Autonomous Truck Completes driverless run

[Mickey_Rat15]

Private property is abolished, private possessions are not. There's a difference between having to share your toothbrush and having to share a mansion you don't even live in.

Private ownership is also not a built-in feature of democracy.

Private ownership must be a built in feature of a society that protects and promotes the liberty of its citizens.

[Mickey_Rat15]

While we aren't post scarcity, we are at a doubt where most of the scarcity is artificial in nature.

My need to eat, sleep and invest my literal lifetime to afford even my most basic needs isn't artificial.

Your need to invest your literal lifetime to afford anything is very much artificial. There's plenty of food and beds for all, as pointed out.

There are still people who have grow, distribute and prepare the food, build the beds and provide the energy to heat and cool the homes where the beds are located. How are these people to be compensated for their efforts?

Leftist economics has always been based on a resentment against having to contribute something to society, or at least contributing something other people want and are willing to pay for. It is ultimately the creed of a spoiled and bratty child.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Right, but communists and capitalists have a different definition of what private ownership entails. Communists see three categories of ownership public, private, personal where as capitalists lump the latter two together. To a communist something is only privately owned if it is used to generate passive income. A landlord has private property because they rent out homes to generate passive income, where as a regular homeowner's house is not private property because they simply live there.

On the surface it sounds like your describing socialism more than communism, unless that public/private/personal dynamic is an official applet of Marx's Capital or something.

The main difference between an orthodox marxists and a socialist is that a socialist sees socialism as an end goal while an orthodox marxists sees it as a neccessary transitional state. During Marx's own time the terms would have been used roughly interchangeably with the modern distinction being referred to as lower and higher phase communism.

I'm also not sure what strikes you as socialist about it as the primary distinction between the two is the existence of the state.

Socialism and communism distinctly follow a journey/destination dynamic. Socialism isn't really supposed to be an end-state response to Communism's stateless society. It just describes the exchange of resources in society to be more directly accounted to the people making it. The abolition of privatized financial markets goes hand in hand with that, though you're still not necessarily at communism at that point.

[Draco Dracul]

Private property is abolished, private possessions are not. There's a difference between having to share your toothbrush and having to share a mansion you don't even live in.

Private ownership is also not a built-in feature of democracy.

Private ownership must be a built in feature of a society that protects and promotes the liberty of its citizens.

Private ownership is fundamentally at odds with promoting liberty of the citizens because the vast majority of citizens have no private property. And over time it snowballs so that private property ends up in fewer and fewer hands. Now we're getting to the point where due to everything going digital and the increasing difficulty of buying a home that the amount of personal property people have is going down.

[Draco Dracul]

While we aren't post scarcity, we are at a doubt where most of the scarcity is artificial in nature.

My need to eat, sleep and invest my literal lifetime to afford even my most basic needs isn't artificial.

Your need to invest your literal lifetime to afford anything is very much artificial. There's plenty of food and beds for all, as pointed out.

There are still people who have grow, distribute and prepare the food, build the beds and provide the energy to heat and cool the homes where the beds are located. How are these people to be compensated for their efforts?

I mean obviously you compensate them in that which they do not produce. Farmers need homes, beds and power. Money is just an abstraction of value produced by labor.

Leftist economics has always been based on a resentment against having to contribute something to society, or at least contributing something other people want and are willing to pay for. It is ultimately the creed of a spoiled and bratty child.

Really? Because the main group of people that draw the ire of leftists are the investors, CEO, and landlords that contribute nothing to society, but reap almost all the rewards.

Additionally most jobs these days aren't things that people need, but jobs that exist for the maintenance of corporate empires. Like I work to maintain the huge fucking scam that is cloud computing.

[clearspira]

This is all pie in the sky anyway because it won't happen. Capitalism and the US are linked like knife and fork. I'm telling you, communism is not the end result of automation. Bullshit jobs and automation being scaled back by bullshit regs. That's the future.

Remember that line in the Matrix, about how people are so dependent and loyal to "the system" that they will fight to protect it? Trying to bring in a communist government in the US will be civil war.

[Mickey_Rat15]

While we aren't post scarcity, we are at a doubt where most of the scarcity is artificial in nature.

My need to eat, sleep and invest my literal lifetime to afford even my most basic needs isn't artificial.

Your need to invest your literal lifetime to afford anything is very much artificial. There's plenty of food and beds for all, as pointed out.

There are still people who have grow, distribute and prepare the food, build the beds and provide the energy to heat and cool the homes where the beds are located. How are these people to be compensated for their efforts?

I mean obviously you compensate them in that which they do not produce. Farmers need homes, beds and power. Money is just an abstraction of value produced by labor.

Leftist economics has always been based on a resentment against having to contribute something to society, or at least contributing something other people want and are willing to pay for. It is ultimately the creed of a spoiled and bratty child.

