I have a serious question guys - how do we know socialism is gonna really come after capitalism...

Why would any capitalist agree to this? How would they make any profit when they are forced to give it all of it back as UBI (since no one is working, there's literally no one creating value, and the whole scheme becomes circular flow of money), effectively paying a wage for no labour? It would make more sense to produce just for themselves and their rich buddies, after finding out some clever scheme to avoid taxes.

This is a common misconception (caused intentionally by bourgeois economists).

With a few exceptions (true monopolies and highly unusual supply-demand circumstances, for instance) commodities tend to be sold at or around their real value. Which means, without surplus value extraction, the most a capitalist can theoretically hope to achieve is a break-even point, which obviously won't be adequate.

can you provide me a more detailed analysis? like some charts, data, sources, etc? This is a pretty big claim

I'm glad you are realizing that the 19th century Marxist idea in the historical necessity for the overthrow of the bourgeois capitalists by the proletariat is BS. There is NO historical necessity that any kind of social or economic transformation will happen. That would be like a roman living in Syria during the rise of Islam thinking that there is a historical necessity that Islam will rule the world. It's just people looking at the trends and movements existing in their day and extrapolating into the future. Many people at the time agreed that Socialism was the way of the future. Kropotkin in the bread book wrote that Socialism is THE idea of the 19th century. The idea of historical necessity is alluring in way, as it allows one a simple response to pretty much any critique: the revolution is on its way. In that sense it's almost like a gullible Christian who is burned time after time by so-called doomsday prophets predicting the end-of-days. Who cares if our magical event didn't occur this time? It surely will come in the future! No. You need to work to create the world you want to see today. Forget about bickering over tactics my ML comrades, if you are one of those unfortunate souls that cling to the idea of historical necessity, stop clinging to the safety blanket that makes it so all your ideas are easily justifiable by appealing to an event in the far flung future. So many MLs have had to deal with the death of this pseudo-religious idea in the 20th century: it's time for you to come to terms with it as well.

this doesn't jive.

Well, Marx never said socialism was inevitable, that would be vulgar historical determinism. What he said, paraphrased by Luxemburg, was that Socialism is the only logical alternative to barbarism, when capitalism overboils due to its own contradictions.

I'm guessing by your flag you aren't a Marxist, but when you are a Marxist, you accept the labor theory of value (or more general: That all value created in society stems from labor), and once you do that, you realize that capitalism will meet its end, see: Falling rate of profit, which might reach zero by 2060-80 or something similar. So you either get Mad Max, Fascism, Soylent Green or Socialism.

...

In fifty years Geo-Enginering will be a thing.

We don't. And anyone who says otherwise is a naive utopian and historical determinist who is entirely driven by his/her own wishful thinking.
While the base-superstructure relation makes sense from a materialist point of view and historical materialism is a good tool for analyzing history and making speculations about the future, you simply cannot absolutely predict the future even if you analyze every partical in the universe. The Laplace Demon does not exist.
You cannot predict technological development because in order to predict future technology you would have to know the content of this future technology right now but then it wouldn't be a future technology but a present technology. To know a thing you don't know yet is impossible.
And technology is very important. During Marx's time there was no knowledge of global warming or the heat death of the universe or nuclear weapons with which we could annihilate ourselves so from Marx's point of view history could go on forever, but we now know that this is not the case.
Don't misunderstand me, I want socialism, but this whole historic determinist vulgarity with its "COMMUNISM IS INEVITABLE!!!!!!!" that many dogmatists proclaim is nothing more than blind religious faith.

FPBP

We literally created a whole province, it's there already.

Full automation will come some day and by definition it won't be capitalism. Capitalism is a relationship between workers and production and if you no longer have workers being paid a wage to convert means of production into a commodity you no longer have capitalism.

I'll lay out the ways this could go and why they wouldn't work.
1.)
UBI is paid, people don't work.
People are still paid through taxes.
People buy products from companies that use robots instead of workers. More robots are bought.
Oh shit tho, robots are expensive. I'll pay workers over the UBI to gain a competitive edge.
Rest of society adapts to competitive edge, back to "normal" society. One of the reasons UBI shills are mocked,
2.) Robots are somehow less expensive than human labor.
Need better cheaper robots to produce more products faster.
Hire people to build robots.
The entirety of the market now consists of people building/repairing robots.
Companies can't simply ignore this as they will be outperformed, Marx talks about this in wage labor and capital
3.) We're getting pretty ridiculous at this point
Robots can repair/improve on other robots.
Have robots make other robots.
Have robots work to make other robots more efficient.
Have robots work on making themselves more efficient.
Other companies do this to not be outperformed.
Run out of resources supporting all these robot production.
4.) Don't run out of resources making robots.
Need more managers for all these robots.
Population is now full of managers.
5.)Robots can manage themselves.
Run out of resources continually ramping up production.
I clearly have gotten bored at this point; four and five are pretty skimpy. I think you get the point by now. OP better not have abandoned thread

You lost me here.

In making the robots to compete against other companies, it would be inevitable that the cheap labor (in relation to robots) of humanity would then be exploited to gain an edge on other companies. The other companies would have to follow this trend or fall behind in the market before dying. It's an effect that Marx identified specifically in the book I referenced. If a companies gains an advantage, others have to gain a similar advantage or perish.

Hegelian Magic somehow, basically Marx as a philosopher is fucking dumb

That is nothing like what Marx said. Why does the cute girl make me less mad? For this insubordination, I think a beating is due…

except it is literally the basis of marxism???

it's retarded

...

Its not.
You're wrong. I refuse to explain this to you. Educate yourself or remain wrong. Im not going to spoonfeed you any more Yous or information.

you are the retarded one my dude

read marx

except it literally is, you can read precisely what I described in here

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

The only alternatives are total desertification from global warming or a nuclear apocalypse. They're not really worth considering cuz you might as well just KYS if those happen, so socialism is the only viable next step.

you don't understand the things you've linked or talked about and you should feel really embarrassed for either being or pretending to be this mentally defective

I lied when I said I wouldn't educate you. I can't believe I'm feeding you Yous. Im really falling on my sword here.
Marx said that the contradictions Of Capitalism would cause its downfall, and that thusly socialism would replace it. Now that you've been corrected, please don't get mad and shit up this thread.

classic

while it is true that Marx points out that capitalism will eventually fail (something everyone with a basic understanding of economics can tell) he also talks about how the proletariat will need to fulfill its historical role, a historical role that is determined by the power relationships within the capitalist system. these being the fact that they are being dominated by the ruling class.

this completely ignores the masochistic nature of dominated humans, he is simply delusional in this aspect

No one is allowed to respond to this now. Let's all just go and return to the OP now. He's obviously misinterpreting Marx's talk about class in a way that is either purposeful or primal. Either way, he will not be talked out of this without derailing a pretty good thread.

classic, this is why marxists are the laughing stock everywhere they go, as if the failures of the XXth century weren't enough

have more pigeon girl tho

Wow, people are always so dissapointing. Just your average not cute/cute girl. Shit up this thread and your waifu is shit. 10/10

total spergout

top kek. Manifesto isn't meant to be a treatise on philosophical theory m8. Read Capital, Grundrisse, Critique of the Gotha Program etc.

we don't "know" anything that will be

If you believe David Harvey there a number of contradictions in capitalism that will lead to it inevitable death-spiraling, which Marx foresaw.
BUT
I'm not convinced what follows next will inevitable be communism. The present is pregnant with the potentialities of the future, yet not all those futures can coexist and are equally desirable. Right now, it feels a lot like we have the potentialities for cyber-robo-feudalism, just as much or even more than for FALC. I guess this is where human agency can enter; the early 20th century held all the potentialities for Auschwitz, and it took human will to realize it, and to afterwards smash it. Ever since the 50's we've had the potentiality for nuclear holocaust, yet we've forestalled it so far. Let's hope for the best and make the most of it.