Jump to content

Zeffolia

Members
  • Content Count

    3206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Zeffolia last won the day on September 28

Zeffolia had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

2 Followers

About Zeffolia

  • Rank
    2K, On My Way

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Selected

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. UBI is a band-aid at most, giving poor people scraps in hopes of receiving n% of the scraps back again to profit off of. The only solution is for all of humanity's immense capital to be owned by the people, and for this to be the top priority. Even above prior conceptions of societal organization and "progress" Even with our immense technology I would say much of it is not progress. Do you have any idea how much effort has been poured into proprietary technologies which will never be part of the public commons? Such a waste, one of the greatest sins of capitalism
  2. So what's going to happen when all labor is automated? Capitalism ceases to function because it depends on consumers, but there won't be any if nobody can make any money because there are no jobs
  3. I never claimed to be perfect or non-hypocritical, you don't see me donating everything I own and becoming homeless because it wouldn't help anything overall and I'm mentally weak and therefore prone to making excuses like that last one. Everyone is and actual capitalists moreso. I'm well aware that under global wealth redistribution and communism I personally would start living a life that some people right now would perceive to be less well off, but the self should not be a factor when diagnosing issues of the whole
  4. Nobody's getting rich except rich people, in poor countries or rich countries, it's not the 80s anymore
  5. Grass roots political organizing? Labor union organizing? Enlightened bourgeois vanguardism? Other things? I wish I knew. Clearly electoral politics don't work.
  6. The exploitation of capitalism to develop the means of production to the most advanced point, followed by a global socialist revolution in whatever way is most likely to lead to communism
  7. Well it's already entirely possible, we have the nukes to do it. But indeed they could do it cleanly with search-and-destroyer robots. Thus we have to stop them. It's rather that capitalism is internally inconsistent and must come to an end at some point, it's just a matter of sculpting that end to be one we want, and there seems to only be two options, anarchist communism vs totalitarian fascism. It's about how we get to the end, then that result is crystallized forward in time. Thus there is a global humanitarian urgency, much different from what you described which is a local and individual risk
  8. This sounds nice and safe but it's unclear to me whether a possibility of a permanent totalitarian fascist state exists in the future which ruins the effectiveness of an incremental political revolution. Once they enact sufficiently unequal power over everyone else and fortify themselves within AI-protected pleasure domes, coupled with the deployment of "law" enforcement drones to keep non-elites in check (or even just killing all of us since they have no use for us in a post-scarcity world anymore), these weak positions could spell our downfall. Don't underestimate the technological power that will be unleashed from the Earth in the coming centuries, and don't underestimate the ability for one sufficiently smooth sociopath to infiltrate the aristocracy of the time and enact such a fascist state. It's not a scenario of a default mediocre level of danger similar to the past, coupled with utopianism as the only other option - it's utopianism or Hell as far as I'm concerned but I may be wrong.
  9. Capitalism and democracy are not compatible because the structures of the democracy will be undermined by capital, things will only continue getting so much worse as we enter the technological future, private property and its ability to transmit the power of some individuals over others in the form of economic and executive coercions of others into enacting that private owner's will in relation to the material world, human or non-human, over arbitrary long distances, cannot continue existing
  10. I think you're wrong and are underestimating the desire of most of us to do good work and exceed the capabilities and fruits of yesterday. If people aren't obsessed with and in love with the idea of making toasters and this results in toaster stagnation, I promise other people will step in and help build generic mechanical and electronic object description and compilation languages i.e. 3D printers whose building blocks are not blobs of plastic but rotors, capacitors, and other higher level components like entire embedded systems, plus an evolutionary algorithm for the automatic generation and testing of toaster designs to maximize efficiency in each direction, along with aesthetics based on automated consumer surveys, thus Darwinism lives on in the form of statistical processes within the computers we use to control our means of production rather than in violent conflicts between humans fighting for their lives to survive, eat, and sleep soundly. Opposition to such a goal is unjustifiable from what I can tell, and non-visionary and non-creative.
  11. Supply chains do indeed need to be optimized to avoid production bottlenecks in each layer, and humans do play a role in that process and can sometimes act as bottlenecks, thus they become overworked and exploited if the primary goal is optimization of the supply chain for profit for capitalists I'm making no pro-Soviet claims right now and won't dispute anything you said on that topic As for your claim that the iPhone is a great technology, and indeed it is - it's a pinnacle of human achievement and a testament to man's genius, as are many other technologies - it's also an exploitative proprietary piece of hardware and software designed specifically to give profit and power to one company. It would be better if Apple's intellectual assets were plundered and distributed globally, but this cannot happen under capitalism because capitalism requires property rights which this would violate. But it would be a net gain for humanity, if everyone has this knowledge and anyone could compete with Apple, and in fact even under a capitalist paradigm this would increase the market competition you so praised earlier which Apple must engage in. But it will never happen and in fact distribution of trade secrets is highly illegal under capitalism. This contradiction leads to only one conclusion in a world where renewable energy will soon give us unlimited energy and where information can be freely copied between computers - that once post-scarcity is achieved it can only be just and optimal if it's communistic and no private property rights of this sort exist, because they are in themselves bottlenecks of production. If we look at supply chains and their optimization from the standpoint of optimization for their private owners, this results in their private property rights over that supply chain acting as a bottleneck just as legitimate and literal as the bottleneck posed by human workers at times which you used to justify, or hopefully just explain, under capitalism. So which exploitation is more just, that of workers or that of abstract legal entities? To me it's very clearly the latter In the post-scarcity economy we are approaching (whether or not it's in our lifetimes), it's not the case that humans need to be exploited and optimized for efficiency anymore, thus the remaining economic decision to make is the decision of who controls all of this vast capital and how these fruits are distributed. The answer is according to the needs of each, not the whims. And once a sufficient surplus is created, luxury can begin again without any ethical qualms being embedded in its existence from the very beginning of its supply chain
  12. I agree that competition is important and necessary, but there are different types of competition. Cooperative competition can be better than non-cooperative competition. Competition where the intellectual fruits of a corporation's labor are only used to benefit that corporation is not competition which is mutually beneficial for the whole of society. Rather, a global society in which all knowledge is free and which people can compete with a mindset of giving, like in the free open source software movement, seems much more effective, given that information can be copied arbitrarily many times then given to anyone who wants it, free to use, modify, and share again
  13. Under communism supply chains are not optimized for maximum profit and there is no exploitation of workers. If that isn't how it is, it's not communism yet Historically the shittier choices are because of war, pre-existing economic conditions, and trade blockades. There's nothing inherent under communism that results in shittier products. As for less choice, the choice between a round shaped button on my toaster and a square one isn't important. I want a toaster, I don't care if it's the same toaster everyone else in the world has as long as that toaster works for a long time, is repairable, and is made ethically. Consumer choices under capitalism are pseudo-choices anyway between shitty-planned-obsolescence product #56445 and #85642348, each extracting variable amounts of profit from you and the workers or slaves who made it. And now that we're entering the information economy, not only are laborers the product but so are consumers, for data-harvesting companies, and these companies therefore intentionally reduce consumer choice to herd them into data collection pens
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure Supply chains are all distributed throughout society in such deeply interwoven ways that you cannot separate segments of them and analyze their ethics individually. The entirety of a capitalist supply chain decays into unethical exploitation due to the desire to make more profit, thus there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but since you can't attack an individual for needing food and shelter, it's luxurious goods which are particularly egregious ethically. Luxury can only approach an ethical status under fully automated luxury communism
  15. I'm sure Mercedes engineers are well paid, whether everyone in the supply chain is is a pretty clear no though
×
×
  • Create New...