"because China already had cheap solutions better than AI for manufacturing, human workers."
Yeah. They have cheap workers.
But wasn't the whole point of socialism and the workers movement to not have cheap wage slaves anymore?
But to value humans?
"capitalism is really just goods and services and salespeople and ads. "
And you don't think this is kind of an useless oversimplification?
The point of free market systems is, that there is no central authority doing all the planning.
So when you want that central authority, it is authorian by design.
Now you can argue that there is indeed a lot of planning and regulation in our free market capitalism. And that the "blood" of free markets, money creation isn't free either. And that some people have so much money in effect controlling the regulators etc.
> But wasn't the whole point of socialism and the workers movement to not have cheap wage slaves anymore? But to value humans?
I don't know if socialism has a point as such. Value and dignity of humans is one goal, but the means by which that is accomplished is the distinguishing characteristic of socialism to my reading; that is, the means of production is not privately owned. What precludes inherently valuing humans under such a system?
Allende was probably using the most promising approach that I know of and yes, that was killed of.
"I don't know if socialism has a point as such. "
And since many different people used the word for very different things .. definitions are not clear. But people can be treated as slaves whether the factory is owned by a multinational cooperation, as well as a state run factory.
So what does it even mean, workers control the means of production?
Not a trivial question at all and it boils down who has power. And often or rather allmost always it developed to: not the workers working there.
But even if you would make a iron socialist law, that this should be the case. The workers always decide what they build - then you wouldn't have central planning anymore. And why should other workers decide to give their products to that factory?
Ah, they could negotiate contracts. Like in a free market?
Or they cannot and then it just means, they don't really control their means of production.
> So what does it even mean, workers control the means of production?
> Not a trivial question at all and it boils down who has power. And often or rather allmost always it developed to: not the workers working there.
> But even if you would make a iron socialist law, that this should be the case. The workers always decide what they build - then you wouldn't have central planning anymore. And why should other workers decide to give their products to that factory?
> Ah, they could negotiate contracts. Like in a free market?
> Or they cannot and then it just means, they don't really control their means of production.
To this reading, the workers cannot even exercise their ownership rights over the means of production meaningfully without free markets, thus aligning the goals of capitalism with socialism. Somehow I expect both parties to be disappointed, which might be a workable compromise?
But what do Marx and Engels or other socialists etc say about free markets and freedom to enter contracts, and what bearing those aspects have compared to owning the means of production? I don't think they were talking about stock exchanges, for example. The goals were economic, opt-in via free association of free workers, but were governmental or democratic aspects even addressed in their works?
What if workers owning the means of production looks like cryptocurrency?
Perhaps some socialists and capitalists would agree: no, not like that!
But would they be arguing out of self-interest, or would they be right about crypto not being compatible with socialism?
Wouldn't that just reduce to capitalism all over again?
Do workers do the work, or does capital?
Is capital simply a voting/allocation mechanism for a given work unit of decision-making control enacted upon the means of production?
Does owning the means of production in the economy imply controlling the means of governance in the government? Would one presuppose the other?
These are honest questions because I'm honestly curious about the answers.
> But people can be treated as slaves whether the factory is owned by a multinational cooperation, as well as a state run factory.
Doesn't capitalism just make us slaves with extra steps?
Yeah. They have cheap workers.
But wasn't the whole point of socialism and the workers movement to not have cheap wage slaves anymore? But to value humans?
"capitalism is really just goods and services and salespeople and ads. "
And you don't think this is kind of an useless oversimplification?
The point of free market systems is, that there is no central authority doing all the planning.
So when you want that central authority, it is authorian by design.
Now you can argue that there is indeed a lot of planning and regulation in our free market capitalism. And that the "blood" of free markets, money creation isn't free either. And that some people have so much money in effect controlling the regulators etc.
But would you actually rather live in china?