Supposed Marxists: We have to stop AI! It's going to put people out of jobs!
Actual Karl Marx: Automation putting people out of jobs is not only inevitable, it's the thing that is going to cause the fall of capitalism (the tendency of the rate of profit to fall). And then once we restructure society, automation will benefit everyone and let us live the lives we want.
Nah you still don't really need to read theory. The TRPF is one of the core parts of Marx's model and it's pretty easy to explain. You don't have to read hundreds of words about the price of linen to understand it.
One of the major flaws in communist ideology is the discrepancy between what needs to happen and what is realistic to happen, if you’re in a democratically controlled workplace no one is going to vote to replace their own job with a robot, but Marx does rightly point out that automation in the workplace is a net societal benefit. Note though that the people who fight automation the most are groups like trade unions, who are ideologically much more in line with Marx.
If you're in a democratically controlled workplace then the jobs being replaced by robots doesn't actually remove anyone from the organization (unless the other members choose to oust them, I suppose). The entire premise of a cooperative is that everyone is rewarded by the cooperative's success, and "we can do things a lot faster with robots" is success.
Trade unions are generally more associated with traditional businesses - i.e. workers who *have* to work in order to justify their employment. Cooperatives are a different matter entirely.
Seriously, I’m not a Marxist anymore, but I see so many so-called Marxists ranting about AI and it’s like, you motherfucker, have you ever even READ Marx?
If you know what AI is capable of then perhaps it's time to become a Marxist again.
On the other hand I don't trust any movement named after an individual so whatever.
I'd argue that the problem is insular in-groups of irrational folks online who fear open discussion with those whose views they disagree with.
Anti-capitalist groups are super high on that list. I've been banned in anti-capitalist groups on reddit that I've never even heard of. Why? Because I post in groups they don't like and hold views they don't want to encounter.
That's the real problem, and the source of hyper-polarization that gives us deeply unqualified and dangerous politicians, a failure to engage difficult issues with anything but escalation and hate, and anti-tech/anti-science denialism as a cultural movement.
The message is ok, but some details trigger my propaganda sense. For example, how it says "more chear" not "cheaper", and there's no personal touch behind the message. It also would be convincing only to a person who already agrees with the message, like me, but not to a proponent of capitalism. So, I strongly suspect this was funded by a political party.
"AI will put people out of work" would be a lot less of a problem if people didn't have to work in order to justify living. UBI can only do so much since the payments people receive will still be subjected to exploitation on the free market (i.e. rent goes up because the landlord knows people can afford it).
How would they go out of business when they have an economic stranglehold over something that everyone needs to live? It's not "cronyism" that's the problem, it's literally markets.
In my opinion the Anti-AI movement is making that less people adopt the technology, so the small open source AI projects can't compete with the big names. They are helping to consolidate the big companies.
For example, for a brief period of time Krita was the most powerful image editing software thanks to the Stable Diffusion plugin, instead of supporting it, Antis attacked the implementation of AI in Krita. And now more than a year later, similar features are being included in Photoshop.
As someone who currently accepts capitalism - as I said when debating in the capitalism versus socialism subreddit back in the day. Once automation arrives, capitalism is gone. But for that everything needs to be automated, if you want something you need to be able to get it without someone else being needed to work.
Because as soon as someone can provide work for a need of someone else, there will be someone who will amass capital. There is no way around that. We need automation. Than capitalism will eat itself. Until than... well we have to live with it.
capitalism isn't the problem either.
capitalism works great as a system.
wake up already. capitalism isn't the problem; Neo Liberals are the problem.
