Will people implement Communism when all jobs are taken by robots?

yes it'll eventually have been tried
we'll all be neet

File: communism.jpg (433KB, 900x1319px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 900x1319px

no thanks

>>2082855
they gonna keep trying until the whole world turn to shit

>>2082855
>>2082861
What will happen when robots take all jobs though?

>>2082853
>we'll all be neet
How do you know that? I've heard that some goverments are currently deciding on universal basic income, but most current jobs will probably be replaced with new ones.

>>2082865
It'll probably be like the transition from agriculture to industry. Once robots are in, people can focus more on creative jobs.

>>2082851
YES fully automated luxury communism is inevitable

>>2082896
that will put hundreds of thousands of people out of the job market, you think Dale the steelworker is going to transition flawlessly to journalist or some other creative work? what demand is their for these new creative jobs anyway?

File: automation.png (61KB, 608x884px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 608x884px

>>2082865
capitalists will build, own and manage the robots, it will strengthen capitalism, capitalism will be with us for at least as long as genetically modified humans exist

>>2082896
So everyone is going to compete for YouTube bux and every third women will be filming the most depraved porn imaginable?

Future seems bright. Anyone wanna watch my review of the new star wars movie so I can buy a hot lunch?

Pls

>>2082911
Where did I say that everyone will do these jobs?

>>2082919
so what will the working class do?

>>2082865
Maybe a higher rate of /K selection? I could see people reproducing less while investing in their offspring more and more until mass unemployment is almost entirely gone. Or, humanity might take a page from the NSDAP's plan and give all the useless guys jobs working on farms doing task the old school way for the sake of employment.

>>2082919
I don't know. Probably the part where you said "it will be like the transition from agriculture to industry".

>>2082909
Exactly and what will all the people who lost their millions of jobs do? millions and millions of neets? Basic income for everyone?

>>2082855
>russian federation flag
I don't understand

>>2082927
>useless guys jobs working on farms doing task the old school way for the sake of employment.
Seems sensible. All those guys on the farm surely won't complain a tractor that you took away the keys for would make 25 of them obsolete while the rest of the world gets the comfy jobs.

>>2082925
Fertilize the earth.

>>2082909
aw I'd say at least a quarter of folks who go on about post-scarcity are in the tech industry
the other three quarters, let's uh, let's not talk about them.

>>2082938
>post-scarcity capitalism will totally work guise you just have to kill 3/4 of the population

>>2082935
What do you think about the /K selection part?

>>2082930
the same thing they are doing now, most of the world is already underemployed

>>2082939
well they'd better start making some smart investments

>>2082947
/K selection happens all the time anyway though. Some people may have more children than others but humans aren't regularly giving birth to octoplets.

Or am I wrong.

>>2082950
a lot of people are underemployed doing exactly the type of work that automation replaces. this would be an unprecedented amount of unemployment.

>>2082855
And exactly how is China supposed to be shit?

It's basically doing the World Bank's job for it, having brought more than 700 million people out of poverty in 30 years.

>>2082851
No, they'll all just move into customer service jobs so that the people who own the robots will have someone to feel superior to.

>>2082959
>customer service jobs won't be automated
they already have fast food restaurants with machine servers

>>2082954
Hmm. I think we may be on the wrong page.

Let's say we have 10k jobs left in the world with 20k people. Do to need to invent in offspring for them to secure a job, the birth rate naturally switches to being dominated by /K instead of r/ due to more time needed for each individual offspring. Eventually, with the switch lowing the birthrate, there is now 10k people for 10k jobs. Do you see this being possible or?

If we are on the same page, then sorry for my misunderstanding.

>>2082967
A lot of people like the "human element". Many people choose to buy groceries from the cashier or order their pizza over the phone rather thsn using the app. Not just old people, either. I don't get it personally, but I recognize that there's a market for it.

>>2082978
Well in that scenario you'd have to "manage" the population yeah.

But again how do people respond to that?

>>2082981
>A lot of people like the "human element".
businesses don't care what people "like" if it cuts into their profits
all they care about is what people will tolerate

>>2082981
>some people still prefer the bank teller to the ATM, let's have the entire economy revolve around this

>>2082956
if robots were everywhere doing literally every task imaginable then the unemployed humans could live off the scraps, nothing needs to change

File: Capture.png (103KB, 583x626px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 583x626px

>>2082927
Farming will be one of the first jobs to go to robots

I always avoid the machine servers whenever possible, just to do my bit to help someone keep their job. Consumers generally should think more about the impact of what their behaviour does as the consumer is last bastion of people power. The legal system and government institutions sold out in the 70s.

