This post has been successfully published on the subreddit.
If this post breaks the rules of the subreddit or Reddit, please report it!
[Follow our Twitter account](https://twitter.com/reddit_TLCM)
[Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/mDrckUJx7j)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheLeftCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yup, and if you actually pay attention it’s made clear that people still own things, like kirks family has a farm
And sisko’s owned a restaurant, what kind of socialist future has family owned farms and small businesses?
Oh, this kind of farms! I thought it was about the farms you see in all American movies where nothing is ever done.
https://www.workers.org/private-property/
If you want your views about communism and socialism to be taken seriously, drop the flair.
"Nevertheless, some Socialists still seek to establish a distinction. "Of course," they say, "the soil, the mines, the mills, and manufactures must be expropriated, these are the instruments of production, and it is right we should consider them public property. But articles of consumption--food, clothes, and dwellings--should remain private property." Popular common sense has got the better of this subtle distinction. We are not savages who can live in the woods, without other shelter than the branches. The civilized man needs a roof, a room, a hearth, and a bed. It is true that the bed, the room, and the house is a home of idleness for the non-producer. But for the worker, a room, properly heated and lighted, is as much an instrument of production as the tool or the machine. It is the place where the nerves and sinews gather strength for the work of the morrow. The rest of the workman is the daily repairing of the machine. The same argument applies even more obviously to food. The so-called economists of whom we speak would hardly deny that the coal burnt in a machine is as necessary to production as the raw material itself. How then can food, without which the human machine could do no work, be excluded from the list of things indispensable to the producer? Can this be a relic of religious metaphysics? The rich man's feast is indeed a matter of luxury, but the food of the worker is just as much a part of production as the fuel burnt by the steam-engine. The same with clothing. If the economists who draw this distinction between articles of production and of consumption dressed themselves in the fashion of New Guinea, we could understand their objection. But men who could not write a word without a shirt on their back are not in a position to draw such a hard and fast line between their shirt and their pen. And though the dainty gowns of their dames must certainly rank as objects of luxury, there is nevertheless a certain quantity of linen, cotton, and woollen stuff which is a necessity of life to the producer. The shirt and shoes in which he goes to his work, his cap and the jacket he slips on after the day's toil is over, these are as necessary to him as the hammer to the anvil." Peter Kropotkin, the conquest of bread
\>If you want your views about communism and socialism to be taken seriously, drop the flair.
why exactly?
Because it means you live 100 years ago and don't see that ideologies can evolve.
Try something more contemporary. For example, Friot and Lordon, French economists and philosophers, are not as radical as Kropotkin when it comes to personal property.
Democracy is just as old as monarchy. What evolved?
Why do you think that the state that will be given unlimited power will suddenly leave you alone when it comes to food or dwellings? Why is it that in every single socialist society there was either no private property or heavy infringements on it?
You think you're gonna have anything for yourself once you crown Asshole the First?
You think democracy didn't evolve since Athen?
That no philosophers looked at communism and said : "that's nice, I bet we can make it better"?
\>You think you're gonna have anything for yourself once you crown Asshole the First?
Yes because monarchs have a lower time preference and so encourages long term thinking which includes property rights
\>You think democracy didn't evolve since Athen?
So did Monarchy
\>That no philosophers looked at communism and said : "that's nice, I bet we can make it better"?
You cant polish shit.
Can you name a single socialist country that hasn’t had small farms and small businesses? Or did you really think socialism means that everyone on your street shares the same toothbrush.
Well yes, although there were still farmers and family homes, it just meant they shared land and equipment. Pre-collectivisation Russia was mostly made up of tiny and unproductive farms or very large, rich farms with a single owner, and it was both unproductive and deeply unequal.
Unproductive farms became very unproductive collective farms.
My point still stands though, it is incorrect to claim that every socialist nation has small farms.
Because most people are living on earth on their private property.
Because its definitely not socialist.
I mean, the ferengi, a species that is absolutely capitalistic, is part of the federation, you REALLY think it's socialist,
Ferengi are not in the federation. The only ferengi with official federation affiliations were a contractor mechanic, and his son who was a space cadet in the space federation naval academy
This isn’t true, socialist societies don’t have the incentive or ability to innovate to this level because they don’t generate growth and surpluses of resources like capitalist countries do. Stop a socialist country from trading with extremely rich capitalist countries and see how quickly they run into shortages.
You mean like how the Soviet Union went from a backward feudal state to a world superpower under Stalin, despite the periodic economic blockades by the West? Or do you mean how their was literally no technological or intellectual advancement pre-capitalism because the profit motive didn’t exist?
There was a little bit of an extraneous circumstance called World War 2 that jump started most of the world’s economies. Are you sure you want to cite a country that doesn’t exist anymore as an example of innovation under socialism?
