Once capitalism collapses a world wide unified socialist utopia is inevitable

Well to be fair we've kind of reached the point of post scarcity with food and all considering you can buy a ten pound bag of rice for five bucks.

>not knowing econ 101
>criticizing marx because you think he couldnt into econ

How do you control demand in a STATELESS society?

>By controlling demand
How do you control demand?

>Well to be fair we've kind of reached the point of post scarcity with food and all considering you can buy a ten pound bag of rice for five bucks
That's not indicative of the world as a whole.

A box of Lipton Tea in Russia is 87 dollars

Did you even read my post? I didn't say he cannot into econ, I said he couldn't into physics.

We even have shit like EBT. We've reached the point where a person's basic needs could be post scarcity if society wanted to make it so.

His formula sounds basically like
>Collapse of capitalism
>????
>Socialist utopia

You control demand in the pre-stateless socialist society and develop a culture that hates people that have more than two kids. Social attitudes aren't a state.

So you have to brainwash and condition people into believing your horseshit and keep them artificially poor?

...

>artificially poor
No, you tell them to be a union of egoists that doesn't like when their share of the pie is diminished

But what will their share of the pie be?

>no user, you cannot have MORE than one room and one piece of bread per day, bad user, into the gulag you go!

But Glorious Leader lives in the big Mansion with Whiskey and Cigars, comrade.

But we are kind of already there in capitalism. Most people who leave their podunk hometowns in the Midwest or the south because there aren't any jobs beyond Wal Mart move to a city on the coast making $50k a year and because land Lord jews are so stingy have to find a room mate and surrender up to 50% of their income for basically a bedroom.

What now?

Why would you move from a podunk town in the Midwest to a large coastal city when you can just move to a large Midwestern city?

Socialism, communism and Stalinism are different things comrades.

Tell me another way how to control the demand other than

By promoting degeneracy that begets more degeneracy so people have fewer and fewer children.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy

Post scarcity doesn't mean no scarcity. It means scarcity and the associated market mechanisms will be not very important for many things.

>no scarcity
>economy

lol

Dictatorship of the proletariat is equivalent to dictatorship of the majority. I don't see how the majority self managing their lives is not the way to sustainable statelessness.

Because the majority is a bunch of imbeciles that don't even know what they want.

>he believes the neoclassical definition of economics

That would invalidate statelessness as an end, not the dictatorship of the proletariat as a mean towards that end, which is what the post scoffs at.

ebin thred friend

>he thinks Marx isn't thoroughly neoclassical

Yeah, but the word "to economize" means to manage resources in an efficient way.

There is no point to economize if there is no scarcity, hence it's oxymoronic to call a society that can without problem give everyone what they want of goods and services without any cost, an economy.

You do realize dictators appoint advisors to help them manage governments right? They don't micromanage everything. The point is that ultimate authority lies with proles, and proles and remove people from positions of power.

STOP! STOP BICKERING ABOUT THE SUBTELTIES OF MARXISM!

ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS HOW A GLOBAL SOCIALIST UTOPIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE INEVITABLE FROM THE TOTAL SHIT SHOW THAT A COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM WOULD BE

Marx didn't think that capitalism would collapse.

He thought capitalism was a hydra, that would survive any blow to it, and hence it needed to be violently overthrown.

Please read the Communist Manifesto and Capital.

It's not though. Socialist utopia comes after socialist non-utopia.

What a retarded argument. First, i don't give a fuck about what a word related to the word economics means, what the fuck is that supposed to prove? Second, even if i cared, etymologically the word is not related to scarcity (not that it would be relevant if it was).

On the other hand, scarcity is a subjective term, since it is related to societal and personal needs, and societies with "no scarcity" have been economically studied (see sahlin's original affluent society).

Who mentioned dictators? Marx didn't advocate for dictators.

Because "post-scarcity economy" refers to scarcity in the economic sense, moran.

HOW ABOUT FIRST YOU STOP INSISTING WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT MARX IS CORRECT OR ACCURATE

ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY YOU WASTE TIME ARGUING ABOUT SHIT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT

Because we'll live in a post scarcity world once asteroid mining becomes mainstream. There are enough minerals in the asteroid belt to sustain us for billions of years at our current rate of consumption

will we eat asteroids?

but he also thought this violent overthrow was inevitable because capitalism would lead to more and more wealth be concentrated at the top

that's not the only internal contradiction of capitalism.

We can sustain ourselves on lab grown meat and vertical farming which are both becoming cheaper and more viable every year. We can use the minerals from asteroids to build these structures

Marx is taking from Hegel. History proceeds towards perfection.

The point is that he advocated the violent overthrow of capitalism, because he believed that capitalism by itself could not be reformed.

>lab grown meat

ew I'm not eating that.

What happens when the massive importation and constructon pollutes the environment and changes the ecosystem, causing a collapse of the systems we thrive on?

You'll be dead by then

>more and more wealth be concentrated at the top

he was right about that tho.