>>2082992
Of course businesses care about what people want. If a large grocery store uses their capital to implement fully automated stores, that opens up opportunities for smaller grocery stores to charge a premium for the products by providing superior customer service.

>>2083006
Who is buying all the crap your robots make and where do they get their money from?

People don't understand that the implications of full automation make both the would be consumer and the owner of the robots equally obsolete.

>>2082985
>Well in that scenario you'd have to "manage" the population yeah.
In my situation, it self manages itself by (...

>But again how do people respond to that?
...) how the West is now. As education goes up, the birthrate correlates and goes down.

So, to explain further, as jobs go into a more intelligent-demand, the new emphasis on education would, by correlation, cause the birthrate to fall, making the supply of labor lower, therefore decreasing unemployment.

Does that make sense or I am just pipe dreaming?

>>2083018
But wouldn't long term K selection trends cause demand to contract and the economy to shrink more and more with more and more of the highly specialized jobs disappearing?

>>2083018
pretty sure population changes aren't that easy to figure out, to start with you'd need to plan 18 years in advance, tech is moving way too fast and most predictions say the futures fucked unless we make some drastic changes while no one really knows what they actually want to do.

>>2083038
>But wouldn't long term K selection trends cause demand to contract and the economy to shrink more and more with more and more of the highly specialized jobs disappearing?
We would then, either A. hit a barrier in technological progress that sets a standard of human population or B. Keep changing demands in sectors as technology progresses creating different jobs basically for each new generation.

>>2083041
>pretty sure population changes aren't that easy to figure out
No you're right, the best we can do are make educated guesses, but I would agrue these guess can be fairly accurate.

>to start with you'd need to plan 18 years in advance
Explain further so I get the full picture of what you're meaning here.

>tech is moving way too fast and most predictions say the futures fucked unless we make some drastic changes while no one really knows what they actually want to do.
Yes, but we first need to come up with solutions on how to fix these issues that arise and in all honesty, a lot of it comes down to 'we'll just have to wait and see how everything naturally plays out.'

NEET era is coming

>>2082851
Well what's the alternative? Surely technological progress won't just stop, amd surely the economy cannot grow forever so communism is the only logical plan for the future.

>>2083038
>>2083075
>But wouldn't long term K selection trends cause demand to contract and the economy to shrink more and more with more and more of the highly specialized jobs disappearing?
I just reread it and I realized I completely misunderstood your point.

Yes, a decreasing population would decrease demand - but the economy would not 'shrink,' it would instead just adjust/correct the number of supply of goods and demand of labor, to the new amount of the supply of demand.

>more of the highly specialized jobs disappearing?
I would like to touch bases on this more. I, personally (I'm not anywhere near an expert by the way, so please do not be upset by my ignorance), think that some jobs, no matter what, will not disappear. For example, robotic cleaning and repairs. 'Yes, but we can have robots do that work.' Well, who cleans those robots? Robots. And them? Robots. And so on and so forth. After so many lines of robots, you either need to 1. somehow make a never failing robot (I think this is 99.99% impossible, personally) or 2. waste resources making all these robots when you can just cheaply (cheaply in the sense of which is harder resource to obtain, metal or food) pay a human to do it that doesn't waste precious metal and technological resources.

As for more specialized jobs disappearing - absolutely not! Technology will make specialized jobs even more in demand because it will allow people to further focus even more on a subject, design, process, and or area even more allowing further information and innovations to be made, which in return will turn out new goods that will need even further specialty in improving or upkeeping.

>>2083210
Proletarian genocide.

>>2082896
But your forgetting about the thinking machines.

>>2082911
Not to mention, there's going to be such an oversaturation of media content, you couldn't consume it all if lives 100 years, were awake 24/7 and watching 4 things at once.

>>2082978
Except that the correlation between fertility and jobs isn't that great. I mean it exists, but people don't have children as supply side manufacturers to meet economic demand for labor.

>>2083015
It makes the consumer-laborer obsolete.

