what the fuck is going on here how is she being funneled millions of dollars
also idk why people are saying enhanced automation wont bring about communism, thats idealistic not materialist. the way i see it there are two paths forward for a stateless classless society assuming tech continues to advance:
the billionaires kill us all and have their own stateless classless society when the workers are automated
we oppose them killing us all and we just do a stateless classless society ourselves with all work automated
what the fuck is going on here how is she being funneled millions of dollars
Professional singer with a decently sized fanbase who is also married to one of the richest men in the world.
also idk why people are saying enhanced automation wont bring about communism
The big argument is that without land/capital ownership reform, automation just means further enclosure, ghettoization, and imprisonment/extermination of "surplus labor". It's the same shit the Luddites were freaking out about. Rather than a Guild of Textile Workers all plying their high skill trades, you get one big textile mill on the river and a bunch of ex-craftsmen who either work for pennies-on-the-dollar in the mill or get told to fuck off and die.
A turn-key agricultural sector would be a nightmare for both agricultural consumers and workers, so long as the key was held by an oligarch.
the way i see it there are two paths forward for a stateless classless society assuming tech continues to advance:
I think the theory of tech advancement absent labor really puts a lot of chips on maintenance-free technology, and I've seen absolutely nothing to support this theory of future business operation.
That said, the nature of modern technology tends to revolve around securing large physical installations with incredibly low-cost and labor-light security. What we are seeing more and more is the modernization of security forces, such that a handful of insiders wield the power to harm/kill vastly larger numbers of proletariat residents. Individuals are thus forced to choose between a high-risk / low-yield resistance to security or a low-risk / low-yield surrender.
? i mean we're talking about a hypothetical future, im not saying our current abilities in automation are sufficient for a no-work society. maintenance will always be the biggest hurdle at scale, especially with current tech. you can make parts last for a long time but at scale stuff will break down enough that youll need 100-200 people per large industrial plant to fix things. this will necessarily create a class of people regardless of your societal disposition for capitalism vs socialism, so communism will not be a thing until the maintenance automation problem is solved. our current tech just isnt good enough to have self repairing factories yet, or self fixing code. we're only just starting to dabble in that sort of tech.
and yes, automation will necessarily create terrible living conditions, but that in itself will make a socialist society more likely, or at least a society in which the capitalist class is more managed.
communism will not be a thing until the maintenance automation problem is solved
So long as the technology frontier continues to advance, it will never be solved. But communism isn't a workless society, it's prefaced on a classless society. In that sense, what really matters is the political control of capital. Is capital democratized or is it under the thumb of an oligarchy?
As we advance our understanding and implementation of security technology, the latter becomes more and more easy to realize. By contrast, a security state is difficult to democratize, as there are an increasing number of choke points through which any opportunistic individual can disenfranchise folks on the wrong side of the gate. Once you give someone a push-button system for maintaining food or potable water or traffic, it becomes that much easier to collect rents in exchange for access and deny service to your political opponents. That's not even considering a push-button flying army of kill-bots.
and yes, automation will necessarily create terrible living conditions, but that in itself will make a socialist society more likely, or at least a society in which the capitalist class is more managed.
Concentration camps and refugee camps are about as miserable a state of living as you can create. And yet, these are not historically places from which socialist resistance movements emerge. The tighter the security, the less capable people are to resist. Just look at Palestine (or neighboring Jordan and Egypt, for that matter). Incredibly tight security allows for more and more deplorable standards of living. And if you want to see the relative success of an insurgency, consider Yemen. Not exactly on the path to glorious revolution, given the struggles they continue to have with even an incompetently implemented first generation military.
i mean i already pointed these options out. eventually they will run out of opponents with such a large security apparatus, and then there will be de facto no classes, just in the bloodiest way imaginable.
the movements in the middle east are pretty complex, a lot of them did used to be socialist or left adjacent but some of it was due to material backing from socialist countries. their material conditions have changed since then and that changes the character of the movements.
eventually they will run out of opponents with such a large security apparatus
You'll always have a younger generation of people to extract labor-value from, and that younger generation will always begin as dissatisfied with their lot. This is the "Perpetual Revolution" leftists say they pine for. But, in truth, it is simply a cycle through which the bourgeoise children inherit and improve the security apparatuses of their parents.
Look to France for this cycle on full display. The people are always rebelling and the Bourbons are always coming back in again to quell and subjugate their lessers.
the movements in the middle east are pretty complex, a lot of them did used to be socialist or left adjacent but some of it was due to material backing from socialist countries.
