Socialism is meant to be a developmental stage to prepare the conditions to switch to communism. Communism leads to totalitarian regimes, which is amongst the worst outcomes in my view. These states are highly authoritarian and controlling, and it's a direct attack on individual liberty, freedom of speech, and the ability to hold people in power responsible in general.
UBI and healthcare are cool, but neither socialism (nor communism) is doing that. AI won't be used to achieve these ends. There's two reasons for this:
The AI boom seems to be declining. It likely won't last 5 years. Every single company investing in AI has incurred losses, not profits. Then there's the environmental and resource impacts of AI and data centers needed to run them. It's not sustainable. Companies are recalling their previously fired human workforce.
https://isaiprofitable.com/ This website tracks the profitability of AI. It hasn't changed much, it's still losses. Nvidia is the only "winner" but this is misleading for many reasons. Mainly because 1) it's at the top of this pyramid scheme and is essentially at the heart of the circular AI economy, 2) because Nvidia has (iirc) literally decided to modify the way it discloses profits w.r.t. AI so that it looks profitable.
Even if AI was profitable (which it isn't), it is an instrument of the ruling elite. It's owned by large private institutions, not the common man. Private corporations never have the interests of the common man; they will simply be used as a facet of control via technofascism. In other words, AI won't be used to generate UBI, it'll only be used for surveillance and controlling the masses because it's in the hands of the state and corporations.
More on UBI: we've had research experiments on UBI take place in Canada and in the EU and they've typically ended positively. None were continued. States and governments don't want what's best for their people. They want control and power over the masses.
The EU is largely capitalist, it just has welfare policies and a welfare state that have been effective.
I'm against the conception of a state, because I'm against centralized control and hierarchy. They always lead to exploitation, oppression, and the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of few over the interests of the majority.
Syndicalism is something I'm in favour of too, though.
That requires a very slanted and cynical view of history. "Don't trust anyone, they're all just trying to oppress you. You should be trying to oppress them instead." is the sort of toxic machismo that gets you Hegseth and Rubio butchering people the globe over while liberals shrug in apathy.
This isn't an argument. If you think systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has indeed occurred, give me examples.
Sure, that's the propaganda you get from fascist media. Ultra-nationalism is rooted in the belief that we're in a perpetual race war and the only open question is whether your race is ascendent. Internationalism is fake. Egalitarian political movements are (((controlled))) from the shadows. Intersectionality is impossible. Only brutal totalitarian hierarchy has ever existed - can ever exist - so you might as well submit to the boot on your neck with the promise that you'll have the opportunity to stomp someone else's neck down the road.
More of the same. Labelling it propaganda isn't an argument. Again, if systems have actually improved, demonstrate how. If you can't, all of this is just elaborate mumbo-jumbo.
Ultranationalism would exist even without such a belief. I don't believe egalitarian political movements have done much, not that they're "controlled from the shadows"; the world is regressing. The US and EU are actively becoming more fascist. Authoritarian hierarchies are pretty much all that have existed in the histories of countries. The only places they didn't are in places like aboriginal tribes and primitive set ups such as those, unfortunately.
If it has existed at the country level, then let me know. If it hasn't existed, then I'm not going to believe in an abstraction of "potential"— I believe in whats been empirically confirmed and only what has been empirically confirmed.
You've pickled your brain on fascist ideology so badly that you've lost the ability to read anything you disagree with.
Anarchism can absolutely extend such housing rights.
Anarchists are staunchly against capitalism. It's built on community practice. The difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchists actively reject hierarchy.
Your suggestions of centralized control are concerning.
Communism and socialism isn't the silver bullet everyone makes it out to be, as in practice it has always led to totalitarian (or at least highly authoritarian) regimes, which is pretty disgusting.
Capitalism is gross too, but I don't think a realistic and appropriate solution exists.
There's anarchism which I most approve of, but I'll probably be gray before any country ever seriously even considers moving in such a direction.
