Is socialism inevitable?

collectivists in a nutshell

off yourself domesticated swine, hope you starve

This but unironically. A century is nothing, historically speaking. We can thank Stalin and other counter-revolutionaries for the delay. It took 100 years waiting for his shitty little state capitalist project to fail (including an additional generation to come to terms with the fact) for actual communist theory untainted by falsifications to start recovering. Now it's the Second International all over again. First we need to deal with all the reformist cucks, and then we'll have our October, but this time not in a country of illiterate potato farmers.

>I can only see the need for human labor diminishing as a result of the rise of AI
This would imply the opposite of socialism. Those who posess the means of production will be in charge, unnecessary human labour will just vanish. All it would prove would be the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall".

bro there won't be a future
capitalism is the answer to the fermi paradox

I guess you’re right. I probably should’ve said that the idea of wage-labour will cease to exist in a century or two.

Attached: soc.jpg (640x820, 130K)

Bro if the USSR/China/Cuba/Vietnam etc etc aren't/weren't socialism then your movement has no fucking successes whatsoever to its name, and your 'oh the nasty Stalinists put us back 100 years but we're getting back on track' is bullshit. They did more than any Western movement ever did to advance socialism, chiefly by winning some actual gains in their own countries, in spite of all the problems. Your gay fucking claim that the next revolution is just gonna buck the repeatedly observed historical trend and happen in the US or something (the implication being that there'll be none of those evil '''state-capitalist''' distortions when it happens in a wealthy country where the bourgeoisie are incomparably more entrenched than they were in fucking 40s China) is also a pathetic cope. Take history as it happens, engage with it more honestly. Stop being Utopian.

mad tankie retard

>socialism is coming guys! Any moment now!

Get back to me when your perfect non existent socialism bothers to do anything whatsoever you sad autist

With less people needed to work to sustain civilization they can then work on discovering new things

This epic line had already been used in this thread. Come up with something else.

It's you who will try to come to us after the proletariat has toppled the governments of China, Cuba, Venezuela, and the DPRK.

This doesn't even make sense lol, who's 'you' and 'us' in that sentence? Don't worry though, I'm sure your magical Trotskyist revolution'll happen anyday now in China and Cuba and everything'll be magical and great. This left utopianism really is impoverished. In your mind, socialism = Good, and therefore anything that's not Good™ is, ipso facto, not socialism. that mindset'll doom us user.

>Trotskyist
lmao

>In your mind, socialism = Good, and therefore anything that's not Good™ is, ipso facto, not socialism.
No, in my mind socialism is a mode of production where products no longer assume the character of a commodity.
In your mind, socialism = whatever pretends to be socialism and does anything at all. Hitler's socialism was better than my "perfect non existent socialism" because he at least did something!
Btw, you need to read Engels because you seem confused about what the word utopianism means with regards to socialism.

>that mindset'll doom us user
I agree. It will doom you, false socialists.

>thinking that either communism, capitalism or facism will be relevant in the next major political shift and not because of a new ideology
we need something completely different

I'm well aware of what Utopian Socialism was. I nevertheless characterise your thinking as Utopian. It's quite obvious what I meant. Commodity production will also still likely exist in socialism mate. Socialism is a transitional period on top of a mode. Where 'the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie' yeah?
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm
>No you're doomed!
Okay lol. Regardless, I think you'll find that your 'socialism' has in fact never managed to do anything of any note whatsoever.

now that's a hard pill to swallow

Pic related makes a very convincing argument for that. That's not what the author intended but the picture painted is very bleak. Fossil fuels ended our cyclical view of history to a linear one that forever surges towards progress. Only the kickbacks have made that a false promise and while our species will probably survive it will be at a greatly reduced speed and in much less comfort.
In other words, no space communism for us, no space capitalism either.

Attached: 71QluMxBnsL.jpg (1516x2560, 138K)

I wish political idealists would fuck off, capitalism won, deal with it

How many times are we gonna have a marx thread u stupid nigger. his ideas was tried and failed, now fuck off . and stop posting the same shit everyday.

Attached: 1514729901751.jpg (750x671, 53K)

(((Capitalism)))

Attached: 1561749040555.jpg (639x480, 57K)

>Commodity production will also still likely exist in socialism mate.
Read Capital sweetie.

>Stalin
haha

>I think you'll find that your 'socialism' has in fact never managed to do anything of any note whatsoever.
Your 'socialism' on the other hand has managed to ruin the movement for 100 years and thus help preserve capitalism. Good job! And also kill some Jews, if we count Hitler among those great socialists who, if not perfect, at least did... something.

