Is Socialism a good thing?

[Del Tachi]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

Post-scarcity is a myth.  Economics 101 tell us that the scope of human want is truly boundless. 

[PSOL]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

Post-scarcity is a myth.  Economics 101 tell us that the scope of human want is truly boundless. 

Absolutely not. We aren’t at the stage to reap the galaxy to our own whim, and our ability to exploit this world has its limits.

[RINO Tom]

No.

[Archon]

Thinking of all the histprical examples like USSR, Cuba, Venezuela etc. it's a clear no for me

[John Dule]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

If we reoriented our economy to distribute those resources based on need, we would no longer be producing enough resources to provide for all of those people due to the changed incentives.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

If we reoriented our economy to distribute those resources based on need, we would no longer be producing enough resources to provide for all of those people due to the changed incentives.

Yeah, I'm sure the incentive to become a decadent plutocrat hoarding more money than one could spend in 100 lifetimes (as opposed to the incentive of attaining an existence that provides ample material comfort, which is still present under socialism) is absolutely indispensable to keeping everything running.

[John Dule]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

If we reoriented our economy to distribute those resources based on need, we would no longer be producing enough resources to provide for all of those people due to the changed incentives.

Yeah, I'm sure the incentive to become a decadent plutocrat hoarding more money than one could spend in 100 lifetimes (as opposed to the incentive of attaining an existence that provides ample material comfort, which is still present under socialism) is absolutely indispensable to keeping everything running.

The incentive to work hard is a product of the fact that our lives depend on our ability to generate wealth for ourselves. If our lives do not depend on our ability to work, we will not work as hard.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

If we reoriented our economy to distribute those resources based on need, we would no longer be producing enough resources to provide for all of those people due to the changed incentives.

Yeah, I'm sure the incentive to become a decadent plutocrat hoarding more money than one could spend in 100 lifetimes (as opposed to the incentive of attaining an existence that provides ample material comfort, which is still present under socialism) is absolutely indispensable to keeping everything running.

The incentive to work hard is a product of the fact that our lives depend on our ability to generate wealth for ourselves. If our lives do not depend on our ability to work, we will not work as hard.

This is an incredibly silly and easily debunkable point for a number of reasons (the funniest one being the fact that capitalism does in fact create a class of parasitic rentiers who live in luxury without need to do much of any work), but I don't see why I would bother given that you're presenting no evidence for it whatsoever. Of course, there are in fact thousands of examples, big and small, of people who achieved great things with no benefit to their livelihoods (in fact often at the expense of their livelihoods). As you would know if you were interested in real human psychology and not the deranged abstraction that is homo oeconomicus.

[John Dule]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

If we reoriented our economy to distribute those resources based on need, we would no longer be producing enough resources to provide for all of those people due to the changed incentives.

Yeah, I'm sure the incentive to become a decadent plutocrat hoarding more money than one could spend in 100 lifetimes (as opposed to the incentive of attaining an existence that provides ample material comfort, which is still present under socialism) is absolutely indispensable to keeping everything running.

The incentive to work hard is a product of the fact that our lives depend on our ability to generate wealth for ourselves. If our lives do not depend on our ability to work, we will not work as hard.

This is an incredibly silly and easily debunkable point for a number of reasons (the funniest one being the fact that capitalism does in fact create a class of parasitic rentiers who live in luxury without need to do much of any work), but I don't see why I would bother given that you're presenting no evidence for it whatsoever. Of course, there are in fact thousands of examples, big and small, of people who achieved great things with no benefit to their livelihoods (in fact often at the expense of their livelihoods). As you would know if you were interested in real human psychology and not the deranged abstraction that is homo oeconomicus.

If we set aside the socialism/capitalism debate and take this bolded statement as a given, then you've actually agreed with me. I said that if your life does not depend on your ability to work, you will not work as hard. You just gave what seems to be a fine example of that. Far from debunking what I just said, you confirmed it.

Only a socialist could laugh at the idea of economic psychology. Economics is the study of how individuals make choices, nothing more. In my experience, people who seek to demean that field either have a deep-seated fear of choice or a deep-seated fear of individualism. Usually both.

My claim was that people work their hardest when their life depends on it. You didn't refute that; you gave an example that bolsters this claim, albeit one that occurs in a market system. If you really need a proof of this common-sense aspect of human nature, look no further than the communist systems of the 20th century, which tried (and failed) to find an ample motivation for their workers to replace self-interest-- nationalism, cults of personality, quotas, communitarianism, bureaucratic advancement, and pure terror were all tried, and all of the resulting systems were abject failures.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If we set aside the socialism/capitalism debate and take this bolded statement as a given, then you've actually agreed with me. I said that if your life does not depend on your ability to work, you will not work as hard. You just gave what seems to be a fine example of that. Far from debunking what I just said, you confirmed it.