It does not in any way make the owner obsolete. The owner has shit tons of robot slaves to do their bidding. They just won't gear production towards meeting the wants of the workforce, because the workforce is robots. They'll either make robots, or have robots make them things they want.

Superintelligence emerges and we have to do whatever it says.

The End.

>>2082896
We already have too many artists and writers. Many newspapers are struggling, and a few artists aren't making money unless they get some good patrons. All I'm saying is that the creative industry isn't exactly an untapped market. Also, many people create art or write already just for fun, in their free time. Imagine how many hobby artist will emerge as more and more people get laid off.

>>2082906
Tens of millions or more, not hundreds of thousands.
For just one example, just look at truck drivers alone, we have 1-2 percent of the US population alone employed there.
Robots can drive for days on end, and as an bonus you don't need to fund their stimulant habit.

>>2083291
>Except that the correlation between fertility and jobs isn't that great.
True, but that wasn't my point. My point was as education rises, which happens in industrialized countries, birthrates decline.

>I mean it exists, but people don't have children as supply side manufacturers to meet economic demand for labor.
I don't think I was implying that, I was saying "As automation increases, education will increase sending the decline of birthrates further until unemployment, due to lack of supply of job demand, will even out," but I think you misunderstood me as saying 'people will reproduce on what the demand of jobs are,' which will never happen because, hey, we like to screw.

>>2082866
such as?

>>2083333
Not the guy you're talking to but
Why will education increase? How will they pay for it?

>>2083353
Why will education increase?
Well, what we (more like me, myself, and I) were talking about is would humanity go to more /K selected route of breeding - /K selection obviously favoring intelligence and offspring investment. So, in this hypothetical situation, we are imagining that intelligence would become a positive breeding trait.

>How will they pay for it?
I would imagine like now, taxes and free market admixture.

>>2083333
That's only assuming education loss of fertility can match the needed population decline. There's also the fact that much of the fertility decline has to do with careers, and if there are not careers.

>>2083401
>That's only assuming education loss of fertility can match the needed population decline. There's also the fact that much of the fertility decline has to do with careers, and if there are not careers.
Oh, yes, I agree, hence why I am only speaking in the sense that if humanity turns to more /K selection (i.g., less offsprings and higher investment of offspring) that education would rise and the population would contract to meet the new demand of job supply. If people do not follow /K selection, then my entire proposal would be than more than, nothing less than that, a proposal.

>>2082855
>communist
>state
That's really, really not the point, a means of production owned by state is not a means of production owned by the people.

>>2082851
no the plan is to implement a vengeful Messiah known as the Singularity to avoid implementing communism

>>2082957
Funny how China starts doing better when it adopts a more capitalistic system...

>>2082930
Look up negative income tax.

>>2082967
>Rich people eat exclusively at fast food places
>Anyone but the poorest or least cultured of people eat exclusively at fast food places
You realise sit-down restaurants are a thing, right?

>>2083453
Fascinating.

It seems like the only feasible option.

Without industry jobs a lot of people would not have a job or income.

They would also lack intelligence to perform more difficult jobs.

>>2082851
Either or cyberpunk future. And no senpai, cyberpunk sucks

>>2083943
you we'll just make 80% of the population restaurant waiters that will surely work

File: Leftypol-2.png (148KB, 489x664px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 489x664px

>>2084286

File: Leftypol-3.png (24KB, 961x639px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 961x639px

>>2084287

File: 1481558422184.png (67KB, 1297x632px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1297x632px

>>2084288

>>2084286
>>2084287
>>2084288
>HA /liftypool/ exposed now I don't have to come up with explanation for how capitalism could function in a post-scarcity world :)

>>2083010
And that's how you know society is doomed. We have lost touch with God, nature. We are doomed.

>>2082851
There will start the space colonization

>>2084321
the agricultural revolution was a move away from nature too

>>2084330
And you're not entirely wrong, it just didn't take it too far. Communalism with collective farming would be a more appropriate way to live. You can have socialist systems that aren't heartless like Marxism. And you can even develop systems within capitalism that reward collectivity with regard to agriculture. But these days the earth is something neglected in favor of pride and human ''''''intellectualism''''''''.

>>2083268
How's that going to work in a place like America where most of the proles are armed?

