Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Under socialism, there was an administrative-command bureaucratic system. Therefore, there was such a thing as nepotism.
Finally banks must have strict regulations because they are in charge of expanding the monetary supply. They can also be state owned. Indeed , most of the state-owned enterprises in the US are financial institutions.
People tend to confuse two things:There is also such a thing under socialism as fraud, waste, abuse, cronyism, and assorted other human failings. There are not as prevalent as thy are under capitalism for the simple reason that capitalism produces enormously more wealth. Hence more money to be acquired by fair means or foul than under socialism.
Alas corruption is more highly correlated to poverty than to the form of government or the production mode.
I lived under socialism in the USSR. Under socialism, compared with capitalism, there were such features: low prices for products and essential services (food, utility bills for an apartment). But at the same time there were high prices for sophisticated equipment: televisions, cars. At the same time, equipment such as cars was often of poor quality and often broke down. For example: a graduate of the institute - a young engineer - had a salary at the plant of 120 rubles. A "Moskvich"-type car (it was of poor quality, often broke down) cost about 5,000 thousand rubles. If an engineer set aside 50 rubles a month from his salary, then he could save up for a car in 10 years. A young man (for example, a married man) could, working at an enterprise, receive housing at the expense of the enterprise - an apartment (that is, free of charge). But for this he had to stand in line, which lasted several years.
There was such a phenomenon as scarcity: some goods were cheap, but were often out of stock.
There was no meat in the stores, often there was not even sausage on sale. Meat was usually sold in the markets where collective farmers traded.
Higher education was free on the condition that you pass the entrance exams to an institute or university. But there was a system for the distribution of graduates after a higher educational institution: a graduate was obliged to work for at least three years at the enterprise where he was distributed.
Different cities and regions had different supplies of goods. A city like Moscow had privileges - many goods were freely sold there, such as sausage products, sausages and much more. Many Soviet citizens traveled to Moscow to buy goods there.
Under socialism, there was an administrative-command bureaucratic system. Therefore, there was such a thing as nepotism.
I can add that under socialism it was easy to find a job. Under socialism, labor productivity was low, so workers were needed everywhere. Parasitism (if a person is healthy, young and does not want to work) was even considered a criminal offense.
Under socialism, there was still the so-called "equalization", that is, a low Gini coefficient. The cleaner earned about 90 rubles a month. Junior engineer earned 120 rubles a month. An experienced engineer earned about 200 rubles a month. A skilled worker could earn up to 300 rubles a month and more (yes, there was a Soviet paradox when factory workers earned more than engineers). The director of the enterprise could earn 300-400 rubles or more. For example, a loaf of white bread cost 20 kopecks (0.2 rubles). That is, for one monthly salary, a junior engineer could buy 600 loaves of bread. Half liter bottle of milk cost 27 kopecks. A tram ticket cost 3 kopecks. One consumed kilowatt-hour cost 4 kopecks.
Once we're that advanced, there's no reason to have money or a basic income. Goods and services can be produced and distributed without markets. People will work 20 hours a week and they'll have a card with a chip, that will provide them access to all of the goods and services that they have a right to consume and use. Money, profits, markets, all of that will become superfluous and unnecessary.I think that socialism will return (more precisely, there will be a society of universal security) when artificial intelligence becomes smarter than a person and machines start working instead of people. Then poverty will disappear in human society, poverty due to unemployment. All people will receive a basic income, the funds for which will be collected from taxes on robotic enterprises.
Once we're that advanced, there's no reason to have money or a basic income. Goods and services can be produced and distributed without markets. People will work 20 hours a week and they'll have a card with a chip, that will provide them access to all of the goods and services that they have a right to consume and use. Money, profits, markets, all of that will become superfluous and unnecessary.
When we get to that place, where we no longer need money, markets, or wages, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we will have to write new laws and establish a logistical infrastructure and supply chain, to meet the needs of consumers. The consumer will no longer purchase products with their wages, but will rather have the right to access an x amount of resources based upon the amount of time they worked.People will work 20 hours a week and they'll have a card with a chip, that will provide them access to all of the goods and services that they have a right to consume and use.
What will their "right" be based upon?
When we get to that place, where we no longer need money, markets, or wages, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we will have to write new laws and establish a logistical infrastructure and supply chain, to meet the needs of consumers. The consumer will no longer purchase products with their wages, but will rather have the right to access an x amount of resources based upon the amount of time they worked.
For example, if you're within the age range that society deems you obligated to work, you'll work 20 hours weekly, five days a week, in whichever field you've chosen within the available options, and in return, you have a right to a house, food, clothing, vehicles, public transit, utilities..etc. In this mostly automated, highly efficient, resource-based system of production, you would, for example, have a right to access three gallons of milk weekly, and your spouse would also have access to her own resources, as well as your children.
Computers, on-site sensors, and artificial intelligence would do the accounting, and develop and manage the logistical infrastructure, to make sure everyone's needs are met. Society will have the luxury of being generous, thanks to advanced technology. Every member of society will enjoy a very high standard of living, due to the abundance of products and services that will be available. When a civilization has intelligent robots doing most of the work, it eliminates scarcity and creates extreme abundance. Robots work 24/7, they don't rest.
The consumer will no longer purchase products with their wages, but will rather have the right to access an x amount of resources based upon the amount of time they worked.
Exactly. We won't be spending money. We'll be using "money".
I don't think so. Countries like Yemen, Nigeria , Ethiopia, and Lebanon have a very low government and are very corrupt.Disagree. IMHO and in general, the amount of corruption in any form of gov't or production mode is correlated to the amount of money in circulation, fiat or otherwise. I do not believe those living in poverty have nearly as much opportunity to lie, steal, and cheat as those who have access to greater sums.
It's in the wikipedia... not really hard to find.You have a list of these state-owned enterprises?
Communism is nothing more than a sketchy utopic idea. It is missing everything to ve a viable system : the feedback mechanisms, resource allocation, and distribution, and organization and all the nifty details: how is a society supposed to work without money? how will work be allocated? Maybe, when we have supra-intelligent AI it can be fleshed out. And then the communist principle has to be corrected "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". What is that supposed to mean? A family with 20 kids is supposed to get the same amount as one with two? That's the recipe for a Malthusian nightmare.
Although I don't agree that capitalism is done with the objective of creating a society without socioeconomic classes, I do appreciate the fact that you got the communist part right. Indeed, the goal of communists is to empower people to own the means of production or the productive enterprise, either collectively (through socialism = the earlier stage of communism) or as individual consumers when technology reaches the point where a person can produce everything that they consume without anyone else's input or assistance. In that modern, high-tech world, most interactions and relationships are 100% voluntary. That's what advanced technology does, it empowers the individual to become independent and free of coercion.Communism has the same dream as free market capitalism, i.e., a classless society brought about by an abundance of resources. One believes it can be done through cooperation and the other through competition.
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
Is that your objection to everything I said? How does that render what I said wrong?
