Politics Debate!

[hesaidhesaid]

In the first of many we hope, I am going to start a political debate. Anyone is welcome and anyone can vent their views. Only a couple of ground rules:

1) At the start of your first post, please mention the following in bold:
Country of birth, country of residence, political leanings, affirmation/negation

This is important so we can get a context and an understanding of where you base your values.
2) Respect other people's views. You can challenge other people's views by all means and ask them to evidence their arguments but don't be pedantic and don't swear. Debating is a verbal argument not a verbal swear off.

Debating Topic
"Communism is outdated, idealistic and is a policy that will never be achieved in this generation's lifetime successfully."

Discuss.

[Sir Suomi]

United States, United States, Libertarian, Affirming

I'd argue that Communism, at least Marxist Communism, is simply impractical in a real world scenario for a larger population. While Marx brings valid points in his argument, he demonizes Capitalist ideals far too much for my liking. It's simply too extreme to be applicable to modern society, similar to all out Laissez Faire policy.

As a side note, if Russia goes all Soviet again and tries to try another round of Finland, you bet your ass I'm doing what my ancestors did and take em down in Talivosta II.

[Vlerchan]

Ireland, Ireland, Stand-in Communist, Negation

I'm going to define communism as a movement that features as it's ultimate goal the imposition of a classless and stateless society.

I see no reason that communism might not be a possible and credible alternative to the current state of affairs within our life times. Capitalism has facilitated the creation of unprecedented amounts of material wealth and I agree has been the most progressive force in the history of mankind. But what's the end-goal? It would seem that the capitalists would require us become more and more efficient - produce more and more material wealth - but to what end?

For us, none. The working person is to become more and more efficient - to produce more and more material goods at some reduced rate - all to the benefit of the ruling bourgeoisie mass. The division and separation of labour that capitalism demands for sure makes us more efficient - but at the cost of the immiseration of some subset of the population. I mean the part of the population that is locked into being bin collectors and cleaners and shop clerks and so on. the subset of the population so miserable in their work that we've had to engineer an unprecedented increase in the size of the managerial class to ensure that job they hate is done to a minimum standard.

Communism is the realisation that this isn't required. It wouldn't feed our addiction to economic growth but then that needs to be defended on its own grounds. We could eliminate half our workforce and still be able to produce all the goods and services we actually need. There's nothing idealistic about that - and it's going to become less and less idealistic over the course of our lifetimes. As we become more and more efficient the marginal rate of substitution towards more free time is going to decrease - and communism is the single most feasible model to accommodate that.

It's the option that the work that's deemed socially required gets achieved - and the rest gets dumped. Social utility, and not profit-maximisation, becomes the communities guiding ethos. Because it's a large and complicated issue I'll leave it to criticisms before I outline the various proposed mechanisms.

---

It's also the case that advances in tech. could eliminate the immiserating work. But then maintaining capitalism is even more insane. If such is a case that we can eliminate the jobs we have no interest in doing - then on what grounds are we still giving each other cash to do things.

I'd argue that Communism, at least Marxist Communism, is simply impractical in a real world scenario for a larger population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

It's simply too extreme to be applicable to modern society, similar to all out Laissez Faire policy.
It's extreme when considered along a spectrum where we've gone and defined it as extreme.

---

N.B. I'm not a communist and support free-er markets than you [general].

[dxcxdzv]

France, France, - , -



The division and separation of labour that capitalism demands for sure makes us more efficient
That capitalism demands? Are you exclusively talking about Taylorism?
Because when I read you I felt like you meant that "division and separation of labour" strictly concerns only the Capitalism.

[Vlerchan]

That capitalism demands? Are you exclusively talking about Taylorism?Because when I read you I felt like you meant that "division and separation of labour" strictly concerns only the Capitalism.
The point was that in order to survive in capitalism strict division and separation of labour is more-or-less required and that's quite visible.

Scientific management - Taylorism I guess - is one innovation towards this.

[dxcxdzv]

The point was that in order to survive in capitalism strict division and separation of labour is more-or-less required and that's quite visible.

Scientific management - Taylorism I guess - is one innovation towards this.
Yep, sorry, in french it's a different name.

Of course. But whatever the system, productivity is required, and so is the the division and separation of labour in a certain way.

Although as you said robots are making this kind of stuff more and more archaic.

But may I ask you why do you think that robots could make a capitalist system worse? Or at least to develop your thoughts.

