Modernising Socialism?

Could the technology of today make a socialist society work better than the current exploitative and consumerist driven corporatist capitalism?

>Inb4 /pol/ an-handicap invective
I'm apolitical in general. Socialists tell me I'm too conservative and conservatives tell me I'm too liberal. I don't enjoy being ideologically possessed so party politics can fuck itself. All I'm trying to get across is that it just occurred to me than in today's highly advanced technological society, a system where - without the restrictions of profit maximisation and other factors involved in the regression of technological progress - socialism could flourish closer to the way it's idealisation is portrayed in theory.

Perhaps the tragedy of the past communist regimes were a result of it's time and the early stages of a poorly adapting industrial society of the late 19th century and early 20th century? I'm still arguing with myself about this too, because I don't exactly agree with overpopulation and dead evolutionary weight, but with everything that capitalism tries to do for the species, a modernised socialism could prove to be more successful.

Most of us with sense can admit a large portion of what modern capitalism is corrupt and what it produces is not healthy for society and the planet. To put it from my own perspective, it's run it's coarse. It's collapsing and it's time to adapt otherwise the Empire will fall. The condition of the new generation is a sign of this, and it's what rabid ancaps don't realize is a result of the wild corporatism that modernity is fuelled by. It's hindering our ability to survive by blinding us with consumerist detractions that make it's way into most aspects of society, thereby making it easier for those who run the game kill off the proles of the society they've made themselves predators for, like an artificial natural selection.

>Could the technology of today make a socialist society work better than the current exploitative and consumerist driven corporatist capitalism?
>apolitical
Yeah, fuck off you retarded commie.

To answer your question: no. Socialism is flawed on itself. Both in theory and practice.

It's a system that has been attempted over a hundred times over a period of almost two hundred years and caused one hundred million deaths. To keep trying is literal retardation.

Didn't read, we're not doing that shit again.

Define socialism
Today we had much of what the German socialists of the 1840's wanted, what we do not have is the school of socialism that stems from Marx's cult

>apolitical
Such a thing does not exist.

Also yes. New technologies and improved infrastructures would make any sort of postindustrial society function better.

The main failings of communist movements and socialist states, though, are of the military and ideological sorts. Internal and external conflicts, as well as theoretical errors (lenin's mostly) and individual opportunism, led to the downfall of every attempt.

Technology will help that only by making education and information better.

Or by making exchange-based economy obsolete, but that's in a faraway future.

Capitalism's only superiority on that point is that it keeps functioning morally and effectively despite the millions of deaths it is responsible for and all the crises.

No.

Socialist doesn't work.

>despite the millions of deaths it is responsible for and all the crises.
Eh, considering related deaths under capitalism have only been decreasing, and that crisis are less and less common as time passes by, you can hardly say it's the fault of Capitalism. In fact, it's the other way around, Capitalism saves more lives than it kills.

no.


what you want is a free liberal and capitalist economy. then you skim enough profit to create a welfare state. which you use to set a standard of living floor.

>modernizing socialism

Socialism doesnt work though. The only way to modernize it is to just throw it in the trash where it belongs and to stop being a little baby about it.

>Yeah, fuck off you retarded commie.
Usually when someone say that he is apolitical,9/10 he tend to be right-wing actually

I didn't say he was a commie because he was apolitical. I said he was a commie for the thing I quoted.
Anyways, in my experience, most people who are apolitical are Sanders tier economically speaking and "common sense" (read: shallow) tier socially speaking (transexuals are ill, abortion is "killing" "seeds", God is a fairy tale, Trump is Hitler, etc). Actually, Sanders is also "common sense" (read: shallow) tier economics.

So, in conclusion, apolitical people lean left.