File: girls.jpg (173KB, 900x605px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 900x605px

>>2082851
No. I don't know why socialists treat automation as if it is the messiah that will finally make socialism possible.

Mixed economies, distributism, and fascism are all perfectly capable of dealing with rising automation. In fact fascism and distributism actually bother to deal with the cultural issues that would arise from automation, whereas socialism and mixed economies don't even attempt to deal with those problems. So why do the leftists think automation will always lead to communism?

>>2084334
Collectivization is shit and inefficient.

Members of kolkhozy had the right to hold a small area of private land and some animals. The size of the private plot varied over the Soviet period, but was usually about 1 acre (0.40 ha). Before the Russian Revolution of 1917 a peasant with less than 13.5 acres (5.5 ha) was considered too poor to maintain a family.[7] However, the productivity of such plots is reflected in the fact that in 1938 3.9 percent of total sown land was in the form of private plots, but in 1937 those plots produced 21.5 percent of gross agriculture output.[8]

>ONE FIFTH OF ALL USSR AGRICULTURE OUTPUT ON ONE ACRE PLOTS LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Only a fool would ever submit to collective farming.

>>2084820
You don't need to be X to wonder if under certain circumstances X would happen.

File: kids.jpg (42KB, 760x578px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 760x578px

>>2085869
Sure, but we don't see this with the other ideologies. We don't see distributists going "oh, I wonder if distributism will finally happen with automation", or fascists doing that either.

Then again, neither of those ideologies absolutely require automation like communism does, so I see your point.

>>2085889

who the fuck are distributists?

>>2085889
My thought process was the other way around
"What will happen when automation takes all jobs? Communism?"

>>2085909
Okay, that's fair enough. I don't think communism will happen, but socialism is definitely a possibility.

>>2085908
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=distributism

>>2082865
If society is stupid enough to let that happen you can look forward to the complete collapse of modern industrial civilization followed by a new dark age.

>>2085889
Maybe because Marxism is Hegelian? Socialism is the now answer. Communism is the pipe dream. Dreaming about communism is like Hitler dreaming about a world with only Aryans and no Jews.

>>2083015
>Who is buying all the crap your robots make
the owners
>where do they get their money from
other owners

>>2084820
No one has actually answered how you get to distributism, and how you keep businesses at just the right size except, taxes and regulations lol. I'm not sure what you think a mixed economy is either, unless you're one of those people that thinks capitalism means markets and socialism means central planning. Fascism is even more prone to [COLAPSE] than communism if you want to look at their relative successes.

>>2085908
>>2085931
>i want socialism but im afraid of socialism lets just imagine regulated capitalism with socialist characteristics
That's what I got from the google search

>>2082909
>no workers to earn a wage
>no workers to spend a wage
>no capitalism for workers to uphold

Are you going to be paying robots a wage and expecting them to fund capitalism?

Kek.

The only people in this future who will have any jobs are the prisoners forced to take care of the robots.

>>2086061
>jobs
You don't need jobs to have capitalism. You think slaveowning is a real "job"?

>>2084830
Unless, it were distributed evenly among small groups? I imagine this to usually be the case, but not in communism, for instance.

>>2086060
Adam Smith himself didn't think capitalism should be unregulated, we need to stop with the regulation=socialism claptrap. Under distributism, there is widespread private property, and private ownership of the means of production. Thus it is not socialism. It's basically "forty acres and a mule" as an economy.

>>2086079
That's mutualism, a form of socialism.

>>2086079
Adam Smith wrote about the fucking markets you mong and said capitalist landowners were shit trash scum. There's a reason there were the Ricardian Socialists before Marx.

File: 1452607247355.png (214KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 400x399px

>>2086091
>private ownership of the means of production
>socialism
Mfw capitalism is actually socialism

File: tfe4DnP.jpg (10KB, 279x181px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 279x181px

>>2086091
Wat.

>>2086091
No. Distributism is not mutualism.

>>2086100
The point of private ownership is that you can do with it as you please because it is yours. Regulation reduces the freedom of what you can do with it, and regulation is explicitly the control of some other body that is not you, letting them exercise control over your "private" property. But at least it says "private" on paper.

>>2086119
>>2086114
>It's basically "forty acres and a mule" as an economy.
That is mutualism. A really shitty agrarian form of mutualism, but mutualism nonetheless.