[Sir Suomi]

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

My mind is quite cloudy today, because I cannot comprehend what the basic principal behind this economic theory is. Is it stating that the state funds basic social needs for it's people while staying decentralized?




It's extreme when considered along a spectrum where we've gone and defined it as extreme.



http://i.imgur.com/lq44drr.png

I would say compared to American political ideology that it's fairly extreme.

[Vlerchan]

Yep, sorry, in french it's a different name.
From looking at Google I think you might have the correct term and I'm just more used to it's more colloquial reference.

Of course. But whatever the system, productivity is required, and so is the the division and separation of labour in a certain way.
Production of some base necessities is required in order for all societies to function and towards this some amount of separation and division of labour is required. The point of the argument I was making is that the separation and division of labour - and the essentialising of drudgery and immiseration within the social structure - is an unjustified presumption.

Although as you said robots are making this kind of stuff more and more archaic.

But may I ask you why do you think that robots could make a capitalist system worse? Or at least to develop your thoughts.
I didn't use the term 'worst'. What I meant is that if we could remove the the bottom rung of production and just leave the production that people want to engage in then I see little that justifies the inequalities this entails. We would be in fact retaining capitalism for the sake of it and not on the basis of some redeeming factor that seems self-apparent.

My mind is quite cloudy today, because I cannot comprehend what the basic principal behind this economic theory is. Is it stating that the state funds basic social needs for it's people while staying decentralized?
Your said the problem is that the population is too large. The point of subsidiarity is that functions are allocated to different organs of the state - I'm going to run with the 'state socialist' representation of communism for the sake of argument - on the basis that these organs of the state stand on the best grounds to commit to these functions. So, in a lot of cases that might result in welfare and services being decentralised or what-not.

Though to be honest I was vague in the response because 'there's too many people' is too vague to address in any more detail. In what manner is a higher population problematic for socialist economies?

I would say compared to American political ideology that it's fairly extreme.
Yes, compared to the U.S., very much my point.

[hesaidhesaid]

Ireland, Ireland, Stand-in Communist, Negation

I'm going to define communism as a movement that features as it's ultimate goal the imposition of a classless and stateless society.

I see no reason that communism might not be a possible and credible alternative to the current state of affairs within our life times. Capitalism has facilitated the creation of unprecedented amounts of material wealth and I agree has been the most progressive force in the history of mankind. But what's the end-goal? It would seem that the capitalists would require us become more and more efficient - produce more and more material wealth - but to what end?

For us, none. The working person is to become more and more efficient - to produce more and more material goods at some reduced rate - all to the benefit of the ruling bourgeoisie mass. The division and separation of labour that capitalism demands for sure makes us more efficient - but at the cost of the immiseration of some subset of the population. I mean the part of the population that is locked into being bin collectors and cleaners and shop clerks and so on. the subset of the population so miserable in their work that we've had to engineer an unprecedented increase in the size of the managerial class to ensure that job they hate is done to a minimum standard.

Communism is the realisation that this isn't required. It wouldn't feed our addiction to economic growth but then that needs to be defended on its own grounds. We could eliminate half our workforce and still be able to produce all the goods and services we actually need. There's nothing idealistic about that - and it's going to become less and less idealistic over the course of our lifetimes. As we become more and more efficient the marginal rate of substitution towards more free time is going to decrease - and communism is the single most feasible model to accommodate that.

It's the option that the work that's deemed socially required gets achieved - and the rest gets dumped. Social utility, and not profit-maximisation, becomes the communities guiding ethos. Because it's a large and complicated issue I'll leave it to criticisms before I outline the various proposed mechanisms.

---

It's also the case that advances in tech. could eliminate the immiserating work. But then maintaining capitalism is even more insane. If such is a case that we can eliminate the jobs we have no interest in doing - then on what grounds are we still giving each other cash to do things.


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


It's extreme when considered along a spectrum where we've gone and defined it as extreme.

---

N.B. I'm not a communist and support free-er markets than you [general].

Philippines, Australia, Left Centrist, Negation

But isn't efficiency and material wealth the 'end results' of our production and economic systems? Are you saying that all of these results and the new found individual/communal happiness (ala economic version of Huxley's Brave New World) means nothing?

I also asked this question to a friend of mine, and posed its impossibility as an issue. Doesn't it seem a little impossible to enact communism in our society now and expect inhabitants to enjoy it?