>Not one of you can actually explain the political/economic contradictions of the theory

We already have. We have this discussion every day at Veeky Forums. Leftyfag goes to Veeky Forums for his first time, asks about Socialism, gets BTFO by Veeky Forums once leftyfag demonstrates how ignorant he is.
Now, short story on why Socialism doesn't work based on facts, consider this:
Socialism has been attempted for almost two hundred years in a hundred countries leaving a hundred million deaths. To keep trying is to wish for the further decrease in living conditions of the human civilization.

its already modernised. If you want it to be post-modernised you get the SJW movement. If you want there to be more numbers and shit like statistics you get North Korea's 199% industrial output statistics.

>apolitical lean right
Nigger the left is the one that's obsessed with trying to claim they're not ideological, they just follow reality. Granted, everyone thinks their view is reality, but the left seems to think that somehow they're not following an ideology when in reality the Marxist left is the most doctrinal political ideology out there. The right at least tends to admit they're following an ideology, or at least a worldview.

How the fuck does this site still claim that the USSR was socialist? That's just factually wrong

>It's a system that has been attempted over a hundred times over a period of almost two hundred years and caused one hundred million deaths
nice meme

>do what marks says up to the letter
>form a fuedal state
>before communism is socialism
>don't get any farther
'state capitalist' is a word apologists use

It's literally true.

They were ideologically Socialists.

State capitalism is an oxymoron.

>socialist society work
only if all members are the same racial phenotype. good luck finding that these days

>what is the failure that was East Germany?
Hmm

...

>Socialism has been attempted for almost two hundred years in a hundred countries leaving a hundred million deaths. To keep trying is to wish for the further decrease in living conditions of the human civilization.

Okay, why is this specifically to blame on Socialism? How had the mechanics of socialism failed?

We don't blame capitalism for the first world war, or the indian famines.

>Okay, why is this specifically to blame on Socialism?
Well, it's not a coincidence it has failed over a hundred times, or is it?

>How had the mechanics of socialism failed?
For starters, it's an ideology that's incapable of sustaining itself because it doesn't manage to supply good by regular supply and demand systems.

>We don't blame capitalism for the first world war, or the indian famines.
How exactly was the first world war a consequence of Capitalism? Also, since the introduction of Capitalism, the number of wars has only decreased, so Capitalism avoids war. Same case for famines. This doesn't mean it's a perfect system, of course, only better than every other.

>We don't blame capitalism for the first world war, or the indian famines.

Socialists and Communists do exactly that, all the time.

They outright neglected some of Marx's ideas, and added a ton of their own on subjects Marx didn't cover.
It hasn't been implemented in a hundred countries, and where it has been at least partially implemented it has had some successes. As for the deaths, even if you count Marxism-Leninism as socialism (which isn't always the case), 100 million is a propaganda number from shit tier sources like the Black Book of Communism.

>For starters, it's an ideology that's incapable of sustaining itself because it doesn't manage to supply good by regular supply and demand systems.

But it clearly doesn't. The USSR didn't have any famines after 1947, and had a higher calorie consumption than the USA. It had less famines than the Russian Empire.

>Well, it's not a coincidence it has failed over a hundred times, or is it?
So what you're really saying is, you can't explain why it doesn't work.

>How exactly was the first world war a consequence of Capitalism? Also, since the introduction of Capitalism, the number of wars has only decreased, so Capitalism avoids war. Same case for famines. This doesn't mean it's a perfect system, of course, only better than every other.

>capitalism = less war

Correlation =/= causation, war has decvreased because it is far more costly with the introduction of total war.

>Same case for famines.

That's a result of agricultural mechanization producing much higher crop yields.

>Memezuela

>it's an ideology that's incapable of sustaining itself because it doesn't manage to supply good by regular supply and demand systems.
>what is market socialism
Also, trying to pin societal collapse on so few or such simple causes is a sign of eating from the trash can of ideology.

>market socialism

It has a fucking Wikipedia article.

Well then it must be legitimate.

>It hasn't been implemented in a hundred countries
It hasn't been implemented ever, but it has been attempted, and every single attempt of those hundred countries failed.

>where it has been at least partially implemented it has had some successes
Not in the slightest. Always sub-par performance compared to their capitalist counterparts.

>As for the deaths, even if you count Marxism-Leninism as socialism (which isn't always the case)
They were ideologically Socialists. That's enough already.