"Political idealism" is believing that capitalism will survive much longer. Enjoy the next recession.

Read Capital
Not an argument. Give me some quotes if you think they're pertinent (sometimes I even *gasp* disagree with Marx mate - though as far as I remember, Marx specifically mentions that commodity production as existing outside of capitalism as well as during it, and we of course have to account for the fact that Marx meant something totally different when he said 'socialism' than what is generally meant among Marxists today) or don't bother
>sweetie
Cringe.
>haha
Dodge.
>ruin the movement
It WAS the movement, such as there was one. There wasn't anything else.
>Good job! And also kill some Jews, if we count Hitler among those great socialists
I'm sure this was hilarious in your head, but anyone who was willing to assume I was engaging with you with even the slightest scrap of good faith would not think I consider Nazi Germany socialist. did they have a proletarian state or economic planning as the dominant features of the economy? No. So kindly drop the reddit-tier 'Good job!' shit.
>Political idealism" is believing that capitalism will survive much longer. Enjoy the next recession.
This is arrogant. Capitalism has survived everything that hit it so far. World Wars, multiple global recessions. There's no guarantee it won't survive the coming ecological meltdown either, in some dystopian form or other. We need to be slightly more active than just smugly waiting for a recession.

>Give me some quotes
fuck off, read the book

> though as far as I remember, Marx specifically mentions that commodity production as existing outside of capitalism as well as during it
yes, it exists before capitalism

>did they have a proletarian state
they had proletarian state to the same extent as Stalin did, that is a state ruled by a singular workers' party

>economic planning as the dominant features of the economy?
planning for the world market is as socialist when a state does it as it is when General Motors does it

>Capitalism has survived everything that hit it so far.
with a great help of the Russians, the Chinese, and the Germans

Based Negro.

What socialism? National Socialism or (((Marxist Socialism)))?

The end game of technology is automation, this means not having to work.

it only means not having to work for those who own the technology, the machinery, the energy to power it, etc.

I've read vol 1 and some bits from 2 and 3, either give something to discuss or stop lmao
>exists before capitalism
Yeah but there's presumably a reason I consider that noteworthy user...
>Planning
You misunderstand. In a socioeconomic formation there's competing forces. It's a question of what is dominant. Planned economy, a proletarian ruling class, an ongoing process of transition, etc should all be dominant in socialism, but they won't exist alone, there'll be countervailing forces. The Nazis didn't have any of those features anyway so whatever. Anyway, here's Trotsky on market forces and planned production. I'm inclined to agree with this quote.
>The innumerable living participants in the economy, state and private, collective and individual, must serve notice of their needs and of their relative strength not only through the statistical determinations of plan commissions but by the direct pressure of supply and demand. The plan is checked and, to a considerable degree, realised through the market. The regulation of the market itself must depend upon the tendencies that are brought out through its mechanism. The blueprints produced by the departments must demonstrate their economic efficacy through commercial calculation. The system of the transitional economy is unthinkable without the control of the rouble. This presupposes, in its turn, that the rouble is at par. Without a firm monetary unit, commercial accounting can only increase the chaos
>The struggle between living interests, as the fundamental factor of planning, leads us into the domain of politics, which is concentrated economics. The instruments of the social groups of Soviet society are – should be: the Soviets, the trade unions, the co-operatives, and in first place the ruling party. Only through the inter-reaction of these three elements, state planning, the market and Soviet democracy, can the correct direction of the economy of the transitional epoch be attained. Only thus can be assured, not the complete surmounting of contradictions and disproportions within a few years (this is utopian!), but their mitigation, and through that the strengthening of the material bases of the dictatorship of the proletariat until the moment when a new and victorious revolution will widen the arena of socialist planning and will reconstruct the system.
The Art of Planning, The Soviet Economy in Danger (1932)
>Capitalism
The Germans(?) Well yeah as a capitalist country they'll preserve capitalism. Or are you assuming the Nazis were in fact socialist? I've no fucking clue. Doesn't matter, even if you consider the socialist states capitalist, your argument - that the next recession in and of itself is a substantive guarantee of capitalism's collapse - remains a poor one for the exact same reasons.