[hesaidhesaid]

As a side note, if Russia goes all Soviet again and tries to try another round of Finland, you bet your ass I'm doing what my ancestors did and take em down in Talivosta II.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. But I like your argument in the same way...but this comment is just gold.

[Sir Suomi]

In what manner is a higher population problematic for socialist economies?



I'm referring to Communism, not Socialism. Socialism, as has been proven in the European zone, has been (fairly) successful. My argument here is that the larger a communist population is, the more bureaucracy that needs to be dealt with, which means an overly complicated means of trying to control said nation, which can lead to problems.

[phuckphace]

scale and complexity are detrimental to any system. one problem with capitalism in particular is that continuous, exponential growth is required, causing a snowball effect where we end up with an outsized society of overspecialized and redundant individuals that is especially vulnerable to collapse.

my point being that you're going to have a hell of a time wrangling 310 million people regardless of your ideological bent.

[tonymontana99]

I'm referring to Communism, not Socialism. Socialism, as has been proven in the European zone, has been (fairly) successful. My argument here is that the larger a communist population is, the more bureaucracy that needs to be dealt with, which means an overly complicated means of trying to control said nation, which can lead to problems.

Would technological/scientific progress speed up or slow down with socialism?

[Paladino]

UK/Scotland, UK/Scotland, political leanings & affirmation/negation - not really sure what they mean.

I just want Scotland to stop being shafted by Westminster.

[Deactivated]

So I've gotten into politics quite a lot over the past year, and left-wing politics is a side I'm not only interested in, but also agree with. So, as an anarcho-communist, I'm going to give my two cents on the argument.

Before I do so, I'm going to mention that communism is defined as a classless, money-less and stateless society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the people of a community as a whole. There are many theoretical ways of achieving this, which some do call communism, such as Marxism or Marxist-Leninism. These methods aren't communism itself, but I'm going to take them into consideration when it comes to my opinion.

There are two reasons people who are anti-communists will usually bring up in an argument. One being that it is against human nature, and the other being that it means oppression, genocide and many of the brutal things we saw occur in 'communist' countries. There are other reasons one may be against communism, but these two are the most common so I'll discuss them.

Lets look at the first, which claims that communism would fail due to how humans are supposedly wired to be greedy, and that is the reason for capitalism's success. The problem with this argument is that humans aren't automatically set to be like this from birth; our attitudes and ways of behaving are shaped by the environment we live in. For examples, lets say that you have two people. One was born and raised in an area with little food, where they must fight to survive and not trust in the people around them. The other is born and raised in an area where there is an abundance for all, and nobody has to worry about things like hunger. The first child will grow up with a much higher chance of being greedy, since they had to do such a thing in order to survive. The other child, however, will not be as much. They didn't have to worry about such things, so sharing the food in the land was not something they were upset with.

This goes to show how we as humans can vary wildly when it comes to our behavior. When our species was one that lived in the wilderness and had to hunt for our food, greed helped us compete with other animals and survive. However, we have now arrived to a point in time where such problems can be solved. We have the ability to build a society that allows us to thrive without having the worries that our ancestors did. Now while greed may still be a part of us that can be exploited, put with the example I have above, we can come to the conclusion that humanity as a whole can we raised to not be greedy. The reason why this isn't the case in our world is because capitalism is everywhere, and it needs greed to survive. Therefore, the idea of taking what we want and not caring for anyone else has been subliminally put into our minds to not only fuel capitalism, but to turn us off from the better alternatives that the politically left has to offer.

We'll now look at the second argument against communism, which is the bloody past that is associated with. The problem with these arguments is that the societies where such things occurred were not communist. They still had a state, class and so on. Sure, the leaders of these nations may have declared them as communist, but in reality, they were either state-capitalist, state-socialist, or both. And since state-socialism is only one form of socialism, we can not let it's said failure cast a shadow over the other left-wing ideologies. Nations that tried to achieve communism did so through authoritarian/state ways. You essentially had a group of people who supported the idea of communism take power, and they tried to steer the country towards this goal of theirs. From the many previous attempts, we can conclude that trying to achieve a stateless society through the state does not work. This was one theoretical way of getting communism. Another way, which is supported by anarcho-communists like me, is through a revolution done by the people in an area against the state and capitalist system, thus building communism from the bottom up. This type has a much higher chance of working, due to how the revolution itself will show that most of the population support this idea, meaning many will work towards it, instead of having a small minority force the people to do so.