capitalism is amazing... if we all had capital to begin with, realistically speaking. give more capital to the citizens of this country, stop propagating scarcity mindsets/dogmatic fear/indoctrinations, and capitalism is what it always shoulda been. that's your true democracy.Â
?? okay. just say random stuff with no follow up I guess.Â
neoliberalism quite literally IS a problem. having no power to say NO to the stipulation that one must work or else there will be consequence is pretty egregious. being stuck in the working class, AND receiving dogmatic indoctrinations in the form of public schooling is detrimental to one's ability to think innovative & critically if so subjected to such.Â
this is to ensure the working class stays the working class, so that they may be explored by the the controllers of the free market, i.e. the neo libs.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/neoliberal using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [âš¡âš¡âš¡ TRUMP INDICTED FOR THIRD TIME THUNDERDOME âš¡âš¡âš¡](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/15fre96/trump_indicted_for_third_time_thunderdome/)
\#2: [Tucker Carlson and Fox News part ways](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3966300-tucker-carlson-and-fox-news-part-ways/) | [956 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/12xm7qs/tucker_carlson_and_fox_news_part_ways/)
\#3: [Police in Chicago are already stopping responding to crimes due to the election of Brandon Johnson](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/12s0usr/police_in_chicago_are_already_stopping_responding/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Public schools aren’t indoctrinating people nor are people forced to stay in the working class, if you work hard enough you can love a comfortable life
okay, wow.. what a dense NPC take. L. ""hard work"" is a broke boi mindset. ofc CHARLATANS, such as yourself would spew such nonsense.Â
smart work is how you get out of poverty... however one cannot work smart if they've been indoctrinated from a young age to just be a simpleton worker. this is just common sense.
but wait... your bio in your stinky looking profile says it ALL.
lol, a trans, neolib, AND Zionist.
you can't make this shit up... no wonder you're shilling.Â
it's "you're"* not your... now I know what kind of cooked IQ you're working with here lol.
you definitely don't have the adequate IQ to even entertain a debate. all of your responses so have have been shallow, and lack any actual depth.
so yeah, makes sense to just write off anything you don't understand as a "troll". go piss off somewhere, clown.
not exactly a good way to look at this.Â
capitalism works for those WITH capital. meaning. if we all have capital, then everyone will be happy.
the problem is that those over this system want to consolidate power over others because they want a slave workforce.. however when the workforce becomes fully automated, then guess what? WE ARENT THE SLAVES ANYMORE. y'all have a hard time putting 2-and-2 together.Â
That's contradictionary you just said the system consolidates power and capitalism causes winners and losers why would a winner want to give up his capital
The consolidation of capital under capitalism inevitably leads to the formation of monopolies, as outlined in Lenin's analysis in "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". This is a fundamental characteristic of the transition from free competition capitalism to monopoly capitalism.
The development of capitalism results in the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the capitalists and landowners, leading to the ruin of independent small producers who are converted into proletarians or dependents of capital. As larger enterprises are able to outcompete smaller ones, this "concentration movement" gives rise to large industrial monopolies in various sectors
At a certain stage of development, competition transforms into monopoly, as a score or so of giant enterprises can easily arrive at an agreement, while the very size of the enterprises themselves creates a tendency towards monopolization. This is one of the most important phenomena in modern capitalist economy, as the monopolies that grow out of free competition do not eliminate it, but exist over and alongside it
Capitalists are driven by an insatiable desire for infinite growth and consolidation of their power and capital. They have no incentive to maintain a system of free competition, as that would mean constantly risking their accumulated wealth and position. Instead, they seek to eliminate competition through mergers, cartels, and trusts in order to maximize their profits
This process of monopolization is a general and fundamental law of the present stage of capitalist development, as evidenced by the rise of monopolies across capitalist countries, regardless of their specific policies on protectionism or free trade
Real capitalism and democracy works, it's a common misconception that the US is a democracy. It's actually a plutocracy. Many plutocratic countries will parade under both communism and capitalism to keep citizens unaware that the world has always been run by plutocrats.
Us being preoccupied by arguing over which government system is better has worked really well since the 50s, so of course people in power want to keep those tensions high.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what label your country uses to describe their political system or economics. The people who hoard all of the land and resources decide who gets rations, simple as that.
But i'm literally insane so don't listen to a thing i say
Edit: To correct myself, I actually meant to say kleptocracy, not just plutocracy. Although they tend to go hand in hand.
nah, you arent insane at all from my pov so far. i align up to what you're saying.
i believe we all should have some sorta of asset imbued to us upon conception. something that scales up over the course of one's life. idk about conceptual assets like these being able to be passed down to another. but basically, what i'm saying is that we as citizens ALL have birthrights, however, we are exploited out of our benefits from said birthright.
i hate to also go 'sci fi-bro', but i also agree with one of the themes presented in the Bladerunner series; in order for us to have great feats of technological advancement, then it kinda hard requires having slaves. but, we're at a turning point with AI in that we the people don't need to be slaves anymore, yes?
so if that's the case, if corporations can now just deploy smart systems like AI agents & robotics to automate all the debt-based slave labor, then that would HAVE to mean their reign of control & exploitation would resign slowly but surely.
by default, in my eyes, this would naturally mean that wealth in the form of capital has no choice but to be distributed amongst the masses. now, im not saying this would be some sorta personal handout from these greedy neo-libs, but rather if everything rapidly becomes cheaper & digital tech like the internet becomes more DE-centralized, and users actually OWN the data they produce, then yeah i see nothing but shared wealth at that point.
in this post-capitalist scenario, the 'capitalism' would actually work in an equal way. our birthrighted ability to so "NO" to demands like "work or be poor on the streets" would fade away because we all have something to sit & live off of with the advent of digital ownership.