>>2084597
What are armed proles going to do about a robot army?

>>2086138
Well, except for the distinction between private property and personal property, the allowance of loans, investments and rent, the emphasis on small business and industry, and the existence of government.

>>2086158
Then you should have described distributism not as
>It's basically "forty acres and a mule" as an economy.
but instead
>It's basically "forty acres and a mule" but also banks and government and industry AND everyone will be nice to each other as an economy

>>2086157
What is a robot army going to do about a nuke?

>>2086169
Did the US government plan on abolishing itself if it had gone through with the 40 acres and a mule plan? Did it plan on destroying the banks? No. It did not.

>>2086172
Build kamikaze robot nukes and not die from nuclear fallout and radiation

File: Akropolis_by_Leo_von_Klenze.jpg (103KB, 1100x754px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1100x754px

>>2082851
>when all jobs are taken by robots?
No matter how advanced our tools become, you'll still need people to do three things:
1. sell it
somebody has to be convinced that getting it is a good idea
2. install it
somebody has to actually gather all the equipment and consumables together and make sure the final product or service reaches the customer in the way the designers intended
3. analyze it
somebody has to make sure that all the pieces are fitting in the right places
4. do it slightly better than everyone else
As long as there are workers, you need managers.

technology taking all the jobs away is a meme. This has been happening continuously throughout history. The problem is that with an economy as vast and intricate as ours, market shake-ups can leave huge numbers of people with useless skillsets and no way of maintaining their current lifestyles, and that's a problem which is proving politically problematic to solve.

The other problem is that overtime capital is gradually congregating into a smaller and smaller class of property owners, which makes it more difficult for average people to launch their own enterprises, which suppresses aggregate demand, drives employers out of business, and gives the illusion that job growth is being influenced by factors external to the market. This is also something that happens continuously throughout history until society reaches its breaking point, precipitating a political crisis.

>>2086178
Wait, so you mean I have to work as a literal slave to get 40 acres and a mule. Distributism is shit.

>>2086181
What are the kamikaze robot nukes going to do about my missile defense systems?

>>2086182
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

>>2086188
Okay this is getting ridiculous. Tell me, how does "40 acres and a mule" imply the abolition of government and banking?

>>2086194
Detonate in mid air.

>>2086221
It certainly implies I need to be a slave to get 40 acres and a mule

>>2086182
>This has been happening continuously throughout history.
Never before in history has there been a machine that was better in every way than a human or was built cheaply by other machines instead of represented accumulated manhours of manufacture labor.

File: 1481488215298.png (129KB, 354x504px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 354x504px

>>2082851
>robots seize the means of production

>>2086061
see >>2086045

Sir Percival Cornelius Spenceford III Esquire cashes out his dividends then goes to Lord Worthington's Ferrari dealership and purchases a car from one of the robots there.

A fully capitalist transaction has taken place, all without the need to pay a human worker.

>>2086232
Can't tell if you're shitposting or not, but I'll bite.

If you want to know about the differences between distributism and mutualism, its just a wikipedia search away. Try doing that before you post next time.

>>2086244
There it is. He referenced wikipedia.

>>2086244
if thats your answer, there really was no point in biting down.

>>2083453
Is this a Mass Effect reference?

>>2086246
I don't see where he did that

>>2086248
Well considering >>2086158 I'm just surprised that you tried making the comparison

>>2086047
Tariffs, exponential taxes on multiple business locations, trust busting, tax breaks on small businesses and co-ops, etc.

>capitalism means markets and socialism means central planning
No, I think capitalism means private ownership of property and the means of production and socialism means public ownership of property and the means of production.

>>2086275
I'm talking about you.

>>2086285
Oh, well you sent the message to me so I was confused.

>>2086275
Co-ops are social ownership. Syndicalism is just socialism comprised of a bunch of co-ops. It's literally one of the things excluded on the private property wiki page, and one of the things on the social ownership page.

>>2086324
Co-ops are a small part of distributism, but not the goal. The only reason distributism has co-ops is reluctantly so that the larger industries can still exist where absolutely necessary while still owned and worked by the same people. Since the entire thread is about automation anyways, a future distributist society would not likely see much co-ops, if any.

>>2086172
Own it?

