I have thoughts on this, because while she's wrong, she's not entirely wrong, and it's actually worth engaging with people who think this way.
The first thought has to do with the necessity of a post-scarcity economy for communism. Murray Bookchin dealt with this in "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" in 1971. His answer is basically that yes, you do need a post-scarcity economy for a stateless, classless society to be feasible. But what Bookchin meant by post-scarcity didn't require full automation, just the ability to produce at a level where a high standard of living didn't have to be rationed, which he thought was first achievable with mid-1960s technology. As one of the other posters here said, classless doesn't imply "workless". We could have a post-scarcity society today, but the way we allocate resources prevents us from doing so, and creates artificial scarcity.
My second thought has to do with the book "Four Futures", by Peter Frase. He describes the society that Silicon Valley wants as Rentism: hierarchy and abundance. It is the attempt to create total automation, while maintaining the power and wealth of economic elites which is so far largely enforced by the system of wage labor. Rentism is a world where most consumer goods can be copied by a consumer-grade 3-D printer, but you're not allowed to because of intellectual property law, and enforcement built into your printer. It's a world where your toaster will only toast bread sold by the toaster vendor (unless you illegally jailbreak it). Intellectual property law and the extraction of rents it allows becomes the basis for elite wealth and control. Such a society would have a problem of effective demand, which would be addressed with a combination of violent enforcement/guard labor, and UBI – here you can see why UBI is popular with techbros. That said, the long-term trajectory of Rentism probably tends towards Communism; ultimately the only thing keeping the masses from post-scarcity abundance is ideology.
But what Bookchin meant by post-scarcity didn’t require full automation, just the ability to produce at a level where a high standard of living didn’t have to be rationed, which he thought was first achievable with mid-1960s technology
Sure. And Krompkin thought it was possible with 1890s technologies. A lot hinges on your anticipated standard of living. Do you want planes? Do you want MRI machines? Do you want a Space Program? Etc.
Post-Scarcity is here, if all you care about is a 19th century serf's quality of life. But that doesn't cover things like literacy or security or any kind of social life.
We could have a post-scarcity society today, but the way we allocate resources prevents us from doing so, and creates artificial scarcity.
We allocate resources towards the security state, which explicitly enables the class hierarchy. Keep building new kinds of gate, and you'll always have gatekeepers and rent seekers.
Intellectual property law and the extraction of rents it allows becomes the basis for elite wealth and control. Such a society would have a problem of effective demand, which would be addressed with a combination of violent enforcement/guard labor, and UBI – here you can see why UBI is popular with techbros. That said, the long-term trajectory of Rentism probably tends towards Communism;
Again, I think the big hiccup in this expectation is in the advancement of security technology. As securing both physical and intellectual property becomes cheaper, the Capitalist State becomes more secure.
What is the upper bound on efficient security state? What's the political and economic limit of a Renter society? I don't know. But I think Americans are focusing their time and energy on finding out.
I have thoughts on this, because while she's wrong, she's not entirely wrong, and it's actually worth engaging with people who think this way.
The first thought has to do with the necessity of a post-scarcity economy for communism. Murray Bookchin dealt with this in "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" in 1971. His answer is basically that yes, you do need a post-scarcity economy for a stateless, classless society to be feasible. But what Bookchin meant by post-scarcity didn't require full automation, just the ability to produce at a level where a high standard of living didn't have to be rationed, which he thought was first achievable with mid-1960s technology. As one of the other posters here said, classless doesn't imply "workless". We could have a post-scarcity society today, but the way we allocate resources prevents us from doing so, and creates artificial scarcity.
My second thought has to do with the book "Four Futures", by Peter Frase. He describes the society that Silicon Valley wants as Rentism: hierarchy and abundance. It is the attempt to create total automation, while maintaining the power and wealth of economic elites which is so far largely enforced by the system of wage labor. Rentism is a world where most consumer goods can be copied by a consumer-grade 3-D printer, but you're not allowed to because of intellectual property law, and enforcement built into your printer. It's a world where your toaster will only toast bread sold by the toaster vendor (unless you illegally jailbreak it). Intellectual property law and the extraction of rents it allows becomes the basis for elite wealth and control. Such a society would have a problem of effective demand, which would be addressed with a combination of violent enforcement/guard labor, and UBI – here you can see why UBI is popular with techbros. That said, the long-term trajectory of Rentism probably tends towards Communism; ultimately the only thing keeping the masses from post-scarcity abundance is ideology.
Sure. And Krompkin thought it was possible with 1890s technologies. A lot hinges on your anticipated standard of living. Do you want planes? Do you want MRI machines? Do you want a Space Program? Etc.
Post-Scarcity is here, if all you care about is a 19th century serf's quality of life. But that doesn't cover things like literacy or security or any kind of social life.
We allocate resources towards the security state, which explicitly enables the class hierarchy. Keep building new kinds of gate, and you'll always have gatekeepers and rent seekers.
Again, I think the big hiccup in this expectation is in the advancement of security technology. As securing both physical and intellectual property becomes cheaper, the Capitalist State becomes more secure.
What is the upper bound on efficient security state? What's the political and economic limit of a Renter society? I don't know. But I think Americans are focusing their time and energy on finding out.
deleted by creator
You'd like the chapter on Exterminism.