What kind of bullshit is that

post scarcity is a actual theory, check it out. It's not currently possible at our present timescale of course, that's why I said centuries to thousands of years

There will always be those type of people. The US Military, only allows someone to join if they have an ASVAB score above 85

?

If your ASVAB score falls below that, not only is there no position they can use you in, but in all likelihood you would cause more problems than help

uh okay

so what does it have to do with this?

And keep in mind, this is one of the most extensive human efforts achieved to determine how to keep the ranks full

For times of war that could determine the outcome of whether the nation lives and dies

look, I don't understand why your linking irrelevant points to this.

10% of the population falls below this ASVAB score. There will always be homeless people and uneducated people, and people who we just don't know what to do with

And giving them money does not solve the issue.

socialism isn't free money, LOL

Or giving them an equal share and telling them to work for snlt does not solve it

They will actively make anything they touch worse. Actually they can be quite industrious.

But industriously stupid

how do we know that percentages if they haven't even been educated? That's why I advocate for universal free/heavily subsidised education, socialism isn't free money, and never will.

money isn't a thing in socialism anyway

You can't just educate everyone to the same status

@Leiro レイロ how well the medicine industry and education do under capitalism?

People are different in all sorts of ways, intelligence happens to be one of them

lol we have literally the most advanced facilities in the entire world

the best trained physicians

and the best universities bar non

that is why people from all over the world send their kids to study here and patients are sent here for special treatment

That's true. We have the best facilities in Nebraska where I am from

not to mention out of the top 20 most advanced hospitals literally *fifteen* are American

They send Ebola patients here all the time from across the world

@Egoy yea and so? heard of historical materialism? capitalism is in every way transitionary, that's why industrialisation can only happen effectively under capitalism.

Vampire OriToday at 8:37 AM
we have seen "how well" the education and medicine industry does in the USA under capitalism

objectively wrong

We have the Warren Buffet cancer out patient center. That's like the pinnacle of capitalism combined with medicine

they both have done very well under capitalism

once industrialised, it would begin the transition to socialism. And how many pioneers have the Soviet Union produced again, a nation almost ruined by two world wars and a civil war?

you realize historical materialism isnt an airtight theory

there are many criticisms to it

lmao soviet union literally played catch up the entire cold war

even when they tried to copy our technologies they couldnt match up

they simply could not allocate resources efficiently at all

Prisoners??? At least we aren't running gulags

Obviously, compare the Russian empire to the USA at the onset of WW1. One practically industrialised and one was rural and agrarian.

comparing the SU and the USA is comparing apples to oranges

Have you even read the gulag archipelago??

was it because the "intellectual" bolsheviks killed off everyone useful?

seems normal for communist revolutions

and yet, just 40 years after the Russian revolution, the SU launched the first satellite N space.

I'd rather go to prison than quietly disappear

@Egoy I'm talking about the Russian empire at WW1.

I don't support communism or bolehevism, anyway.

and yet, the ussr collapsed after hundreds of millions of deaths and plunged that region into economic decay that remains today

as I said, the collapse of the Soviet Union was the result of poor leadership and poor economic planning by the Politburo. nothing to do with socialism or communism anyway, the Union would have lived if not for a certain someone

at least no oligarchs controlling everything

Ok let's talk about leadership then

I think no matter what you do, the same leaders will always make to the top

that's the bourgeois in a nutshell

yeah i think marxists conveniently eliminate the human condition in their laboratory-safe conditions

So then why blame it on the leadership?

If it will just continue to repeat itself?

@Egoy your conflating human nature with human behaviour lol. Read Peter kropotkin, he has clearly debunked the overused fallacy.

@raqdog that's the bourgeois, lol.

"We may summarize the Marxian doctrine in this way: In the beginning there are the 'material productive forces', i.e., the technological equipment of human productive efforts, the tools and machines. No question concerning their origin is permitted; they are, that is all; we must assume that they are dropped from heaven."

so? I don't understand the implication of the point your saying anyway. I'm not a Marxist, anyway.

