>>483112>pic relatedPersonal property is indeed human instinct.
Other forms of property however are not, private property doesn't come about until the late feudal period. There's other forms of property as well, like public property or the commons. There might be corporate property that technically isn't the same as private property and so on. Private property and corporate property is being enforced with copious amounts of state violence and sometimes mercenary violence.
The nazis didn't use chemical weapons even at the end when they had nothing left to lose. WW3 does not need to be nuclear.
The fuck ? of course the Nazis used chemical weapons, they even used it in their extermination camps, they killed millions of people with it.
I don't see how a direct war between nuclear super-powers doesn't turn nuclear, you can't expect desperate people to not use all the weapons they have. Even a rogue state like Israel using it's nukes could set of a nuclear escalation chain. You can't calibrate the intensity of large wars, it's something you can't controle.
>If you think about it, given how irreversibly fucked the global economy is since covid, The economy was already fucked before covid and not all parts of the global economy is fucked.
>another pointless european land war might be exactly what they are trying to do in order to "reset" the global economy.who is they ?
After ww2 Europe was smashed and most of it got rebuild by the US and some of it by the USSR (which was partly smashed too). That's part of what turned the US into a global hegemon. If Europe is smashed once more, China would be in the position to rebuild it. They would become the worlds greatest power the same way.
You're not wrong about the capitalist system trying to restore profitability through war. However ww3 might be so destructive that it might collapse civilization.
The other thing is that if war were to force China to do a war-economy, that will likely end market based economics. Institutional momentum will likely convert the war-economy into a civilian command economy after the war. And with them being the most powerful economy on the planet by a large margin, that will likely have a effect on the rest of the world. It would be ironic if capitalists trying to restore profitability, set of a war that ends up creating the conditions for socialist command economy taking over the world. I think socialists might have initially gotten the idea for planned command economies from capitalist war-economies.
>The workers are responsible forLet me interject:
The workers are not responsible for anything that happens under capitalism. Capitalism is ruled by capitalists and they're responsible for it.
>capital investment overseas.The capitalists made a choice to offshore industrial production to the periphery, they chose to seek out medium-term imperial super profits from cheap labor, over long term strategical consideration. They alone are to blame, nobody else. If controle over the economy had been given to workers that wouldn't have happened.
>they don't "invest"Yes and that failure is the cause for 3/4 of our economic problems.
>How many "workers" are there? If you all chip in $100 you can buy any "means of production" and run it however you want.Technically it might be possible for the workers to play the game and over time buy up all the means of production. But realistically, do you honestly believe the entrenched ruling interests would honor the deal ? And just sit idly by a let it happen, because the workers played the game fair and square and won ? You can't be that naive.
>And then you cry when you get replaced by a robot. What the actual fuck are you talking about here the only thing modern trade unions do is lobby the government to inhibit labor saving technology in order to "save" obsolete jobs (and buy votes). That's the reason why china has bullet trains and the US has rusty 100 year old diesel trains.Again, stop scapegoating labor, they do not controle the means of production, that excludes them from responsibility. China has bullet trains because the Chinese government invested in infrastructure, the US and many other western countries have not invested into infrastructure and that's the reason it's now degraded.
The medium term goal of automation isn't to replace workers, the point is to enhance worker productivity. If you simply replace workers, and deny them employment, you just make the economy stutter, because you disrupt economic circuits. Eventually all work can be automated, however that cannot happen under capitalism. Profits come from exploiting labor, if you automate the entire economy, there would be no more profits too, the system would self-destruct before you got to that point.
>Capitalism always rewards cutting costs.Not always. Hint Monopolies.
>The reason why slave societies didn't have an industrial revolution was because labor was free and you can't get cheaper than free. You're over-simplifying Slave societies. Slave societies were dominated by slave owners and slave merchants, who didn't have an interest in competing against industrial production. However slave societies were also really inefficient at allocating labor, and could never hope to compete against a wage-labor economy. Industrial capitalists saw in slavery a system that locked away labor-power, making it unavailable for hiring, they opposed it for that reason. Also slaves-populations usually have very low fertility and do not replace them selves.
