While I appreciate that Marx made a case, this is not data or evidence. It seems intuitively true, but that doesn't really move you closer to real proof.

Essentially, competition forces prices lower, and automation and increased production lower the price floor. Automation is pursued because it temporarily allows you to outcompete, until other firms can produce at the same price, forcing prices to match at a new floor. This continues.

I'm not sure if you are trying to imply automation is a good or bad thing. Looking through history, the industrial revolution was bad for the workers of the time, but in the long run massively improved the living standards of everyone. Automation is a net good in my opinion. Competition is simply an accelerator, this is not really tied to the economic system being used. In capitalist or communist systems, firms that are protected from competition (by what ever means) do not innovate as fast or as effectively (see Intel as a great example of this).

Socialism is just the precursor to Communism.

While this can be true, it is not necessarily true.

I don’t see what birth rates have to do with anything.

As your population ages, the costs to care for them raise at an increasing rate. If you don't have enough new workers to stabilize the economic base, the burden that an aging population places on the younger generation grows until it becomes untenable.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

While I appreciate that Marx made a case, this is not data or evidence. It seems intuitively true, but that doesn't really move you closer to real proof.

What would count as real proof, if not prices falling due to competition?

I'm not sure if you are trying to imply automation is a good or bad thing. Looking through history, the industrial revolution was bad for the workers of the time, but in the long run massively improved the living standards of everyone. Automation is a net good in my opinion. Competition is simply an accelerator, this is not really tied to the economic system being used. In capitalist or communist systems, firms that are protected from competition (by what ever means) do not innovate as fast or as effectively (see Intel as a great example of this).

I'm not arguing whether automation is "good or bad," I am strictly speaking about the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism. Automation is good, but in Capitalism is used to purely benefit Capitalists, as wages stagnate with respect to ever-climbing productivity.

While this can be true, it is not necessarily true.

Why would it not be true? This still doesn't explain why you stated Communism to have a poor track record, no AES state has yet made it to Communism, as Communism must be achieved globally.

As your population ages, the costs to care for them raise at an increasing rate. If you don't have enough new workers to stabilize the economic base, the burden that an aging population places on the younger generation grows until it becomes untenable.

Again, this has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism. It seems to be referring to welfare for elderly people, which exists in all systems.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What would count as real proof, if not prices falling due to competition?

That is the problem I was referring to in my original post, "economics is a very murky science", I come from an engineering and physical sciences point of view. Good economic data is hard to come by, it is always contaminated with chaotic factors that cannot be controlled for. "Proof" may not be possible in economic science.

Why would it not be true?

Because from a logical point of view, there is no necessity to go from socialism to communism. A country could easily decide that socialism is where they wan to stay. When something is necessarily true, not only does it always happen it must happen. That is the point I was trying to make, there is nothing fundamental about socialism forcing that transition from socialism to communism.

Again, this has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism.

I have to disagree with you there, in a capitalist system the burden of care falls on the individual (see the American health care system), whereas in socialism and communism, that burden falls on the state. This is a key economic factor, I'm from NZ and the social healthcare system is really awesome, but as with everything we can see how it could be better.

The system has a capacity, if you want to increase that capacity you have to have the resources to do that. If your population is not growing (stable is not enough) then your health care system is always in danger of not having enough resource. The problem is that the system always need to grow, as we get better at improving the lives of people and increasing lifespan the burden from the elderly increases. The resources used to care for the elderly are finite and use up system capacity.

Even in a capitalist society the system has capacity limits, there is no amount of money that you can throw at it to increase your number of doctors tomorrow. You have X doctors today, this is not easily increased beyond the natural rate (X+new doctors-retiring doctors), all you can do is move the existing ones around.

You can use this argument for a lot of major points of expenditure; education, welfare, transport etc....but healthcare is starkly different between the different economic models.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is the problem I was referring to in my original post, "economics is a very murky science", I come from an engineering and physical sciences point of view. Good economic data is hard to come by, it is always contaminated with chaotic factors that cannot be controlled for. "Proof" may not be possible in economic science.

I also come from said POV, as do many on Lemmy. Simply casting doubt in spite of overwhelming evidence of goods getting cheaper and cheaper is not sufficient.

Because from a logical point of view, there is no necessity to go from socialism to communism. A country could easily decide that socialism is where they wan to stay. When something is necessarily true, not only does it always happen it must happen. That is the point I was trying to make, there is nothing fundamental about socialism forcing that transition from socialism to communism.

No, they cannot. Communism is advanced, developed Socialism. In the long, long run, either they move on from Socialism to Communism, or they fall back to Capitalism.

Communism is achieved when the entire globe becomes Socialist, money has been phased out (which becomes a necessity to avoid falling back into Capitalism), all Capitalism has been eradicated, and the previous elements of Capitalist society have fallen by the wayside.

Systems do not stay static, everything is in motion, even if it takes a long time.

I have to disagree with you there, in a capitalist system the burden of care falls on the individual (see the American health care system), whereas in socialism and communism, that burden falls on the state. This is a key economic factor, I'm from NZ and the social healthcare system is really awesome, but as with everything we can see how it could be better.

It also falls on the state in Capitalism.

The system has a capacity, if you want to increase that capacity you have to have the resources to do that. If your population is not growing (stable is not enough) then your health care system is always in danger of not having enough resource. The problem is that the system always need to grow, as we get better at improving the lives of people and increasing lifespan the burden from the elderly increases. The resources used to care for the elderly are finite and use up system capacity.

You can shift resources around as necessary. With replacement, you can still maintain a system.

Even in a capitalist society the system has capacity limits, there is no amount of money that you can throw at it to increase your number of doctors tomorrow. You have X doctors today, this is not easily increased beyond the natural rate (X+new doctors-retiring doctors), all you can do is move the existing ones around.

Generational shifts happen slowly and in full view. You can act accordingly, this is a process that lasts decades.

You can use this argument for a lot of major points of expenditure; education, welfare, transport etc....but healthcare is starkly different between the different economic models.

Only partially.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Generational shifts happen slowly and in full view. You can act accordingly, this is a process that lasts decades.

COVID happened in months, spread like wildfire and put a huge strain on healthcare systems worldwide. No amount of money thrown at the system would have increased capacity.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Sure, but it can be reacted to and dealt with easier in Socialism than Capitalism.