These things can be figured out as you go along user, like any other development in knowledge.

Knowing Marx to the little I do, he probably advocated violent revolution as a possible solution.

People act like Marx is a systematic thinker who has only one paradigm of thought that extends to everything he said. He was actually a diverse thinker, saw things from different perspectives, and spent his life presenting mutually exclusive interpretations of the world and outcomes

This is why discussion with right-wing twats is so frustrating, they try some kind of ham-fisted Socratism where they find "internal contradictions" of Marx as though such a thing leads to a total and complete collapse of everything he ever wrote, a total destruction and annihilation of his thought.

It simply doesn't work that way.

Sure, tragedy doesn't exist, humans are perfect and will never go extinct.

/s

Just accept that the future of humanity is strife until death.

Then you'll die.

Food isn't hard to get, we can eat insects or shitty plants for a long time

Green technology, we wont need to mine the planet, we can invest in desalination, we can cut down on agriculture which is one of the biggest polluters and then we can cut down on gas powered cars which is another. Once electric vehicles are popular and lab grown meat takes over farm animals as our primary source of meat we'll cut global warming down by significant chunks

We should just mass suicide

Still not a closed system. For every chemical operation, we generate chemical waste. Belief that we can maintain an infinitely sustainable world is just stupid.

If we literally killed off 9/10 of the people and maintained population there, humans would likely do a lot better in the coming hundreds of years.

>he probably advocated violent revolution as a possible solution.

No, not a possible solution.

Seriously, read Capital. He literally spells it out that capitalism is so dynamic and self-perpetuating that the *only* way to stop it's "oppression" is by force of arms.

> Belief that we can maintain an infinitely sustainable world is just stupid.
But who said that?

Capital doesn't present one cohesive explanation of capitalism.

What operation though? We take shit from space and bring it back to earth, that's way less damaging to the environment than strip mining like assholes. It's not infinite but if done right it will last tens of millions of years and by that point we'll be in fucking space anyways

What are you saying, then?

Processing any metal results in toxic products, you can't turn ore or purify metal without dangerous chemicals. These chemicals are produced and need to go somewhere. They pretty much always go into the ground.

At the rate we manufacture, this will do severe damage to the oceans and other ecosystems, given a few hundred years.

He didn't say that socialism would inevitably follow the collapse of capitalism. He said it would follow a collapse caused specifically by capitalism reaching its full potential and still falling short of people's needs. A collapse caused by the degradation of the system would lead to reversion to a more primitive system.

Marx based his assumption on the idea that Capitalism replaced Feudalism because Feudalism had reached the peak of its potential and could not advance any further due to shortcomings inherent in the system. He reasoned that since Capitalism, in his belief, had similar (though less severe) shortcomings, it too would reach a point where it could not advance any further and would collapse in favor of a system with fewer inherent failings built on top of the foundation laid by Capitalism. This he predicted to be Socialism, which itself would collapse in the face of its own shortcomings to make way for Communism, the end stage where the workers of the world are united and self governing and share ownership of the world.

Clearly, Communism could never exist based on human nature. Marx believed that the predominant system of the day reflected the current state of human nature, which could evolve. He saw Feudalism give way to Capitalism, which does not work so long as people are overly clannish and agrarian. He thought that as economic systems evolved, so would people and their values. The masses who, under capitalism, value private property would cease to do so when such a system no longer benefited them, that is once Capitalism could not develop any further and their only option for a better life was Socialism.

Marx is an example of the logic of an argument working but the argument being invalid based on the details. He was writing fairly early in the development of Capitalism, so it shouldn't be surprising that he got a lot of assumptions wrong (Capitalism has proven more effective than he thought at overcoming its challenges).

That's why we process them in space or we create more environmentally friendly ways to process them.

That post-scarcity economics doesn't mean everything has zero scarcity.

Your argument is retarded
>marx says utopia
>but utopia is impossible because infinity is impossible
>therefore utopia is impossible
>marx was wrong and we should all just be happy with non utopia

Not to mention, Marx didn't present that as the one, true explanation of capitalism. He presented alternate explanations in different contexts.

Utopia isn't infinite resources

I don't care if it does, I don't agree with it anyway, I'm just telling you what Karl Marx actually believed and advocated.

He has literally been whitewashed by the Fabian socialists of the 60s into some kind of economic "reformer", and not the violent revolutionary that he was.

Right, so when science fiction is not science fiction everything will be a-okay.

Capitalism is so far not-self correcting. Markets are the self-regulating feature of capitalism, but they don't regulate the concentration of capital very well at all.

>violent revolutionary

show me a peaceful one.

You're taking my points in the most absurd way possible, it's unfair. Also I'm somewhat Marxist.

I'm not saying we should be satisfied with capitalism, I'm arguing against post-scarcity socialism.

It's not that implausible though, technology is advancing at an exponential rate, we're farther and farther ahead every year, we'll probably all end up with our consciousness in a fucking machine before we need to worry about running out of resources

L O L ur so naive

>You're taking my points in the most absurd way possible, it's unfair.