>The Nazis didn't have any of those features anyway so whatever
they had as much "planning" as China has now. they didn't have a proletarian ruling class but neither did any of the supposed socialist states - all they had (Germany included) was a workers' party in power

>Or are you assuming the Nazis were in fact socialist?
as socialist as china or the ussr. you decide if that means they were socialist or not.

>your argument - that the next recession in and of itself is a substantive guarantee of capitalism's collapse
how was that my argument? I only told the guy to enjoy the upcoming demonstration of this eternal stability of capitalism he's preaching

I won't bother outlining the differences between the Soviet state (governmental and electoral structure) and the Nazi one, they're obvious. But to compare the Nazi system with the Chinese one:
>There was no
central planning of the level or the composition of investment, neither
under the Four Year Plan nor during the war.
Even with respect to its own war- and autarky-related investment projects, the state normally did not use power in order to secure the unconditional support of industry. Rather, freedom of contract was respected.
However, the state tried to induce firms to act according to its aims by
offering them a number of contract options to choose from.
>the initiative for self-financed investment projects
normally had to come from the enterprises and not from any state planning agency.
> Thus, industry itself did not consider the development of
the Nazi economic system as heading towards central planning and socialism
piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
Compare to China
>the planning system is a three-layer system: compulsory, contractual and indicative. At the upper level, the planning system is compulsory: documents outlining detailed sets of targets, including the human resources needed and the supply of raw materials and the financing needs, such as infrastructure programmes; development plans of the western provinces; education plans; health expenditures; research objectives, and so on. Generally speaking, included within compulsory planning are state-owned companies and banks and the monopolistic sectors under tight government control such as the Ministry of Railways. At the second level, the planning system is contractual: planning sets the objectives; the ways and means of a given industrial sector; and then negotiates with the corporations and the offices concerned to establish detailed objectives, as well as the allocation of resources to the targeted sectors. At the third and lowest level, the planning system is only an indicative: government schedule; industrial sector targets; the companies involved and inducement measures (government subsidies, tax exemption, bank lending and financial markets).
Rambures, Dominique (2015). The China Development Model: Between the State and the Market

>as socialist as china or the ussr
USSR definitely not. China, there's arguably slightly more room for comparison, though they still differed in important aspects as outlined above (and others). Remember also that fascism is specifically the rule of the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie to preserve capitalism. The CCP are in some ways socially conservative, but a reactionary section of imperialist capital? No. Given that Maoist China was socialist they also logically cannot be the reaction of the bourgeoisie moving to preserve a capitalism in decay, since they didn't have capitalism to begin with.

>how was that my argument?
Mate...
>"Political idealism" is believing that capitalism will survive much longer. Enjoy the next recession.

dunno, but society will break down at some point, because of automation and mass immigration making jobs impossible for the masses

>Our economy will become so productive that human labour is simply not required to produce an abundance of output.

hahaha you are so naive.

It has been happening for several deacades now, and guess the result.

Attached: productivity.png (499x273, 94K)

there's big difference between dumb machines replacing one part of the assembly line and an intelligence robot that does everything a to z.

I considered myself a Marxist leninist for many years, and I guess I still do. However, I've come to the conclusion that our species is headed towards a collapse and possibly extinction. The USSR was probably the best shot humanity had even if it went awry due to the massive losses in ww2. Once there is a collapse itll be nearly impossible to get to this level again since all the easy to access metals and fossil fuels are gone. This is without even getting into climate change and how fucked we are in that regard. History has already ended people just don't see it yet.

>There was no
so what? none of that is required for socialism

>Mate...
read what you copy-paste you strawmanning piece of shit. nowhere does it say the next recession IN AND OF ITSELF is a SUBSTANTIVE GUARANTEE of capitalism's collapse.

the point remains. Common people don't really get the benefits of technology. And is not going to happen in the future, actually it will make people useless, disposable.

Charles Murray (a literary critic of the 15th century, BC) seems to say that "the smarts will rule, the dumbs will droole"

I'm for that

it doesn't matter if people get it or not. they need things and the things will be there without required wageslavery.

you're right. it makes humans useless and disposable from capitalist logic, and that's why it's even more pressing to gtfo from capitalist society.,

This is what the agenda 21 boomers have been telling us all along, but the elites aren't cool enough to do it.

Half the people with an IQ below 85 who won't have work and just enough income to support their drug habit are not going to be good examples of "the new man" of socialism, if that is even part of the agenda anymore.
It's either that or we're all supposed to become trannies, I'm not sure what the left wants in that regard but it's certainly not educated Soviet style Olympian-sorts

this but for real

That is unless alternative energy sources prove effective enough.
I don't know the numbers, it's obviously the most important question in our life time. I've heard that solar panels are useless but that nuclear is pretty good actually.

