When you run a business, what is your job? It's to make as much money for the owner as is possible under the law. It's not to give people jobs and it's not to play nice with the community. It's just to make money.
So, unless you want to give businesses a pass to do anything even if it has adverse effects on the community, you're going to institute some legal controls, which is socialism.
While conservatives tell us that we need to support business because business=jobs, they aren't telling you the whole truth. Businesses hate giving people jobs. Labor is a necessary evil until it can be eliminated through increased efficiency and/or automation.
Think I'm wrong? Tell me how.
Socialism, as most see it, refers more to individuals all sharing the resources, so all have an equal share, and no one owns more than another.
Public ownership and centralized control are what most people think of as socialism.
That the city or county runs your library, your parks, your police and fire department, is socialism. Under pure capitalism, if your house is on fire, you'd need to call the fire department and set up payment before the firemen would turn on their hoses That it doesn't work that way now is due to a drift toward socialism.
Public regulation of industry is socialism in the sense that it requires an implied de facto partial public ownership of the industry.
If you don't think government regulation is socialism, you're swimming against the current of common usage.
And you didn't really address the fact that employers hate to employ people. The worker is just a necessary evil, and when workers can be gotten rid of through efficiencies or automation, it's their duty to the company to get rid of them.
My point in this post is that with more and more people being driven out of the workforce, it's inevitable that more and more people will be receiving checks from the government based on taxing the profits of corporations, because corporations basically are working hard to reduce and/or eliminate labor expenses, and are enjoying continual success in doing so.
No Workers = No Consumers = No Corporations= Nation Death= Reboot.
If the government pays people not to work, what's keeping them from being consumers?
You are, still, essentially saying that government and socialism are synonyms..and then making a conclusion based upon that saying something new.
If you say government = socialism, then, yes, government is inevitable.
The first time some monkeys decided one was in charge, and they had to share resources for the good of the troop, voila, socialism.
We'll have to agree to disagree. To my mind, you're mining a sidebar.
Also, you didn't really address the fact that employers hate to employ people. The worker is just a necessary evil, and when workers can be gotten rid of through efficiencies or automation, it's their duty to the company to get rid of them.
Unseen, perhaps you should specify exactly what you mean by "socialism". I'm working off the following definition from wikitionary:
Any of several later political philosophies such as libertarian socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy which do not envisage the need for full state ownership of the means of production nor transition to full communism, and which are typically based on principles of community decision making, social equality and the avoidance of economic and social exclusion, with economic policy giving first preference to community goals over individual ones.
Which sounds pretty good to me.
Now on the the real issue behind this post: technology making labour obsolete. I'm ok with this. Eventually, no one should have to work and eventually we can focus on leisure, sport, art, study, and other activities which most people are currently too busy with. The only problem I can see is that in the meantime (the transition period between industrial labour and leisure-ful utopia) is that people are pushed out of the job market and are then unable to participate in their chosen leisure activities.
Capitalism will only work (for the benefit of society) so long as it is able to provide employment (for the society). No jobs = massive wealth inequality = no one buys stuff = no one makes any money = end of capitalism. So for capitalism to continue with a decreased job market, socialism (or something else) is required to prevent exploitation of the populace (i.e. the people the society was built to provide for), and redistribute wealth to allow the populace to engage in activities. So ultimately, capitalism needs socialism (or some other philosophy) to survive.
Which sounds pretty good to me.
Me, too. I'll take any and all. With it legal for the government to regulate any industry it likes, it also effectively is part-owner of every industry.
Like you, I foresee that as more and more jobs become obsolete, redistribution of wealth (taxation) will need to be used in order for there to be the consumers required to have an economy. While the corporate job will go away, it will need to be replaced by a government job in order to decide who gets paid how much.
Jobs have become obsolete since there was such a thing as a job.
You are taking a FACTOR and acting as though it was all that mattered.
For example, if all jobs "became obsolete"...meaning, everything that needed doing no longer needed us to do it...and, the things that do it are not owned by or run by people....
Its not a stable scenario, as, if there's no demand for stuff, why make it?
Why do you need a new lawn mower if you don't need to mow?
How are these machines made with no financial support?
Why would we need a government job if the machines do everything?
Why do we need money, if everything is free?
And so forth.
You are taking a factor and expanding it beyond a generality to a universality.
Nowhere do I say ALL jobs will be obsolete. Machines will never "do everything." I can't imagine a machine doing creative architecture, for example, though the process is already heavily automated with sophisticated CAD programs, programs to calculate stresses, reaction to various weather conditions and/or earthquakes, etc. And this sort of automation will go on and on until a very complicated building can be designed by just one person.
It is conceivable though that most clerical and labor jobs will become either totally redundant (lost) or so supported by automation that they will become largely valueless and thus will become minimum wage work.
@Unseen and TJ:
They made a movie about the utopia you are describing, it's called The Matrix.