Ok I'm glad it was only 30 seconds in so I could stop there.

Oh that scamp kypenis tricked me from beyond the grave what with an untitled video and Shapiro raping my eardrums.

Zwarte is just making up numbers actually.

Some interesting stuff about the Mexican Zapatistas and Northern Syria at the end of the video in case anybody turned off before the end, it is worth watching this.
What is common in all movements for socialism is the widening of democratic participation through a massive creation of new representative bodies, workers' councils. The Paris Commune of 1871, The Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 are probably the best examples of how workers' councils operate. Anybody interested in socialism I think has to study these bodies to get a sense of how a socialist revolution attempts to wrest power from the existing order and put it in the collective control of the masses. This process is what I would consider actual socialism/communism and it must be a global system, else it is not sustainable - a workers state doesn't last long in isolation.
What some describe as socialism is the welfare state, which is just a form of capitalism which values health, education, social welfare insofar as these are important for maintaining a healthy and skilled workforce to keep up with global competition. Obviously this is more progressive than a neo-liberal state, but we see how without a transfer of power, the welfare state is always vulnerable. And in any case, what is socialism without workplace democracy, collective (not state) ownership, liberation of oppressed groups, an end to war and so on.

To answer the question, 'has socialism ever worked?' is a bit like going back in time to England in 1600 or France in 1700 and asking the question 'could capitalism work?' Well yes, bits of it worked but until it became a global system which replaced previous feudal/monarchic systems it wasn't clear whether the system could deliver power and prosperity for capitalists. Clearly in hindsight it does.

Interesting post. It may also be that capitalism relied on factors such as advances in communication and technology making possible political systems that previously weren't viable.

The same sort of thing may be true of forms of socialism. Maybe the necessary step to make it viable is technology rendering human labour largely valueless - then it can't be exploited. If that's combined with plenty of wealth creation then it's not hard to imagine that capitalism failing and the options becoming a few very rich lords or some form of socialism.

thats one hope of the transhumanism. that some super AI will do all the work and we live in paradise.

Unless that AI will turn to skynet or something.

or more likely: the people owning the AI will profit, all other will perish.

Once human labor becomes unnecessary as a result of AI, technology, robots, or w/e, why wouldn't human labor become a premium service only affordable by the fashionable elite?

E.g. hand cooking, crafts, finishing work like painting, guide service, micro-farming.

Would not some always be able to charge a premium price for that human touch?

everything fails just give it time

Yes, that will always be around. In fact its the oldest profession in history.

Stopped here for the oxymoron.

If you subscribe to the idea that humans existed before the class system existed, then you will be open to the idea of "primitive communism", a system that pre-dates class. The fundamental difference between class and primitive communism is that there is no surplus production. Humans lived according to immediate need, hunting and gathering for supplies for shelter and food. There is no need for classes under this system because there is no ownership, no need for protection of property, no theft, no need for the means to raid others' supplies and so on. Shelter would be built according to need and only the necessary food would be hunted/gathered. So there is no authority needed to control the surplus, so there is no financial exchange, or even bartering for supplies because there is no hoarding. I can only guess that because of changing seasons, we evolved a system of hoarding supplies to live through the winter months. This creates a need for administration, and eventually for ownership. Perhaps different tribes would barter with others for their surpluses depending on what was required, hence more complex languages would develop. Then you get educational inequality as well as inequality of ownership.

A modern communism would produce according to need, but there would still be be need to produce a surplus to avoid famine and natural disasters. So ownership has to be collective, control systems have to be democratic, there can be no overall leader, leaders being necessary only when competing tribes/countries exist, hence it has to be a global system with no centralised power, no capital, no Borders, no law except a common moral code for how people treat each other, the land and resources.

Technology certainly helps this process, removing the need for back breaking labour. Though under communism such tasks would be shared, many tasks are unnecessary such as mining for expensive but useless minerals etc.

the reason (or at least one explanation) for classes is also that a human can have social communication with about 200 other humans. anything above that numbers will result in classes (that are persons that have the same intrest than you) for the simple reason our biology is that way. only on facebook you can have infinite friends.

Not sure how that extends to classes in the sense that you have groups within society which have vastly different levels of power and influence. I guess to buy in to what I have said you first have to accept the existence of class as the determining factor in human history. Those with power and those without. Whether that be serf and lord, slave and slave owner, worker and boss. Whether one believes in the possibility of overthrowing capitalism, the overthrow of monarchies and feudal systems is an undeniable series of historical events. These events, eg. the French revolution, were major social upheavals involving all levels of society. Exposed were the classes - the nobility and aristocracy on one side and the 3rd estate on the other, followed by the emergence of the bourgeoisie as the dominant class - rich merchants, landowners, bankers, top lawyers, industrialists, big business owners etc..