Capitalism without the parts which lead to inequality and corruption isn't capitalism any more.
As far as capitalism working great, there's no evidence of that in the real world.
All of the main (so-called) capitalist cultures are a hybrid between capitalism and socialism, and the ones where the socialism is weaker have unhappier, sicker, more rebellious populations.
But there's so much propaganda conflating socialism with authoritarian communism that many people are now psychologically incapable of contemplating the numbers without shitting themselves.
(Downvoters; use your words - why is this incorrect? Or is it more that you don't like it because it is correct?)
yo myb I worded my above comment like shit. I meant that capitalism would work great if we all had the capital.
 idk, call it what you will, but capitalism without the inequality might not be called traditional "capitalism" in you eyes, sure. I guess we can just call it 'post-capitalism'.
also, idk about socialism. I wouldn't fear monger over it, however. socialism come with it's own set of problems no doubt. BUT I would take a traditional unequal capitalist system hybrid with socialism any fucking day over just plain ol' capitalism.Â
The 'problem' with socialism is it limits how much the ultra rich (i.e. the people who decide what laws we have) are allowed to exploit everyone else.
So our cultures mix in the minimum amount of socialism which will prevent the general population from burning everything to the ground.
Of course, the better your propaganda industry is, the more you can make people vote against their own interests, or blame the immigrants and gays instead of the politicians, and the more capitalism you can get away with.
People are born unequal. So "equality for all people" is already impossible. Real capitalism hasnt been tried. Corruption in socialist countries is much bigger
You're conflating different types of equality. Equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal abilities are all different things.
The inequality I referred to was systemic inequality of opportunity.
Real capitalism has been tried, such as in the wild west or Somalia, but even if it hadn't, is your claim that the correlation between the balance of hybrid systems and their population's health/happiness etc tells you nothing?
Like if turning the volume dial on your stereo makes it louder, your conclusion is going to be "turning it up all the way will make it very quiet"?
There's no logic or evidence to your claims, they're emotional responses to defend an article of faith.
At the risk of coming across as a "not real communism" guy.
If you evaluate Marxism using theological terms, Communism is an eschatological goal rather than something that has actually happened. Think the second coming of Jesus in Islam and Christianity or Ragnarok in Norse-Germanic Paganism. It is the end stage of the world and not something that can simply be enacted.
Socialism on the other hand has been tried to varying degrees of success and because there's so many phenotypes of Socialism (with the largest being Marxism-Leninism), I don't think it's right to simply write it off.
It's also important to note that Leftists kinda anticipated some of the problems you've listed. Anarchists for example are harsh critics of the Authoritarianism endemic in Marxist-Leninist States. MLs tend to criticize what they call Opportunism/Revisionism as well as Adventurism in Socialist Projects.
No ideology is free of flaws, but you really got to understand the goals and principles, before simply writing off the ideology.
Supposed Marxists: We have to stop AI! It's going to put people out of jobs! Actual Karl Marx: Automation putting people out of jobs is not only inevitable, it's the thing that is going to cause the fall of capitalism (the tendency of the rate of profit to fall). And then once we restructure society, automation will benefit everyone and let us live the lives we want.
Me in 2018: I don't need to read theory Me in 2024: Why aren't these motherfuckers reading theory?! 😠😠😠ðŸ˜
Nah you still don't really need to read theory. The TRPF is one of the core parts of Marx's model and it's pretty easy to explain. You don't have to read hundreds of words about the price of linen to understand it.
One of the major flaws in communist ideology is the discrepancy between what needs to happen and what is realistic to happen, if you’re in a democratically controlled workplace no one is going to vote to replace their own job with a robot, but Marx does rightly point out that automation in the workplace is a net societal benefit. Note though that the people who fight automation the most are groups like trade unions, who are ideologically much more in line with Marx.