I'm sorry if some of the wording is a bit odd, or some points seem confusing. I have to leave as soon as I post this to catch a bus to see a friend, but I just had to share my opinion. To conclude, communism is achievable, and it's definitely the best option for us as a society.

[Vlerchan]

But isn't efficiency and material wealth the 'end results' of our production and economic systems?
No. There's no reason the market need necessarily to increase the extent of our material wealth or become more efficient. Take the Fair Trade movement which both decreases Qe - the stock of material wealth - and results in less efficient production - firms incur increased costs. In the end-up our economies facilitate production but there's no requirement that it need produce more material wealth or become more efficient over time. That's a product of socio-historical, ideatational, and institutional framing.

The idea that we should continue to become more and more efficient and produce more and more material wealth is something that needs to be justified on it's own grounds.

Are you saying that all of these results and the new found individual/communal happiness (ala economic version of Huxley's Brave New World) means nothing?
No. I'm not posing a critique of happiness. Even if I am a communist.

I also asked this question to a friend of mine, and posed its impossibility as an issue. Doesn't it seem a little impossible to enact communism in our society now and expect inhabitants to enjoy it?
Would you mind asking your friend to be a little less vague? In what manner is it 'impossible'? Thank you.

---

I'm referring to Communism, not Socialism. Socialism, as has been proven in the European zone, has been (fairly) successful.
You're defining terms in a manner that no-one outside U.S. political defines them. Go ask the social democrats that built European welfare states if these consider themselves socialists and you won't get a lot of positive responses. But it's OK. I'm acquainted enough with U.S. political norms to figure out what's meant though I might from time-to-time use non-US definitions.

I can give a run-down of how I, and Europeans, define terms if you want.

My argument here is that the larger a communist population is, the more bureaucracy that needs to be dealt with, which means an overly complicated means of trying to control said nation, which can lead to problems.
Marx built his vision of a communist state off the model of emerging MNCs at the time. I like to think that if MNCs can arrange themselves in such a manner as to operate across number cultures, linguistic barriers, geographical spaces, legal and regulatory jurisdictions, and so on, across in most cases a number of different operations, then it's entirely possible for a communist state to do so.

The ideal for me though would be that issues are sorted at the most local level possible. In such a case the organs of the state would form the closet possible link to the groups it serves and govern from where it's most efficient. I agree that large cumbersome bureaucracies result in gross inefficiencies but there's no reason - that comes to mind - that communist states would need to operate on that platform.

Would technological/scientific progress speed up or slow down with socialism?
There's no answer to this that wouldn't be speculation. It would seem taking the USSR as an example that it was quite capable of sticking to a plan but not so capable as far as spontaneous innovation was concerned. So whilst it managed to turn itself from a quasi-feudal state dominated by agriculture into the first to put a man in space inside a generation - reports seem to indicate that it's structure wasn't too conductive towards innovation. Though socialist writers have put forward proposed rectification since that's emerged.

[tonymontana99]

No. There's no reason the market need necessarily to increase the extent of our material wealth or become more efficient. Take the Fair Trade movement which both decreases Qe - the stock of material wealth - and results in less efficient production - firms incur increased costs. In the end-up our economies facilitate production but there's no requirement that it need produce more material wealth or become more efficient over time. That's a product of socio-historical, ideatational, and institutional framing.

The idea that we should continue to become more and more efficient and produce more and more material wealth is something that needs to be justified on it's own grounds.


No. I'm not posing a critique of happiness. Even if I am a communist.


Would you mind asking your friend to be a little less vague? In what manner is it 'impossible'? Thank you.

---


You're defining terms in a manner that no-one outside U.S. political defines them. Go ask the social democrats that built European welfare states if these consider themselves socialists and you won't get a lot of positive responses. But it's OK. I'm acquainted enough with U.S. political norms to figure out what's meant though I might from time-to-time use non-US definitions.

I can give a run-down of how I, and Europeans, define terms if you want.


Marx built his vision of a communist state off the model of emerging MNCs at the time. I like to think that if MNCs can arrange themselves in such a manner as to operate across number cultures, linguistic barriers, geographical spaces, legal and regulatory jurisdictions, and so on, across in most cases a number of different operations, then it's entirely possible for a communist state to do so.

The ideal for me though would be that issues are sorted at the most local level possible. In such a case the organs of the state would form the closet possible link to the groups it serves and govern from where it's most efficient. I agree that large cumbersome bureaucracies result in gross inefficiencies but there's no reason - that comes to mind - that communist states would need to operate on that platform.