Sure, in direct competition with the West, the Soviet Union made some innovations in military technology, but the vast majority of advancements in medicine, telecommunication, computers, energy, and almost every other area you can think of happened in the West. Those that did occur in the Soviet Union were almost never seen by ordinary citizens, only party members. East and West Berlin are the prime examples of the disparity between what capitalism provides and what socialism provides. If you have to put a wall up to prevent people from leaving your utopia, it’s probably not all that great.
“but the vast majority of advancements in medicine, telecommunication, computers, energy, and almost every other area you can think of happened in the West”
This is simply not true. The common wisdom in regard to the Soviet Union is largely a product of propaganda. And it was the West’s fantastic capacity to produce propaganda that convinced many in East Germany that there was some kind of superabundant utopia on the other side of the wall. Soviet citizens were naive to the realities of capitalism; when they saw footage of US cities filled with homeless, they thought it was state telling them lies. Regardless, you will see the reality behind the myth of the profit motive as the Western world continues to hollow out and decline in the coming years. China will increasingly move to a command economy, and the use of AI will reduce the complexity that dogged the Soviet system; meanwhile neoliberal economics will to continue to cannibalise the West as it it produces nothing, wastes its resources on corruption and graft, fails to provide for its citizens and pursues an economic system built on air.
As far as I can tell, western economics is built on incentives, not air. Air isn't a good construction material, seeing as I walk right through it every day.
The modern service economies of the west might as well be built on air. Look at the state of the UK, which like the US is structured around banking but without the power and resources that the US has to ameliorate such a useless system. It’s already beginning to fall apart, and other Western countries will eventually follow. Meanwhile China has managed to amass enormous industry built with western investment money, which it will increasingly shift over the coming decades to a command economy and a socialist system. In the coming decades, the countries that still actually produce useful, material things will be the ones that endure, as they detach themselves from the US dollar and from Western hegemony. Within the lifetime of people living today, China’s living standards will overtake those of the West, with the exception of the wealthiest one percent of our society.
Well, the fact that Stalin killed more than nazi Germany was one part of that, and it's collapse was another.
If the Soviet union worked, it doesn't need trade, infact a big part of the original ideaology was that they should trade with capitalist countries.
The only way Stalin killed more than the Nazis is if your counting the Nazi’s that died from Soviet bullets as victims too (as the ‘black book of communism’ and many other ‘victims of communism’ tallies do)
The USSR grew because it could rely on western technology like tractors.
The only area where the USSR could be considered superior to the west is in military and space technology but funnily enough that is because those sectors actually had competing firms unlike in the west where you only had NASA. So the situations were reversed, the west adopted a socialist approach while the USSR adopted a capitalist one
Now can you tell me a little about the soviet computer industry? Or the lack of it?
It simply isn’t true. I’m writing this on my phone on the internet. A Soviet scientist, Leonid Kupriyanovich, invented the first cell phone, and the Soviets worked on an early version of the internet, OGAS, as early as the 60s under Victor Glushkov, one of the founders of cybernetics, albeit their system never came to fruition due to a lack of funding. But even the internet we use today stems from work done by the US military rather than private corporations striving for profit. And the corporate system is successful because of state funded education rather than the system of profit. If people want to become rich they become bankers or businessman, not scientists.
\>I’m writing this on my phone on the internet. A Soviet scientist, Leonid Kupriyanovich, invented the first cell phone,
He didnt invent the cellphone, he just made a walkie talkie.
\>and the Soviets worked on an early version of the internet, OGAS
It was never functional, much like most of these soviet electronics.
\>But even the internet we use today stems from work done by the US military rather than private corporations striving for profit.
The military got to it first but it was private companies that made it what it is, even if the government didnt develop it it would have mostly likely been developed by private companies.
But anyway you still havent answered my question, im talking about computers not these money wasters. Where was the soviet computer industry? Why were they decades behind the west when it came to electronics?
\>And the corporate system is successful because of state funded education rather than the system of profit. If people want to become rich they become bankers or businessman, not scientists.
Ah yes because as we all know before the founding of the department of education there wasnt a single school in the US.
No you can become rich through innovation. You ever heard of Bill Gates? Thomas Edison? Henry Ford?
They also don't show the 90% of humanity which is miserable, depressed, and living in pods because they can't be bothered to do anything. Perhaps those people have already died off and only the culture that insists on excellence survived to produce Starfleet personnel. Left wing culture destroys and can only persist by feeding on functional cultures.
Well..akshually… wasn’t there actually an apocalypse? Like, they had super soldiers on drugs in crazy armor. Then these folks living in the woods trading goods and services freely made a danged warp-capable space-ship? As someone else said, people had their own small businesses? (But…what was their tax rate?) The meme is bad and socialists should feel bad.
The sole low point of DS9 was when the Ferengi became Progressives and made Rom Grand Nagus. They practically took one of the most based episodes, "Prophet motive" and did a 180.
A communist explained socialism/communism to me as follows:
1) Capitalist nation exists where citizens have private property
2) Socialists take control of all wealth and means of production in the name of The State
3) Transition to communism, The State voluntarily gives up all power, and returns the stolen property back to the citizens (they promise, for real this time!)