Systems endure until they don't. A system with a long history tends to have a more entrenched position and a wider base of supporters.
Or rather, until they give way to another system that exploits the masses for the elite. In reality, systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has never occured in history. It was there through the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and even today in the 21st century.
The form it takes changing is irrelevant since the exploitation of masses itself never stopped.
It doesn't matter if the name it's given or how it happens changes.
If you want a full categorical break down of 400 years of economic plans and conglomerated practices, I might point you to your local university and advise you to pick up any number of lectures on the subject.
But if you're just going to "Nuh-uh" everything since the Dutch East India Company incorporated...
What a roundabout non-answer.
Asking you to specify how the systems have improved specifically w.r.t. the common man (which I don't believe they have) doesn't require university lectures if you had a concrete answer.
I'm not "nuh-uh"-ing everything, I'm looking for reason for common beliefs people hold that, as far as I've seen so far, have been nothing but just vibes and values. In reality, those claims (eg: "systemic change is real and has happened!") have been historically inaccurate and anachronistic, if not simply straight-up false.
Are you seriously claiming that there were no uprisings or revolutions since 1850?
That's not my claim at all.
My claim is that systemic change hasn't occured.
It doesn't matter if "uprisings" or "revolutions" occur if they don't lead to systemic change. For example, the french revolution lead to a dictatorship. Which isn't a win.
None of these "revolutions" have lead to any real systemic change. Key word: systemic. Not just measly concessions like "women can vote now" or "workers can get the weekend 'off' ".
Or are you looking for something more spectacular, the full-blown worldwide revolution, and anything smaller than that is just too futile for your taste.
It doesn't need to be global, no. But it must lead to lasting, relevant systemic change in favour of the common man, yes.
That tendency of systems is precisely why I'm skeptical of any real systemic change to occur.
Advanced and improved are vague terms. 1) Are the systems today better for the common man? And if so, how?
2) If it takes 400 years, then it's largely irrelevant to anyone concerned with systemic change within their own lifetime.
As for me, I'm referring to Marx and communist critiques of capitalism that have spanned several European countries in its inception which were then expanded by 20th century and modern communists who repeatedly said that collapse was imminent and inevitable.
That's been a consistent theme that hasn't changed since around 1850.
People keep going "oh yeah, it's really gonna collapse this time! There's gonna be real good change soon!" Nope. Bs. Historically inaccurate.
You clearly didn't read anything I said.
And no, actually, you were attacking me instead of my argument. Thus, ad hominem.
I don't suddenly "miscomprehend" logical fallacies just because you claim so.
Because I don't see it as a good idea.
Socialism is meant to be a developmental stage to prepare the conditions to switch to communism. Communism leads to totalitarian regimes, which is amongst the worst outcomes in my view. These states are highly authoritarian and controlling, and it's a direct attack on individual liberty, freedom of speech, and the ability to hold people in power responsible in general.
UBI and healthcare are cool, but neither socialism (nor communism) is doing that. AI won't be used to achieve these ends. There's two reasons for this:
https://isaiprofitable.com/ This website tracks the profitability of AI. It hasn't changed much, it's still losses. Nvidia is the only "winner" but this is misleading for many reasons. Mainly because 1) it's at the top of this pyramid scheme and is essentially at the heart of the circular AI economy, 2) because Nvidia has (iirc) literally decided to modify the way it discloses profits w.r.t. AI so that it looks profitable.
More on UBI: we've had research experiments on UBI take place in Canada and in the EU and they've typically ended positively. None were continued. States and governments don't want what's best for their people. They want control and power over the masses.
That's why I'm an anarchist.
The EU is largely capitalist, it just has welfare policies and a welfare state that have been effective.
I'm against the conception of a state, because I'm against centralized control and hierarchy. They always lead to exploitation, oppression, and the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of few over the interests of the majority.
Syndicalism is something I'm in favour of too, though.