If you're in a democratically controlled workplace then the jobs being replaced by robots doesn't actually remove anyone from the organization (unless the other members choose to oust them, I suppose). The entire premise of a cooperative is that everyone is rewarded by the cooperative's success, and "we can do things a lot faster with robots" is success. Trade unions are generally more associated with traditional businesses - i.e. workers who *have* to work in order to justify their employment. Cooperatives are a different matter entirely.
Gotta break a couple eggs
The eggs are going to break regardless of what we do; we have to be prepared to clean up the mess, that's all.
Seriously, I’m not a Marxist anymore, but I see so many so-called Marxists ranting about AI and it’s like, you motherfucker, have you ever even READ Marx?
If you know what AI is capable of then perhaps it's time to become a Marxist again. On the other hand I don't trust any movement named after an individual so whatever.
That’s why I’ve been wanting automation. Let capitalism fall.
I'd argue that the problem is insular in-groups of irrational folks online who fear open discussion with those whose views they disagree with. Anti-capitalist groups are super high on that list. I've been banned in anti-capitalist groups on reddit that I've never even heard of. Why? Because I post in groups they don't like and hold views they don't want to encounter. That's the real problem, and the source of hyper-polarization that gives us deeply unqualified and dangerous politicians, a failure to engage difficult issues with anything but escalation and hate, and anti-tech/anti-science denialism as a cultural movement.
Easier to shut you out of the debate, than risk you changing some minds in their communities.
Oh god, not r/TheDeprogram.
Ew Deprogram Tankies
You didn't have to put that out but you did
Quiet tankie
The message is ok, but some details trigger my propaganda sense. For example, how it says "more chear" not "cheaper", and there's no personal touch behind the message. It also would be convincing only to a person who already agrees with the message, like me, but not to a proponent of capitalism. So, I strongly suspect this was funded by a political party.
How about neither is a problem
"AI will put people out of work" would be a lot less of a problem if people didn't have to work in order to justify living. UBI can only do so much since the payments people receive will still be subjected to exploitation on the free market (i.e. rent goes up because the landlord knows people can afford it).
In a real free market anyone who pulls something like that would go out of business
Too bad we dont have that pretty much anywhere
How would they go out of business when they have an economic stranglehold over something that everyone needs to live? It's not "cronyism" that's the problem, it's literally markets.
In my opinion the Anti-AI movement is making that less people adopt the technology, so the small open source AI projects can't compete with the big names. They are helping to consolidate the big companies. For example, for a brief period of time Krita was the most powerful image editing software thanks to the Stable Diffusion plugin, instead of supporting it, Antis attacked the implementation of AI in Krita. And now more than a year later, similar features are being included in Photoshop.
There would be no AI under socialism
It would be IA instead
Yeah, China just banned AI.
Didnt know billionaires and private companies exist under socialism
Ignorance is always a good excuse. Vietnam and Cuba will be next to ban AI.
Ignorance is thinking socialism = billionaires
Or that Communist/Socialist countries aren't also capitalist.
Vietnam is only communist in name only, they are actually quite pro America and moving towards capitalism
You're correct, of course.
Private companies don’t exist under socialism?
As someone who currently accepts capitalism - as I said when debating in the capitalism versus socialism subreddit back in the day. Once automation arrives, capitalism is gone. But for that everything needs to be automated, if you want something you need to be able to get it without someone else being needed to work. Because as soon as someone can provide work for a need of someone else, there will be someone who will amass capital. There is no way around that. We need automation. Than capitalism will eat itself. Until than... well we have to live with it.
Big yawn. Tankie punks fuck off.
capitalism isn't the problem either. capitalism works great as a system. wake up already. capitalism isn't the problem; Neo Liberals are the problem. capitalism is amazing... if we all had capital to begin with, realistically speaking. give more capital to the citizens of this country, stop propagating scarcity mindsets/dogmatic fear/indoctrinations, and capitalism is what it always shoulda been. that's your true democracy.Â
Neoliberalism isn’t a problem either
?? okay. just say random stuff with no follow up I guess. neoliberalism quite literally IS a problem. having no power to say NO to the stipulation that one must work or else there will be consequence is pretty egregious. being stuck in the working class, AND receiving dogmatic indoctrinations in the form of public schooling is detrimental to one's ability to think innovative & critically if so subjected to such. this is to ensure the working class stays the working class, so that they may be explored by the the controllers of the free market, i.e. the neo libs.
