Here, i’m trying to add nuances to what i wrote, i guess that i don’t have time to really argue on the Internet with people who’d disagree with me, yet the desire is still very much there, i don’t like echo chambers :
We’ll regret our current republic if times go 't/r’ough, since that usually means a more authoritarian governement.
Without robot-slaves, it’d also seem unavoidable that the wealthier will desire a higher rent to sustain a way of living and live above the peasants, if they need 10 times the peasant’s salary to do so, then we’d tend towards 10% of (neo-)nobles and 90% of (neo-)peasants.
It’s true that every(?) society of large enough scale was divided between the workers, (the soldiers, the clergy, …), and the privileged class, who didn’t have to work(, except for taking care of h.is.er fortune). One could argue that nobles of the past had more responsabilities than nowadays capitalists(, as well as an even more pronounced inequality in the face of the judicial system), but it’d be more interesting to know if technology will avoid the return to the “natural” order between the laborious class and the noble/annuitant one.
There’s a future in which capitalism could still lead to a utopia, e.g. with robot-slaves, that’d make my/our fears wrong :
Despite what i wrote in this comment, better times are ahead, in particular thanks to these “robot-slaves”, and while everyone wants more, i don’t think we’re evil to the point of refusing a mostly labor-free life to every human on earth if we have the capacity to do so.
Capitalism wouldn’t announce an horrible future if we can still eat freely, if money/‘renting your body/time’ stop being a necessity, it could lead to some socialist ideals in a utopia.
I refuse to be cynical to the point of believing that the capitalists’ greed would be more important to them than allowing technology to free wo.men from (the loss of their entire lives to )work.s they hate.
Perhaps will i be old enough to see that happening, i don’t think that we’re evil, and i dare think that nobody is, we could very well be allowed to live in a utopia, they don’t hate their population.
Hence, i don’t really care of what we’re doing in our countries, if capitalists want to stay in power and enjoy their privileges, then so be it.
The solution to our fight against other countries, to our desire of security, to the threat of cultural hegemony, would be to be united in diversity, it’s doable&desirable :
What’s annoying is refusing to allow/‘live with’ countries that want to walk a different path, we need this diversity to think ouside the box, if every creation is a little birth then every synthesis is a little death.
We have to cohabitate, and while i’d prefer to live in a communist utopia like everyone on Lemmygrad, i wouldn’t want capitalism(, royalism, etc.,) to disappear all over the world, it’s their problem, and it’s interesting to know how they’ll evolve.
The usual counter-argument is that we have to coup/“convert” other countries because it makes us more secure, i don’t think that cultural hegemony is the only way to prevent military invasions, and i’d go as far as to say that it’s also not the only way to prevent covert operations and foreign propaganda, we need to have rules against them and a way to enforce them.
Capitalists would have to be certain that their privileges wouldn’t be overthrtrown by a communist revolution for them to accept socialist countries.
Or perhaps that these “robot-slaves” will make useless this need for a superior monetary/social position, having your basic needs met should be enough for everyone, independent communities with their own rules could flourish in the “land of the free”, who knows what the future has in store.
================================
If the only reason for the moderator to have deleted my comment is that it was confusing h.im.er as said in the modlog, then i hope that these titles quickly written will have solved the problem. If that really was the only motive for deletion.
Here, i’m trying to add nuances to what i wrote, i guess that i don’t have time to really argue on the Internet with people who’d disagree with me, yet the desire is still very much there, i don’t like echo chambers :
We’ll regret our current republic if times go 't/r’ough, since that usually means a more authoritarian governement.
Without robot-slaves, it’d also seem unavoidable that the wealthier will desire a higher rent to sustain a way of living and live above the peasants, if they need 10 times the peasant’s salary to do so, then we’d tend towards 10% of (neo-)nobles and 90% of (neo-)peasants.
It’s true that every(?) society of large enough scale was divided between the workers, (the soldiers, the clergy, …), and the privileged class, who didn’t have to work(, except for taking care of h.is.er fortune). One could argue that nobles of the past had more responsabilities than nowadays capitalists(, as well as an even more pronounced inequality in the face of the judicial system), but it’d be more interesting to know if technology will avoid the return to the “natural” order between the laborious class and the noble/annuitant one.
There’s a future in which capitalism could still lead to a utopia, e.g. with robot-slaves, that’d make my/our fears wrong :
Despite what i wrote in this comment, better times are ahead, in particular thanks to these “robot-slaves”, and while everyone wants more, i don’t think we’re evil to the point of refusing a mostly labor-free life to every human on earth if we have the capacity to do so.
Capitalism wouldn’t announce an horrible future if we can still eat freely, if money/‘renting your body/time’ stop being a necessity, it could lead to some socialist ideals in a utopia.
I refuse to be cynical to the point of believing that the capitalists’ greed would be more important to them than allowing technology to free wo.men from (the loss of their entire lives to )work.s they hate.
Perhaps will i be old enough to see that happening, i don’t think that we’re evil, and i dare think that nobody is, we could very well be allowed to live in a utopia, they don’t hate their population.
Hence, i don’t really care of what we’re doing in our countries, if capitalists want to stay in power and enjoy their privileges, then so be it.
The solution to our fight against other countries, to our desire of security, to the threat of cultural hegemony, would be to be united in diversity, it’s doable&desirable :
What’s annoying is refusing to allow/‘live with’ countries that want to walk a different path, we need this diversity to think ouside the box, if every creation is a little birth then every synthesis is a little death.
We have to cohabitate, and while i’d prefer to live in a communist utopia like everyone on Lemmygrad, i wouldn’t want capitalism(, royalism, etc.,) to disappear all over the world, it’s their problem, and it’s interesting to know how they’ll evolve.
The usual counter-argument is that we have to coup/“convert” other countries because it makes us more secure, i don’t think that cultural hegemony is the only way to prevent military invasions, and i’d go as far as to say that it’s also not the only way to prevent covert operations and foreign propaganda, we need to have rules against them and a way to enforce them.
Capitalists would have to be certain that their privileges wouldn’t be overthrtrown by a communist revolution for them to accept socialist countries.
Or perhaps that these “robot-slaves” will make useless this need for a superior monetary/social position, having your basic needs met should be enough for everyone, independent communities with their own rules could flourish in the “land of the free”, who knows what the future has in store.
================================
If the only reason for the moderator to have deleted my comment is that it was confusing h.im.er as said in the modlog, then i hope that these titles quickly written will have solved the problem. If that really was the only motive for deletion.