>>2086337
>Since the entire thread is about automation anyways, a future distributist society would not likely see much co-ops, if any.
That doesn't make any sense. Larger industries are large industries because of the large amount of capital required. Robots are capital.

File: 1477360782710.png (645KB, 752x790px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 752x790px

>>2082896
>implying literally everyone is/can be a creative-type person
>implying that it's ethically correct to deprive millions of people of what they naturally are good at and like to do
>implying that it's pragmatically useful to have entire class of useless people

>>2086337
>he thinks small businesses are viable in a modern economy
Enjoy your JUCHE

>>2086358
Yes, but the reason co-ops are tolerated is because of the large amount of workers required to run a large factory or airport. Automation reduces this though, allowing much smaller groups of people to single handedly own these business.

>>2086362
LIFE'S PRIME WANT

>>2086371
I think you should study some economics, especially things like economies of scale and natural monopolies and the real world because you seem to think capitalism is easily regulated in preventing the mass accumulation of capital and wealth.

File: idiocracy.jpg (35KB, 490x350px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 490x350px

>>2086243
But what will happen when management software makes property owners obsolete?

>>2086395
It certainly takes effort, don't get me wrong, but that's why there's a whole economic ideology around trying to fight certain monopolies and promoting small businesses.

>>2086396
Managing isn't the purpose of property owners. That's why they hire managers. The purpose of property owners is to extract rent based on a social construct of property "rights"

>>2086412
Or you could just solve the underlying and fundamental contradictions found in capitalism.

>robots do everything
>we pick everything for free
Look's OK.

>>2086418
That's what systems like distributism and corporatism seek to do. They avoid the nonsense associated with socialism and pure capitalism and try to go a third way.

>>2086413
>Managing isn't the purpose of property owners.
But when software makes it so that their job is to literally "do nothing" and let hyper-sophisticated algorithms do all the work, have they not been rendered as useless as everyone else?

File: grocery store on communism.jpg (46KB, 1100x824px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1100x824px

>>2082851
no i don't want to wait in lines for bread

>>2086434
Owners don't have jobs, they just own. That's the point of capitalism. You have property rights that have nothing to do with whether or not you work.

>>2086430
External regulation is topical treatment, distributism doesn't solve the underlying conflicts of interest between owners and workers. External regulation is just a way of some polity supposed to be representing workers on imposing their will on owners. Enjoy your Venezuela.

>>2086496
>using a socialist country as proof that distributism doesn't work.
So you support completely unregulated capitalism? That's the kind of thing that leads to communist revolutions you know.

>>2086529
Workers don't own the means of production in Venezuela. Venezuela "socialism" is just meme regulations which keep capitalism in place while claiming to produce the end results of socialism. Sort of like distributism. You should be setting up the system for most things self regulate, not so things have to be continuously externally regulated and taxed and busted.

File: uBkueho.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>2086561
And so we've come to the great irony found in socialism, it's never socialism whenever it goes badly.

Anyways, distributism does self regulate to a large extent through the guilds.

>>2086561
>You should be setting up the system for most things self regulate, not so things have to be continuously externally regulated and taxed and busted.
So Keynesianism?

>>2086587
It's never socialism when it doesn't fit the definition of socialism and is only socialist in name. You can meme all you want, but workers don't control the means of production, whether or not they elected politicians. Are you a person who unironically believes politicians do what they say?

You claim to want small government, but want government to keep all the big players in check. You don't even really claim that the big players will keep themselves in check. That's contradictory.

lets all hope the God smites us all before the robots do

>>2086604
Yes, well I've noticed that whenever the workers attempt to seize the means of production through force or through elections it has always gone badly. Whether it's true socialism is irrelevent, every single attempt has failed.

>You claim to want small government, but want government to keep all the big players in check
It's called subsidiarity, yes. Government handles things at the smallest possible level.

>You don't even really claim that the big players will keep themselves in check
I told you about the guilds, and I'd like you to define who these "big players" will be under distributism. The big business won't exist, they'll be trust busted. So who's the big players?

>>2082855

I like how whoever made this put the Russian Federation (with actual Russian federation) borders as an example of communism when I suspect they may have wanted to post the Soviet Union instead.

>>2084300
Post scarcity world literally ignores the laws of physics.

