Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

People have conflated that with states that call themselves "communist" and are based on the "everyone must work for Big Daddy" model. It's basically nothing to do with what he wrote.

I mean. I don't want to be that guy. But it has a little to do with what he wrote

Based on a complete misunderstanding or non-understanding of what Marx wrote.

[Starver]

Based on a complete misunderstanding or non-understanding of what Marx wrote.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

[scriver]

People have conflated that with states that call themselves "communist" and are based on the "everyone must work for Big Daddy" model. It's basically nothing to do with what he wrote.

I mean. I don't want to be that guy. But it has a little to do with what he wrote

Based on a complete misunderstanding or non-understanding of what Marx wrote.

No? The idea behind soviet style or whatever it's called communism is that the people need to revolt and seize the means of production to put a stop to their own oppression now, but since automation isn't possible yet the people's state needs to make sure the people do not loose the means of production in the meanwhile, to safeguard the goal and further the development and so on and so forth. Then corrupted because absolute power corrupts absolutely. But said corruption of the idea is not a misunderstanding of it.

[wierd]

The appropriation of the means of production by the state is not the same thing as appropriation of the means of production by and for the workers.

The rally to seize that means before the natural time has historically been from individuals who seek to become despots (Stalin, Mao), or from individuals who are eager but impatient. (Lenin)

Lenin wanted actual socialist communism. Stalin wanted to be king. Stalin used then killed Lenin.

Marx asserts that socialist communism is unavoidable in the face of advancing automation. I tend to agree, as the capitalist system becomes too top heavy, and too few are employed for a market to continue existing. End stage is akin to startrek TNG where replicators can make anything, any time, on demand, to order, cheaply, and where advanced software practically writes itself due to advanced natural language AI.

[PTTG??]

My concern is that if we wait for full automation to come to pass, only the capital-holders will own the machines, and the machines will make it impossible to overthrow them.

[wierd]

Impossible to contain.

See for instance, the absurdity of DRM.

As soon as a real omnifabricator comes to exist, there will be a strong desire by the knowledgeable to break any and all protections there on, permitting anyone and everyone to create more omnifabricators.

The closest parallel today is software. See how publishers whine about piracy, and can do nothing to stop it.

[scriver]

My concern is that if we wait for full automation to come to pass, only the capital-holders will own the machines, and the machines will make it impossible to overthrow them.

My concern is that when full automation come to pass, the capital-holders will be the machines.

[wierd]

That is a valid concern. However, nothing a skilled human with physical access cannot solve.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fortunately I don't think that's anymore a stable plan than feudal lords holding onto their power post-industrialization. Possible? Certainly, it has happened to greater and lesser extents that have held on even until today. Likely even with foresight and competence? Not...really.

It assumes a bit too much competence from capitalists, frankly. All the really competent people would probably make the decision to move on instead. Your average ultrarich oligarch is more commonly a lotto winner and thug than an evil supergenius, and as soon as the rug is swept out under them they can't handle it. They'll make mistakes in areas unrelated to realizing how shitty hypercapitalism is, ensuring their downfall.

Granted, we should abandon capitalism ASAP regardless, but the threat of Permanent Facebook World has never struck me as based in historical trends.

[scriver]

Your average ultrarich oligarch is more commonly a lotto winner and thug than an evil supergenius,

Then Transhumanism happens

[wierd]

And again, nothing a skilled human with physical access to hardware cannot solve. (Even if that solution happens to involve stripped high voltage power cables or perhaps a crowbar. Bulterian jihad is a suboptimal but valid solution to the transhuman despot problem.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Your average ultrarich oligarch is more commonly a lotto winner and thug than an evil supergenius,

Then Transhumanism happens

Five Minutes Into Making Yourself An Evil Supergenius, 2089, Colorized

[Max™]

I would be the best supervillain ruler, honest I would.

Also, it should be noted that Marx's concept of Communism is post-automation. Basically, it's a stage in economic development in his "historical materialism" theory which stretched back 100s of years, from feudalism to mercantilism, to capitalism, but also, logically, stretches forward by centuries as well.

Thus, Marx's idea of communism isn't some "system" you can actually "implement" in the real world: it's a prediction on how goods and resources will come to be distributed in a post-automation world. And isn't just about everyone talking about "universal basic income" as the most sensible-sounding solution to providing for everyone in a post-automation world? What is that, if not exactly what Marx predicted? Methinks nobody actually really understood what he was talking about, and he's likely to have the last laugh.

Yup, revolutions were meant to describe cultural and technological changes, not just "the people rising up and taking over" or whatever else it gets said as. He pretty clearly picked out that automation would buttpound capitalism and it's been starting to go in dry these days, as she said in Mother May I Dance With Mary Jane's Fist: "NO LUBE!"

[Dunamisdeos]

I never went to that dance.

[Baffler]

I never went to that dance.

You're better off, from the sound of it.