Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Can Communism work in the future?

Stwop12
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:39:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me be clear, I am not a staunch supporter communism. In this forum I would like to discuss if Communism can become a viable system in the future. For example, maybe 400 years into the future. The reason I ask this is because as more innovations are achieved with machines, could there be a point where machines will replace too many human employees and job positions and thus make capitalism an impossible system to maintain.

Before commenting on this thread I ask that you please watch this video as it will make it easier for you to understand the full extent of how many jobs and the different types of jobs machines may take from humans. (The video does not make any mention of politics in anyway so please do not feel like I am trying to force any ideology down your throats. I only wish to discuss)

https://youtu.be...

Furthermore, I would like to discuss what future issues this system could face assuming it could sustain it self economically. For example, if machines did take all or most careers and jobs, would people be truly happy in being able to live out luxurious life styles? I would argue no because humans have an altruistic element and therefore need purpose(or believe they have a purpose) for them to really feel that they are benefited out of this system. However, maybe I am not considering something and if I am not I would be more than happy for you to point it out and allow us to discuss your take on the matter.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:57:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 2:39:22 AM, Stwop12 wrote:
Let me be clear, I am not a staunch supporter communism. In this forum I would like to discuss if Communism can become a viable system in the future. For example, maybe 400 years into the future. The reason I ask this is because as more innovations are achieved with machines, could there be a point where machines will replace too many human employees and job positions and thus make capitalism an impossible system to maintain.

Before commenting on this thread I ask that you please watch this video as it will make it easier for you to understand the full extent of how many jobs and the different types of jobs machines may take from humans. (The video does not make any mention of politics in anyway so please do not feel like I am trying to force any ideology down your throats. I only wish to discuss)

https://youtu.be...


Furthermore, I would like to discuss what future issues this system could face assuming it could sustain it self economically. For example, if machines did take all or most careers and jobs, would people be truly happy in being able to live out luxurious life styles? I would argue no because humans have an altruistic element and therefore need purpose(or believe they have a purpose) for them to really feel that they are benefited out of this system. However, maybe I am not considering something and if I am not I would be more than happy for you to point it out and allow us to discuss your take on the matter.

There are a few things that you have not consider or thought through. From what i can gather, you are saying if we keep getting more advance to the point where machines would be taking everyone's jobs, this would cause more and more people to become unemployed. When more and more people become unemployed, this causes more and more people to not have money to spend on goods, making it so most consumers can't afford it.(which is the point i believe you are making)

The problem with this is that companies will never produce and sell products that most of the consumers can't afford. This means that companies will naturally lower their prices so a majority of the consumers can afford them.

Another point i feel you are trying to make(Which i also feel is your main point) is that robots would cause so many people to become unemployed to where most people won't have any money to spend. The problem with this is that their will always be other things to do. The point i am trying to make is that everything requires some form of work. Those robots that are replacing people, will have to be built or require some form of maintenance. As the number of robots increase causing certain job markets to close, it will also cause other job markets to open. People are always demanding goods and services. If work wasn't required to do any of these things, then their would be no point in jobs because everything would be for free.
Stwop12
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 3:28:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, I do agree that if people's incomes were to decrease then companies would produce cheaper products to sell. However, I am not making the point that consumers will make less money. I am saying that they will make no income and therefore and afford anything.

Also, in regards to people being able to find new jobs or new jobs opening up as a result of technological advancement, please watch the video. The video makes a clear that this would not be the case and give an analogy to help explain. Again, I'd prefer that you look at it so that you know exactly what information I've brought to the table. (the analogy is at 3:30 into the video)
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 3:53:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 3:28:07 PM, Stwop12 wrote:
Yes, I do agree that if people's incomes were to decrease then companies would produce cheaper products to sell. However, I am not making the point that consumers will make less money. I am saying that they will make no income and therefore and afford anything.

Also, in regards to people being able to find new jobs or new jobs opening up as a result of technological advancement, please watch the video. The video makes a clear that this would not be the case and give an analogy to help explain. Again, I'd prefer that you look at it so that you know exactly what information I've brought to the table. (the analogy is at 3:30 into the video)

It would be simpler if you told me the analogy since i am not able to watch the video at this time.
Stwop12
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 4:04:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 3:53:44 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 9/21/2015 3:28:07 PM, Stwop12 wrote:
Yes, I do agree that if people's incomes were to decrease then companies would produce cheaper products to sell. However, I am not making the point that consumers will make less money. I am saying that they will make no income and therefore and afford anything.

Also, in regards to people being able to find new jobs or new jobs opening up as a result of technological advancement, please watch the video. The video makes a clear that this would not be the case and give an analogy to help explain. Again, I'd prefer that you look at it so that you know exactly what information I've brought to the table. (the analogy is at 3:30 into the video)

It would be simpler if you told me the analogy since i am not able to watch the video at this time.

