Socialism

We all know the argument that profit motive is part of human nature is false. Yet I'm still not sure why capital owners pursue profits. Is it the difference of self-interest vs collective interest? If so then wouldn't that enforce the argument on human nature? Or am I missing a crucial aspect of the Capitalist system? I'm genuinely wondering.

Edit: Sorry for not being able to answer all of the comments, the blocklist of my instance sadly won't let me see all of the comments.

99 years ago, on January 21, 1924, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin passed away. A brilliant communist theoretician, a revolutionary, the founder of the Bolshevik Party that inspired and organized the Great October Socialist Revolution!

Today, V. I. Lenin's ideas are alive and relevant as never before.

In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. Here's a way to ensure that everyone gets those products and services despite not being hired by anyone.

1. Create a basic income system. This would provide everyone with a basic income to cover their essential needs and give them access to the goods and services the AI produces.

2. Expand public services. Governments could provide free or discounted goods and services to citizens, such as healthcare, transportation, education, and housing. This would ensure everyone has access to essential goods and services.

3. Invest in a sharing economy. Governments could invest in a sharing economy, allowing citizens to rent or share products and services. This would allow people to access goods and services without having to purchase them.

4. Tax the AI companies. Governments could tax AI companies on their profits and use the funds to support citizens. This would ensure that citizens receive the goods and services that the AI produces without having to purchase them.

In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.

In this situation, if taxes are made very high, companies may not be willing to manufacture products and services as the cost of doing so may be too great. This could lead to a scarcity of products and services, increasing their cost and putting them out of reach of people who would otherwise be able to afford them.

To prevent this, governments would need to adjust the tax rate to keep the cost of production low enough to keep products and services affordable. Governments could also use other methods to support the companies making them, such as offering subsidies or providing access to resources like labour and materials at lower costs. Additionally, governments could promote the sharing economy and ensure that it is managed in a way that is fair and equitable for all involved. This would help ensure that people have access to affordable products and services.

In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.

Governments would like to increase taxes to provide more goods to people, but private companies are not willing to manufacture under high taxes. There's, however, a way to keep manufacturing goods while providing most of them to people.

To do this, governments can set up autonomous production facilities, where all the production is done by robots and AI. This can be done by building infrastructure such as factories and warehouses, buying the necessary equipment, and setting up AI programs to manage the production. This would allow companies to manufacture goods without having to pay taxes, as the facility is owned and operated by the government.

The products manufactured in these facilities can be distributed for free or for a discounted rate in a public distribution system. This would not only provide basic goods and services to people, but also stimulate the economy. People would have access to these goods and services and be able to purchase them for cheaper prices, which would increase consumption and help create jobs in other areas such as services and entertainment.

In addition, governments can also set up a sharing economy, where people can share their resources such as cars and homes. This would help reduce costs and increase access to goods and services.

Overall, this system would allow governments to provide basic goods and services to people while also stimulating the economy, creating jobs in other areas, and reducing costs.

An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies. Research would be performed by AI, as well as all other jobs. Since no one can buy their products, private companies would have no incentive to produce them.

In this type of future, governments would need to be very careful in how they set up these facilities to make sure that the goods and services provided are of high quality and meet the needs of the population. Governments should also ensure that the production of these goods is sustainable and does not harm the environment. Additionally, governments would need to provide some form of basic income to the population to make sure that people can still afford to pay for basic necessities. Finally, governments should look into creating a new form of currency to replace the need for money in this new system.

An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated manufacture and research facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies, which would stop producing. Money would be replaced by a new form of property exchange.

This system, where the government manages all manufacturing for its people, and money does not exist, could be summarized in a single word: socialism. With socialism, the government would own and control all of the means of production and distribute goods and services to its citizens for free. This could be a potential solution for a future with full automation of all jobs, since it would guarantee that everyone has access to basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare. It would also ensure that no one is left behind due to their financial status. Money would be replaced by a system of bartering, where goods and services would be exchanged directly between individuals.

Two AIs are presented with the problem to design a system that provides for everyone despite all jobs being automated and performed by AI.

The first AI, after some consideration, proposes socialism as a solution. Here, the goverment would set up its own automated manufacture and research facilities, makes goods and services available to everyone for free, and traditional currency is abolished.

The second AI, which opposes socialism, tries to propose a different system that would also keep everyone happy despite full automation and an absence of jobs. It suggests that the government instead should create a universal basic income system, where every citizen of the country receives a certain amount of money each month, regardless of whether they have a job or not. This money could be used to purchase goods and services, which would be produced by the automated factories, incentivizing the factories to continue to operate, and giving citizens a steady income.