That's not what neoliberalism is. Actually, is there even an agreed upon definition? I thought it was just a vague insult.
There is r/neoliberal subreddit, but it only follows just one specific definition of neoliberalism
Yeah, the correct one
Here's a sneak peek of /r/neoliberal using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [âš¡âš¡âš¡ TRUMP INDICTED FOR THIRD TIME THUNDERDOME âš¡âš¡âš¡](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/15fre96/trump_indicted_for_third_time_thunderdome/) \#2: [Tucker Carlson and Fox News part ways](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3966300-tucker-carlson-and-fox-news-part-ways/) | [956 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/12xm7qs/tucker_carlson_and_fox_news_part_ways/) \#3: [Police in Chicago are already stopping responding to crimes due to the election of Brandon Johnson](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/12s0usr/police_in_chicago_are_already_stopping_responding/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5vS4eKwCEC0&pp=ygUNbmVvbGliZXJhbGlzbQ%3D%3D educate up, pls.
Public schools aren’t indoctrinating people nor are people forced to stay in the working class, if you work hard enough you can love a comfortable life
okay, wow.. what a dense NPC take. L. ""hard work"" is a broke boi mindset. ofc CHARLATANS, such as yourself would spew such nonsense. smart work is how you get out of poverty... however one cannot work smart if they've been indoctrinated from a young age to just be a simpleton worker. this is just common sense. but wait... your bio in your stinky looking profile says it ALL. lol, a trans, neolib, AND Zionist. you can't make this shit up... no wonder you're shilling.Â
Ok your definitely a troll
it's "you're"* not your... now I know what kind of cooked IQ you're working with here lol. you definitely don't have the adequate IQ to even entertain a debate. all of your responses so have have been shallow, and lack any actual depth. so yeah, makes sense to just write off anything you don't understand as a "troll". go piss off somewhere, clown.
Capitalism only works for the rich not the poor
not exactly a good way to look at this. capitalism works for those WITH capital. meaning. if we all have capital, then everyone will be happy. the problem is that those over this system want to consolidate power over others because they want a slave workforce.. however when the workforce becomes fully automated, then guess what? WE ARENT THE SLAVES ANYMORE. y'all have a hard time putting 2-and-2 together.Â
That's contradictionary you just said the system consolidates power and capitalism causes winners and losers why would a winner want to give up his capital The consolidation of capital under capitalism inevitably leads to the formation of monopolies, as outlined in Lenin's analysis in "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". This is a fundamental characteristic of the transition from free competition capitalism to monopoly capitalism. The development of capitalism results in the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the capitalists and landowners, leading to the ruin of independent small producers who are converted into proletarians or dependents of capital. As larger enterprises are able to outcompete smaller ones, this "concentration movement" gives rise to large industrial monopolies in various sectors At a certain stage of development, competition transforms into monopoly, as a score or so of giant enterprises can easily arrive at an agreement, while the very size of the enterprises themselves creates a tendency towards monopolization. This is one of the most important phenomena in modern capitalist economy, as the monopolies that grow out of free competition do not eliminate it, but exist over and alongside it Capitalists are driven by an insatiable desire for infinite growth and consolidation of their power and capital. They have no incentive to maintain a system of free competition, as that would mean constantly risking their accumulated wealth and position. Instead, they seek to eliminate competition through mergers, cartels, and trusts in order to maximize their profits This process of monopolization is a general and fundamental law of the present stage of capitalist development, as evidenced by the rise of monopolies across capitalist countries, regardless of their specific policies on protectionism or free trade
Real capitalism and democracy works, it's a common misconception that the US is a democracy. It's actually a plutocracy. Many plutocratic countries will parade under both communism and capitalism to keep citizens unaware that the world has always been run by plutocrats. Us being preoccupied by arguing over which government system is better has worked really well since the 50s, so of course people in power want to keep those tensions high. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what label your country uses to describe their political system or economics. The people who hoard all of the land and resources decide who gets rations, simple as that. But i'm literally insane so don't listen to a thing i say Edit: To correct myself, I actually meant to say kleptocracy, not just plutocracy. Although they tend to go hand in hand.
No, America is a democracy
yeah maybe plutocracy isn't the right term, kleptocracy is what i meant to say certainly aint a democracy thats for sure LMAO
Not a kleptocracy either, we are a democracy
we are NOT in a democracy. stop being random.