There's no answer to this that wouldn't be speculation. It would seem taking the USSR as an example that it was quite capable of sticking to a plan but not so capable as far as spontaneous innovation was concerned. So whilst it managed to turn itself from a quasi-feudal state dominated by agriculture into the first to put a man in space inside a generation - reports seem to indicate that it's structure wasn't too conductive towards innovation. Though socialist writers have put forward proposed rectification since that's emerged.

Then capitalism all the way, baby.

[phuckphace]

Then capitalism all the way, baby.

can you offer a specific reason for insisting on pure capitalism as opposed to say, a garden-variety mixed economy? it seems like gunning for balls-out capitalism just to show how much you love it is a waste of time not to mention it's, dare I say, impossible anyway. at least with a mixed economy you could theoretically maintain a middle class and still have a market that can invent a flying car that transforms into a sex robot.

[tonymontana99]

can you offer a specific reason for insisting on pure capitalism as opposed to say, a garden-variety mixed economy? it seems like gunning for balls-out capitalism just to show how much you love it is a waste of time not to mention it's, dare I say, impossible anyway. at least with a mixed economy you could theoretically maintain a middle class and still have a market that can invent a flying car that transforms into a sex robot.

Then even better. I only care about scientific/technological progress, fuck the rest.

[hesaidhesaid]

UK/Scotland, UK/Scotland, political leanings & affirmation/negation - not really sure what they mean.

I just want Scotland to stop being shafted by Westminster.

Leanings: Please look at the political compass attached below. If you are still not sure, take the compass test and find out for yourself.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/

Affirmation/Negation: Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Good you ask this actually...don't fence sit haha

[hesaidhesaid]

Vlerchan: In response to the "impossibility" thing, Call Me Josh has his response written above. That's who I asked.

[hesaidhesaid]

I'm loving the responses so far guys! Keep the coming :)

[Karkat]

Country of birth, Good ol USA :rolleyes:
country of residence, I haven't managed to escape yet
political leanings, Neutral/independent. Somewhat left-leaning
affirmation/negation Mostly affirmation; I'm not fully under the idea that communism is so great or whatever


Debating Topic
"Communism is outdated, idealistic and is a policy that will never be achieved in this generation's lifetime successfully."

I will be the first to admit that capitalism is basically the worst thing ever. As an American, I of all people know how capitalism screws us over.

However, communism is far from perfect itself.

In my opinion, new solutions need to be found. Society is evolving and changing constantly, so should the way it is governed.

[hesaidhesaid]

How has capitalism "screwed us over"?
Francis Fukuyama (historian/weirdo when it comes to arguments) said that "capitalism is the last form of 'perfect economics' and that democracy is the 'pinnacle of government systems'". So...with that in mind...new solutions need to be found. But where? Where would you start?
Karkat

[Karkat]

How has capitalism "screwed us over"?
Francis Fukuyama (historian/weirdo when it comes to arguments) said that "capitalism is the last form of 'perfect economics' and that democracy is the 'pinnacle of government systems'". So...with that in mind...new solutions need to be found. But where? Where would you start?
Karkat

Well for one thing, it's made it extremely easy for classism to become a problem.

I guess the easiest answer is more government intervention for those who are unable to make money either due to being unable to get a job, or being handicapped, as well as stricter regulation of corporations and taxes for those who have the wealth.

The middle class is honestly pretty much the sweet spot as far as economics go, as far as I can tell. They're the consumers, and they do not rely on government help. The lower class has more of the workers, the upper class has a ton of entitled people who sit on their asses, and a few people who actually contribute to society.

If you make highly desirable jobs pay less, and undesirable jobs pay more, and limit the amount of freedom money can buy (because let's face it- poor people are not the ones who get away with shit)

You make people work for their money, and pay the people who work hard what they deserve

If everyone can be a worker and a consumer, it's automatically that much better than if only some are consumers, only some jobs are filled, dozens of others are empty, people are rejected from jobs for arbitrary reasons and accepted into jobs due to nepotism and bias, and a bunch of people sit on their money and watch the world burn

If you can save up the money to retire, that's one thing, but if you spend money the GOVERNMENT should be providing on school to get a job where you fill a role that is in the grand scheme of things generally unhelpful to society at best, and redundant at worst. You get paid good money.

Meanwhile, people are getting paid pennies to do the dirty work and never retire, or have their kids take care of them because the have little choice to do anything else.