>100 million is a propaganda number from shit tier sources like the Black Book of Communism.
Yeah, 80 million then, whatever. You get the idea.

>The USSR didn't have any famines after 1947
Holy shit, they didn't had any famines for half of the timespan of the USSR! Socialism truly works!

>and had a higher calorie consumption than the USA
How exactly is this important?
What's more important is: did they have a longer life expectancy? Did they have less deaths by starvation? If the answer is no to both questions, then the calorie thing doesn't mean shit.

>It had less famines than the Russian Empire.
Yeah, and that's not worth of any praise. That's to be expected from any post-feudal country.

>So what you're really saying is, you can't explain why it doesn't work.
I already did. Work on your reading comprehension.

>Correlation =/= causation, war has decvreased because it is far more costly with the introduction of total war.
And because it's profitable not to engage in war as a general rule, so capitalism wins, again.

>That's a result of agricultural mechanization producing much higher crop yields.
Yet Socialist countries still had more famines and deaths by starvation compared to Capitalist countries. Really activates my almonds.

Ideology is a shit meme. It's only used as a strawman by retarded commies like you.

>For starters, it's an ideology that's incapable of sustaining itself because it doesn't manage to supply good by regular supply and demand systems.

Look mate. I'm not really a socialist but I think some parts can be integrated. But this, this is something so horribly stupid it does not belong in Veeky Forums - HISTORY AND /HUMANITIES/.

The entire bloody point of socialist economics is to plan production of resources so that people never lack shit. You can still trade you fucking sperg, but the state manages production of essential things like food, toilet paper or steel. If the state's civilian economy is poor then you are fucked but at least not that horribly fucked.

What OP was asking is if modern technology would make socialism a more efficient system, and the answer is absolutely yes. The processing power of modern computers absolutely dwarfs any administrative capabilities the Soviet Union could have back in the 20th century. The Chilean Project Cybersyn did this and it kind of worked quite well, and that was in the early 70s.

>The entire bloody point of socialist economics is to plan production of resources so that people never lack shit.
That's the point of capitalist economics as well. To deliver resources to everybody by the means of our own self-interest which happens to be mutually beneficial to the rest.

>If the state's civilian economy is poor then you are fucked but at least not that horribly fucked.
Historically speaking (since we are at Veeky Forums), you are indeed horribly fucked by attempting to implement socialism.

>What OP was asking is if modern technology would make socialism a more efficient system, and the answer is absolutely yes.
Sure, you will have a slightly shinier turd. Isn't this great!?

>The processing power of modern computers absolutely dwarfs any administrative capabilities the Soviet Union could have back in the 20th century.
Consider the fact that not even by the end of the Soviet Union they used anything like Project Cybersyn (nor is Cuba, or Venezuela, or whatever doing right now). That should tell you something about how fucking useless Cybersin was.

>The Chilean Project Cybersyn did this and it kind of worked quite well, and that was in the early 70s.
It didn't even work in the first place you fucking retard.
t. Chilean, if that's of any relevance

>The entire bloody point of socialist economics is to plan production of resources so that people never lack shit. You can still trade you fucking sperg, but the state manages production of essential things like food, toilet paper or steel. If the state's civilian economy is poor then you are fucked but at least not that horribly fucked.

The free market has proven to be better at all these by a huge fucking margin, whereas socialist economics wherever tried have led to the exact opposite of what they where meant to.

Who was worse?

>Holy shit, they didn't had any famines for half of the timespan of the USSR! Socialism truly works!

Literally every industrializing country suffers famines, its part of agricultural mechanization.

>How exactly is this important?

It directly debunks your 'supply and demnd' horseshit, as it shows the USSR was more than capable of meeting supply.

>did they have a longer life expectancy?
Around the same during the 60's, post industrialization.

Also, stop blatantly moving the goalposts.

>Yeah, and that's not worth of any praise. That's to be expected from any post-feudal country.

>Russian empire
>Feudal

Serfdom was abolished in the 1860's and it had the fastest growing industry on earth.