In the future, every job will be automated and no work will be performed by people. To ensure everyone gets products and services despite not being able to work, there are two proposals.

In the first proposal, the government would set up automated production facilities to manufacture goods that would be distributed to people for free.

In the second proposal, private companies would keep manufacturing goods, but taxes would be placed on them and used to buy products that would be distributed to the rest of the population.

Here's an in-depth comparison of both proposals.

The first proposal would be more efficient, as automated production facilities are more efficient than manual labor. It would also be more equitable, as everyone would receive the same products and services regardless of their socio-economic status. However, it would be costly to set up and maintain these automated production facilities.

The second proposal would be more cost-effective, as private companies already exist and would just need to be taxed in order to fund the distribution of goods. It would also be less equitable, as wealthier people would be able to afford more expensive, higher-quality goods than those who are less well-off.

Ultimately, how to handle the automation of jobs will depend on the resources available in a given economy and the preferences of the people in power. No matter which proposal is chosen, it is important to ensure that everyone is able to access products and services in a fair and equitable way.

An AI and a human are comparing two ways to organize society in the future. According to them, the first proposal is more efficient and equitable, but difficult to set up initially, while the second roposal is less efficient and equitable but would be easy to set up with little to no change in policy.

Upon consideration, they decided that any lawmaker should choose to implement the first proposal, despite the difficulty of setting it up. They argued that the initial hardship was worth it for the long-term benefits in efficiency and equity, and that the second proposal should only be used as a temporary solution until the first proposal could be implemented.

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/195767

President Xi Jinping pledged to redistribute wealth while turning up the heat on China’s upscale citizens and businesses. So, what keeps Chinese communism going?

CaspianReports says it is because geopolitics, development, national security, stability. BTW ofc China is not Communist. What are your informed arguments?

Every production system has a way to assign jobs to citizens. The basic idea is that the kinds of labor "required" by society for an efficient fulfillment of needs don't necessarily align with those that an unhindered free choice of jobs would afford.

The way this is solved under capitalism is letting labor be a commodity, subject to market forces. Workers earn wages that are determined by the demand for their work and the availability of it. The difference in wages across jobs pushes us towards working jobs we otherwise wouldn't.

I believe the importance of the job market is underestimated in past Marxist literature. It used to be the case that labor was expendable and interchangeable; the availability of any one kind of labor greatly surpassed demand, making wages just a way to keep the proletariat living and reproducing.

However, with an increase in automation, those jobs have long ago disappeared in developed countries, and new ones are taking their place. Notably, these new jobs increasingly require training, which has the effect of making a worker unsuitable for all but their own specialized job.

As a result, wages are now established mainly by market forces. If an employer can, by virtue of the rest of the economy, offer worse working conditions than minimally required by the workforce, they will. Conversely, if a particular kind of labor is sold for a higher price, the employer will oblige.

As a special case that I'd like to mention, those that are very heavily demanded (e.g. public figures, elite sportsmen...) can get extremely high market prices for their labor. This is a new mechanic that has become more common.

I'd like to discuss how a Socialist country would tackle the problem of job distribution, in a way that hopefully offers better guarantees than a free job market.

First, a decolonial approach to Russia acknowledges the impressed and marginalized existence of non-Russian nations within RF borders. Acknowledgement is a first step in reckoning with RF for what it is: an empire.

And I don't mean an empire in kind of the postmodern sense, like American blue jeans or the EU acquis or some such, but a polity where political power is massed in and wielded by the titular majority over a multitude of nations dominated over time.

This imperial paradigm is not only a political reality, but a deeper principle reflected in its historiography. Botakoz Kassymbekova and Marlene Laruelle point to a „self-image of sacral martyrdom” on a kind of civilizing mission over non Russian peoples.

Though they may not acknowledge it as such, Russians project deeply imperial views over non-Russian regions, often referring to the historically restive North Caucasus, for example, as its „inner abroad.”

In his Captive and the Gift, NYU anthropologist Bruce Grant traces how Russian cultural and social forces reinforced this idea of Russian self-sacrifice in bringing „civilization” and orders to the „lawless” Caucasus peoples.

The irony here being that in subduing the „wild” Caucasus, Russia encounters, for example, two civilizations with far older histories of statehood and Christianity - Armenia and Georgia.

This irony has uncomfortable parallels to Russia's ongoing „denazification” war against Ukraine, and its denial of its statehood, despite Ukraine's far older history.

Of course, a nation need not be „older” or „younger” to be deserving of affirmation and agency, but it does reveal the poverty and inconsistency of this colonialist approach to non-Russian nations.

