Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

Tax revenue will be kept safe by a "robot/automation" tax similar to income tax. Companies will then try to circumvent the tax by employing a minimum wage worker to do just enough of any given process to make a piece of technology not fall under the robot tax. Min/maxing certain taxes, labour costs and profits, basically.
In the end we have more and more people, but need fewer of them to get shit done because we can get shit done more efficiently than ever.
 
That's pretty much what is, yes.
Bullshit jobs will continue to exist and rise, as the actual shit-that-needs-to-be-done continues to be doable by fewer and fewer people.
Even with a UBI, the precariat will not be poor in material things, but poor in purpose. Get ready for Etsy to boom.
 
But only because a robot tax is silly doesn't mean it won't happen. In fact it's silliness might make it even more likely ...
 
97356474_2934982653395106_8730218188211486720_o.jpg
 
R.Graves said:
I can go ahead and list all the countries that communism improved for you

1.

Oh... Wait
Click to expand...
Socialism in Russia Turned it from a failing feudalistic empire into an economic powerhouse within 50 years, it was a lot worse than the west, but it definitely improved life a lot when compared to the empire.
 
ResetRPG said:
Socialism in Russia Turned it from a failing feudalistic empire into an economic powerhouse within 50 years, it was a lot worse than the west, but it definitely improved life a lot when compared to the empire.
Click to expand...
That’s also because Tzar Nicholas was a shit leader compared to Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky... really any of the communists. Rasputin and the Tzar’s family ruled the Tzar, and it showed.

I wouldn’t call what happened so much a triumph for communism as much as a failure for a monarchy that rushed into a war with Japan, sacrificed an entire navy, etc etc.
 
KingArthur said:
That’s also because Tzar Nicholas was a shit leader compared to Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky... really any of the communists. Rasputin and the Tzar’s family ruled the Tzar, and it showed.

I wouldn’t call what happened so much a triumph for communism as much as a failure for a monarchy that rushed into a war with Japan, sacrificed an entire navy, etc etc.
Click to expand...
The Question was what society was improved by socialism, and bingo, socialism happened to work better and improve a failing monarchy.
 
A better comparison would be comparing one of Russias better monarchs like Peter or Catherine to the likes of Stalin.

Keep in mind under the communists, things were no different and arguably worse. They made a deal with the Nazis that bit them in the ass. Stalins purges not only killed a great many people but it weakened the Russian military so badly that the Nazis just kind of steam rolled everything.

Red Russia survived in good part thanks to allied lend lease and the allies hammering the Germans on a completely different front. Had the Nazis/Hitler soundly smashed GB into a pulp, THEN invaded, things could have turned out quite differently.
 
ResetRPG said:
The Question was what society was improved by socialism, and bingo, socialism happened to work better and improve a failing monarchy.
Click to expand...
Except it didn’t? It only LOOKED better by comparison. Life in Russia was still awful.
 
To be fair in 1918s Zarrist Russia there was almost no other way but "up". Socialists often refer to the state Russia was in before the revolution and how their regime and dictatorship pushed Russia and later the Sovietunion into an industrial powerhouse. It just required the deaths of millions I assume but who's going to be anal here, right? That's sarcasm by the way.

However when you look at it globaly pretty much every nation saw improvements after WW1, Imperial Japan, Weimar Republic in Germany and so on. Russia under the socialist dictatorship was severely hampered by their leadership and socialist ideology. So it is in my opinion wrong to say that socialism improved Russia it's much more accurate to say that Russia improved despite their socialist dictatorship and they would have improved much faster, with less deaths without socialists like Lenin and Stalin assuming power. Maybe if the democratic revolution of 1918 in Russia would have actually succeeded things might have been very different but Lenin and his goons took over and either outright killed or banished their opposition.

I am pretty far left in my political opinion but honestly socialism is a not the answer to anything and it never improved anything.
 
And that’s an issue as well; there were cries for a parliament before Tzar Nicholas was deposed by the October Revolution. It’s a shame to think of what would’ve been had the cries for democracy been answered.

I personally believe that socialism, if used at all, is best used in tandem with another government type. At least then there’s a backup.
 
You can have elements of Socialism without going overboard. As the many discussions between me and Crni have pointed out, we have socialism every day. Our emergency services are socialist. The protection of workers from the robber barons and tyrannical capitalism stems from Socialism. Our safety net (flawed as it may be by only catering to the poorest of the poor), also stems from Socialism.

Everything tends to work in moderation AKA compromise. As always, too much or too little of something tends to cause problems.
 
Last edited:
KingArthur said:
Except it didn’t? It only LOOKED better by comparison. Life in Russia was still awful.
Click to expand...
I will quote directly with what the message was "I can go ahead and list all the countries that communism improved for you

1.

Oh... Wait"

My point still stands, socialism absolutely improved life, of course it wasn't perfect and quite bad, but that's the material situation they found themselves in, constantly under threat and attack, having to turn an agrarian society into an industrial powerhouse, having to fight the largest war in human history.

Socialism absolutely improved the lives of millions in Russia over Tsarist rule and did what took capitalism 200 years to accomplish, 50 years to fully industrialize.

"It just required the deaths of millions I assume but who's going to be anal here, right?"

Wait till you learn about the bengal famine! Or the Banana Republics of the south, or the absolute massacre capitalism caused the south. I don't even consider myself a Socialist, but Capitalism fucking sucks dude.

Capitalism (not social democracy, populism, distributism, etc) now is an infinitely worse system than Socialism when purely examining raw body count and deaths per capita.
 
DarkCorp said:
Everything tends to work in moderation AKA compromise. Just luke too much or too little of something tends to cause problems.
Click to expand...
Socialism isn't welfare, it's the liberation of the working class through destruction of the bourgeois class and usurping of the means of production..

I'm inclined to agree with you on policy positions, because I believe private property rights are important, but calling social security socialism, is not true at all.
 
Reset

In the modern sense, welfare is known as an aspect of Socialism.

You try to give all credit to your cherry picked communist leaders. You ignore the plethora of Russian rulers that initiated reforms and modernisation. Why do you think I bring up Peter or Catherine, both of whom you purposely chose to ignore?

Industrialisation in Russia started way before the communists just as Russia was a major power BEFORE the communists. Peter was known as the father of the Russian navy and the person who expanded Russias access to the sea. You would gloss over this fact in your urrrrah for Stalin kick. Did later dynasties screw things up? Sure. But that does not correlate to Socialism being somehow inherently superior. Like any government, the quality of the leader often decides whether a specific system is seen as good or bad.

I can use China as an example. It was not Socialism but monarchism that united the warring kingdoms with Shi Huang Di. China at one point was also a maritime power. However while some dynasties added power and prestige, some lost it

This is not a unique thing. The Romans were not Socialist and neither were the Persians or Greeks. Surely the Egyptians were not socialist and neither were the Babylonians. A system of government is only as strong ad its leaders.

Lastly, capitalism is not a type of government so much an economic model. It is much better to compare democracy with any authoritarian government.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top