{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Y SO REACH BETAにより編集済み:
12/3/2013 10:59:08 PM
28
Would You Support Economic Socialism In a World Of Mass Automation
The scenario is this; there is enough resources to sustain every living person and for them to all live a comfortable life. Society largely views scientific advance as a priority. This means that the demand in society is for intelligent people who can help contribute with their intellect, not as machines of labor as the jobs of manufacturing and farming are no longer done by human beings.
Would you support an initiative to provide every family and independently living person a home, food and any services and devices that they may want, in a society where it is practically infinite? Consider the differences between a highly automated capitalist economy and a highly automated socialist world.
If you vote, please contribute to the discussion by posting you reasoning for your vote.
I would choose to have a socialist economy, without it people would die and given the high amount of automation, jobs in labor would be non-existent. The technology industries wouldn't aim to hire people who don't contribute a lot to them so many people would live in poverty. It isn't a cost to human beings to feed, house and provide things for the people who are not propelling the cutting edge in science so it is malicious in my mind to condemn so many people to suffering and death. The people who don't excel in science can still do arts and whatever they wish to pursue and would still be valued as we value things like video games and music today.
English
#Offtopic
-
I would like to believe in Socialism if it could work as is written on paper, but with Human Error, marketing off our greed and ambitions is the only way that Capitalism succeeds in America. If we could properly equalize Socialism and equality for people in the system, it would work very well. Because I see the advantages to it honestly, I just don't trust people to make it work as intended.
-
2 通の返信
-
1 返信I'm selfish and I love video games and it feels like videogames would die in socialist environment.
-
Ad Hocにより編集済み: 12/4/2013 7:32:07 PMI'm not sure. Under those circumstances, I might support Democratic Communism/Socialism, but it's hard to say how well it would work. With no requirement to work, most people could get lazy and decide not to do anything. Or, the lack of work could give us the opportunity to focus on improving technology and ourselves. I'm similarly conflicted about Capitalism. Does it make us more selfish/greedy by forcing us to compete? Or, does it just channel humanity's natural tendency to be selfish/greedy into a more productive form? Maybe if we took the competition away we'd be more altruistic, working for the greater good. Or maybe we'd just sit around and do nothing. I have no idea.
-
17 通の返信
-
1 返信Socialism obviously. Any one who is a capitalist is either an uneducated moron or a greedy bastard.
-
7 通の返信
-
No. The ones creating the robots and the tech of the future should be the ones who survive, the ones who actually are -blam!-ing productive for the economy SHOULD be on top of the food chain. I think if there [i]really[/i] will be a shortage of jobs that means some people should die, economic Darwinism, or population should gradually decrease. We should create a generation of people who receive handouts, that will put a halt to our progress, it will be a giant waste of resources. Has Africa changed with all our aid? Has the ghettos of America ever got out of poverty? No. Because there is no dire consequence to poverty in this country already, they don't need anymore than they already have. Capitalism is a natural economy, an economy of progression. Socialism is an economy of stagnation.
-
No. That scenario is impossible. The whole foundation of economics is that there aren't enough resources to satisfy our desires. Socialism requires few making decisions for many. Politicians will be deciding who gets, and who doesn't get. In capitalism, individuals decide what's in their best interest. Socialism strips away the individual's choice of what to do.
-
11 通の返信Capitalism Why? Because in a socialist society it doesn't encourage people to work. It encourages people to do this [quote]If this were the case, it takes no energy at all to live. I'd rather let the egg heads do what ever while I have fun and have instant anything. Sure it sounds good.[/quote] In a capitalists economy people have to work for a living. If you don't want, then you live a pretty crappy life. Which I'm ok with, I don't want to give people freebies throughout life.
-
9 通の返信What motivation would people have to become educated and try to become one of the demanded intelligentsia if they'll be getting the same standard of living as someone that lives unemployed?
-
Progoにより編集済み: 12/4/2013 3:21:53 PMHave you ever read Brave New World by Huxley? It's basically a huge argument about it. That being said, I'd say capitalism, it rewards those who take the initiative and outperform others. But maybe my opinion doesn't count since I'm upper middle class ;p
-
[quote]If this were the case, it takes no energy at all to live. I'd rather let the egg heads do what ever while I have fun and have instant anything. Sure it sounds good.[/quote] Take this mindset and multiply it by a hundred-million, and you have the reason why a socialist automaton system would be a bad idea.
-
3 通の返信Well, lets do a comparison given the facts. Under this form of socialism, basic necessities are being provided. Assuming some form of taxation still exists, then that's how these necessities are being funded. With mass automation under capitalism, these same necessities would probably be available for an extremely low price. (I'm also holding the level of automation technology equal) In either case, the costs of the machines are sunk, and economies of scale state that the more of a good is produced, the lower its marginal cost becomes. So, in this case, there would be no actual difference in the cost of these necessities provided under socialism or capitalism, just the way it's paid for. I don't think your assumption that mass poverty would only exist under the capitalist system is correct. You still only have the same number of educated people in science and technology under both examples. These are the only people "in demand" in the labour market. So, under capitalism, you would have a wealth concentration in the hands of these people, while under socialism, you would have a wealth dilution across the other 7 billion or so people after the techies have been taxed. Whether or not this wealth dilution is enough to raise everyone else over the poverty line would be impossible to determine. Basically, you're picking between a lot of poor people and a couple of (relatively) rich people, or a planet full of slightly less poor people. So, assuming that all economic activity involves just mass production of necessities and advancement of scientific knowledge, both systems pretty much wind up the same. The poor under capitalism wouldn't be able to afford the basic necessities since they don't have jobs, and all the people under socialism would only be able to afford a few since there is too little wealth to go around. Even if the socialist economy were to adopt something like an "energy currency", the underlying economic facts still hold. However, this all changes if we assume a full range of economic activity. In this case, capitalism would be superior, since infinite resources = infinite growth = infinite demand for labour.
-
5 通の返信
-
8 通の返信Never. The Free Market is always better. Under socialism there is no drive to better yourself or do anything that would allow you to make more money as the additional income will just be taken away and you will be put back in with the people with a lower valued job.
