[tharne]

Maybe they don't have Vietnam or North Korea in mind, but that's one possible end.

The comment "...distribute the profits evenly.Not going to happen under capitalism." strongly implies a communist or socialist solution to this very real issue around automation.

It's trendy to bring up socialist solutions and then re-label them or put the ever-cleansing phrase "democratic" in front. But it's important to note when talking about redistribution as a solve, that for every Sweden or Denmark, there's a Cuba or North Korea.

[ClumsyPilot]

So tired of this old chestnut. Do yoy think the fact that Cuba and North Korea is a dictatorship maybe has some relevance to the fact that they are not nice places to live? There are plenty of capitalist dictatorships, are they great? Maybe thats the key differentiator?

[mc32]

Has communism been able to exist outside dictatorships? Or has it been unlucky in that regard and always attracted authoritarianism.

I guess the question would be, if given a chance to choose would people living in those regimes keep the economic system and reform government or would they vote for a different kind of system altogether?

[ClumsyPilot]

Communism has never existed at all, lets start there.

Whether the dictators where honestly trying to create communism, or they were using it to fool the populace much the same as monarchs used religion, is debatable.

[mc32]

It appears that from their minutes and other notes and such that Soviet leaders truly believed what they were doing was communism. It wasn’t a case of them pretending and then in secret they’d laugh at the sham they were executing. No, they truly believed they were being marxists.

[tharne]

Capitalist countries can be free and open democracies or they can be brutal dictatorships, but they at least have a path to a free society if they so choose it.

A country where wealth is primarily controlled and distributed by state cannot, by definition, ever be free, even if the people doing the redistribution got elected at one point. That's simply mob rule with no respect or regard for the individual. Socialism or social democracy, or whatever you want to call it requires constant state coercion of individuals to work at all. This type of coercion may happen in capitalism systems like those in dictatorships, but it's not a built in requirement of the system itself.

[ClumsyPilot]

There is no modern state without collectively funded education, police, fire service, justice system, military, reseach, environmental protection, FDA,FAA, etc.

So where is this magical line, once we cross it, the system suddently becomes oppressive?

[stale2002]

The magic line would be when the majority of privately owned businesses are illegal.

Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production".

Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal.

Collectively funding some services has nothing to do with socialism.

[ClumsyPilot]

If that's the magic line, then it's a thousand miles away.

I can't find a single country (maybe North Korea?) still in existence, that has outlawed private business. We aren't just talking social democracy, even Cuba and Venesuela allow private business.

[stale2002]

> that has outlawed private business.

From my original comment: "the majority".

The examples you have given, have indeed outlawed many private businesses, in the past. Although, I agree that those countries have become significantly more capitalistic over the years.

You also skipped the most famous example of socialism, which was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union absolutely banned almost all forms of private enterprise.

But sure, socialism has significantly decreased in relevancy over the last few decades, to the point where basically all old socialist countries are becoming more and more capitalistic. Socialism is dying, all throughout the world.

[dragonwriter]

> Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production".

> Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal.

No, it's not. Private businesses executed through private labor applied to public capital which the business rents from the state are perfectly compatible with socialism in which private ownership of the means of production is prohibited.

It's true that there are “socialist” states and parties that have banned or sought to ban private business, but that's not essential to socialism.

Also, all of those collectively funded services listed upthread tend to feature public capital ownership of the means of delivering the service as well as public operating funds, and often exclude private ownership of some of the means of delivering those services and/or use of privately owned capital to provide the same service, resulting in a domain in which private capital ownership is restricted.

[stale2002]

> private ownership of the means of production is prohibited.

This is a borderline semantic argument.

There is very little difference between banning almost all private businesses, and banning all owenership of private capital.

Everything that everyone does, relates to capital. If I write code, I just produced capital. And now the socialists are saying that I won't own that.

Yes, code is capital. The value of almost all software companies, is not in the server racks, it is in the code that they produced.

As far as I am concerned, banning all private ownership of capital, is only very slightly different than banning private enterprise, given that the main function of many private enterprises is to create capital, and now that capital would be illegal for them to own, even if they produced it.