I hope we reach fusion

The linear view of history was kinda ending before fossil fuels took off big time so I dunno about this

At some point everyone on earth will own the necessary to technology to automate everything in their lives like we own clothing, quote me on this.

>None of that was required for socialism
Shit tier response, begone liberal
>in and of itself
Coming from someone with absolutely no successes to his 'socialism' it sure sounded like it lol. Cope on

I just thought about this 1 hour ago.
What a shit show it'll be in like 20 years when young college graduates will have to apply to more than a thousand job in order to get one.
Even today some people need to literally apply to hundred of jobs to get one.
It'll get worse, and systematical, in almost all fields.

>I've heard that solar panels are useless but that nuclear is pretty good actually.

What a fucking retard. Heard more. BESS.

>gives a purpose to life and provides a way to be of use to society
>muh bread and circus bullshit
Bruh

>Coming from someone with absolutely no successes to his 'socialism' it sure sounded like it lol.
my socialism still has higher life expectancy than yours

Attached: file.png (1338x445, 50K)

Based

Solar panels are worse than useless, retard.

Based

Socialism? No.
Rational economy? Yes.

My theory is Woke Eco Fascism will win. It's gonna be Pinochet's Chile but run by a dude who looks like a queer eye host. Basically the only people who will be happy will be San Fran Liberals who hate the homeless.

Thinking AI will make human labour futile is the most r3ddit pseud opinion. Youre either stupid or you havrnt thought it through enough. Youre probably stupid though, since you see a failed and out of date jewish ideology as something progressive.

>Woke Eco Fascism
how the fuck does this even compute

You are clearly not woke

No, I'm a fascist

Fucking based

Capitalism is the futute. Fucking christ this board is full of braindead retards. Just because you suck and capitalism failed you, doesnt mean its going anywhere. Its objectively the best, especially with the unlimited 3rd world hordes Soros and others want to push into the west.

This

Re LOL. Solar panels, in a small fraction of the Sahara, with HVDC for transport, and battery energy storage system, could power the entire earth.
But to know this, you should have, i don't know, studied the subject for perhaps half a day?

Fucking retard, if you don't know anything about a subject, don't post.

>Its objectively the best, especially with the unlimited 3rd world hordes Soros and others want to push into the west.
I don't know, but seems to me like your prediction that the brown people will somehow stabilize and cement the system seems a bit..silly. Don't you think, while it might create profits, it will destabilize society? That it is sort of inner contradiction that might lead to reaction?

Sounds pretty cool. Can I see your calculations?

Exporting labor to the third world, no matter how unfairly, will cause their wages to rise over time. The bubble will pop as the rate of profit declines more and more and that is when shit is going to get real. Social unrest from immigration will destabilize society but it won't unseat capitalism. Nothing but the evaporation of frontiers will do that. The alternative, especially in the wake of climate refugees, is going to get very brutal and scarce I imagine.

>I don't know, but seems to me like your prediction that the brown people will somehow stabilize and cement the system seems a bit..silly
>I don't know
Ya, you're right, you really don't know. That's not at all what I'm talking about you fucking moron. Fuck "brown people", they don't stabilize shit, they destabilize and think only about themselves. Btw, could you sound like any more of a pseud?

>Solar panels, in a small fraction of the Sahara, with HVDC for transport, and battery energy storage system, could power the entire earth.
Is this bait? Solar power is a meme. Try getting a jet or a boat or even a fucking car to run reliably on fucking solar panels. You absolute dumbfuck redditor. Do as the other guy says and show us rigourous calculations or go back to jerking yourself kff like the pseud you sound like.

>Norway
user, you made me genuinely chuckle.

Yeah for sure, Capitalism is against brown people. God dammit, between the last Bolsheviks existing praising Lenin and the two digit alt right, i don't know who is dumber.

>they don't stabilize shit, they destabilize and think only about themselves
That's what I said, cagot. Migration financed by capitalist shills like soros will destabilize the system.

>in the wake of climate refugees
Is this the new emotional leftist talking point? Pure linguistic propaganda.

Two dig.. Single digit IQ.