>You're trying to copy and paste this argument over to capitalism but it doesn't work.It doesn't entirely apply to slave-societies, but it does apply to capitalism. If labor is cheap, investment into productivity enhancing technology is more difficult than if labor is expensive. You could think of it like this, if technology saves you labor-power, the technology is only worth it, if it's cheaper than the labor that it saves.
<Lets face it the soc-dems tried to save capitalism from it self.>The arguments you've laid out do not support this conclusion at all.The socdems tried to
force capitalists to invest more into productivity-boost technology,
force them to do the up-keep for good infrastructure and
make them invest into growing the economic pie, instead of just taking a bigger share of the existing economic pie.
That shit required a sizeable public sector to work, and the capitalists really didn't like that.
The turn to neoliberalism is what created the conditions the decline of the west.
>Wasn't Thatcher queen of the neo-liberals?Idk. The most popular neo-liberal theorist was Milton Friedman
>Maybe it's time to give a concrete definitionWell the neo-libs aren't consistent, but i'll try
they want low-wage deskilled labor over skilled high wage labor
they want the state to bail out big capital
they favor finance and services over commodity producing industry
they favor quick imperial super-profits over long term developmental returns
they talk freedom but they always try to use the state to violate every-bodies civil liberties
they talk free market but only uphold it as long as they like the results
they loot the public sector by privatization
they kill a lot of people with wealth inequality
they neglect infrastructure
take this as a preliminary attempt, I'm not sure i've defined it correctly.
>Government policy makes it impossible to profit from nuclear energyThe hydrocarbon monopolists lobbied for that.
>so why should investors invest?The capitalists are the ones responsible for figuring out their business models. I'm just pointing out nuclear power is objectively the rational technology to invest in.
If I was tasked with solving the anti-nuclear lobby-blockade i would try to build huge (60+ gigawatt) offshore nuclear power reactors, in the ocean in international waters. And then tag on energy intensive industrial processes onto it. Make profits of the price differential of industrial inputs because the industrial inputs that have more energy embodied in them have a higher price. Once that takes off, use it as jumping off point to get into electricity production.
>I'm pretty sure the goal of socialism is to get to communism and the goal of communism is to abolish property.Capitalism tries to expropriate personal property and public property and convert everything into private/corporate property.
Socialism favors personal property, public property and worker cooperative held property
Communism retains personal property while everything else dissolves into a logic of adaptive matter allocation, where ownership doesn't really make sense because it's not static enough for that. So you'll own your stuff and likely get stronger rights, but the economy will become a torrent of moving matter and energy, where people decide priorities and favored outcomes.
>somebody needs to decide how many "work" vouchers does a cleaner get vs a doctor.Everybody gets payed by labor-time. Types of work that are difficult, stress-full, carry a health-risk get a extra bonus payment for incentives, to make sure to get enough applicants
>Somebody needs to decide what resources need to be allocated where>Whoever has that job will be the ruling class of your socialist utopia.You can ask people what products and services they want, as well as how much work they are willing to give, and then everything else becomes a calculation that targets the optimal balance between the desired outcomes and the available labor.
>The WEF guys >are rich because they control the money printers. But the fiat money scam is heading for a cliff edge. They need more control over the economy to secure their positions in the future.I still don't understand how you could possibly confuse these guys with socialists. One of the long term goals of socialism is a money-less society.
>Capitalism is about distributed free market competition.I think you want capitalism to be that, but it's not in reality.
>Socialism is about centralized economic planning. I would say partially true. It's certainly possible to do distributed economic planning, and Socialists also can do markets.
>They want to be planers in the latter rather than competitors in the former.Capitalists also plan, so this is a false dichotomy.