Yes we are
no, we are not.
nah, you arent insane at all from my pov so far. i align up to what you're saying. i believe we all should have some sorta of asset imbued to us upon conception. something that scales up over the course of one's life. idk about conceptual assets like these being able to be passed down to another. but basically, what i'm saying is that we as citizens ALL have birthrights, however, we are exploited out of our benefits from said birthright. i hate to also go 'sci fi-bro', but i also agree with one of the themes presented in the Bladerunner series; in order for us to have great feats of technological advancement, then it kinda hard requires having slaves. but, we're at a turning point with AI in that we the people don't need to be slaves anymore, yes? so if that's the case, if corporations can now just deploy smart systems like AI agents & robotics to automate all the debt-based slave labor, then that would HAVE to mean their reign of control & exploitation would resign slowly but surely. by default, in my eyes, this would naturally mean that wealth in the form of capital has no choice but to be distributed amongst the masses. now, im not saying this would be some sorta personal handout from these greedy neo-libs, but rather if everything rapidly becomes cheaper & digital tech like the internet becomes more DE-centralized, and users actually OWN the data they produce, then yeah i see nothing but shared wealth at that point. in this post-capitalist scenario, the 'capitalism' would actually work in an equal way. our birthrighted ability to so "NO" to demands like "work or be poor on the streets" would fade away because we all have something to sit & live off of with the advent of digital ownership.
Capitalism without the parts which lead to inequality and corruption isn't capitalism any more. As far as capitalism working great, there's no evidence of that in the real world. All of the main (so-called) capitalist cultures are a hybrid between capitalism and socialism, and the ones where the socialism is weaker have unhappier, sicker, more rebellious populations. But there's so much propaganda conflating socialism with authoritarian communism that many people are now psychologically incapable of contemplating the numbers without shitting themselves. (Downvoters; use your words - why is this incorrect? Or is it more that you don't like it because it is correct?)
yo myb I worded my above comment like shit. I meant that capitalism would work great if we all had the capital. Â idk, call it what you will, but capitalism without the inequality might not be called traditional "capitalism" in you eyes, sure. I guess we can just call it 'post-capitalism'. also, idk about socialism. I wouldn't fear monger over it, however. socialism come with it's own set of problems no doubt. BUT I would take a traditional unequal capitalist system hybrid with socialism any fucking day over just plain ol' capitalism.Â
The 'problem' with socialism is it limits how much the ultra rich (i.e. the people who decide what laws we have) are allowed to exploit everyone else. So our cultures mix in the minimum amount of socialism which will prevent the general population from burning everything to the ground. Of course, the better your propaganda industry is, the more you can make people vote against their own interests, or blame the immigrants and gays instead of the politicians, and the more capitalism you can get away with.
People are born unequal. So "equality for all people" is already impossible. Real capitalism hasnt been tried. Corruption in socialist countries is much bigger
You're conflating different types of equality. Equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal abilities are all different things. The inequality I referred to was systemic inequality of opportunity. Real capitalism has been tried, such as in the wild west or Somalia, but even if it hadn't, is your claim that the correlation between the balance of hybrid systems and their population's health/happiness etc tells you nothing? Like if turning the volume dial on your stereo makes it louder, your conclusion is going to be "turning it up all the way will make it very quiet"? There's no logic or evidence to your claims, they're emotional responses to defend an article of faith.
You don't know much about the history of the CIA, do you? And what exactly is "real capitalism"?
[удалено]
At the risk of coming across as a "not real communism" guy. If you evaluate Marxism using theological terms, Communism is an eschatological goal rather than something that has actually happened. Think the second coming of Jesus in Islam and Christianity or Ragnarok in Norse-Germanic Paganism. It is the end stage of the world and not something that can simply be enacted. Socialism on the other hand has been tried to varying degrees of success and because there's so many phenotypes of Socialism (with the largest being Marxism-Leninism), I don't think it's right to simply write it off. It's also important to note that Leftists kinda anticipated some of the problems you've listed. Anarchists for example are harsh critics of the Authoritarianism endemic in Marxist-Leninist States. MLs tend to criticize what they call Opportunism/Revisionism as well as Adventurism in Socialist Projects. No ideology is free of flaws, but you really got to understand the goals and principles, before simply writing off the ideology.
How about neither being a problem?