It's the way hierarchal structures function

It predates or abilities to climb trees

@Leiro レイロ what are you then

historical materialism doesnt prove or mean anything

that's under capitalism lol, under socialism there would be no hierarchy

@Egoy democratic socialist

read Karl Popper if you still believe in historical materialism or historicism

Hierarchies exist in animals in our ancestral chain that predates our abilities to climb trees

Hierarchies are how we function. Put 10 kids in a room and they will form a hierarchy

A hierarchy of who's tallest, who's smartest, who is better at hand stands, whatever you want

I don't understand the point your saying in relation to socialism, if anything that signifies capitalism

The same leaders will rise to the top for the same reasons in a socialist society

Or a communist one

there is no "top" in a socialist society, its democracy at its highest.

The benevolent leader you describe does not climb that hierarchy. And when he does he gets killed

it's liquid democracy

Even worse

That's probably even worse. Now we are talking about the 2 wolves voting to eat the 1 sheep

how do you tread the line between socialism and invidiual liberty in democratic socialism

its like an oxymoron

Democratic socialism is achieving socialism through democratic means, I haven't researched much on libertarian socialism

in a democratic socialist society they prioritize the authority of the bureaucracy over individual rights

that is literally anti democratic

what no, a bureaucracy under socialism is made up by workers, and for the workers. if your referring to to the state under socialism, it's made up of people, and will be under the whip of the people. As I said, I don't know much about social liberties or libertarian socialism in general.

you said youre a democratic socialist though...

Democratic socialism, as I said, is achieving socialism through democratic means. There's a whole new catered to that, called libertarian socialism

and you abandon individual authority for a more centralized bureaucracy (even if its filled with "workers") you are still sacrificing personal autonomy

im just pointing out that the term is completely oxymoronic

lol, socialism is about making decisions democratically and decided on by every worker, that suppresses personal and individual autonomy?

your argument is about libertarian socialism, I don't know much about libertarian socialism

yes because you have representatives representing the wants of a collective

lol

there are no representatives lol

so wait youre a socialist now?

it's direct democracy at its best

yes, I am now, I used to be a rightist

and believed in capitalism

are you against markets completely?

no

markets are still needed

until central planning is more superior than market forces

lol democratic socialism advocates for state intervention to address social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism

you remove power from the individual when you afford more power to a centralized bureaucracy lol

central planning has already been tried though

and it cannot compete with a price based market economy

why would there be state intevantion under socialism? there are no representatives under socialism, it's direct democracy at its purest.

@Egoy because computing was not advanced enough

prices are the most direct and efficient way resources can be allocated

state intervention exists by way of democratic socialism. you even said this is a vehicle to attain "true socialism"

there will always be state intervention under these conditions

Well under socialism, "market forces" would be allocated by supercomputers, read Paul cockshott for that, he described it when he published papers about the socialist calculation debate

@Egoy under socialism, the state is under the whip of the people lol, so "state intervention" would be a baseless argument tbh, when the workers own the means of production

with 21st century technology, central planning is actually feasable (to a extent)

Well, at least you understand the basic concepts of socialism

thats nice we have socialists that want to engage in debate. its sorta sad thought itll probably never work out

discord socialists are okay

YouTube socialists are edgy elementary schoolers who think that the hammer and sickle is kewl

many people falsely associate it as a alternative

i mean if literally only technology is the barrier to full on socialism why hasnt any other coutnry done it?

if its so clear?

nordic model still employs markets. china has large privately own sectors

Well, socialism can only be established when the working class is educated enough about it or when the alienation of said class is reached to an extent, capitalism is a transitionary ideology and a global system as well, socialism is a global system

the transition to socialism is inevitable, no matter what the timescale is.

it's any ideology, like feudalism and capitalism, capitalism would fall when the circumstances call for it.