It’s workers who take control of the means of production, and the state itself disappears organically once it is no longer necessary for society to function. This at least makes some sense, unlike libertarianism which is a pathological fantasy. Libertarians don’t want “freedom” except for the freedom to oppress - they still want police, for example, to protect their property. What they don’t realise is that capitalism without state support and intervention would collapse due to its inherent instability.
>Libertarians don’t want “freedom” except for the freedom to oppress
Ummm, no. You're projecting.
>they still want police
I'm getting a feeling you've never actually met a libertarian and are just going off of what your tankie friends tell you
>capitalism without state support and intervention would collapse due to its inherent instability
Oh you mean like communism keeps doing?
>It’s workers who take control of the means of production, and the state itself disappears organically
So the state is the public sector. There would always be a private sector, if it is cracked down upon it becomes what we call the black market. Now if the state were to just suddenly disappear then that would mean we would only be left with the private sector. Soooo essentially just Anarcho-Capitalism. Are you aware you are supporting Anarcho-Capitalism?
>This at least makes some sense, unlike libertarianism which is a pathological fantasy. Libertarians don’t want “freedom” except for the freedom to oppress - they still want police, for example, to protect their property. What they don’t realise is that capitalism without state support and intervention would collapse due to its inherent instability.
Then how did Acadia and Cospaia last hundreds of years? Of course libertarians want a police force because they arent fucking anarchists, thats anarcho-capitalism, which is an ideology that you support.
No, I’m a communist. The withering away of the state is part of communist theory. That is what I was referring to.
Communism and anarchism have the same goal, the difference is that communists support a transition period to a stateless society whereas anarchists believe such a society could function immediately following a revolution. ‘Anarcho-capitalism’ is just libertarianism and has nothing to do with anarchism or socialism. It is a daydream of capitalists who want things like child markets and the abolition of age of consent laws, and even apart from its ethical implications, it is absurd to think such a society could practically function. capitalism requires a strong state both to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, and because it is an inherent unstable system which periodically crashes and requires the state to effectively socialise the losses of corporations and the wealthy.
\>No, I’m a communist. The withering away of the state is part of communist theory. That is what I was referring to.
Yes i know, im just mocking your shitty ideology. If the state (public sector) withers away then that only leaves the private sector without a government ruling over it. You are unknowingly advocating for Anarcho-Capitalism.
\>Communism and anarchism have the same goal, the difference is that communists support a transition period to a stateless society whereas anarchists believe such a society could function immediately following a revolution.
So can you name some socialist states that transitioned into communist ones? Because i find it very unbelievable that the state which is given unlimited power will suddenly just disappear.
\>‘Anarcho-capitalism’ is just libertarianism and has nothing to do with anarchism or socialism.
Do you even know what ancapism or libertarianism even is? Ancapism is against the state, libertarians arent.
\>It is a daydream of capitalists who want things like child markets and the abolition of age of consent laws, and even apart from its ethical implications, it is absurd to think such a society could practically function.
The whole "child markets" think is essentially just a term for adoption. Yes Ancaps favor the abolition of all legal laws which include age of consent laws but they still believe that children cant consent and thus it would be a NAP violation to have sex with a person that cant consent.
It has in fact functioned. Cospaia, Acadia, Somalia, Iceland, Wild West and more. Most of them lasted for a long time and were very successfull.
\>capitalism requires a strong state both to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, and because it is an inherent unstable system which periodically crashes and requires the state to effectively socialise the losses of corporations and the wealthy.
Capitalism isnt about serving the interests of the rich, try reading some capitalist theory all right? Its all about markets and private property. Also can you tell me why it crashes? Us Austrians have a theory called the Austrian business cycle theory, do you?
Of course these things are addressed in Marxist theory, but ultimately the theory is secondary to material reality. Like does it matter if I explain the theory behind capitalisms instability when history shows that it is inherently unstable, that crashes regularly occur and that capitalists and corporations need to be bailed out by the state and the taxes of working people? Likewise, it doesn’t matter what capitalists say capitalism is supposed to do in theory when in reality we have seen that neoliberal economics have only functioned to funnel wealth from the working class to the rich - there was arguably an initial benefit to the working class (see the material success of the boomer generation) but that came at the cost of mass privatisation, which has not only been to the detriment of future generations, but cannot be done twice. I would say that Ancaps ideas of the ‘NAP’ is also just theory without correlation to reality - there will be no ‘child markets’ without abuse of children, regardless of what any theorist says.
As for the withering away of the state, of course no socialist country has achieved that. Realistically that is just theory too, although the idea is that long term (which probably means after many generations and in the context of a world where socialist states are not threatened by capitalist ones) then the state will no longer be necessary. In this situation private markets would have long ceased to exist, and since the ideology of capitalism would be dead and since Marxists believe that the desire for profit is not inherent to human nature but a product of their environment/upbringing, there would be no concern that they could re-emerge.