>And because it's profitable not to engage in war as a general rule, so capitalism wins, again.

Just like how it's beneficial for a socialist country not to kill its workers?

>I already did. Work on your reading comprehension.

Yeah, and it shows you're 17 and have a pretentious view of economics.

>Yet Socialist countries still had more famines and deaths by starvation compared to Capitalist countries. Really activates my almonds.

>le almond meme xd


Regardless, all industrializing nations have famines, it was just that huge nations like China and the USSR were socialist.
Now, here's your homework, explain to me how workers democratically controlling the means of production = starvation.

>They were ideologically Socialists.
I guess socialism works then considering the Scandinavian countries.

They are ideologically social democrats. They have said so themselves repeatedly even.

Social democrats are in practice neo-liberal welfare capitalists.

1) Yes, and socialist famines were way worse than capitalist ones. Capitalism wins.
2) Except it didn't, because if they were more capable to meeting supply then they wouldn't have had famines and would have had a higher life expectancy. Capitalism wins.
3) Not really. They were always below. Also, I'm not the one moving goalposts. You mentioned the calorie thing as an argument regarding supply, and I said in response that starvation rates are more relevant regarding an estimation of supplied supply. Life expectancy is relevant as well because it shows how effective this product allocation was regarding the well being of the people from your country.
4) Yeah, whatever, the point still stands. They abolished a monarchy. They still had worse living conditions than their capitalist counterparts.
5) Funny that you claim I have a pretentious view on economics, when as a matter of fact less than 1% of economists described themselves as Marxists on a survey. And I'm obviously not 17, people grow out of Socialism once they stop being underage.
5) Sure, most countries had famines, but socialist famines were worse than capitalist ones.
6) That's a loaded question because it assumes Socialism is sustainable. The point still stands. Two hundred years, one hundred countries, one hundred million dead. That's Socialism in a nutshell. Whichever the reasons, the odds are massively against Socialism.

Exactly. Neoliberalism does wonders, doesn't it?

New user reporting in.
>We already have.

You certainly have not. All you've said is:
>Socialism has been attempted for almost two hundred years in a hundred countries leaving a hundred million deaths. To keep trying is to wish for the further decrease in living conditions of the human civilization.

While the claim you were making was:
>Socialism is flawed on itself. Both in theory and practice.

y are you like this?

I have. Read the thread.

>1) Yes, and socialist famines were way worse than capitalist ones. Capitalism wins.

Well done for literally just ignoring my point on population. how many have died in Africa of capitalist famine, that we can thank the IMF for?

>2) Except it didn't, because if they were more capable to meeting supply then they wouldn't have had famines and would have had a higher life expectancy. Capitalism wins.

Russia industrialized behind the USA, it isn't a fair comparison. Read Marx, you twit. Countries have to go through capitalist development prior to socialism to create infrastructure, no socialist state has had this, and have constantly been at a disadvantage to capitalist ones.

For an analogy, imagine you start a race 2 miles behind the other guy, and you catch up to him, but don;t quite overtake him. He then says its proof he's the better runner. this is the nonsense you're spewing right now.

>3) Not really. They were always below. Also, I'm not the one moving goalposts. You mentioned the calorie thing as an argument regarding supply, and I said in response that starvation rates are more relevant regarding an estimation of supplied supply. Life expectancy is relevant as well because it shows how effective this product allocation was regarding the well being of the people from your country.

Okay, let's discuss life expectancy. When russia moved from Socialism to Capitalism in 1991, the life expectancy dropped 20 years and still hasn't quite recovered.

>4) Yeah, whatever, the point still stands. They abolished a monarchy. They still had worse living conditions than their capitalist counterparts.

Because they were a feudal nation prior? The USSr almost matched the west in living stanadrds in the 60's, despite starting decades behind in infrastructure.
1/2. i'm not done with your /pol/ bitch ass.

I'd also like to point out the obvious failures of socialism, i mean, just read this!