The Middle East is a... ahem land of contrasts. And while they're certainly not unfamiliar with socialist or leftist revolts, they also play host to significantly sized counter-revolutionary institutions and enclaves, from which the next generation of security state enforcement is sourced.
what the fuck is going on here how is she being funneled millions of dollars
also idk why people are saying enhanced automation wont bring about communism, thats idealistic not materialist. the way i see it there are two paths forward for a stateless classless society assuming tech continues to advance:
the billionaires kill us all and have their own stateless classless society when the workers are automated
we oppose them killing us all and we just do a stateless classless society ourselves with all work automated
Professional singer with a decently sized fanbase who is also married to one of the richest men in the world.
The big argument is that without land/capital ownership reform, automation just means further enclosure, ghettoization, and imprisonment/extermination of "surplus labor". It's the same shit the Luddites were freaking out about. Rather than a Guild of Textile Workers all plying their high skill trades, you get one big textile mill on the river and a bunch of ex-craftsmen who either work for pennies-on-the-dollar in the mill or get told to fuck off and die.
A turn-key agricultural sector would be a nightmare for both agricultural consumers and workers, so long as the key was held by an oligarch.
I think the theory of tech advancement absent labor really puts a lot of chips on maintenance-free technology, and I've seen absolutely nothing to support this theory of future business operation.
That said, the nature of modern technology tends to revolve around securing large physical installations with incredibly low-cost and labor-light security. What we are seeing more and more is the modernization of security forces, such that a handful of insiders wield the power to harm/kill vastly larger numbers of proletariat residents. Individuals are thus forced to choose between a high-risk / low-yield resistance to security or a low-risk / low-yield surrender.
? i mean we're talking about a hypothetical future, im not saying our current abilities in automation are sufficient for a no-work society. maintenance will always be the biggest hurdle at scale, especially with current tech. you can make parts last for a long time but at scale stuff will break down enough that youll need 100-200 people per large industrial plant to fix things. this will necessarily create a class of people regardless of your societal disposition for capitalism vs socialism, so communism will not be a thing until the maintenance automation problem is solved. our current tech just isnt good enough to have self repairing factories yet, or self fixing code. we're only just starting to dabble in that sort of tech.
and yes, automation will necessarily create terrible living conditions, but that in itself will make a socialist society more likely, or at least a society in which the capitalist class is more managed.
So long as the technology frontier continues to advance, it will never be solved. But communism isn't a workless society, it's prefaced on a classless society. In that sense, what really matters is the political control of capital. Is capital democratized or is it under the thumb of an oligarchy?
As we advance our understanding and implementation of security technology, the latter becomes more and more easy to realize. By contrast, a security state is difficult to democratize, as there are an increasing number of choke points through which any opportunistic individual can disenfranchise folks on the wrong side of the gate. Once you give someone a push-button system for maintaining food or potable water or traffic, it becomes that much easier to collect rents in exchange for access and deny service to your political opponents. That's not even considering a push-button flying army of kill-bots.
Concentration camps and refugee camps are about as miserable a state of living as you can create. And yet, these are not historically places from which socialist resistance movements emerge. The tighter the security, the less capable people are to resist. Just look at Palestine (or neighboring Jordan and Egypt, for that matter). Incredibly tight security allows for more and more deplorable standards of living. And if you want to see the relative success of an insurgency, consider Yemen. Not exactly on the path to glorious revolution, given the struggles they continue to have with even an incompetently implemented first generation military.
i mean i already pointed these options out. eventually they will run out of opponents with such a large security apparatus, and then there will be de facto no classes, just in the bloodiest way imaginable.
the movements in the middle east are pretty complex, a lot of them did used to be socialist or left adjacent but some of it was due to material backing from socialist countries. their material conditions have changed since then and that changes the character of the movements.
id have a longer convo about this but gotta jet
You'll always have a younger generation of people to extract labor-value from, and that younger generation will always begin as dissatisfied with their lot. This is the "Perpetual Revolution" leftists say they pine for. But, in truth, it is simply a cycle through which the bourgeoise children inherit and improve the security apparatuses of their parents.
Look to France for this cycle on full display. The people are always rebelling and the Bourbons are always coming back in again to quell and subjugate their lessers.
The Middle East is a... ahem land of contrasts. And while they're certainly not unfamiliar with socialist or leftist revolts, they also play host to significantly sized counter-revolutionary institutions and enclaves, from which the next generation of security state enforcement is sourced.
Adios.