If you are able to watch it now then please watch it later in the day and then comment on the thread. I do not want this thread to be rushed and I have to leave to class soon as well.
MeinWeltschmerz
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 9:51:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because human beings have short life spans (in the grand scheme of time), we are very impatient creatures. In addition, we can literally only focus on one thing at a time. This means we use instant, or relatively quick positive feedback as a method of deciding our actions. Like you said, I'm not even going to touch on whether communism should happen, rather, I'll give my thoughts on whether it can happen, and I don't think it can. There is simply not enough incentive for the average person to put in hard work and effort when he/she is not rewarded noticeably for it. Wanting to better society is not a valid point to why communism could succeed because most large betterments to society take place over multiple lifetimes. Humans want their lifetime to be joyful and successful, they don't want to hope for the betterment of society decades after they die at the expense of their life. Humans also have unlimited wants, it's one of the staples of economics. Humans will seek routes to fulfill as many of these unlimited wants as possible, meaning black markets and free trade would most certainly take place within a communist society, simply because humans want to better their own lives. This is why I think communism is ultimately impossible, because of human nature is human nature.
Stwop12
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 12:18:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 9:51:03 PM, MeinWeltschmerz wrote:
Because human beings have short life spans (in the grand scheme of time), we are very impatient creatures. In addition, we can literally only focus on one thing at a time. This means we use instant, or relatively quick positive feedback as a method of deciding our actions. Like you said, I'm not even going to touch on whether communism should happen, rather, I'll give my thoughts on whether it can happen, and I don't think it can. There is simply not enough incentive for the average person to put in hard work and effort when he/she is not rewarded noticeably for it. Wanting to better society is not a valid point to why communism could succeed because most large betterments to society take place over multiple lifetimes. Humans want their lifetime to be joyful and successful, they don't want to hope for the betterment of society decades after they die at the expense of their life. Humans also have unlimited wants, it's one of the staples of economics. Humans will seek routes to fulfill as many of these unlimited wants as possible, meaning black markets and free trade would most certainly take place within a communist society, simply because humans want to better their own lives. This is why I think communism is ultimately impossible, because of human nature is human nature.

Did you read anything I wrote besides the Title? In this hypothetic situation humans don't need to work because robots are doing most if nit all the labor. Thats the premise if communism can have a chance if machines did all the labor. I ask this question because a popular counter argument to Communism is that humans will nit want to work for free because there are no incentives, and i agree. I agree while heartedly. But I'm offering a scenario where that argument can no longer be used. I did his as a thought experiment, for fun.

You mentioned that humans are impatient, and I think I agree with you. Why will no one take time to read what i wrote and take time ti look at the video? Its there for a reason.

I came to debate.org because i was hoping to have a meaningful conversation but if everyone else behaves like this then whats the point.

I don't mean to sound too rude and this isn't only directed to you but if you dont read what i wrote then why do you bother replying?
MeinWeltschmerz
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 12:42:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 12:18:36 AM, Stwop12 wrote:
At 9/28/2015 9:51:03 PM, MeinWeltschmerz wrote:
Because human beings have short life spans (in the grand scheme of time), we are very impatient creatures. In addition, we can literally only focus on one thing at a time. This means we use instant, or relatively quick positive feedback as a method of deciding our actions. Like you said, I'm not even going to touch on whether communism should happen, rather, I'll give my thoughts on whether it can happen, and I don't think it can. There is simply not enough incentive for the average person to put in hard work and effort when he/she is not rewarded noticeably for it. Wanting to better society is not a valid point to why communism could succeed because most large betterments to society take place over multiple lifetimes. Humans want their lifetime to be joyful and successful, they don't want to hope for the betterment of society decades after they die at the expense of their life. Humans also have unlimited wants, it's one of the staples of economics. Humans will seek routes to fulfill as many of these unlimited wants as possible, meaning black markets and free trade would most certainly take place within a communist society, simply because humans want to better their own lives. This is why I think communism is ultimately impossible, because of human nature is human nature.

Did you read anything I wrote besides the Title? In this hypothetic situation humans don't need to work because robots are doing most if nit all the labor. Thats the premise if communism can have a chance if machines did all the labor. I ask this question because a popular counter argument to Communism is that humans will nit want to work for free because there are no incentives, and i agree. I agree while heartedly. But I'm offering a scenario where that argument can no longer be used. I did his as a thought experiment, for fun.

You mentioned that humans are impatient, and I think I agree with you. Why will no one take time to read what i wrote and take time ti look at the video? Its there for a reason.

