If you’re a libertarian socialist, then what you’re advocating for would still require the participation of the entire world in order for non resource rich countries to enjoy the same standards as countries with resources. There are some “socialist” beliefs I can get behind, like the abolition of land ownership in favor of leasing. But collectivizing land and planning economies has almost always resulted in lower economic output than otherwise. Anything that resulted otherswise happened in spite, not because of it

tampax

the difference is under capitalism, all those things exist on purpose to the benefit of a small powerful group of people. even if it was possible to eliminate homelessness under capitalism, it would never happen because somebody profits off of those people being homeless. its artificial scarcity.

lol

this f***ing guy really just be lying up anecdotes on the spot and it’s clear by the rambling lol

i like to think hes telling the truth and he rebelled against his incredibly open-minded father by being against gay marriage his whole career

lmao can we give Bidens dad the nom? somebody find where he buried, we can just reanimate him like they did wit Joe Biden

Jesus christ i almost feel bad for this dude. Americans are such re tards for nominating him

Yeah but like I said earlier, these things exist in socialist countries as well, even if it was the lesser extent (even then, there are some free market countries that have lower income inequality and poverty rates than some socialist countries). A small group of people also benefitted from a lack of restrictions on food labeling, poor working conditions, and extremely low wages in the gilded age, but that didn’t stop legislation from being passed to change things like that

Fraud

this isnt the gilded age. the forces of global capital and the state are so intertwined that theres no separating their interests. if the government as it exists serves the interests of the ruling class,(and i think we can agree it does,) why would they ever try to meaningfully change that balance of power? both parties know who is actually in charge and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

also, unlike now, it wasnt out of the question in the late 19th century for there to be a revolution or at least class violence. they had to throw the occasional concession to the working class to keep the pitchforks away. they dont have to do that anymore.

point is that under capitalism, poverty isnt an accident or a side effect. the system relies on suffering, exploitation, and inequality to sustain itself. pointing out that socialist countries can also be poor doesnt change that.

You think the forces of global capital and the state weren’t intertwined then? JP Morgan was telling the government what to do and political machines were running the cities by buying out their administrations. If conditions get too bad for Americans, they are willing to vote for different parties, it’s not like they don’t still have an obligation to serve the people. That’s why even the republicans are trying to give cash payouts to regular citizens.

Also capitalism does not require absolute poverty, it requires inequality. It is possible for the bottom and of the pyramid to still be able to afford a decent standard of life while capitalism is maintained. The zero sum gain is proven false by the vast numbers of people lifted out of extreme poverty in China and India in the last 20 years, despite living conditions still rising in the west

the us and american corporations had yet to take over the world at that point. but yeah they have always called the shots.
they absolutely dont have an obligation to serve the people. if the only threat to their material power is that the electorate might vote for a party that governs more or less identically and has the same donors, they are under no threat at all. voting for 1 of 2 parties does not equate to political leverage.
modern capitalism does rely on poverty on a global scale. the astronomical profits of american corporations rely on the labor of people all over the world who make starvation wages. most people realize their clothes arent being made under humane conditions.
the fact that republicans are giving out crumbs in the middle of one of the biggest crises of the century is not evidence that the system works for average people.

US corporations may not have been global by then (they had south and Central America tho), but European corporations did, yet the same legislation to improve rights for workers was passed in those countries as well. Also if people in different countries were paid a fair share, free markets would still be able to operate because corporations would have a larger pool if consumers to sell to, it’s just that their profits might decrease in the process so they have no real incentive to. Like I’ve said before, the poverty and starvation in the west also existed in socialist countries, even those with western advantages like East Germany, it’s just that people in western capitalist countries have higher living standards on average

Also this is the seperate question, but once automation displaces the outsourcing of jobs by western companies, what do you think will become of the third world? Will they finally be able to prosper because they no longer have to work under slave labor, or will they suffer because the west will have no reason to invest in them other than trade for raw materials

ofc all this begs the question: if all it took was a simple passing of legislation to improve the conditions of workers and make things better for everybody, why havent they done that? and the obvious answer is that they dont want to. they dont care about workers here or anywhere else. youre right: they have no incentive. the ruling class is never going to decrease their material standing by choice. its an irreconcilable conflict.

It’s a process that takes time and is already happening. Even now conditions in the third world are improved for the most part compared to 20 years ago. Also the ruling class in the feudal and early capitalist eras were forced to concede their wealth for a new system, it can happen again even without a revolution if the people want it

to be honest i think by then we will be so far in to climate disaster that a lot of what we consider the third world will be underwater or an inhospitable desert. the west probably will continue to extract whatever resources they can but it seems pretty likely a lot of places and people are going to be sacrificed at the altar

If a lot of the third world is underwater than the first two worlds are going down with it so the treatment by then will be mostly irrelevant as human civilization might be at a breakdown by then. I mean more ignoring that, like in a scenario where climate change is negated and the world is still habitable, what will automation instead of globalization mean for the third world

but you understand that they are never going to concede that on their own or by choice. so how will it happen? the rich are only getting richer and the gap is only getting bigger. the fact that some post-colonial developing countries have made progress in their standards of living doesnt necessarily strike me as a sign of the world becoming more equitable

It’ll happen because there are stilll forces on the American left who are willing to at least try to do something about the rising inequality. And if it doesn’t change then what to not like anything else will change it. This year between the primaries and Jeremy Corbin’s loss, the west has made it abundantly clear they are not interested in any actual change in there system. The burden of revolution now relies on the third world, who also don’t have any faith in real socialism or planned economies. Also it isn’t just some countries that have improved, most have. But they just haven’t improved fast enough. Maybe that’ll change as time goes on but it’s not like communist revolution in America will do it

i dont have a hard time envisioning the US or at least parts of it becoming a sort of omnicidal lifeboat in the post climate hellscape. the elite are not going to experience the same apocalypse a the rest of us.
to your point though, i have no idea. the automation discussion always runs in to the question of who owns the automatons and what theyre used for. if they replace mining blood diamonds in south africa with a robot that does it, its good the workers arent doing it. but if the spoils are distributed the same way, whats the difference?