Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[Ibian]

Our brains don't predispose us to live in a society that has a state - I'd argue that is very much a cultural issue, and a relatively recent one in our history, if you look closely. Besides, the example of Catalonia has been brought up a few times: after decades of anarchical experiments, the population there went on to create a stateless society for a couple of years.

Catalonia is not a world power.

Fact is that the bigger the society the bigger things we can create - such as indoor plumping and hot water, for example. Electricity too I guess. Now it might just be me, but I feel pretty predisposed to have a clean dwelling with useful amenities.

The problem is not the fact that we have a state, but the power and abilities we give it and the culture as a whole. The problem is that we are dying. We have created an ideology that encourages women to study and work during their most fertile years and to postpone having kids until they are older. As a result, we have less kids. More people are dying than are being born and it has been that way since around the 80s.

A welfare state that depends on taking money from those who work and giving it to those who do not requires a constant influx of young taxpayers, and we do not have it. Every western culture will collapse as a result of this. That's the problem we need to find a solution to, and there are only two ways. Either we need to have more kids, or we need to dismantle the welfare system. There are no other ways out at this point.

Sorry to bring it back to it, but Catalonia was able to maintain their infrastructure and build upon it - the idea that you need a central authority to perform the tasks you mention doesn't make sense. And yes, the fertility rate does seem to decline the more well developed the society, but I don't see it as exclusively translating to a choice between abolishing welfare or having more kids; why not moving towards some real form of socialism, and not just stopgap measures?

As fertility declines the relative size of taxpayers to non-taxpayers shrinks. This means higher taxes and less handouts for everyone as well as worse public services such as hospitals, police and fire departments. It is arguably the primary cause behind the current financial problems, which will only get worse as the baby boomer generation enters retirement (which is currently happening).

[TaunSew]

This is especially true with the inflation we are seeing and many of those government employees who will be receiving indexed pensions matching inflation.

Stagflation means the government's taxation revenue is declining every year while its' liabilities, such as those indexed pensions, continues to go up, and the governments make up the shortfall through more debt and the interest is paid out to the 1% who owns it.

[giantdragon]

Hypotheticals are not useful. I concern myself with what is possible now, not far into the future.

I would say it is possible using current technology level. As more libertarians will cry "human nature" the faster leftist biohackers will find a solution! 

Several problems with this. First, automation leads to unemployment. A factory that once employed hundreds of people can now be run by robots and a few overseers and a repair crew. This would not be a problem if the reduced costs and increased profits were passed on to the formerly employed, but this is not the case. Rising overall production does not necessarily lead to a higher standard of living for the average person.

Second, a man without some form of work is a social pariah. Especially one living in a western nation who is forced to move in with someone else. It's another factor in why the fertility levels are dropping and the increasing levels of dysfunction in society. We don't need more productivity as much as we need employment, even if the overall national production falls as a result.

Technological unemployment problem is a redistribution issue. In the state with citizen's ownership on means of production (i.e. socialist-Marxist one) low birth rates and high productivity growth will offset each other.

[Nicolas Dorier]

And "anarcho"-capitalists can harp on government all they want, but in my eyes, a private state is no better than a public one. When a landowner (and cumulatively, landowners) can draw lines on a map, declare their own laws and enforce them with violence, that's statism in my eyes.

This is why not every capitalist are anarcho. Having a public state or a private state one is exactly the same to my eyes.
What non-anarcho recognize is the need of a state to enforce property right.
No private party can use enforcement, enforcement is monopoly of the state.

I just think the ideal is a society where people don't have power over one another. That means a conception of property that favors possession, use and occupancy over absentee accumulation.

I don't follow you, either you don't know you are a capitalist or I don't know I am a socialist...

If we have the same definition of possession, that is, you don't consider that something that the state possess is your possession, then you are a capitalist... sorry to tell you that.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Several problems with this. First, automation leads to unemployment. A factory that once employed hundreds of people can now be run by robots and a few overseers and a repair crew. This would not be a problem if the reduced costs and increased profits were passed on to the formerly employed, but this is not the case. Rising overall production does not necessarily lead to a higher standard of living for the average person.

On the short term this may be true in the factory, but not true by looking outside. And on the long term, maybe more jobs can be created INSIDE the factory.

A factory that once employed hundreds of people can now be run by robots and a few overseers and a repair crew.

However, in general as a owner, you don't expect to reduce employement. You want to maximize profit.
If there is demand for your product, you will increase the number of robot, so increase the production, and so increase the number of overseers, and repair crews.