Any hope for Russian democracy must confront Russian colonial thinking. Historian Jane Burbank shows us how Russian imperial visions are inseparable from its political project, of which the brutal invasion of Ukraine is a natural extension.

And the same imperial, colonialist perspective that creates daily Buchas, Irpins, and Mariupols in Ukraine murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Chechnya; displaced a quarter million Georgians in the 1990s; engaged in mass atrocities against the Circassians; and etc.

More prosaically, but also importantly, that imperial perspective impedes Russian democracy. The idea that Russia can „skip” over decolonizing towards democracy is like saying the U.S. could have maintained slavery or Jim Crow and still be considered a modern democracy.

Or that the UK could repress and marginalize Ireland indefinitely but be considered liberal and democratic. Or France in North Africa. Belgium in the Congo, etc. Decolonization, in some genuine form, is not just a „nice to have,” but an essential part of a healthy democracy.

What can we do? We can start by acknowledging Russia's violently imperial foundations, as Botakoz Kassymbekova and Erica Marat note in their excellent piece.

This includes, as Susan Smith-Peter eloquently and introspectively considers, „a searching moral inventory to see the ways in which we have taken the Russian state’s point of view as a default.”

This should be considered more broadly beyond the confines of the ivory tower, though how we approach scholarship absolutely matters. How else have we wittingly or unwittingly centered the Russian state, or decentered local perspectives?

How often is reporting on the Caucasus, Central Asia, or Ukraine managed by bureaus in Moscow or St Petersburg? What languages do we prioritize for non-Russian but former Soviet places? Why are non-Russians routinely ignored or cartoonized in media depictions?

And what role do Western policymakers have in all of this? This brings us to Casey Michel's excellent piece on Decolonizing Russia, in which calls for a more robustly decolonial approach in U.S. policy towards Russia.

He says, explicitly and at some length, he does not necessarily call for the breakup of Russia. But we do need to take national movements in Russia seriously, which the U.S. government has not always done (often not, in fact), if nothing else as a truer reflection of Russia.

I'd say that while Russia's dissolution isn't the goal per se, a truly democratic Russia might go in that direction. It also may not, as national minorities in other places have found viable means for national expression in other political forms.

Alexander Etkind notes that this process of dissolution is already happening on its own essentially due to Russian cycles of imperial entropy, regardless of Western policies.

Decolonizing Russia is about (1) recognizing Russia for what it is, an empire, and engaging it as such; (2) speaking to a broader array of the population, and not the one projected by the Kremlin; and (3) preparing for risks that come with unwieldy imperium.

To recap: (1) Russia is an empire; (2) Russia can't be an empire and a democracy; (3) To democratize, Russia must decolonize; (4) Decolonization doesn't necessarily mean dissolution; (5) To promote democracy, West must promote decolonization.

found this quote on a competitive typing website, and for some reason it really resonated with me, thought i'd share it :)

Speaking from experience here. They have enough time. Most of them are completely politically uninvolved, but the ones who do know about politics are very frequently conservative, so i'm not entirely sure how to go about this.

It would make a lot of sense for rightwingers to mobilize the homeless and it probably won't be as difficult considering homeless people get a huge amount of aid from churches.

At least for me, finding work is hard and knowing i could be easily fired for the first 6 months is stressful.

I'm thinking about anti capitalist investments.

Traditionally, it has been common to talk about investment in the sense of "generating" wealth. The economy is going to grow, therefore it is good to invest your money in mutual funds or diverse portfolios.

Traditional investment is orwellian for buying the rights to workers labor. Therefore, by principle I shouldn't invest in the traditional sense.

But just having money just laying around in the bank isn't very clever either as inflation will devalue it. So I'm thinking about anti capitalist investments.

Investments in non-profits

My idea of investment doesn't just encompass how to increase my personal wealth, but also the wealth of the planet, wealth of human beings and wealth of animals. This means that I consider a donation an investment. I could view such investments as giving much higher return than even the most ethical company.

By donating, I'm also incentivizing myself to pay more attention to these organizations.

Investment in personal property

I could invest in possessions that I predict is going to be very useful to fight capitalism. I could buy tools to create independence from big tech. Or items that improve my mental health or helps to connect with other people.

Investment in personal sector

I could work less in order to invest in my personal wealth and working for non-profit sector.

Investment in independence from work

Another investment type is one to reduce loans and expenditure to as close as zero. This would reduce the corporate and state workforce. It would also free up your time to do what you want to do. Perhaps start a non-profit or spend your time helping out established ones.

What are your thoughts on this?