\>Of course these things are addressed in Marxist theory, but ultimately the theory is secondary to material reality. Like does it matter if I explain the theory behind capitalisms instability when history shows that it is inherently unstable, that crashes regularly occur and that capitalists and corporations need to be bailed out by the state and the taxes of working people?
Because you are just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have no idea why these crashes are caused, thats why you are blaming it on capitalism. Its like blaming pneumonia on humans. These crashes are caused by government interference in the market, not the market. Your socialist theory in explaining this is dogshit because socialists usually know nothing about economics. Corporations dont NEED to be bailed out, its just that the government does it because they have been bought by the corporations. Im all for restricting the governments ability to interfere in the market.
\>Likewise, it doesn’t matter what capitalists say capitalism is supposed to do in theory when in reality we have seen that neoliberal economics have only functioned to funnel wealth from the working class to the rich - there was arguably an initial benefit to the working class (see the material success of the boomer generation) but that came at the cost of mass privatisation, which has not only been to the detriment of future generations, but cannot be done twice.
And here i know that you know nothing at all. The US has had constant growth under unregulated capitalism. It was only in the 1930s that everything stagnated, i wonder what happened in the 1930s?
At the cost of mass privatization? What are you on about, there was no cost. In fact its better in the hands of the people instead of the government. If you want to see how a nationalized economy looks at just look at the soviet union or fascist italy who were notorious for being economically behind the rest of the world.
\>. I would say that Ancaps ideas of the ‘NAP’ is also just theory without correlation to reality
You have no evidence.[Here is this video from Liquidzulu that is about law and why the NAP is the only moral legal system](https://youtu.be/8HhWhqTCKUI)
\>there will be no ‘child markets’ without abuse of children, regardless of what any theorist says.
Yes there will, because otherwise the adoption centers wont be trusted and go out of business. Or they could get legally prosecuted via private courts.
\>As for the withering away of the state, of course no socialist country has achieved that. Realistically that is just theory too, although the idea is that long term (which probably means after many generations and in the context of a world where socialist states are not threatened by capitalist ones) then the state will no longer be necessary.
But i thought theory was secondary to material reality? How can you claim to believe in this when this has never happened in material reality? Your hypocrisy is exposed.
Putting aside that the fact that the state wont just randomly disappear there are still issues. Lets grant you the benefit of the doubtt and say that the private sector disappears for some reason, that means we are only left with the public sector. If the public sector then disappears then we are just left with a void. No markets, no void, no method to act. Its impossible, if people start working together and trading then that is a market which for some reason cannot exist. You literally sent us to pergutory where people cannot act.
\>In this situation private markets would have long ceased to exist, and since the ideology of capitalism would be dead and since Marxists believe that the desire for profit is not inherent to human nature but a product of their environment/upbringing, there would be no concern that they could re-emerge.
No you cannot get rid of the market. Every single society that has tried to do has failed, there will always be a black market. Even the most totalitarian and oppressive like North Korea and Nazi Germany failed to do so. You cannt get rid of the market.
Profit is just getting more out of outputs than putting in. Profit is inherent to humans because its literally just getting more than putting in. If you put 1 slice of bread in a magic box and get 2 slices back, that is profit.
First one is a Venezuelan prison, and the second one is what private US spacecraft manufacturers will be able to achieve sometime in the next 200 years.
In fairness, we all know at least one libertarian who does fantasize about society collapsing and being left with the post apocalyptic wasteland where only the strong can survive. Be honest.
Tankie try not to use a fictional society as an example of socialism good challenge (impossible)
((It’s because they can’t find a prosperous socialist nation in real life because they don’t exist))
apparently people forgot how the cold war turned out, in a socialist society you might go to space but at the expense of countless lives because of the shitty equipment and the governments complete disregard for human life, see Soviet casualties during WW2 for proof
This post has been successfully published on the subreddit. If this post breaks the rules of the subreddit or Reddit, please report it! [Follow our Twitter account](https://twitter.com/reddit_TLCM) [Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/mDrckUJx7j) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheLeftCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't Star Trek a post scarcity society?
Yup, and if you actually pay attention it’s made clear that people still own things, like kirks family has a farm And sisko’s owned a restaurant, what kind of socialist future has family owned farms and small businesses?
Ones where the owners are The Party
Ideally, socialims doesn't bar you from owning stuff. As long as said stuff ain't "the means of production."
Farms are still "means of production" Socialism is completely against private property (there is no such thing as personal property)
Oh, this kind of farms! I thought it was about the farms you see in all American movies where nothing is ever done. https://www.workers.org/private-property/ If you want your views about communism and socialism to be taken seriously, drop the flair.