Cosma Shalizi has a good essay on why supercomputers wont be the only solution to figuring out the economic calculation problem

Well about this economic calculation, yes, I shall explain more about it

so in a capitalist society, there are free markets

in a hypothetical socialist economy, its done by Central planning.

computers would evaluate and input and output data, and thus relevant amounts of production is allocated to each sector of industry.

the free market, however successful, operates on the principles of profit and produces immense amounts of waste.

immense amounts of waste

[citation needed]

what citation lol?

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/#equilibrium

So far as our current knowledge goes, no. Computing optimal prices turns out to have the same complexity as computing the optimal plan itself

Well, as I said, quantum computing nor linear programming existed during the time of the Soviet Union powerful enough to calculate economic and macroeconomic functions on a national level at that time.

this was written in 2012 by a statistics and computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon

The computational complexity formula I quoted above already allows for only needing to come close to the optimum. Worse, the complexity depends only very slowly, logarithmically, on the approximation to the optimum, so accepting a bit more slop buys us only a very slight savings in computation time. (The optimistic spin is that if we can do the calculations at all, we can come quite close to the optimum.) This route is blocked.

yeah maybe in a century when a supercomputer is able to calculate for every single nuance, every single preference then maybe socialism will be possible

calculation_debate.pdf

yes, that's why I said quantum computing makes it very possible

this pdf shows how it can be achieved through supercomputers

but just because a computer program can optimize the most efficient use of resources doesnt automatically mean thats what the market desires

theres a clear disconnect

there would be no market under central planning

it still works under supply and demand

but not under a market

The innumerable living participants in the economy, state and private, collective and individual, must serve notice of their needs and of their relative strength not only through the statistical determinations of plan commissions but by the direct pressure of supply and demand. The plan is checked and, to a considerable degree, realized through the market.

-Trotsky

did they have computers in 1924?

obviously he didn't forsee computers.

that's like asking a man of the 60s to expect what's the Internet

quantum computing today is not capable of allocating resources efficiently though

that's why the technology should be worked upon and improved on

it's still at its infancy

but linear programming is a given

technology has created new kinds of democracy, socialism and other economic concepts unbeknownst to a man couple of decades ago

so it should be worked upon, until proven superior to market forces

so what I'm saying is that, when the general populace becomes educated about socialism and becomes class conscious, it will be the final nail on the coffin for capitalism

except computer chips and supercomputers are already being designed by multiple firms and we are still decades away from a computer that *theoretically* can perfectly allocate resources

I think better education drives people away from socialism

Interesting to think that the computing solution is likely going to be brought about by a capitalist society

and supply and demand are literally market forces. so how would your system "still work under supply and demand" but "not under a market"

That's like predicting the weather more than a few days out

It can't be done.

It's probably even more complicated than the weather. It's like chaos theory. Where the variables change to quickly ad dramatically to predict what the effect of a butterflies flapping its wings will be

and the trotsky quote i posted literally had nothng to do with computers but quite literally the opposite. your computers and models have to account for human want and need that are hard to account for with computers

Yeah that's a recipe for disaster

Socialism thrives under war. Capitalism thrives better.

If you want socialism to work, there needs to be more of a communal goal other than to peacefully exist.

Capitalism is war, you compete daily to make yourself better than your competitors. Socialism is like a stagnant halt to progress, unless there is a bigger goal in mind, like getting to the moon or bankrupting the US in the Cold War.

But the individuals, I just don't see how they would feel motivated to do anything unless they are heavily propagandized by the state

@Egoy true, that's why I said we had to work on the development of quantum computing until we have reached a sufficient level of computing power to calculate economic processes. When I meant by "supply and demand" in a socialist economy, I mean this law would still be in place, as supercomputers measure the demand and supply of every commodity, and then allocate relevant amount of production to each sector.
Yes, human wants is a reflection of commodities being produced and sold, it will always account for it.