Not a good guess. Hoarding/storage/agriculture/law etc developed in the fertile crescent after the exodus from Africa and the switch from hunter-gatherers to farmers.

The standard and good recommendation is Guns, Germs and Steel.

Right, thanks for the reference, I may look it up one day. It would make sense that farming would naturally produce a surplus to be stored. And the progression to farming could occur slowly.

Surplus is required in that without it humans wouldn't have time for the pursuit of distraction. E.g. art, or dessert.

socialism for dummies chapter 1

the west in 2017 is the most prosperous society in the history of the world. the "poor" people of today are insanely rich. They have shelter with a comfortable climate. they have access to clean drinking water. they have running water. they are over fed and fat. they have access to medical services. they have televisions and access to infinite information on the internet

compare this to people globally, and calling them "poor" is laughable. compare this to people historically, and calling them "poor" is laughable.

the "poor" in the west is a large group so we have to speak in generalities obviously. they aren't miserable because they are poor. they are miserable because they are relatively poor to those around them. you will get people like well named who create a long winded and totally ignorant thread on race and crime using misguided stats and exposing massive blind spots of ignorance. poverty is a good predictor of crime but its not entirely accurate. income inequality or relative poverty is a great predictor of crime. its a great predictor of violent crime. income inequality is a far better predictor of both crime and violent crime than poverty. that distinction is important.

"poor" people in the west aren't violent, angry, bitter, resentful, etc because they are poor. they aren't poor. they are relatively poor, and that is why they are all of the above.

you might be saying to yourself, well this is an argument for socialism then. eliminate inequality and you fix this problem. in isolation that may make some sense to you but that is totally wrong. history has proven this over and over. maybe the ignorant commi apologists will begin to understand if/when i get the urge to compose chapter 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Uncontroversial so far. "Western people are wealthier today than before" has left me feeling robbed of your usual wisdom that has previously had the forum enthralled. Where is the illuminating and radical theory on why a genetic hormonal imbalance consigns black people to the dustbin of society?

We can only hope that Chapter 2 of this magnificent treatise lives up to its billing.

Should make it an ebook

thanks for the review and the high level of attention you give me on 2p2 but i dont really care. i was as confident before posting as i am now, that you wont be able to piece things together. i don't need you chiming in to confirm this

You're such a flirt. It's weird though, that you called my posts "totally ignorant" and "misguided" and then... repeated my argument? What you are referring to as "relative poverty" I simply referred to as "concentration of poverty", which (in this context) I then linked to segregation and the history of racial discrimination. So, I agree with you that "poverty" as a simple statistic is not a better predictor of crime than more complex measures that take into account relative inequality especially within specific neighborhoods, but then that was my argument in the OP.

I admit it, I'm a sucker for breathtaking stupidity and bigotry covered in a wafer-thin veneer of pseudo-intellectualism.

you failed to articulate the point i made or the actual science behind it. then you went on to make a bunch of nonsensical points and arguments that get demolished when you look at the gini coefficient. you have a masters in scouring the planet for information that confirms your bias and then stuffing your head in the sand like an ostrich when asked how you explain the racial disparity in the usa track n field teams over decades and the NBA for example. it just duck and run, then look for more confirmation to you bias

we just did this dance again in the wage gap thread. you're not interested in the truth or answering questions that relate to finding the truth. you're interested in finding info that supports your bias. you're especially not interested in answering questions that confront your bias or inconsistency in your conclusions (ostrich syndrome). you like to hypothesize about how unequal outcomes are derived in an unfair with blinders on. you have to admit its pretty amazing that after all the studies you have read and posting you have done on the subject of race, that im able to get complete silence when confronting you with a totally simple and basic truth about the nba or the olympics over and over again

also what you just said about segregation isnt the same thing and doesn't cover my point

I'd suggest you try reading the thread again since it's clear you failed to understand it the first time, if there even was a first time. It might also help to follow the links.

swoosh, nothing but net

head in sand


uh yeah i went over all of your theories with you directly. i didn't even get to present you with this actually valid info because i had already demolished all your theories (with a question about the nba and olympics) which included painfully long arguments about your idea that racism is the cause of black people impregnating other black people and the man abandoning the baby. this argument was a consequence of one of many massive blind spots you have due to a narrow quest for confirmation. i presented you with the racial disparity in single parent households which was also completely missing from your absurdly ignorant lesson on race and crime