I came to debate.org because i was hoping to have a meaningful conversation but if everyone else behaves like this then whats the point.

I don't mean to sound too rude and this isn't only directed to you but if you dont read what i wrote then why do you bother replying?

No I didn't, and I will admit that this is mostly my fault, but it also doesn't make me want to read what you wrote when you write like a 10 year old.
Stwop12
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 12:48:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 12:42:28 AM, MeinWeltschmerz wrote:
At 9/29/2015 12:18:36 AM, Stwop12 wrote:
At 9/28/2015 9:51:03 PM, MeinWeltschmerz wrote:
Because human beings have short life spans (in the grand scheme of time), we are very impatient creatures. In addition, we can literally only focus on one thing at a time. This means we use instant, or relatively quick positive feedback as a method of deciding our actions. Like you said, I'm not even going to touch on whether communism should happen, rather, I'll give my thoughts on whether it can happen, and I don't think it can. There is simply not enough incentive for the average person to put in hard work and effort when he/she is not rewarded noticeably for it. Wanting to better society is not a valid point to why communism could succeed because most large betterments to society take place over multiple lifetimes. Humans want their lifetime to be joyful and successful, they don't want to hope for the betterment of society decades after they die at the expense of their life. Humans also have unlimited wants, it's one of the staples of economics. Humans will seek routes to fulfill as many of these unlimited wants as possible, meaning black markets and free trade would most certainly take place within a communist society, simply because humans want to better their own lives. This is why I think communism is ultimately impossible, because of human nature is human nature.

Did you read anything I wrote besides the Title? In this hypothetic situation humans don't need to work because robots are doing most if nit all the labor. Thats the premise if communism can have a chance if machines did all the labor. I ask this question because a popular counter argument to Communism is that humans will nit want to work for free because there are no incentives, and i agree. I agree while heartedly. But I'm offering a scenario where that argument can no longer be used. I did his as a thought experiment, for fun.

You mentioned that humans are impatient, and I think I agree with you. Why will no one take time to read what i wrote and take time ti look at the video? Its there for a reason.

I came to debate.org because i was hoping to have a meaningful conversation but if everyone else behaves like this then whats the point.

I don't mean to sound too rude and this isn't only directed to you but if you dont read what i wrote then why do you bother replying?

No I didn't, and I will admit that this is mostly my fault, but it also doesn't make me want to read what you wrote when you write like a 10 year old.

Sorry if my response to you was "written like a ten year old" I am just a bit frustrated.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 8:50:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 2:57:49 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 9/21/2015 2:39:22 AM, Stwop12 wrote:
Let me be clear, I am not a staunch supporter communism. In this forum I would like to discuss if Communism can become a viable system in the future. For example, maybe 400 years into the future. The reason I ask this is because as more innovations are achieved with machines, could there be a point where machines will replace too many human employees and job positions and thus make capitalism an impossible system to maintain.

Before commenting on this thread I ask that you please watch this video as it will make it easier for you to understand the full extent of how many jobs and the different types of jobs machines may take from humans. (The video does not make any mention of politics in anyway so please do not feel like I am trying to force any ideology down your throats. I only wish to discuss)

https://youtu.be...


Furthermore, I would like to discuss what future issues this system could face assuming it could sustain it self economically. For example, if machines did take all or most careers and jobs, would people be truly happy in being able to live out luxurious life styles? I would argue no because humans have an altruistic element and therefore need purpose(or believe they have a purpose) for them to really feel that they are benefited out of this system. However, maybe I am not considering something and if I am not I would be more than happy for you to point it out and allow us to discuss your take on the matter.

There are a few things that you have not consider or thought through. From what i can gather, you are saying if we keep getting more advance to the point where machines would be taking everyone's jobs, this would cause more and more people to become unemployed. When more and more people become unemployed, this causes more and more people to not have money to spend on goods, making it so most consumers can't afford it.(which is the point i believe you are making)

The problem with this is that companies will never produce and sell products that most of the consumers can't afford. This means that companies will naturally lower their prices so a majority of the consumers can afford them.

The only price that people without any source of income can afford is free.

Another point i feel you are trying to make(Which i also feel is your main point) is that robots would cause so many people to become unemployed to where most people won't have any money to spend. The problem with this is that their will always be other things to do. The point i am trying to make is that everything requires some form of work. Those robots that are replacing people, will have to be built or require some form of maintenance. As the number of robots increase causing certain job markets to close, it will also cause other job markets to open. People are always demanding goods and services. If work wasn't required to do any of these things, then their would be no point in jobs because everything would be for free.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 1:35:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 9:38:42 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Only when human beings become better than they are and transcend their base natures.

And how does that happen