You forget also all business that got created like Trainers for the repair crews, Developers for the robot, and all jobs needed for the creation of such robot.

Jobs are moving, if you take the example of one factory and don't look outside, sure employment got lost in the factory, but they reappear in other forms elsewhere.
Sure it is bad if you worked in the factory. But don't expect me, as a developer that profit from this technological shift, to pay for their loss. They would have not pay me if computing were a fad and I lost my time learning everything about automation. And I did not expect them to do it.

[Mobius]

I think the ideal scenario is a mix of socialism and capitalist elements. Cause full out marxism is too extreme and there will always be greed, an innate human trait.

I think it would really need to be one or the other. Socialism and Capitalism are really not compatible with each other. Some would likely say that they are polar opposites of each-other.

[giantdragon]

I think it would really need to be one or the other. Socialism and Capitalism are really not compatible with each other. Some would likely say that they are polar opposites of each-other.

Absolutely true! Mixed economy welfare states will definitely fail on the long run. Look at the EU now and compare it's economic performance to the "more capitalist" U.S., Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Taiwan.
Capital owners will simply fly away from the countries with high welfare(=tax) burden.

Therefore at some moment in the future only minarchic capitalist and pure socialist (Marxist) states will exist. And no one between them!

[Baitty]

Anyone who is saying Capitalism is just silly that's the system which is currently in place within most countries and it is working? so how can you argue that it will work if it isn't working as of now?

[TheGull]

I think this debate was settled in the 80s when the Soviet Union fell over (and please no one tell me China, one of the most capitalist countries in the world, is Communist). Socialism is great in theory but has not ever delivered for the people. The amazing world we have today was built on two key things: science and capitalism.

I'm not sure if the collapse of the Soviet Union answers any of this - I mean, to what extent was it actually socialist, aside from in name? Sure, it had a few socialist traits, but wouldn't state capitalism better describe it?

The USSR had virtually no private enterprise and made decisions according to the state's five year plans, so I would say it had virtually no capitalist elements. You can accurately describe the current Chinese system as state capitalism, but the Soviets were playing a very, very different game.

[giantdragon]

Anyone who is saying Capitalism is just silly that's the system which is currently in place within most countries and it is working? so how can you argue that it will work if it isn't working as of now?

In many EU countries capitalism works VERY VERY BAD!!!

[Ibian]

Anyone who is saying Capitalism is just silly that's the system which is currently in place within most countries and it is working? so how can you argue that it will work if it isn't working as of now?

All western countries use some variation of socialism.

[coinits]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

- all 'isms' are anti-humanity and are evil to the core

- if humanity stopped spending money on killing humans and turned that money loose to reduce poverty the world would have abundance

[Ibian]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

- all 'isms' are anti-humanity and are evil to the core

- if humanity stopped spending money on killing humans and turned that money loose to reduce poverty the world would have abundance

This belongs in Fantasy.

Seriously, what is up with some of you people? "If humans didn't act anything like humans everything would be fine." What the shit is that? How is that helpful?

[coinits]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

- all 'isms' are anti-humanity and are evil to the core

- if humanity stopped spending money on killing humans and turned that money loose to reduce poverty the world would have abundance

This belongs in Fantasy.

Seriously, what is up with some of you people? "If humans didn't act anything like humans everything would be fine." What the shit is that? How is that helpful?

You are an idiot if you think that part of acting 'human' is blowing the living fuck out of each other. What is wrong with you?

[Ibian]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

- all 'isms' are anti-humanity and are evil to the core

- if humanity stopped spending money on killing humans and turned that money loose to reduce poverty the world would have abundance

This belongs in Fantasy.

Seriously, what is up with some of you people? "If humans didn't act anything like humans everything would be fine." What the shit is that? How is that helpful?

You are an idiot if you think that part of acting 'human' is blowing the living fuck out of each other. What is wrong with you?

Read a bit of history. One of two things always happen: Population declines, and the country is overrun by more numerous neighbors. Or population goes up and war is eventually required to survive. There is no third alternative.

We are currently living in the longest period of peace in our part of the world in history. This creates a lot of people who think it will be that way forever. Unfortunately, there is always another war brewing. It's not a matter of preference. There simply is no other way.

At this point I need to point out that if you insist there is another way, yet fail to explain how (with currently available methods, not far-off theoreticals), and instead decide to insult me, there is a handy ignore button next to your name.

