http://i.imgur.com/qCOCdQM.png

In [a recent post](https://steemit.com/money/@alexbeyman/how-capitalism-is-like-evolution-and-socialism-is-like-intelligent-design), I did my best to explain the merits of Capitalism, and why it is necessary to stick with it until such time as automation technology makes it possible to realistically explore alternatives. A commenter pointed out that while I did a fine job of explaining my support for Capitalism, I never went into any detail as to why I oppose Communism. I'll endeavor to do that in this article. 

The oft-repeated fact that Communism as implemented historically was not genuine Marxist Communism doesn't change anything, as that's exactly what happens any time you try to put it into practice on a national scale. 

The transfer of power from a small number of plutocrats to an even smaller number of inner party government officials is at the same time a movement towards greater rather than less concentration of power (which correlates negatively with liberty) and an extremely fragile, vulnerable transition which leaves the doors wide open for any charismatic would-be despot to step in and assume control.

http://i.imgur.com/l9cRvTR.jpg

The self-defeating aspect of starting an organized, hierarchical movement for the purpose of toppling an organized, hierarchical government so you can replace it with something more decentralized...is that you had to establish an organized, hierarchical movement in order to do so! It will only step in and become the new government if the revolution succeeds. 

It's not that idealized Communism is necessarily unworkable (although I believe that to be the case), it's that transitioning to that from what we have now is unworkable. It will turn into Stalinism or something functionally identical every time, which is why that's exactly what happened everywhere it was attempted.

http://i.imgur.com/8U1PybS.jpg

Both Communism and Capitalism are predicated on the assumption that there will always be some amount of humans necessary to perform or supervise work, concerning themselves with how to appropriately compensate them for their labor. (I am aware of Marx's thoughts concerning automation, but do not believe Communism is the right solution, more on that later.) 

Communism takes away the fruits of your labor, pools them with the fruits of everyone elses labor, then divides that pile evenly and hands everyone an identical share. But human beings aren't wired to accept that. It's in our nature to protest a forcible leveling of the playing field. And when everyone receives the same reward, there is little motivation to aspire to do anything except the bare minimum.

People who nodded along to the last paragraph can be expected to balk at this one, but the market economy (what most mistakenly equate to Capitalism) has equally severe problems, they're just very well hidden. It's made from smoke, mirrors, and carnival barker style showmanship. 

http://i.imgur.com/WZO9iwR.jpg

The entire convoluted apparatus relies on nobody (especially the public) fully understanding how it works, like an ACME contraption from a cartoon with missing parts that only goes on working so long as nobody peers inside to confirm that it shouldn't be able to. 

What I mean by that is that very basic issues like the fact that our currency is no longer backed by gold are very well known and many (mainly libertarians) have understandably sounded the alarms over it, but those same people seem unaware that our economy has grown to the point where it's no longer possible, practical or desirable for currency to be backed with gold. 

We're sitting atop a bubble that will burst the moment any significant number realize that it's hollow. So much of the market economy, even in its idealized form, either doesn't work in practice or only works on good faith and if left unexamined that objectively it's as impossible for the US to sustain forever as Communism was for Russia. 

http://i.imgur.com/XkKhap3.jpg

It is as certain as death and taxes that automated equipment will only become more sophisticated and capable over time while simultaneously dropping in price. While the industrial revolution created many supervisory jobs for each physical labor job it displaced, the same isn't true of the robotics revolution as it's supplanting not only muscle power but also brain power. 

Not everyone is capable of retraining as a robotics engineer or whatever other positions remain, and those jobs alone can't sustain even a small minority of the current workforce. Look at the unrest that occurred during the recession with just 8% unemployment. 

http://i.imgur.com/e8j7uPP.jpg

It will not require the automation of 100% or even 50% of jobs to render the current economic paradigm untenable. I can't say for certain when exactly we'll cross that threshold but given the unpublicized role that automation (and in particular the overproduction caused by it) has played in this recession, I think we may have crossed it already or that we're on the brink. 

Where we go from here depends on how receptive the American public will be to alternative economic models in an age where anything that remotely smells like Communism is strangled in the crib, because we have been trained to suspect that any proposed alternative to what we already have is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

That said, Communism is not the only possible alternative to a market economy, nor the only possible solution to technological unemployment. Given the tendency of Communism to result in gigadeaths whenever implemented, we should at first explore alternatives that aren’t as prone to transforming into authoritarian murder machines. 

http://i.imgur.com/emVxCrp.jpg

Clearly, there is ample historical reason to seek out the solution which increases government control by the least amount possible. One such solution, and the one I favor, is simply to tax robotic productivity by an amount proportional to the wages of displaced workers. 

The amount necessary for sustaining the functions of government is then skimmed off the top, as before, but the rest is paid out to laborers who have been replaced by machinery. The company which “employs” the robot still comes out ahead as they pay the same for labor as they did before, but it is now tirelessly efficient, vigilant, needs no maternity leave, takes no sick days, will never steal from the till and so on.

http://i.imgur.com/kk5QLfF.jpg

The economy still functions much the same, as the stigma currently afflicting those who live on benefits will motivate people to apply for the ever-dwindling number of positions not yet possible to automate in order to make additional cash besides what they are given as basic income. Our well known status seeking behavior ensures it. 

Companies will still form, compete for our dollars and die if they do so ineffectively. They will just employ robots wherever possible, and more of that wealth than ever before will be continuously recirculated. This only accelerates the success of businesses which cater effectively to our wants, and the death of those which don’t, because we’ll have more money to spend on a wider variety of products. 

http://i.imgur.com/rsepyhe.jpg

The primary benefit will be to create a “poverty floor”. A limit to how poor one can possibly be, where it is nevertheless still possible to afford living indoors, eating regularly and so on. Those afraid that this will result in a ballooning population should watch [this TED talk](https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en) explaining how population growth levels off as the standard of living improves.