Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?

Take a minute to look out into the future, consider the direction Western & Eastern civilization is headed in (Middles Eastern doesn't count, they don't head in any direction but spin in a circle).

What does that future look like?

I consider myself a libertarian, but thinking about the future of society I don't see how we avoid some form of socialism whether it's full blown commie town or a hybrid socialist system. Automation, drones, and robotics are rapidly changing society and in just a few decades from now a huge chunk (some predict more than half) of the jobs in America and other developed countries will be taken by machines who can do it cheaper, faster and arguably more efficiently.

That leaves millions upon millions of next to useless mouths to feed.

The only conclusion I can come to right now, is that some form of a welfare state type of socialist system will be in place. I don't see how it works otherwise.

Unless of course we let millions stacked on top of millions starve to death to thin the herd. Learning computer programming and other STEM areas of study is already essential and will be an absolute requirement going forward. Being able to control a computer and bend it to your will is going to be up there with reading, writing, communicating, and other basic life skills one will need to be employable. Of course the youth need to stop killing themselves trying to take selfies in very stupid places. Maybe it's just Darwin doin his thing and we have to let nature run it's course.

What do you think? Does the human species have a future without some form of socialism?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

2001400ex

I think it's more that as countries become more wealthy, they try to reduce poverty. It's a natural progression of society. Similar to women's rights, as society becomes more educated, women gain more prominence.
I like to be the 5th vote that buries a poast, that's what I like to do.

You must have been dropped on your head as a child. It's the only explanation.

Burn. Nice contribution as always.

pawz

"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"

Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.

For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.

Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.

Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
You mean like how private enterprise mines and oil wells are on BLM and USFS properties and pay royalties to the government for the riches they extract?
Similar to that yes, but applied more broadly (as I mentioned in my lumber example), and the oil companies would be charged higher rents and their CEOs would be imprisoned if they spilled any oil. And lots of taxes.

What in the fuck is wrong with you?

It's like you think economic development is a bottomless reserve to rape and pillage for your masterbatory love affair with the government. If you think its such a grand idea, why don't you voluntarily send the government 90% of your income. Clearly you think they will do better with your money than you will.

FFS

RaceBannon

I guess Obama should go to prison for the EPA spill. He's the CEO

OZONE

I guess Obama should go to prison for the EPA spill. He's the CEO

Is this the case where an EPA tech made a mistake while the EPA was trying to clean up a pool of mine runoff that was abandoned by a profiteering miner that had left behind a pool of heavy metal poison and walked away -- washing their hands of responsibility? ... and leaving the people/gov't to clean it up?

If this is the case yo are referring to... I'd say the original mine owner should go to prison before anybody in the gov't.

PurpleReign

See, some random billionaire agrees with me:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/12/billionaire-says-ai-could-put-workers-out-to-pasture.html

"When we first had the internal combustion engine — the horseless carriages, the car was called — look at all the horses they just put out to pasture," he said, making an ominous comparison to the present-day advances in automation. "We are going to be destroying jobs at a record clip."

See, now he says it like it's a bad thing and I for one will embrace our new robot overlords. That said, society will obviously have to evolve and change because quite simply, it will have no choice.

Tech is changing the world, and rapidly.

OZONE

"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"

Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.

For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.

Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.

Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
You mean like how private enterprise mines and oil wells are on BLM and USFS properties and pay royalties to the government for the riches they extract?
Similar to that yes, but applied more broadly (as I mentioned in my lumber example), and the oil companies would be charged higher rents and their CEOs would be imprisoned if they spilled any oil. And lots of taxes.
What in the fuck is wrong with you?

It's like you think economic development is a bottomless reserve to rape and pillage for your masterbatory love affair with the government. If you think its such a grand idea, why don't you voluntarily send the government 90% of your income. Clearly you think they will do better with your money than you will.

FFS

Actually, I think that gov't services should be paid for as they are provided, and that takes taxes.

The alternative is what Reagan and Bush 2 did, which is borrow and spend.

PurpleReign

Well, if we are being fair Obama has double the debt of the previous presidents (all of them) combined. Just sayin.

PurpleThrobber

I have yet to see anything in this thread to convince me that hot Swedish socialistic boobs aren't the way to go.

PurpleReign

God I love me some Scandinavian tittays. Unfortunately for them, because of their very open and liberal societies they are now under siege by muslims and are now the rape and gun crime capitals of Western/Northern Europe.

One in five Swedish girls is sexually assaulted now.

PurpleThrobber

God I love me some Scandinavian tittays. Unfortunately for them, because of their very open and liberal societies they are now under siege by muslims and are now the rape and gun crime capitals of Western/Northern Europe.

One in five Swedish girls is sexually assaulted now.

They are awesome, aren't they. My inner Viking is rumbling. Let's go fuck up some rapists.

HuskyInAZ

"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"

Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.

For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.

Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.

Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.

Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.

As for copyrights and patents, lessening the effective time period lessens the incentive to pour money into R&D. Probably not a smart move.

sarktastic

Yes, let's restrict upward mobility by taxing the shit out

A hybrid system is almost certainly the future. Some sort of Frankenstein's monster version of a capitalist economy and a socialist welfare state.

I don't see people and/or corporations giving up their property without a fight and at the same time the natural evolution of technology is going to erode a lot of jobs.

Maybe we will have essential breakthroughs in food production and energy storage that will save the day, but I still don't see how you deal with an exploding population and no jobs without some sort of basic handout system to simply keep people alive. Unless letting them slowly starve and die by the millions is acceptable, of course.

It's a lot of mouths to feed.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, "I got mine, the rest of you, share the rest... fuck off" is exactly where this is headed

#SoylentGreenIsPeople

"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"

Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.

For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.

Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.

Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
You mean like how private enterprise mines and oil wells are on BLM and USFS properties and pay royalties to the government for the riches they extract?
Similar to that yes, but applied more broadly (as I mentioned in my lumber example), and the oil companies would be charged higher rents and their CEOs would be imprisoned if they spilled any oil. And lots of taxes.
What in the fuck is wrong with you?

It's like you think economic development is a bottomless reserve to rape and pillage for your masterbatory love affair with the government. If you think its such a grand idea, why don't you voluntarily send the government 90% of your income. Clearly you think they will do better with your money than you will.

FFS
Actually, I think that gov't services should be paid for as they are provided, and that takes taxes.

The alternative is what Reagan and Bush 2 did, which is borrow and spend.

Newsflash: Ronald Reagan is *not* President.

priapism

All the taxi and truck drivers will be extinct in 20 years.
Burger flippers will soon follow.
There will be a lot of dumb, unemployed people with zero skills soon wanting their $15/hour.

Computer processing power passes human processing power in 2048.
Population peaks at 9-10 billion in 2050.
Capitalism doesn't work with a shrinking population base - no more expansion.

And then some organic assimilation will make everyone think the same, so we won't need any politics:

https://youtu.be/TGI8oNcYkXg?t=1m17s

The first country that can manipulate and control people's minds with nanobots will win. There won't be any more feisty Putins to bother with.

Swaye

All the taxi and truck drivers will be extinct in 20 years.
Burger flippers will soon follow.
There will be a lot of dumb, unemployed people with zero skills soon wanting their $15/hour.

Computer processing power passes human processing power in 2048.
Population peaks at 9-10 billion in 2050.
Capitalism doesn't work with a shrinking population base - no more expansion.

I'm actually looking forward to the U.S. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho administration.

OZONE

Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.

They are only interested in the health of the land in terms of optimizing it for lumber profits and avoiding lawsuits from the fishing industry about fish habitat destruction or lawsuits from various green movements. It is all profit driven. There are other drivers that should be considered with regards to the health of the land -- besides lumber profits.

Anyway, the debate as to whether or not this should be the economic future is a different debate. I was just explaining my prediction -- and answering another poster's question about what constitutes free market socialism.

PurpleJ

Lucky for J and freeme that rent boys are unionized and aren't threatened by automation? No machine can ever replace the feel of a real dickus in your fungus bungis! Shake them hips and make them tips boys! Rub some glitter on your twatz and celebrate flamboyantly! U GO GURL!!!!

PurpleReign

Bank of England issued report predicting as many as 15 million in the UK and 80 million in the USA could lose their jobs to automation in the next 20-30 years.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/13/robots-could-steal-80-million-us-jobs-bank-of-england.html

Kaepsknee

"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"

Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.

For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.

Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.

Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.

As for copyrights and patents, lessening the effective time period lessens the incentive to pour money into R&D. Probably not a smart move.

Ozones tribal idiot leaders all but locked up BLM land in Oregon in the 90s Their grand plan was to just sit and let undergrowth run rampant in the forests leading to record amount of disease and fires. It doesn't matter what the Weyerhausers motivation for caring for the forests are. Grandpa Sankey can see that managing forests is healthier than locking them down.

OZONE

"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"

Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.

For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.

Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.

Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.

As for copyrights and patents, lessening the effective time period lessens the incentive to pour money into R&D. Probably not a smart move.
Ozones tribal idiot leaders all but locked up BLM land in Oregon in the 90s Their grand plan was to just sit and let undergrowth run rampant in the forests leading to record amount of disease and fires. It doesn't matter what the Weyerhausers motivation for caring for the forests are. Grandpa Sankey can see that managing forests is healthier than locking them down.

Nice cherry picked factoid that means nothing.

The best lumber we've every seen came out of the unmanaged forrest over 100 years ago.

Weayerhoser is been managing those forests for 100 years since, and the lumber coming out of them now is shit.

Probably because they cut down all the old growth as part of their "management process" and all that's left is 2nd and 3rd growth shit.

Looks fine for Weayerhoser's bottom line, but ask a craftsman that build's fine houses, and he will tell you the lumber they sell today is crap.

BTW, I've stayed the weekend at the Weayerhoser's former CFOs Chelan house (his daughter and my wife used to work together). I've had dinner with him (he is a Stanford alumni). He'll be the first to admit that their "management" is designed to optimize profit, not the forest quality or the quality of the lumber they produce.

The biggest thing that got them to improve their management of the land, was lawsuits from fisherman because their harvesting practices were fucking up the streams and rivers.

sarktastic

"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"

Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.

For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.

Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.

Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.

As for copyrights and patents, lessening the effective time period lessens the incentive to pour money into R&D. Probably not a smart move.
Ozones tribal idiot leaders all but locked up BLM land in Oregon in the 90s Their grand plan was to just sit and let undergrowth run rampant in the forests leading to record amount of disease and fires. It doesn't matter what the Weyerhausers motivation for caring for the forests are. Grandpa Sankey can see that managing forests is healthier than locking them down.
Nice cherry picked factoid that means nothing.

The best lumber we've every seen came out of the unmanaged forrest over 100 years ago.

Weayerhoser is been managing those forests for 100 years since, and the lumber coming out of them is shit.

Probably because they cut down all the old growth as part of their "management process" and all that's left is 2nd and 3rd growth shit.

Looks fine for Weayerhoser's bottom line, but ask a craftsman that build's fine houses, and he will tell you the lumber they sell today is crap.

BTW, I've stayed the weekend at the Weayerhoser's former CFOs Chelan house (his daughter and my wife used to work together). I've had dinner with him (he is a Stanford alumni). He'll be the first to admit that their "management" is designed to optimize profit, not the forest quality or the quality of the lumber they produce.

No more old growth, no more managed forest... just say no to renewable building materials???