>Belief that we can maintain an infinitely sustainable world is just stupid.

U srs, you're the one doing it.

Of course he advocated violent revolution. You're being dense and misunderstanding what I'm saying.

People are not one-shot philosophical theses that give only one single explanation for all things. Marx's biggest work advocates violent revolution. Yes. But, Marx isn't dumb enough to think he's above all criticism, reproach, that his ideas in Capital are infallible and perfect. When you're reading Capital, you're reading one very well-thought out, extensive argument about the state of capitalist society and it's history and future. Marx put alot of weight into it. But not exclusive weight. He gave alternate ideas because he knew he can't predict the future.

He literally admits he might be wrong and gives alternate views. Seriously, read more stuff on Marx. I'm really tired and bored of this really sharp attack on Marx that is so rigid. Yes, Marx was wrong in ways, but he isn't a one-trick pony.

Really, Marx could still end up being right in his big picture assumptions, but drastically wrong about the timeline because he was wrong about what would be the thing that constrains Capitalism from further development. It was arrogant of him to assume that he could identify such problems so early in Capitalism's development. The shortcomings that will one day cause Capitalism to fail may not be apparent, or applicable, for centuries. And they may end up being less exploitative of the worker, as Marx assumed, and something more along the lines of true post scarcity, where it becomes so easy to produce goods (and even many services) that the demand for labor drops so low that many people simply don't need to work for society to function. The fall of Capitalism and rise of Socialism is likely to be less of a triumphant revolution of the proletariat, and more a piecemeal set of answers to problems that crop up as the refinement of Capitalism lowers the demand for labor.

Of course, any system beyond Capitalism may end up being theoretical, as the world may be too fragile a place for Capitalism to advance far enough as to become obsolete. It may be far more likely for Capitalism to degrade to a more primitive system in the wake of some series of disasters or wars than it is to have a long enough period of sustained stability and prosperity to advance to its own end stage.

Environmental degradation, species extinction and climate change are also increasing exponentially.

I don't get your point. Can you explain clearly what the problem is with what I have said?

>I might be wrong
>But I'm going to advocated violent revolution as the solution anyway

Seems like a bad idea tbqhfam.

No one even implied that, but you took scarcity and utopia to their logical extremes.

I'm not a Marxist, but from what I heard about Marx, didn't he believe that every social order has contradictions under which it will eventually collapse? I believe communism or socialism is really possible within this century given the affinity of our (the millennials') generation for "social" mediums of all sorts - from social media, to horizontal tech startups, to the "sharing" economy - though these are not necessarily socialist concepts on their own, they promote collectivism. Indeed one can seldom do anything today compared to 10 years ago without "networking" or something otherwise "social" being rammed down one's throat. Also, with the information economy taking such an unprecedented central role in our lives today, the growing opposition to copyright laws has a potential to redefine our traditional conception of ownership. Finally, the 2008 recession in the US that beaconed a peak in economic inequality has played a defining role in the lives of many young people and the rise of figures such as Trump and especially Sanders has proven the millennials to be more receptive than previous generations to new ideas. With that said, what I believe about a possible socialist future is that it will be as shitty as anything, with the contradictions involving the inequality that democracy creates between socially alienated individuals and everyone else. To put it simply, because I am tired of typing, is that normies will form cliques that promote only the most beautiful, popular, most socially apt individuals, while marginalizing the pimply losers and autistic weirdos. "Real" socialism or communism, which has never been tried, will actually be a fucking nightmare for the individual, but great for the collective. If you have no problem finding words to say in response to Chad's inquiry about your thoughts on the newest capeshit, or the game last night, or if you play ASSFAGGOTS and actively follow esports, socialist collectivism will be great for you.

And we dont need animals on our planet, we just need to grow our own food.

Also climate change can be stopped while still encouraging exponential growth

And we dont really need you on our planet.

What's wrong with that? Can't handle a little strife?

Okay, so let's synthesize. I agree that we will probably have no lack of raw metals in the future. My biggest concern is the lack of future hydrocarbons, degradation of the environment, and potential collapse of ecosystems humans depend on, as well as overpopulation. I think these will be much more serious scarcities in the future than manufactured goods.

Oh right, so we don't need bees to pollinate, and we can use magic because user is so confident in S C I E N C E that we won't have any complications.

You are way too confident in the abilities of the human animal.

Yet here I am, get over yourself you animal loving faggot.

We dont need flowers, we need trees

velvet revolution wasn't so bad

>My biggest concern is the lack of future hydrocarbons, degradation of the environment, and potential collapse of ecosystems humans depend on, as well as overpopulation. I think these will be much more serious scarcities in the future than manufactured goods.
This is what gulags are for user.

>We dont need flowers, we need trees
Do you realize how stupid you sound right now?

>What's wrong with that? Can't handle a little strife?

I'd prefer not to be executed by secret police thanks.