@raqdog capitalism is merely transitionary, socialism depends on the industrial base of capitalism to build itself up. Capitalism, like any other ideology, is not permenant and will give way to another economic ideology superior to itself. In a socialist society, there will be always a slight surplus of commodities, in the case of unforseen and marginal fluctuations in the consumption of consumer goods. If this is the case, supercomputers would account for it and draw back production from relevant sectors and increase production in a sector where its lacking.
Yes, socialism is a communal goal, it can only be achieved when the working class is educated about socialism and class consciousness. Socialism has nothing to do with the state, decisions are made by the people and the people alone.

Socialism IS a communal goal? Or socialism NEEDS a communal goal? That's the difference here

why do we need a competitive nature? the state, or the people actually, have far more resources than to innovate under a capitalist society, where you depend on your own capital. Innovation would skyrocket under socialism, because innovation under capitalism is only driven by profit

socialism is a communal goal

achieved by the working class united

People who generate the most successful ideas and markets in a capitalist society are hardly ever driven by just profit. Their companies end up being sustained by it and thrive off of profit because people want more of it. And it's a useful byproduct that sustains more innovation

How do you see a Silicon Valley emerge in a socialist society?

Or a spacex?

Or an amazon?

Or Walmart

oh no, this profit only benefits the bourgeois, ever since do the workers enjoy the fruits of their own labour? Profit keeps the capitalist system going, if not it would collapse. No matter what the capitalists are on a personal level, without profit, there would be no capitalism

@raqdog they would be all communally owned by the people, and thus far more resources would be allocated to it

Walgreens didn't even use a business model that accounts for profit. They accounted for number customer visits.

so how would a company operate without profit?

there would be no incentive to

just look at pathetic NASA

only has a budget of 20 billion

If they used a business model that focused on profit they wouldn't have even come up with the idea to place a store every few blocks

while the US military has a budget of 500 billion dollars to fund imperialism

@raqdog so how would a business be sustained without profit?

tell me that

NASA has no goal

pathetic, right?

channeling funds into the military

instead of investing into science

Their goal for the last year was to maintain the space station, as per congressional law

Or last several years I mean

yea, when the space race was over, there was no reason to extend it

Our military is the largest threat deterrent and humanitarian effort on the planet

yes, I'm pretty sure Latin American nations faced posed a threat to the USA in the 60s and 70s militarily

ever heard of Chile attempting to land in San Francisco to establish socialism?

A business sustains it self on profit, but also on risk, gotta take risk

yes and so?

Well that's why the military is a deterrent

It deters conflicts.

HAHAH

It's a very difficult metric to quantify. You can't list the number of conflicts you deter. You'll never know

Did Latin America ever wanted to get into a conflict with the US?

you created wars which cost trillions of dollars

overthrow governments

Do they have the option to even want to?

and set the stage ripe for the rise of isis

@raqdog?

you overthrew democratically elected governments

in short, the US military is the biggest threat to democracy

Those are marvelous wars. A whole generation of people participated in them

yea and so?

Surgeons, drone technology, counter insurgency

no excuses for that pal

no excuses for overthrowing democratically elected governments and supporting imperialism

Lots of good comes out of those wars. The people of Iraq were celebrating the US when they rolled in

We just shouldn't have hung around for 10 years after

and what do the people of Iraq have now?

wars

starvation

terrorism

death

They had that anyway

yea, before 1990 LOL

same with Gaddafi

Once the most prosperous nation in Africa

turned into a fucking war zone of anarchic proportions

Libya and Syria ya, they should've been more like Jordan

yea sorry, there's still no excuse for supporting imperialism

We keep the peace and we drop bombs, can't have it just one way

what?

keeping peace through dropping bombs

smh

We do both. Not necessarily at the same time

so remind me again how many isis members were baath party members?

there would be no isis

no migrant crisis

if it wasn't for imperialism

Obama created isis when he refused to stay committed to holding Assad accountable

So do we let Assad murder his own citizens with poisonous gas?

You'd rather allow that to happen?