If you make the cushy jobs that frankly are somewhat superfluous be lower paying, and make hard working jobs that need to be filled pay more, if nothing else, you are either creating consumers by giving them jobs that allow them to pay for more than the basics, or filling jobs by bringing in workers from a class that's usually "above such work" in return for decent pay.

Also, providing job training and better help to find employment ESPECIALLY FOR ADULTS would be tremendously helpful. Sometimes you really do just need the assistance to get you from point a to point b, but you know what they say about teaching a man to fish...

Edit: oh, and I absolutely disagree with democracy

If the American public can't be trusted to vote for a decent American Idol- something people actually used to care about more than who ran our country...

You shouldn't be able to vote in a president.

Frankly I'm not sure most Americans should be trusted enough to wipe their own asses... Why is this country so backwards

[Vlerchan]

If no-one else wants I'll get to critiquing Karkat and Call Me Josh's posts soon.

can you offer a specific reason for insisting on pure capitalism as opposed to say, a garden-variety mixed economy?
Upper-class people have a higher rate of saving and so a concentration of income amongst the upper class leads to greater investment over the long-run. Of course it's possible to emulate this through forcing people to save a certain proportion of their income ala Singapore. Though it's been argued that this has a limited lifespan considering the observation that capital [deepening] tends towards some equilibrium point.

It's arguable though that this won't necessitate a higher rate of R&D funding. I haven't read the literature on that exact topic.

Free-er markets then force people to innovate more and that's the reason de-regulated economies tend to have higher growth in TFP - make more efficient use of inputs: labour and capital. So whilst it's possible to replicate the capital deepening process through government intervention a free market is going to make smarter use of the funds.

---

Of course expecting people to sacrifice their livelihoods so they can stare at people using their unaffordable tech. a decade earlier than otherwise isn't a platform that's going to entice a lot of people.

[phuckphace]

Vlerchan - I'd imagine that a totally free market in practice would end up impoverishing enough people to the point where social instability would make it difficult if not impossible for a techno-utopia to develop. a market that innovates needs consumers with money to buy their products and push further development through demand, but that's obviously not going to happen if the populace is starving or hopping desperately between jobs in step with the rise and fall of the market.

edit: to add to the above, this is the reason I find most dystopian science fiction rather unrealistic - in the real world high technology depends on a more or less stable sociopolitical environment for it to develop and flourish in, but we usually see it existing alongside widespread misery and decay in fiction. everything sucks and is terrible but somehow they've still got the brain capital to invent a flying car and sell enough of them to recoup costs. *scratches head*

[Vlerchan]

I'd imagine that a totally free market in practice would end up impoverishing enough people to the point where social instability would make it difficult if not impossible for a techno-utopia to develop.
One paper seemed to suggest that wealth inequality is a drag on long-run economic growth. But I'm sceptical. I would imagine if institutional strength and whether the state was liberal-democratic was accounted for it would pose a different result. From demonstrations we've seen in the more authoritarian and illiberal market-orientated states that would seem the case.

Mixing in nationalism and the promise of a better future (10% growth can continue forever!) ala China makes me more-so sceptical.

a market that innovates needs consumers with money to buy their products and push further development through demand, but that's obviously not going to happen if the populace is starving or hopping desperately between jobs in step with the rise and fall of the market.
Just be export-orientated. It seems to have worked for more or less the whole of East Asia.

Of course it's in the states interests to ensure a minimal standard of living that satisfies people. The reason that welfare exists is to ensure towards material contentment and that labour remains quite mobile.

to add to the above, this is the reason I find most dystopian science fiction rather unrealistic - in the real world high technology depends on a more or less stable sociopolitical environment for it to develop and flourish in, but we usually see it existing alongside widespread misery and decay in fiction.
I dunno. Fiction like Deus Ex seems to have a reasonably large middle class. But then I don't engage with a tonne of dystopian fiction.

[tovaris]

Country of birth: Slovenia (FYR)
country of residence: Slovenia (FYR)
political leanings:Comminist
affirmation/negation: yes (im not going to structure my opening like an actual debate cuz im to lazy)


"Communism is outdated"

No, eventho theoreticly devisions between clases are nowerdays harder to define communism if far from being outdated.
" idealistic "

What is idealistic about actuly doing something for a better tomorow? "a policy that will never be achieved in this generation's lifetime successfully."

Agreed, our children need to die (if we start right now) before the world will be communist (or even this land for that matter)