How to Save America

[The Anti-Wisemon]

The Industrial Revolution in the SOCIAL CONDITIONS under which it happened, those of inequity and radical gaps between the power and wealth of one man and another, required capitalism to urge it on. That does not mean, however, that capitalism is required under the completely different social conditions where concentrated political power and concentrated wealth are completely unnecessary due to having enough of both for all if they are properly distributed. Your proposing an old solution to a new issue. If this is all you can do, I advise you to shut up.

First of all, is there any need for Industrialization, for advancement in general in the socialist state? The Industrial revolution was about producing goods cheaper, faster ete. It was about getting an edge over another company. What's the use for imporvement if there is no urgent need to do so?

Also, inequality in wealth is not necassarily even a side-effect of capitalism, an evil inevitability. It is a way for the smarter, the wiser ete. to get ahead. Inequality in capitalism is meritocratic. Socialism, what you propose, does not reward those who work hard, those who could get ahead in the capitalist society. They can never get ahead, so there's no incentive to become smart to be better than others (and yes, some poeple are better than others). It discourages technological evolution, increased efficieny ete.

Your point does not stand. WHY would those things be of low supply and quality?

Because there would be no specialization. Could you build a computer, right now? Even iof you could, in theory, it would be of poor workmanship. Building skills, like all others, take practice. To get enough practice to be of higher quality, you have to do it a lot. Of course, there's no incentive to build a lot, since you can only use so many. Trade is forbidden as well, so there is no way of say building only computers and trading them for other goods, like chairs. Not to mention, it would be a major drain in time. Agricultural work would probably be the main task of any socialist family, food has to come from somehwere, right? And even if there is a proletariate, it would be confined to building things for themselves, and wasting resources. You could even have proletariate with certain luxuries not available to, say, a peasant.

Wanting to achieve a satisfactory standard of living is natural, and possible for almost all people. However, greed, the constant wanting to be somehow better than your fellowman, is a product of competitive societies in which one man going up means kicking another man on the head.

So you wouldn't take a steak over a hamburger?