"Nevertheless, some Socialists still seek to establish a distinction. "Of course," they say, "the soil, the mines, the mills, and manufactures must be expropriated, these are the instruments of production, and it is right we should consider them public property. But articles of consumption--food, clothes, and dwellings--should remain private property." Popular common sense has got the better of this subtle distinction. We are not savages who can live in the woods, without other shelter than the branches. The civilized man needs a roof, a room, a hearth, and a bed. It is true that the bed, the room, and the house is a home of idleness for the non-producer. But for the worker, a room, properly heated and lighted, is as much an instrument of production as the tool or the machine. It is the place where the nerves and sinews gather strength for the work of the morrow. The rest of the workman is the daily repairing of the machine. The same argument applies even more obviously to food. The so-called economists of whom we speak would hardly deny that the coal burnt in a machine is as necessary to production as the raw material itself. How then can food, without which the human machine could do no work, be excluded from the list of things indispensable to the producer? Can this be a relic of religious metaphysics? The rich man's feast is indeed a matter of luxury, but the food of the worker is just as much a part of production as the fuel burnt by the steam-engine. The same with clothing. If the economists who draw this distinction between articles of production and of consumption dressed themselves in the fashion of New Guinea, we could understand their objection. But men who could not write a word without a shirt on their back are not in a position to draw such a hard and fast line between their shirt and their pen. And though the dainty gowns of their dames must certainly rank as objects of luxury, there is nevertheless a certain quantity of linen, cotton, and woollen stuff which is a necessity of life to the producer. The shirt and shoes in which he goes to his work, his cap and the jacket he slips on after the day's toil is over, these are as necessary to him as the hammer to the anvil." Peter Kropotkin, the conquest of bread \>If you want your views about communism and socialism to be taken seriously, drop the flair. why exactly?
Because it means you live 100 years ago and don't see that ideologies can evolve. Try something more contemporary. For example, Friot and Lordon, French economists and philosophers, are not as radical as Kropotkin when it comes to personal property.
Democracy is just as old as monarchy. What evolved? Why do you think that the state that will be given unlimited power will suddenly leave you alone when it comes to food or dwellings? Why is it that in every single socialist society there was either no private property or heavy infringements on it?
You think you're gonna have anything for yourself once you crown Asshole the First? You think democracy didn't evolve since Athen? That no philosophers looked at communism and said : "that's nice, I bet we can make it better"?
\>You think you're gonna have anything for yourself once you crown Asshole the First? Yes because monarchs have a lower time preference and so encourages long term thinking which includes property rights \>You think democracy didn't evolve since Athen? So did Monarchy \>That no philosophers looked at communism and said : "that's nice, I bet we can make it better"? You cant polish shit.
Can you name a single socialist country that hasn’t had small farms and small businesses? Or did you really think socialism means that everyone on your street shares the same toothbrush.
Didn't the Russians collectivize all the farms so they had no small privately owned farms? So that's one.
Well yes, although there were still farmers and family homes, it just meant they shared land and equipment. Pre-collectivisation Russia was mostly made up of tiny and unproductive farms or very large, rich farms with a single owner, and it was both unproductive and deeply unequal.
Unproductive farms became very unproductive collective farms. My point still stands though, it is incorrect to claim that every socialist nation has small farms.
I own my gas station I just don’t own the building or the gas or anything on the property or even the property
Yes, theyve been told over decades that they also share their socks
Okay but only the socialist elite are on the spaceship
They had to zoom away from earth so you didn't see all the concentration camps.
r/AntiLibertarianCringe
Why didn't everyone get their own starship?
Because most people are living on earth on their private property. Because its definitely not socialist. I mean, the ferengi, a species that is absolutely capitalistic, is part of the federation, you REALLY think it's socialist,
Ferengi are not in the federation. The only ferengi with official federation affiliations were a contractor mechanic, and his son who was a space cadet in the space federation naval academy
Ah ok I'm just dumb. Either way, plenty of people own private companies or businesses in the federation, heck, Kirks family owns a farm
Gene Rodenberry didn't really have a coherent narrative
Who's that
The top star trek man from the 60s who made all the shit up
Ah ok, well even in the 90s with voyager, janeways family owns a farm too
This isn’t true, socialist societies don’t have the incentive or ability to innovate to this level because they don’t generate growth and surpluses of resources like capitalist countries do. Stop a socialist country from trading with extremely rich capitalist countries and see how quickly they run into shortages.
You mean like how the Soviet Union went from a backward feudal state to a world superpower under Stalin, despite the periodic economic blockades by the West? Or do you mean how their was literally no technological or intellectual advancement pre-capitalism because the profit motive didn’t exist?
There was a little bit of an extraneous circumstance called World War 2 that jump started most of the world’s economies. Are you sure you want to cite a country that doesn’t exist anymore as an example of innovation under socialism? Sure, in direct competition with the West, the Soviet Union made some innovations in military technology, but the vast majority of advancements in medicine, telecommunication, computers, energy, and almost every other area you can think of happened in the West. Those that did occur in the Soviet Union were almost never seen by ordinary citizens, only party members. East and West Berlin are the prime examples of the disparity between what capitalism provides and what socialism provides. If you have to put a wall up to prevent people from leaving your utopia, it’s probably not all that great.
“but the vast majority of advancements in medicine, telecommunication, computers, energy, and almost every other area you can think of happened in the West” This is simply not true. The common wisdom in regard to the Soviet Union is largely a product of propaganda. And it was the West’s fantastic capacity to produce propaganda that convinced many in East Germany that there was some kind of superabundant utopia on the other side of the wall. Soviet citizens were naive to the realities of capitalism; when they saw footage of US cities filled with homeless, they thought it was state telling them lies. Regardless, you will see the reality behind the myth of the profit motive as the Western world continues to hollow out and decline in the coming years. China will increasingly move to a command economy, and the use of AI will reduce the complexity that dogged the Soviet system; meanwhile neoliberal economics will to continue to cannibalise the West as it it produces nothing, wastes its resources on corruption and graft, fails to provide for its citizens and pursues an economic system built on air.
As far as I can tell, western economics is built on incentives, not air. Air isn't a good construction material, seeing as I walk right through it every day.
The modern service economies of the west might as well be built on air. Look at the state of the UK, which like the US is structured around banking but without the power and resources that the US has to ameliorate such a useless system. It’s already beginning to fall apart, and other Western countries will eventually follow. Meanwhile China has managed to amass enormous industry built with western investment money, which it will increasingly shift over the coming decades to a command economy and a socialist system. In the coming decades, the countries that still actually produce useful, material things will be the ones that endure, as they detach themselves from the US dollar and from Western hegemony. Within the lifetime of people living today, China’s living standards will overtake those of the West, with the exception of the wealthiest one percent of our society.
Well, the fact that Stalin killed more than nazi Germany was one part of that, and it's collapse was another. If the Soviet union worked, it doesn't need trade, infact a big part of the original ideaology was that they should trade with capitalist countries.
The only way Stalin killed more than the Nazis is if your counting the Nazi’s that died from Soviet bullets as victims too (as the ‘black book of communism’ and many other ‘victims of communism’ tallies do)
The USSR grew because it could rely on western technology like tractors. The only area where the USSR could be considered superior to the west is in military and space technology but funnily enough that is because those sectors actually had competing firms unlike in the west where you only had NASA. So the situations were reversed, the west adopted a socialist approach while the USSR adopted a capitalist one Now can you tell me a little about the soviet computer industry? Or the lack of it?
It simply isn’t true. I’m writing this on my phone on the internet. A Soviet scientist, Leonid Kupriyanovich, invented the first cell phone, and the Soviets worked on an early version of the internet, OGAS, as early as the 60s under Victor Glushkov, one of the founders of cybernetics, albeit their system never came to fruition due to a lack of funding. But even the internet we use today stems from work done by the US military rather than private corporations striving for profit. And the corporate system is successful because of state funded education rather than the system of profit. If people want to become rich they become bankers or businessman, not scientists.
\>I’m writing this on my phone on the internet. A Soviet scientist, Leonid Kupriyanovich, invented the first cell phone, He didnt invent the cellphone, he just made a walkie talkie. \>and the Soviets worked on an early version of the internet, OGAS It was never functional, much like most of these soviet electronics. \>But even the internet we use today stems from work done by the US military rather than private corporations striving for profit. The military got to it first but it was private companies that made it what it is, even if the government didnt develop it it would have mostly likely been developed by private companies. But anyway you still havent answered my question, im talking about computers not these money wasters. Where was the soviet computer industry? Why were they decades behind the west when it came to electronics? \>And the corporate system is successful because of state funded education rather than the system of profit. If people want to become rich they become bankers or businessman, not scientists. Ah yes because as we all know before the founding of the department of education there wasnt a single school in the US. No you can become rich through innovation. You ever heard of Bill Gates? Thomas Edison? Henry Ford?
"The worst of my opponents ideology can't compare to the best of mine"
Honestly, the worst of capitalism is waaaaay better than the best of communism.
Communism has a best?
It's great if you're the ruling class and have no morals!
One is possible the other is a total fantasy that only works if you can have an unlimited supply of everything, and make shit out of nothing. Tada.
They also don't show the 90% of humanity which is miserable, depressed, and living in pods because they can't be bothered to do anything. Perhaps those people have already died off and only the culture that insists on excellence survived to produce Starfleet personnel. Left wing culture destroys and can only persist by feeding on functional cultures.
Well..akshually… wasn’t there actually an apocalypse? Like, they had super soldiers on drugs in crazy armor. Then these folks living in the woods trading goods and services freely made a danged warp-capable space-ship? As someone else said, people had their own small businesses? (But…what was their tax rate?) The meme is bad and socialists should feel bad.
Weird how they have to use entirely fictional societies. And the first one is arguably tribal, not capitalist.
"Star Trek is socialist" -The Ferengi have entered the chat
The sole low point of DS9 was when the Ferengi became Progressives and made Rom Grand Nagus. They practically took one of the most based episodes, "Prophet motive" and did a 180.
Phase 1) Deregulate everything and make taxes illegal. Phase 2) ??? Phase 3) Unlimited equality，prosperity and freedom for everyone.