Really? Because the main group of people that draw the ire of leftists are the investors, CEO, and landlords that contribute nothing to society, but reap almost all the rewards.

Additionally most jobs these days aren't things that people need, but jobs that exist for the maintenance of corporate empires. Like I work to maintain the huge fucking scam that is cloud computing.

Money is a tool to represent value to make trade between people more effcient. Eliminaing that tool will not make life better, it will make things worse. Also, if everyone is being given homes, beds and power then the people that create those goods are not being compensated for their efforts. What would you conribute to your community if you are never given more for your efforts than someone who does nothing?

The reasons investors, CEOs and landlords draw the ire of leftists is because leftism is a facile mode of thought that is blind to how these groups contribute and who exactly they are. The largest investments are held union pension and other types of retirement funds. Rental properties exist because landlords have hem built and maintain them. Buildings do not pop out of the earth without human effort. CEOs provide direction and adminsration skill s to their companies. Are there bad investors, CEOs and landlords? Yes, just like in every other walk of life.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

This is all pie in the sky anyway because it won't happen. Capitalism and the US are linked like knife and fork. I'm telling you, communism is not the end result of automation. Bullshit jobs and automation being scaled back by bullshit regs. That's the future.

Remember that line in the Matrix, about how people are so dependent and loyal to "the system" that they will fight to protect it? Trying to bring in a communist government in the US will be civil war.

It's actually a little more like Jurassic Park. With Hammond probably representing the enlightened classical American liberal economic system (Reagan and laissez faire economics) inspired by the English enlightenment.

The Matrix can be applied to capitalism just as it can be applied to the building of the pyramids. Marxism draws on the hierarchical structure consistently, and so does a standard deviation of all its followers and detractors. It's more of a social study that paves the way for a lot of objective detailing in the relationship between the masses and their rulers.

Businesses aren't really the same way. They are afforded a hefty legal framework of protection, but they aren't really expected to act as individuals, but more as primordial beings privy to survival.

Haven't lost my touch:

https://www.theonion.com/paleontologist ... 1848259604

[Draco Dracul]

This is all pie in the sky anyway because it won't happen. Capitalism and the US are linked like knife and fork. I'm telling you, communism is not the end result of automation. Bullshit jobs and automation being scaled back by bullshit regs. That's the future.

Remember that line in the Matrix, about how people are so dependent and loyal to "the system" that they will fight to protect it? Trying to bring in a communist government in the US will be civil war.

A) Kudos for being like the only conservative to ever realize what The Matrix is about.
B) We've already passed the point where civil war in the US is inevitable.

Money is a tool to represent value to make trade between people more effcient. Eliminaing that tool will not make life better, it will make things worse.

Money is a tool for facilitating trade, but it makes it substantially easier for both unequal trade and for parasitic middlemen to skim off the top. When it's a direct trade between say grain and lumbar it's a lot harder for a third party to justify why they should get a cut of both grain and lumber while providing neither, but once you have abstracted it to money it's a lot easier to hide the fact that they provide nothing.

Also, if everyone is being given homes, beds and power then the people that create those goods are not being compensated for their efforts. What would you conribute to your community if you are never given more for your efforts than someone who does nothing?

I mean being given same as everyone else is a massive step up from the current system where those that contribute the least are given the most.

The reasons investors, CEOs and landlords draw the ire of leftists is because leftism is a facile mode of thought that is blind to how these groups contribute and who exactly they are. The largest investments are held union pension and other types of retirement funds.

It's almost like that's a deliberate strategy to defang American labor and to make people dependent on the market that repeatedly costs them everything.

Rental properties exist because landlords have hem built and maintain them. Buildings do not pop out of the earth without human effort.

Can you site a source that most landlords either built the facilities that they rent out or are owned by construction co-ops, because that would have to be true for landlords to be necessary to have homes built rather than landlords actively raising home prices by shrinking the market of homes for sale.

CEOs provide direction and adminsration skill s to their companies. Are there bad investors, CEOs and landlords? Yes, just like in every other walk of life.

Why does that require them to be compensated at a rate several hundred to several thousand times hire than their employees?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Mickey you seem to assume a lot in your model of how socialism works. Your basic outline that you're arguing against assumes a society that has relegated farmers and energy miners to just work for free for the benefit of society at their own expense. Like, I'm not really certain if that's the extent of your comparison, but that's basically the baseline of your argument, which is avoided by even socialized financing procedures rather easily.

I'm not sure if you saw Chornobyl, but the miners in that mini-series were narrated as having a lot of esteem and strong hand in society. The only reason they worked a of their own safety was their own conscience for the benefit of society, and not because any particular person in government had an easy time telling them to do it. At least as per the narrative goes at least...