Confirmed what, that there are people who don't need to work for a living and don't work as a result? No duh. That's not what you claimed: you claimed that needing to work for a living was necessary to work hard, and that's obviously false. There were plenty of rentiers throughout history who had no need to work for a living but did in fact work tirelessly to give us some of the greatest contributions in art and science alike. That doesn't justify the immorality of rent as a human institution, of course, but it does invalidate your point.

What if I told you that human productivity is highest when people are secure in the basic comforts of life but otherwise not pathologically obsessed with accumulating more and more wealth on top of it, because that allows them to pursue an occupation they actually enjoy rather just something they have to put up with to survive? I don't have evidence for it, obviously, but neither do you. That's why these arguments centered around muh human nature are so inane.

Only a socialist could laugh at the idea of economic psychology. Economics is the study of how individuals make choices, nothing more. In my experience, people who seek to demean that field either have a deep-seated fear of choice or a deep-seated fear of individualism. Usually both.

"Economic psychology" is demonstrably bullsh*t. The entire body of findings from the entire field of psychology (you know, actual psychology) exists to demonstrate that people aren't hyper-rational utility-maximizing robots. Even you probably aren't one, as much as you might try to act like it. If you're seriously trying to argue otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time with you, because you're obviously delusional.

My claim was that people work their hardest when their life depends on it. You didn't refute that; you gave an example that bolsters this claim, albeit one that occurs in a market system. If you really need a proof of this common-sense aspect of human nature, look no further than the communist systems of the 20th century, which tried (and failed) to find an ample motivation for their workers to replace self-interest-- nationalism, cults of personality, quotas, communitarianism, bureaucratic advancement, and pure terror were all tried, and all of the resulting systems were abject failures.

Of all the reason why Soviet-style planned economies (which, no, were not really communism, but that's an utterly uninteresting conversation to have) were an abject failure, I don't think there's much evidence that the problem was individual workers not working hard enough. I could be wrong, but iirc the issues that are generally cited are usually more structural in nature, having to do with the specific planning decisions that were made.

Either way though, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that people didn't work particularly hard, given that their labor was arguably even more alienated than in the capitalist countries at the same point in time. Alienated labor is by nature something people strive to do as little as possible of. If that's all you're claiming, then I guess we agree. It's just that my solution to that problem is to reduce labor alienation, while yours is to force people to work at gunpoint.

[Grassroots]

Socialism for who, is the question.

[PSOL]

Socialism for who, is the question.

The entire people once society is reorganized to be a full democracy run by those liberated from the wage system, and those forced out of such system as well, by the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[AGA]

Socialism has never been successful. Capitalism/mixed economies are responsible for much more of the world's economic development. And no, Denmark and Sweden are not socialist. Surprised Atlas was this far left economically.

[brucejoel99]

Socialism has never been successful. Capitalism/mixed economies are responsible for much more of the world's economic development. And no, Denmark and Sweden are not socialist. Surprised Atlas was this far left economically.

Scandinavia isn't real socialism, but we can't implement similar economic policies... because that'd be socialism.

[iceman]

It goes to show how out of touch this forum is with the real world. lol

[Kingpoleon]

No. Socialism is by nature either centralized planning or anarchistic. Neither is a good idea.

[MarkD]

It's never good to go too far to the left or too far to the right. What we have in America is a compromise between pure capitalism and pure socialism. The fact that we have a compromise between the two extremes is perpetually complained about by the extremes -- I constantly hear complaints by the far right that socialism has been gradually creeping in to our governmental system and we have to put a stop to it before it gets any more socialized. And then there's Bernie and his bros, who always lament how much capitlaism we still have and that's somehow not a good thing.

So long as I continue hearing both extreme sides complaining how the American system is, right now, I know that we still have a compromise worked out, which satisfies me.

[PSOL]

It's never good to go too far to the left or too far to the right. What we have in America is a compromise between pure capitalism and pure socialism. The fact that we have a compromise between the two extremes is perpetually complained about by the extremes -- I constantly hear complaints by the far right that socialism has been gradually creeping in to our governmental system and we have to put a stop to it before it gets any more socialized. And then there's Bernie and his bros, who always lament how much capitlaism we still have and that's somehow not a good thing.

So long as I continue hearing both extreme sides complaining how the American system is, right now, I know that we still have a compromise worked out, which satisfies me.

So what does that compromise look like? Social Democracy? State Capitalism?

[AGA]

Socialism has never been successful. Capitalism/mixed economies are responsible for much more of the world's economic development. And no, Denmark and Sweden are not socialist. Surprised Atlas was this far left economically.

Scandinavia isn't real socialism, but we can't implement similar economic policies... because that'd be socialism.

If people here are in support of social democracy or whatever it's called then that is reasonable. I don't like throwing around the term "socialism" so loosely.

[MarkD]

It's never good to go too far to the left or too far to the right. What we have in America is a compromise between pure capitalism and pure socialism. The fact that we have a compromise between the two extremes is perpetually complained about by the extremes -- I constantly hear complaints by the far right that socialism has been gradually creeping in to our governmental system and we have to put a stop to it before it gets any more socialized. And then there's Bernie and his bros, who always lament how much capitlaism we still have and that's somehow not a good thing.

