of their money on manufactured goods, then they will start spend more money on things like housing, education, therapy, etc.
Click to expand...

OK, lets imagine we can produce almost everything with robots and the service sector is 90% of the economy. Would it be more capitalist or more socialist? And wouldn't there be a virtual monopoly on material goods as fewer and fewer manufacturers run the show?
 
??? said:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
Some think this was writen by Alexander Tytler but others dispute him being the originator.

I don't know who originally wrote it, but IMO, it is where most of the so called advanced countries are heading.

.
 
I don't think that it's inevitable. Economies all around the world have drifted away from socialism toward market capitalism, just look at China. Even this country has far less public control of the means of production than it did 40 years ago. Telecommunications, airlines, banking, and transportation are all considerably less regulated, and government spending as a percentage of GDP, while jumping in recent years, is lower than it was back then. There is no inevitable march toward socialism.
 
Canell said:
As world population grows and machines already do most of the hard work, so we don't have to enslave each other or work our butt off on the field plowing and reaping, I come to ask more frequently what the future structure of society would be. Overproduction has become a major issue both in terms of consuming natural resources and stalled market.
Freedom lovers state that "one have the right to ones labor and the products of that labor" in contrast with slavery where they belong to the master. Does that work in over-productive economy or it just applies for the self sufficient 19 century farmer type of man? Are we moving towards some kind of plan economy, some kind of socialism, as labor becomes more and more effective and manual-free?
Is socialism inevitable within the next 100 years?
Click to expand...

I'm a believer that as technology develops, reduces scarcity of materials, socialism or communism is more realistic.
Before then however, I do not believe that it is a valid economic system.
 
Canell said:
I talking mainly about the Western world.



Well, nothing fancy here, just overproduction. :)
OK, for example imagine you are a bread maker making a decent living. But a big bakery plant opens in your town and suddenly part of your customers are attracted there for low prices or whatever it could be. Now, your sales drop dramatically and its not a decent living anymore. Probably the same will happen with lots of bakeries around.
My point is that rising efficiency, automation and new technologies leads to overproduction where decreasing number of people produce ever increasing number of goods and many people become just unneeded. Certainly, new industries can be introduces to employ them but I think there will be a point of saturation.



I never said anything about nationalization. ;) But if more and more financial power is concentrated in the hands of the big folks what would the regular Joe do except playing their game? :roll:
Click to expand...

Just read a story by David Brin, "Piecework" where he examines the long term consequences of ever more technological solutions to the worlds problems eventually resulting in a shortage of useful work.

In the story, people dream of someday joining those who actually DO something.
 
megaprogman said:
I think this century has shown that people have an appetite for more and more stuff. Even if we get past the basics, people will want newer and better cars, ipods, fashion, etc. As a race, we like our shiny things.



If wealth becomes meaningless, we will invent new definitions of wealth and pretend they matter. We do that already.

Exhibit A : Genuine jewelry | PANDORA
Click to expand...

There is a saturation point to wealth.
You can see this exhibited by the wealthy who start to resent their wealth.

When wealth is defined by how creative a person is with things like art, science, etc, we are definitely moving forward.
 
What if...? said:
In the story, people dream of someday joining those who actually DO something.
Click to expand...

I guess skiing, playing tennis and having sex are not enough to make you happy. ;)
Thanks, I'll try to read that book if possible. :2wave:
 
Canell said:
Freedom lovers state that "one have the right to ones labor and the products of that labor" in contrast with slavery where they belong to the master. Does that work in over-productive economy or it just applies for the self sufficient 19 century farmer type of man? Are we moving towards some kind of plan economy, some kind of socialism, as labor becomes more and more effective and manual-free?
Is socialism inevitable within the next 100 years?
Click to expand...

I share your observations about the viability of the post-industrial economy, but socialism isn't a viable solution. That isn't to say that socialism is impossible, but that it doesn't solve the underlying problem which is that artificial labor inflates the supply of labor to such an extent that there's no demand for it.
 
Canell said:
Are we moving towards some kind of plan economy, some kind of socialism, as labor becomes more and more effective and manual-free?Is socialism inevitable within the next 100 years?
Click to expand...

We are moving to End of the World, in any case not devil's socialism, the worst invention of satan which has killed more as 500 millions people in different countries. All supporters of this deadly utopia must be rushed to lunatic asylums!
 
Canell said:
I guess skiing, playing tennis and having sex are not enough to make you happy. ;)
Thanks, I'll try to read that book if possible. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Its actually a short story in a collection called "Otherness".

And indeed, leisure was the norm for all.

But those with something REAL to do were admired by some who strove to join their ranks. So that they could feel useful.
 
Once again it's hell no it's not. We have to take back our nation from the Obama types who are well versed in Socialism/Marxism having been raised by Muslim Father figures who were also Communists as was his mother & grandparents.

The thinking Americans need to stop sitting around doing nothing and cowering in the face of name calling, threats, claims of racism etc.

Liberals are typically not well versed in the truth and facts but are well trained in following the Party line and spreading lies and claims of intolerance.

Right now we have to make sure everyone knows that the lies that claim Obama is brilliant are just that. Brilliant people don't have track record of nothing but failure save the killing one bad guy. Brilliant people don't make the same mistakes that have been proven failures, like raising taxes in a reccession while spending money tou don't have. Not to mention being caught in over 158 lies. Just Google 158 documented Obama lies, and read it for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom