No, it isn’t. We have more labor on this planet that we would know what to do with if we stopped repressing it in order to keep a small group of billionaire parasites in the money.
and a technological Holy Grail is required to bridge that gap.
Absolutely not… there is nothing humans would need that we couldn’t produce in spades using already existing methods. The heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources in our current mode of production does not require techno-fetishizing non-solutions - it requires a social solution. Hence, socialism.
We have more labor on this planet that we would know what to do with if we stopped repressing it in order to keep a small group of billionaire parasites in the money.
We would run out of it very quickly if there wasn’t anything compelling laborers to perform labor. Nobody’s going to grow crops for you out of the goodness of their hearts. That’s hard, miserable, thankless, dangerous work. That’s why capitalism exists in the first place.
The heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources in our current mode of production does not require techno-fetishizing non-solutions - it requires a social solution. Hence, socialism.
That has already been attempted several times, each attempt ended in catastrophic failure, and that failure itself involved heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources.
Machines may yet solve this problem for us, but humans definitely won’t, and we’ve got the history to prove it.
No. We wouldn’t. The labor would simply be spent on that which people find important.
Nobody’s going to grow crops for you out of the goodness
Says who? PragerU?
That’s why capitalism exists in the first place.
No, Clyde… that’s not it. Maybe don’t extrapolate your politics from Civilization games, okay?
That has already been attempted several times
Yes, it has… and everywhere it was tried it was destroyed by fascists, capitalists and other power-hoarders because they were afraid it might work. For instance, Catalonia in the middle 30s and Ukraine in the early 20s.
Machines may yet solve this problem for us,
No, they won’t.
and we’ve got the history to prove it.
Alt-history doesn’t actually count as real history.
No, it isn’t. We have more labor on this planet that we would know what to do with if we stopped repressing it in order to keep a small group of billionaire parasites in the money.
Absolutely not… there is nothing humans would need that we couldn’t produce in spades using already existing methods. The heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources in our current mode of production does not require techno-fetishizing non-solutions - it requires a social solution. Hence, socialism.
It’s like with famines: globally we produce more than enough food to feed everyone, we just choose not to.
Our problem isn’t the production of goods, but the allocation.
Pretty much.
We would run out of it very quickly if there wasn’t anything compelling laborers to perform labor. Nobody’s going to grow crops for you out of the goodness of their hearts. That’s hard, miserable, thankless, dangerous work. That’s why capitalism exists in the first place.
That has already been attempted several times, each attempt ended in catastrophic failure, and that failure itself involved heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources.
Machines may yet solve this problem for us, but humans definitely won’t, and we’ve got the history to prove it.
No. We wouldn’t. The labor would simply be spent on that which people find important.
Says who? PragerU?
No, Clyde… that’s not it. Maybe don’t extrapolate your politics from Civilization games, okay?
Yes, it has… and everywhere it was tried it was destroyed by fascists, capitalists and other power-hoarders because they were afraid it might work. For instance, Catalonia in the middle 30s and Ukraine in the early 20s.
No, they won’t.
Alt-history doesn’t actually count as real history.