>>2086362
There are probably people alive today that would be rockstars at starting woodfires and smashing things with clubs. I guess our system deprived them of that making their lives all the poorer, by directing them to skilled labour - or to a life outside the jungle, at least.

File: 1467593853973.jpg (39KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x333px

>>2086483

My question is thus... If robots can do the work of most unskilled humans, what will we do with the millions of unemployed people who no longer have a job.

They aren't all going back to college to become robot engineers, and even if they did it would depress the wage of robotic engineers that it would hardly any income from it.

So let's say you are the lucky few that have a job. What are you doing to do with all those people who either turn to crime or vote in socialists or communists?

Obviously, if they are starving either they are going to resort to crime or vote in people who say they will use government to give them things.

So if you don't want that, are you going to put all those people in concentration camps guarded by robots?

If you do that, and then strong AI happens and then everyone is out of work, won't you feel dumb sitting in that camp waiting to be sterilized?

>>2086496
>You have property rights that have nothing to do with whether or not you work.
Would machines enforce these property rights? Why would machine builders and operators trade away these tools to doods that simply "own" stuff? What would they have to win from that?

>>2086640
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy

File: salute.jpg (233KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 800x600px

>>2086653
Make them all soldiers. In fact, as automation increases more and more, just start training kids from birth to become soldiers. It's the only thing human fleshbags will be good for anymore. And hey, at least they'll have purpose in life, not be a useless waste of food and air.

>>2086653
lel thinks we are getting robots not islam ay lmao

>>2086661
>wars won't be fought exclusively with unmanned machines
once machinery is advanced enough to replace labor wholly with machines human soldiers will probably be the first thing replaced

>>2086657
Point stands, a complete pipe dream vecause it ignores population growth rates and when those are accounted for it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics .

File: Hitler youth.jpg (18KB, 236x329px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x329px

>>2086670
Yeah, but at that point we'll be able to flood the battlefields with hundreds of millions of cheap humans. Sure, you can use robots, but those are expensive and possibly vulnerable to hacking or EMP, and they'll likely require maintenance. But humans? It's not like they're doing anything useful anyways, might as well send them into battle! At the very least they'll force the enemy to waste time and ammo killing them.

And hey, like I said, it'll give the people purpose. Give them a disciplined and non-degenerate life.

>>2086656
>Would machines enforce these property rights?
Yes, security robots, encryption, cybersecurity etc.

>Why would machine builders and operators trade away these tools to doods that simply "own" stuff?
Because STEMs are spergs and have blind faith in the start-up, the owners might be willing to turn a robot builder into a robot owner, or it might just be because of the property spook

>What would they have to win from that?
Best case scenario? They get enough property to become property owners themselves. Unlike landed gentry, there's not a finite amount of land for property owners. Well there might be, but robotics at this stage is like the new world with expanding frontiers.

That or they don't, they're done in by the property spook, they raise a family, send their kid off to college, die a peaceful death and all the while they've handed the keys to self-defending property to their bosses who no longer need spooks to defend property.

>>2086676
Post scarcity is possible precisely by not ignoring population growth.

>>2086662

The Japanese will make robots and they don't let any immigrants in hardly.

Also China uses flamethrowers on theirs.

So even if the west falls we still will have robots made in China.

File: 1476726030654.png (313KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 512x384px

>>2086682

Only if humans abide by Geneva conventions.

Robots warfare might use chemicals or do things like heat spray the atmosphere with greenhouse gases to Venus the earth temperature so that meat bags no longer can live on surface.

>>2086682
And population control.

>>2086706
Fucking thinking machines, when will they learn?

>>2086691
That doesn't make any sense. With an infinite growth it's impossible to achieve non scarcity. Communists are fucking dumb.

>>2086689
>Because STEMs are spergs and have blind faith in the start-up, the owners might be willing to turn a robot builder into a robot owner, or it might just be because of the property spook
As soon as the spergs have the capital to mass produce the security-bots they no longer have to give investors their dues and the investors can't produce the security-bots themselves. Certainly, the guy that builds the robots effectively owns them in the sense he cannot be forced to hand over control of these robots to someone else, and he has no incentives that impel him to trade - he can simply take what he wants.

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-12-14 12:29:57 Post No.2086758
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-12-14 12:29:57 Post No.2086758 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/102798113