This isn't an argument. If you think systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has indeed occurred, give me examples.
More of the same. Labelling it propaganda isn't an argument. Again, if systems have actually improved, demonstrate how. If you can't, all of this is just elaborate mumbo-jumbo.
Ultranationalism would exist even without such a belief. I don't believe egalitarian political movements have done much, not that they're "controlled from the shadows"; the world is regressing. The US and EU are actively becoming more fascist. Authoritarian hierarchies are pretty much all that have existed in the histories of countries. The only places they didn't are in places like aboriginal tribes and primitive set ups such as those, unfortunately.
If it has existed at the country level, then let me know. If it hasn't existed, then I'm not going to believe in an abstraction of "potential"— I believe in whats been empirically confirmed and only what has been empirically confirmed.
Ad hominem.
Anarchism can absolutely extend such housing rights.
Anarchists are staunchly against capitalism. It's built on community practice. The difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchists actively reject hierarchy.
Your suggestions of centralized control are concerning.
"Propaganda".
I don't interact with "pill" content.
Yes, because socialism is supposed to be the bridge to communism. Have you read communist theory?
Do you think it is, or are you just trying to use that to smear me? Pass it through zerogpt or some ai detector instead of randomly going "AI".
I never said capitalism is good.
Zero comprehension.
Communism has lead to fascism too. Doesn't mean communism is any better, smartass.
Cringe.
Communism and socialism isn't the silver bullet everyone makes it out to be, as in practice it has always led to totalitarian (or at least highly authoritarian) regimes, which is pretty disgusting.
Capitalism is gross too, but I don't think a realistic and appropriate solution exists.
There's anarchism which I most approve of, but I'll probably be gray before any country ever seriously even considers moving in such a direction.
Larper caught.
Or rather, until they give way to another system that exploits the masses for the elite. In reality, systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has never occured in history. It was there through the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and even today in the 21st century.
The form it takes changing is irrelevant since the exploitation of masses itself never stopped.
It doesn't matter if the name it's given or how it happens changes.
What a roundabout non-answer.
Asking you to specify how the systems have improved specifically w.r.t. the common man (which I don't believe they have) doesn't require university lectures if you had a concrete answer.
I'm not "nuh-uh"-ing everything, I'm looking for reason for common beliefs people hold that, as far as I've seen so far, have been nothing but just vibes and values. In reality, those claims (eg: "systemic change is real and has happened!") have been historically inaccurate and anachronistic, if not simply straight-up false.
Define "extensive".
That's not my claim at all.
My claim is that systemic change hasn't occured.
It doesn't matter if "uprisings" or "revolutions" occur if they don't lead to systemic change. For example, the french revolution lead to a dictatorship. Which isn't a win.
None of these "revolutions" have lead to any real systemic change. Key word: systemic. Not just measly concessions like "women can vote now" or "workers can get the weekend 'off' ".
It doesn't need to be global, no. But it must lead to lasting, relevant systemic change in favour of the common man, yes.
That tendency of systems is precisely why I'm skeptical of any real systemic change to occur.
Advanced and improved are vague terms. 1) Are the systems today better for the common man? And if so, how? 2) If it takes 400 years, then it's largely irrelevant to anyone concerned with systemic change within their own lifetime.
What medical training do you have?
Men have estrogen?
Do you?
Always on the wrong side of history, aren't you?
Then what are you talking about?
As for me, I'm referring to Marx and communist critiques of capitalism that have spanned several European countries in its inception which were then expanded by 20th century and modern communists who repeatedly said that collapse was imminent and inevitable.
That's been a consistent theme that hasn't changed since around 1850.
People keep going "oh yeah, it's really gonna collapse this time! There's gonna be real good change soon!" Nope. Bs. Historically inaccurate.
Is the system bad? Sure.
Will a good system finally show up? Doubt.
Those collapses you mentioned haven't lead to a worthwhile system, have they?
Collapse is meaningless on its own.