[coinits]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

- all 'isms' are anti-humanity and are evil to the core

- if humanity stopped spending money on killing humans and turned that money loose to reduce poverty the world would have abundance

This belongs in Fantasy.

Seriously, what is up with some of you people? "If humans didn't act anything like humans everything would be fine." What the shit is that? How is that helpful?

You are an idiot if you think that part of acting 'human' is blowing the living fuck out of each other. What is wrong with you?

Read a bit of history. One of two things always happen: Population declines, and the country is overrun by more numerous neighbors. Or population goes up and war is eventually required to survive. There is no third alternative.

We are currently living in the longest period of peace in our part of the world in history. This creates a lot of people who think it will be that way forever. Unfortunately, there is always another war brewing. It's not a matter of preference. There simply is no other way.

At this point I need to point out that if you insist there is another way, yet fail to explain how (with currently available methods, not far-off theoreticals), and instead decide to insult me, there is a handy ignore button next to your name.

You hurled the first insult so I threw one back but fuck that noise let's discuss 'We are currently living in the longest period of peace in our part of the world in history'. Dude the USA has been in a perpetual state of war for decades. Without the Military Industrial Complex fueling the economy the USA would collapse. That is a fact. There is no peace. There never was peace. Look at the world around you.

[CEG5952]

And "anarcho"-capitalists can harp on government all they want, but in my eyes, a private state is no better than a public one. When a landowner (and cumulatively, landowners) can draw lines on a map, declare their own laws and enforce them with violence, that's statism in my eyes.

This is why not every capitalist are anarcho. Having a public state or a private state one is exactly the same to my eyes.
What non-anarcho recognize is the need of a state to enforce property right.
No private party can use enforcement, enforcement is monopoly of the state.

I just think the ideal is a society where people don't have power over one another. That means a conception of property that favors possession, use and occupancy over absentee accumulation.

I don't follow you, either you don't know you are a capitalist or I don't know I am a socialist...

If we have the same definition of possession, that is, you don't consider that something that the state possess is your possession, then you are a capitalist... sorry to tell you that.

Possession... that is to imply a system of property that is at odds with capitalism. I mean possession, use and occupancy in the Proudhonian and Tuckerite tradition. We are talking about, on one hand, a system of property based on "use" and on the other, one based on "absentee ownership."

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB3.html

The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property.

[Hiraga]

Some kid is born in a poor family, another kid is born in a rich family. The rich kid will have to give some to the poor one to rebalance and have a little bit more fair situation.

[Hash Master]

Some kid is born in a poor family, another kid is born in a rich family. The rich kid will have to give some to the poor one to rebalance and have a little bit more fair situation.

Not only. It's usually those who have nothing that are willing to give their everything. But in an ideal world, everybody would help everybody without expecting anything in return. Maybe that way there will be less poor, less sad and less lonely people on this planet. But that's pure idealism, a concept that does not include the phenomenons of human psychology called greed and selfishness (the bad one, that usually goes along with greed).

We are lucky to be living in an era, where people discover cures for death sentences such as cancer and we are able to put our brains in something called technology that opens the doors to another world. Bitcoin is just a small proof.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Possession... that is to imply a system of property that is at odds with capitalism. I mean possession, use and occupancy in the Proudhonian and Tuckerite tradition. We are talking about, on one hand, a system of property based on "use" and on the other, one based on "absentee ownership."

I read some of your link.
I am not an anarchist, but they got one point right in the "What kinds of property does the state protect?" part.

They pointed out that even if libertarian recognizes the power of state of enforcing property, most of them never consider that the listing of what can be private property is a form of statism.
I fully agree, protection of intellectual property, or artificial property like gov issued licences of any kind is a form of statism, that is against free market.

However, most people think capitalism  is equal to big business, and think that governement policies that protect big industries are in favor of capitalism.
But this is statism, not capitalism, state backed monopoly is not capitalism.
I am no more in favor of sanction from governement to big business (like anti trust law), than in favor of walls of protection. (licences, as well as intellectual property)

But I am not an anarchist, because without the concept of private property, your only way to defend against looters that claim higher utility of a piece of land than you is violence.

I am against any premise that say landlord exploits workers when both deal with each other without coercion. They chose, with their free will to be exploited if they think they are.
If they are not happy with it, they can fund a cooperative and distribute rent among them, without any landlord. The concept of state enforced private property does not prevent them from doing that.