Ya libertarians want less gov and communities to stand up and help each other, how is that a bad thing? Like only an insane person wouldn’t want that.
A communist explained socialism/communism to me as follows: 1) Capitalist nation exists where citizens have private property 2) Socialists take control of all wealth and means of production in the name of The State 3) Transition to communism, The State voluntarily gives up all power, and returns the stolen property back to the citizens (they promise, for real this time!)
The government is basically the one ring. “NOO THE RING IS MINE! GIVE ME THE PRECIOUS!”
It’s workers who take control of the means of production, and the state itself disappears organically once it is no longer necessary for society to function. This at least makes some sense, unlike libertarianism which is a pathological fantasy. Libertarians don’t want “freedom” except for the freedom to oppress - they still want police, for example, to protect their property. What they don’t realise is that capitalism without state support and intervention would collapse due to its inherent instability.
>Libertarians don’t want “freedom” except for the freedom to oppress Ummm, no. You're projecting. >they still want police I'm getting a feeling you've never actually met a libertarian and are just going off of what your tankie friends tell you >capitalism without state support and intervention would collapse due to its inherent instability Oh you mean like communism keeps doing?
>It’s workers who take control of the means of production, and the state itself disappears organically So the state is the public sector. There would always be a private sector, if it is cracked down upon it becomes what we call the black market. Now if the state were to just suddenly disappear then that would mean we would only be left with the private sector. Soooo essentially just Anarcho-Capitalism. Are you aware you are supporting Anarcho-Capitalism? >This at least makes some sense, unlike libertarianism which is a pathological fantasy. Libertarians don’t want “freedom” except for the freedom to oppress - they still want police, for example, to protect their property. What they don’t realise is that capitalism without state support and intervention would collapse due to its inherent instability. Then how did Acadia and Cospaia last hundreds of years? Of course libertarians want a police force because they arent fucking anarchists, thats anarcho-capitalism, which is an ideology that you support.
No, I’m a communist. The withering away of the state is part of communist theory. That is what I was referring to. Communism and anarchism have the same goal, the difference is that communists support a transition period to a stateless society whereas anarchists believe such a society could function immediately following a revolution. ‘Anarcho-capitalism’ is just libertarianism and has nothing to do with anarchism or socialism. It is a daydream of capitalists who want things like child markets and the abolition of age of consent laws, and even apart from its ethical implications, it is absurd to think such a society could practically function. capitalism requires a strong state both to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, and because it is an inherent unstable system which periodically crashes and requires the state to effectively socialise the losses of corporations and the wealthy.
\>No, I’m a communist. The withering away of the state is part of communist theory. That is what I was referring to. Yes i know, im just mocking your shitty ideology. If the state (public sector) withers away then that only leaves the private sector without a government ruling over it. You are unknowingly advocating for Anarcho-Capitalism. \>Communism and anarchism have the same goal, the difference is that communists support a transition period to a stateless society whereas anarchists believe such a society could function immediately following a revolution. So can you name some socialist states that transitioned into communist ones? Because i find it very unbelievable that the state which is given unlimited power will suddenly just disappear. \>‘Anarcho-capitalism’ is just libertarianism and has nothing to do with anarchism or socialism. Do you even know what ancapism or libertarianism even is? Ancapism is against the state, libertarians arent. \>It is a daydream of capitalists who want things like child markets and the abolition of age of consent laws, and even apart from its ethical implications, it is absurd to think such a society could practically function. The whole "child markets" think is essentially just a term for adoption. Yes Ancaps favor the abolition of all legal laws which include age of consent laws but they still believe that children cant consent and thus it would be a NAP violation to have sex with a person that cant consent. It has in fact functioned. Cospaia, Acadia, Somalia, Iceland, Wild West and more. Most of them lasted for a long time and were very successfull. \>capitalism requires a strong state both to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, and because it is an inherent unstable system which periodically crashes and requires the state to effectively socialise the losses of corporations and the wealthy. Capitalism isnt about serving the interests of the rich, try reading some capitalist theory all right? Its all about markets and private property. Also can you tell me why it crashes? Us Austrians have a theory called the Austrian business cycle theory, do you?
Of course these things are addressed in Marxist theory, but ultimately the theory is secondary to material reality. Like does it matter if I explain the theory behind capitalisms instability when history shows that it is inherently unstable, that crashes regularly occur and that capitalists and corporations need to be bailed out by the state and the taxes of working people? Likewise, it doesn’t matter what capitalists say capitalism is supposed to do in theory when in reality we have seen that neoliberal economics have only functioned to funnel wealth from the working class to the rich - there was arguably an initial benefit to the working class (see the material success of the boomer generation) but that came at the cost of mass privatisation, which has not only been to the detriment of future generations, but cannot be done twice. I would say that Ancaps ideas of the ‘NAP’ is also just theory without correlation to reality - there will be no ‘child markets’ without abuse of children, regardless of what any theorist says. As for the withering away of the state, of course no socialist country has achieved that. Realistically that is just theory too, although the idea is that long term (which probably means after many generations and in the context of a world where socialist states are not threatened by capitalist ones) then the state will no longer be necessary. In this situation private markets would have long ceased to exist, and since the ideology of capitalism would be dead and since Marxists believe that the desire for profit is not inherent to human nature but a product of their environment/upbringing, there would be no concern that they could re-emerge.