"the Soviet Union experienced rapid economic growth. While the lack of open markets providing price signals and incentives to direct economic activity led to waste and economic inefficiencies, the Soviet economy posted an estimated average annual growth rate in gross national product (GNP) of 5.8% from 1928 to 1940, 5.7% from 1950 to 1960, and 5.2% from 1960 to 1970. (There was a dip to a 2.2% rate between 1940 to 1950.)"

>5) Funny that you claim I have a pretentious view on economics, when as a matter of fact less than 1% of economists described themselves as Marxists on a survey. And I'm obviously not 17, people grow out of Socialism once they stop being underage.

Yet you don't actually seem to understand what Socialism is.

>5) Sure, most countries had famines, but socialist famines were worse than capitalist ones.

Did you forget how to count? We don't say 5 twice.

And once again, population. China was literally the most populous state on earth. Similar story with Russia.

Yet, despite all these terrible famines, the USSR rapidly reduced deaths from famine since the Russian empire, and agricultural output increased by over 50% in a decade.

This is also going alongside the fact that only 10% of The USSR's land was arable, one of the lowest figures on earth! But were also the world's leading producer of cereals!

>6) That's a loaded question because it assumes Socialism is sustainable. The point still stands. Two hundred years, one hundred countries, one hundred million dead. That's Socialism in a nutshell. Whichever the reasons, the odds are massively against Socialism.


You mean unrivaled social advancement in the west through forcing limitations on capitalism in the form of social welfare, healthcare and public works, all oif which you massively benefit from, and the advancement of Russia and china to massively industrialized states?

ITT English lit and philosophy majors discussing macro economics and social theory

Since none of you cunts are interested on my long ran il just say from a lot of experience of this being my job
No
T. Works for IISS
That being said communism is much easier to implement in terms of keeping the masses suppresseed

You can reply if you'd like, but the fact is, you're a childish 'Austrian economist' who thinks meme jpegs and German propaganda is an argument. This will be my last post in the thread. In short, fuck off to /pol/.

If OP isn't memeing, Artifical Intelligence. Don't see it as making workers obsolete, but see it as making work itself obsolete.

I don't like /pol/ nor I am an Austrian economist (fuck them), but if you are going to keep this "I won't bother replying to you because I know you will debunk all that shit I just said" then good for you, just keep in mind you are the one being a child here.
Also, in no point did I ever post German propaganda nor meme jpgs, so fuck off, I'm obviously trying to argue will a brick wall here.

Hold on.
An "end of capitalism" definition of socialism and a "democracy where the gov tries to improve society through social programs" definition.
The former is what most people mean, but a large portion of self identified socialists(Bernie, who only wanted regulated capitalism) use the ladder.

Could an "end of capitalism" society work?
Sure. Not as well as our current system though. And people don't have a high opinion of our current system. A full on communist society could survive as long as it had popular support.

So for the former, it could exist, and be notably shitter than the establishment, without causing deadly famines.

As for the ladder definition, "social programs supported by democracy to improve society" I think that is what we need. I don't think its a good definition, you can get by saying you are a "center leftist"
Ultimately, having good education, infrastructure and public research is good for the country. Fight me.
Though the ladder definition of socialism is technically so fucking broad you have to be ancap to not fall under it. A federal military, police and emergency responders, all that could be called "socialism". Corporate bail outs also count as socialism, oddly enough.

I do not identify as a socialist, because communism fails. I like education, infrastructure and public research though. We need police and military. The government can bail out the most incompetent greedy banks destroying the world economy, why can't it offer some help to the homeless and disabled?

OP is probably baiting us though.

>so fuck off, I'm obviously trying to argue and have lost here

The only person who lost is the person who refused to accept a rebuttal of their shitty arguments.

>Y-You responded to me, so you lost!!

let it go lmao

Technocracy/technocratic-socialism has been a long running idea, I mean look at the modern incarnation of the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project.

They still make many of the same mistakes as regular socialists but it's okay mate, I promise you that free market capitalism will help us automate to make your life easier. Everything's going to be okay.