I dont give a fuck what an economic system thinks of "brown people". Its fucking irrelevant. Close the fucking borders and maintain a white majority.
>muh alt right
You have an IQ below 100

It is not an exaggeration that vast parts of the southern hemisphere and equator will become nigh uninhabitable if temperatures rise as they are expected to. Do you have an alternative term? They are refugees from the changing climate. Look up El Salvadorians and their huge kidney failure rate compared to countries nearby that are just a little bit colder. The human body breaks down in sufficient heat.

>Close the fucking borders and maintain a white majority.
t. the proletariat

>Open up, we want cheap labour so we can profit
t. the bourgeiose

Guess who's gonna win, simpleton.

>capitalist shills like soros
Soros isn't a capitalist. Everything he promotes with his billions in his leftist "non-profits" is socialist, his business practices are not capitalist. He does not believe in free market competition and does everything to stifle it. He wants the proletariat to be slaving away under socialism while him and his globalist buddies are above all the taxes with offshore accounts.

Ya bro lets get the world to run on solar panels i saw it on buzzfeed xD

Nice. Sucks reality don't work like that. None of the Capitalists want to stop immigration. None. Yes, even the whites don't want to.

Soros isn't a capitalist.
Sure. He's working class. Hush.

>le proletariat and le bourgeoisie
Maybe if this was 200 years ago your point would start to seem valid. Right now you're just a braindead marxist retard too stupid to actually understand politics beyond your out-of-touch, regressive framework. But its even worse than that, you dont even offer any reasoning, its pure conjecture. Dont even reply to me, youre too stupid to talk to about politics. I bet your degree is a meme too.

>Soros isn't a capitalist.
Did he went broke? I haven't noticed.

>he does not believe in free market competition and does everything to stifle it
So he wants to use the power he gained on free market to dominate it. Like every other capitalist.

>Everything he promotes with his billions in his leftist "non-profits" is socialist, his business practices are not capitalist.
On scale from 1 to 9999, how retarded are you? Soros is literally the only reason why USSR wasn't ressurected in 1996. No non-state actor did more damage to socialism than he did.

>Our economy will become so productive that human labour is simply not required to produce an abundance of output.

Think about how much more productive our society has become since the industrial revolution. Yet people today work much more than medieval peasants did. Productivity is only related to compensation to a point. All that will happen is the jobs will change to meet the technology.

Your utter inability to refute my points is noted.

That's how it works, cagot. You want your mutt shithole to be "white" and the people who run bussiness want cheap labour. You defend the bourgeiose because you are roomtemp-IQ cuckold deluded by ideology.

>Did he went broke? I haven't noticed.
Irrelevant. Nice grammar though.
>So he wants to use the power he gained on free market to dominate it.
What free market would that be? Do you even know how soros earned his billions? He manipulates currencies and destabilizes countries. He doesnt want a free market, capitalism or competion. He is not a capitalist. He's not a socialist either, despite pushing socialism on the younger generations.

>Soros is literally the only reason why USSR wasn't ressurected in 1996. No non-state actor did more damage to socialism than he did.
Irrelevant and old information. Soros has dumped tens of billions into his leftist "non-profits" which promote socialism, and hate capitalism and the right wing Good job avoiding that, you know you cant argue it. Soros promotes socialism and leftism for the reasons i already mentioned.

>muh bourgeoisie
>muh proleteriat
>t-thats how it works, Marx says so! WAAAHHHH!!!

Your 200 year old jewish ideology is irrelevant. You're out of touch.

>capitalism won
There is no "winning" here, brainlet.

>Irrelevant.
Do you know the distinction between a capitalist and a worker?

>He manipulates currencies and destabilizes countries.
All is fair in markets.

>What free market would that be?
He wants free market, when it benefits him (he can speculate) and he doesn't want it when competition might damage him. That's perfectly normal in capitalism. It's system with many simmiliar inner contradictions.

>Irrelevant and old information.
How the fucking fuck is potential of ressurecting USSR "irrelevant"? I don't remember he ever did something more relevant than that. Bulk of his "non profit" work he done was subverting socialism.

>Soros promotes socialism and leftism for the reasons i already mentioned.
Soros's university educated finance ministers that transformed socialism to capitalism in Poland and Hungary.

Keep crying, cuckold. It won't change the reality. I'm sure it's all just conspiracy of bad people and if you burn the witch everything will be OK.

vocaroo.com/i/s1cBJdokTJSh

:3

>6 fucking minutes
Vocarooanon, please...