So long as I continue hearing both extreme sides complaining how the American system is, right now, I know that we still have a compromise worked out, which satisfies me.

So what does that compromise look like? Social Democracy? State Capitalism?

I don't know of a word to describe it, but it certainly has the capitalistic structure of freedom to earn billions of dollars, businesses are owned privately, but there are many elements of socialism -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, minimum wage, other worker protections, consumer protection laws, and so on. Capitalism with a welfare state; they coexist as a compromise, but there is no term for it.

[PSOL]

The term you are looking for is called Social Democracy.

[John Dule]

What if I told you that human productivity is highest when people are secure in the basic comforts of life but otherwise not pathologically obsessed with accumulating more and more wealth on top of it, because that allows them to pursue an occupation they actually enjoy rather just something they have to put up with to survive? I don't have evidence for it, obviously, but neither do you. That's why these arguments centered around muh human nature are so inane.

Quite the contrary, I think there's plenty of evidence for both interpretations. Let's use a hypothetical example.

Let's say that we gave someone a relatively difficult math problem and told them that if they failed to complete it, they would be killed. Now, I believe that humans work harder when they have a lot to lose, which is probably true in this case-- the person would probably work very hard to find the correct answer, checking and double-checking his work hundreds of times before submitting his answer. You would argue that because he is so worried for his own life and panicked over getting the wrong answer, his cognitive functions would not be at their optimal level, and so he would be more likely to get the answer wrong. This is also probably true in this case. Both factors play off of one another and it's hard to say which one would win in the end.

Obviously this thought experiment is not "admissible evidence," but the two conclusions are self-evident, and I think it is fairly clear that both interpretations are valid. Now, the good thing about capitalism is that it almost never places that level of importance (someone's life) on such a small thing. That man's salary, bonus, potential promotion, or raise might all depend upon his ability to solve that math problem, but he is at least secure in the knowledge that his life will not end just because he failed at one simple task (which is what happened to quite a few people in communist regimes). So I would argue that capitalism provides both the necessary incentive and the necessary level of security for the man's ability to work and cognitive strength to both function well.

"Economic psychology" is demonstrably bullsh*t. The entire body of findings from the entire field of psychology (you know, actual psychology) exists to demonstrate that people aren't hyper-rational utility-maximizing robots. Even you probably aren't one, as much as you might try to act like it. If you're seriously trying to argue otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time with you, because you're obviously delusional.

I never made any such claim, and you are putting words in my mouth. Economic psychology does not explain every single human action, but it has tremendous explanatory power. It does not need to provide a grand unifying theory for all human behavior in order for it to be valid.

Of all the reason why Soviet-style planned economies (which, no, were not really communism, but that's an utterly uninteresting conversation to have) were an abject failure, I don't think there's much evidence that the problem was individual workers not working hard enough. I could be wrong, but iirc the issues that are generally cited are usually more structural in nature, having to do with the specific planning decisions that were made.

The planning decisions were made by people who did not have a profit motive, which means that those enacting the plans also didn't work hard enough to develop workable solutions.

Either way though, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that people didn't work particularly hard, given that their labor was arguably even more alienated than in the capitalist countries at the same point in time. Alienated labor is by nature something people strive to do as little as possible of. If that's all you're claiming, then I guess we agree. It's just that my solution to that problem is to reduce labor alienation, while yours is to force people to work at gunpoint.

This is something that has basically been endemic to authoritarian/communist regimes, lol. Despite my earlier thought experiment, no libertarian has ever advocated for forcing someone to work. The only thing that forces a person to work is their own bodily functions and necessities.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Depending on how one defines "socialism", yes, but I prefer social democracy or distributism.  But any economic system is only as strong as its worst-off, be that capitalism, communism, socialism, or anything else.

By that principle, if we must have capitalism, then it should only be because all of the alternative systems fail the worst-off, which I don't believe is necessarily the case.  It should never be looked towards as a moral exemplar.  And while the state must have a role in any 'functioning' economy, no type of economy, planned or unplanned, will work if the people forego charity and empathy for hedonistic consumerism.  Inequality is ultimately a cultural and moral failing of society.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

If you think your boss is entitled to what you create because he gave you the tools and raw materials, then why is he not also entitled to your wife because he gave you the job you use to support her?  We have a word for people like that.  It starts with C, and it's not 'capitalist'.

[lfromnj]

Also, this idea that socialists are 'against work' is a huge strawman.  Socialism is about owning the fruits of your own labor, rather than selling it to someone else.

If you think your boss is entitled to what you create because he gave you the tools and raw materials, then why is he not also entitled to your wife because he gave you the job you use to support her?  We have a word for people like that.  It starts with C, and it's not 'capitalist'.

This is blatantly false as I have asked every socialist what we should do with non workers and they always give the answer of feed them its the humane option despite the fact feeding non workers would require stealing from workers.

And the 2nd question is simply because its not part of the mutually consensual agreement?