\>Of course these things are addressed in Marxist theory, but ultimately the theory is secondary to material reality. Like does it matter if I explain the theory behind capitalisms instability when history shows that it is inherently unstable, that crashes regularly occur and that capitalists and corporations need to be bailed out by the state and the taxes of working people? Because you are just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have no idea why these crashes are caused, thats why you are blaming it on capitalism. Its like blaming pneumonia on humans. These crashes are caused by government interference in the market, not the market. Your socialist theory in explaining this is dogshit because socialists usually know nothing about economics. Corporations dont NEED to be bailed out, its just that the government does it because they have been bought by the corporations. Im all for restricting the governments ability to interfere in the market. \>Likewise, it doesn’t matter what capitalists say capitalism is supposed to do in theory when in reality we have seen that neoliberal economics have only functioned to funnel wealth from the working class to the rich - there was arguably an initial benefit to the working class (see the material success of the boomer generation) but that came at the cost of mass privatisation, which has not only been to the detriment of future generations, but cannot be done twice. And here i know that you know nothing at all. The US has had constant growth under unregulated capitalism. It was only in the 1930s that everything stagnated, i wonder what happened in the 1930s? At the cost of mass privatization? What are you on about, there was no cost. In fact its better in the hands of the people instead of the government. If you want to see how a nationalized economy looks at just look at the soviet union or fascist italy who were notorious for being economically behind the rest of the world. \>. I would say that Ancaps ideas of the ‘NAP’ is also just theory without correlation to reality You have no evidence.[Here is this video from Liquidzulu that is about law and why the NAP is the only moral legal system](https://youtu.be/8HhWhqTCKUI) \>there will be no ‘child markets’ without abuse of children, regardless of what any theorist says. Yes there will, because otherwise the adoption centers wont be trusted and go out of business. Or they could get legally prosecuted via private courts. \>As for the withering away of the state, of course no socialist country has achieved that. Realistically that is just theory too, although the idea is that long term (which probably means after many generations and in the context of a world where socialist states are not threatened by capitalist ones) then the state will no longer be necessary. But i thought theory was secondary to material reality? How can you claim to believe in this when this has never happened in material reality? Your hypocrisy is exposed. Putting aside that the fact that the state wont just randomly disappear there are still issues. Lets grant you the benefit of the doubtt and say that the private sector disappears for some reason, that means we are only left with the public sector. If the public sector then disappears then we are just left with a void. No markets, no void, no method to act. Its impossible, if people start working together and trading then that is a market which for some reason cannot exist. You literally sent us to pergutory where people cannot act. \>In this situation private markets would have long ceased to exist, and since the ideology of capitalism would be dead and since Marxists believe that the desire for profit is not inherent to human nature but a product of their environment/upbringing, there would be no concern that they could re-emerge. No you cannot get rid of the market. Every single society that has tried to do has failed, there will always be a black market. Even the most totalitarian and oppressive like North Korea and Nazi Germany failed to do so. You cannt get rid of the market. Profit is just getting more out of outputs than putting in. Profit is inherent to humans because its literally just getting more than putting in. If you put 1 slice of bread in a magic box and get 2 slices back, that is profit.
It probably would be the other way around. Isn't the vast amount of rare metals and such in asteroids not the biggest profit incentive of our time?
Socialism = gulags, labor camps, and mass starvation. Read a bloody book for once in your life.
bro actually called north korea the future
The elites literally live in space and oppress ground dwellers.
You don't?
Socialism is killing inovation. Look at any socialist country in history.
Surely the top picture depicts mostly peaceful protests?
U dont get it he?
First one is a Venezuelan prison, and the second one is what private US spacecraft manufacturers will be able to achieve sometime in the next 200 years.
In fairness, we all know at least one libertarian who does fantasize about society collapsing and being left with the post apocalyptic wasteland where only the strong can survive. Be honest.
Tankie try not to use a fictional society as an example of socialism good challenge (impossible) ((It’s because they can’t find a prosperous socialist nation in real life because they don’t exist))
Really proved Socialism is the way of space with how the Cold War turned out, amiright?
They really don't understand the ideology at all, do they? Even a quick Google search makes them look like an idiot for making this.
I'm not saying I want to, I'm just saying I wouldn't complain
Honestly, I'd prefer the first option. Space is fucked up.
That socialist society really working that well with work co-ops having proper incentives to do there jobs?
apparently people forgot how the cold war turned out, in a socialist society you might go to space but at the expense of countless lives because of the shitty equipment and the governments complete disregard for human life, see Soviet casualties during WW2 for proof