Bruh wtf this new wave of leftoids on Yea Forums keep getting btfo. Are they all from youtube and reddit or something? Damn... at least the old lefties werent this emotional and were at least somewhat rational

probably woke capitalist societies of control are the future

I like NUCLEAR fcuk the sun

Good vocaroo

It is impossible for human beings to implement and continuously carry out something so precise as Communism or Socialism. Maybe some elements of it here and there, but wholly, like on a level that's grander in scale than a village? Nope.

>politics
transcend.

And it's likely that jobs won't be that needed either. If you don't have ANY assets at all at the age of 35 you've had to fuck up badly for these 35 years, in western country. Meaning that average person at the breaking point of automation will have a house or flat they can rent, some savings, plus some other assets. Due to efficiency gains, the buying power will increase and thus larger and larger portion of the population will be able to live off these assets. Now of course, if you double the population because you really want to have the 3rd worldian masses of cheap, coloured labour then real estate market will simply kill all these gains in buying power but that's a topic for another day.

Yes

youtube.com/watch?v=C7AMV00Gmow

Attached: automation.jpg (1916x1322, 536K)

once ai develops either all humans or the vast majority will die as they become superfluous

There are ALWAYS things that a human is going to feel more comfortable interfacing with another human about. and when other jobs die out those specific industries are going to grow substantially. When humanity becomes commodity. A surplus of humans in a world being stripped of humans will be put to work selling their humanity. We're already seeing an increase in forms of "entertainment" that just simulate spending time with another human.

Marketing by pretending to care.

Except it's true. Parts of the world will become uninhabitable

Will it be the system that will decrease the world's population? Because we need that

Unfortunately not, capital is too good at defending itself against humanitys' interests. The vast majority of work is already not concerned with the needs of humanity, but rather the wants of capital. As labour becomes more disconnected from the needs of humanity, capital will gradually subvert humanity into serving it fully. Capitalism will give us the tools to fully enslave and destroy ourselves.

Attached: 1562074722500.jpg (1280x960, 103K)

It isn't. Ofcourse we will drift into a system where there are elements of socialism and universal income but these will be implemented in a way that still leaves a ruling elite on the top.

We might get some form of socialized housing where you are living with other creeps and the droves and droves of immigrants under heavy surveillance. There will be restrictions on travel if you are not a part of the owners class. People who own businesses and more importantly real estate/companies will have their own rules and a somewhat freer existence still being under active digital surveillance and physical surveillance when they venture out to public space.

By the time all this is happening the social sphere has completely deteriorated into tribalism, in the sense that working for common good( if this ever was the case outside of some select european homoethnic societies) will be non existant. Its tribes against tribes, controlled by the elite who decide how much of any commodity will be available for purchase through socialist handout policies to the non working purposeless poor.

Oligarchy with just enough handouts to balance out the blunt violence of the militarified police policing the human cattle. Some would call this socialism at hearth though I only partially agree.

Wait, I listened to the whole thing but I don't understand your conclusion. Is socialism inevitable?

OMG ARE DIALECTICS ACTUAL HISTORICAL FORCES?

yes
it's inevitable
in fact, it's going to happen in about 2 hours

It's so inevitable that every time it happened it was done by force. Oh, wait...

It’s inevitable only in democracies with universal or near universal suffrage

This is actually where we're headed. Funny how some dumb post on Yea Forums written by a mediocre, alienated american teenager predicts the future. Goodnight Yea Forums

Is any socioeconomic system inevitable? What matters is the one that gets forced into place. The question is whether it's beneficial to enough (or the right) people.

The ancient Chinese believed in the Mandate of Heaven. This was sort of a order of belief that related the goings on in the world to its rulers.

If there were floods and famines and other such disasters (which admittedly didn't always make sense for rulers back then but does make sense for rulers today with international conglomerates controlling so much of the earth's resources) then that ruler was considered unfit. Rebellion was then in theory entirely socially justified and even necessary according to a natural law.

Socialists essentially believe that they see a mandate of heaven to judge capitalism unworthy now that the power struggle has shifted from monarchies to socioeconomic power, or in a word, capital.

This view is as much driven by the fantastical as the ancient Chinese concept. It is, in essence, make-believe. Except the whole idea--the mandate itself--is make believe and if the make believe is right it will become reality. Thus a virtuous ruler (system) leads to a prosperous realm.

Moral flaws do not disprove a given economic doctrine. And the productive powers of capitalism, despite how socially mindless it seems, drastically outclass any socialist formula yet conceived.