5 ms·

Out of curiosity, I have some questions about the "luxury communism" idea (I've heard of it a few times, sometimes maybe worded differently - I picture somethin

Out of curiosity, I have some questions about the "luxury communism" idea (I've heard of it a few times, sometimes maybe worded differently - I picture something like the ship on Wall-E): What leverage will people (leftists?) use to ensure access to "fully automated luxury communism"? For instance, what if those who claim ownership of the means say "no"? Will those people use force? If so, what weapons will they use? I'm having trouble understanding how this scenario will play out exactly. If the answer is that they will simply create the luxury communism on their own, then why haven't they done that already (it would be so cool to see something like the ship from Wall-E)? I mean, what will have changed, and through what means would such a change be forced?

infinite8s 10y ago
If you really want to know, Marx had a thing to say about that. He viewed capitalism as the 'necessary evil' to get economic production to the point where socialism was possible.
- mangeletti 10y ago
  I've read the Communist Manifesto. I'm just curious about how this transition will take place. It's easy to suppose that those with means (which also tend to be those with weapons) will resist this, even to the point of taking their money elsewhere (divesting from e.g. US markets, etc.), and this pattern could keep repeating until there aren't enough moves left for all of those with means. At that point, is there a war between those with means / food / weapons and those who have nothing, because the money left them behind? Here's what I think will happen. The same people (Buffet, etc.) that tricked everyone into thinking something like "luxury communism" would ever happen will have everyone virtual reality and Soylent, and call that "luxury communism". If you think otherwise, than ask yourself why they don't give their own money to you now. But, I don't think these people will literally hand everyone this VR and Soylent. I think they'll trick everyone into believing they've achieved "luxury communism" with a "basic income" (read: "printed money", lest we forget where the means will come from), and then inflation will reduce the value of this income and the need for better efficiency will force the population into VR and Soylent.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Out of curiosity, I have some questions about the "luxury communism" idea (I've heard of it a few times, sometimes maybe worded differently - I picture something like the ship on Wall-E): No you don't. You have an opposition to any kind of socialism, and a support for capitalism. You have asked a leading question by which you hope to accuse leftists of (shock and horror!) using force, as if capitalists and capitalism do not use force to institute their system each and every day, right here in the real world.
- mangeletti 10y ago
  I'm truly not accusing leftists of anything. I'm using this Socratic method to try to get you to recognize that all of the plebeians don't have the kind of leverage to create such a future, and that the wealthy elite (read 1%) have been using the promise of "luxury communism" as a means of pitting the bottom 70% of income earners against the next 29% of income earners, in an effort to hold tightly onto their hegemonies. Think about it; why else would people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates call for higher taxes on millionaires' income, while not giving up their own money to the treasury, and also not calling for taxes on people that already have billions of dollars? Because they want to keep anybody else from getting close to where they are[1] In other words, I am on neither side, nor in the middle. 1. The 48 Laws of Power. It explains this concept of using the bottom to hold down the middle, among many others.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Since when were Buffet and Gates communists, of either the anarchist or Marxist varieties? They're liberals. They're capitalists. They're second on the list of the working class's enemies, right after the oil barons and landlords.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Curiously the 100,000 people working jobs created by Gates might call it a different relationship than 'enemy'

infinite8s 10y ago

If you really want to know, Marx had a thing to say about that. He viewed capitalism as the 'necessary evil' to get economic production to the point where socialism was possible.

mangeletti 10y ago
I've read the Communist Manifesto. I'm just curious about how this transition will take place. It's easy to suppose that those with means (which also tend to be those with weapons) will resist this, even to the point of taking their money elsewhere (divesting from e.g. US markets, etc.), and this pattern could keep repeating until there aren't enough moves left for all of those with means. At that point, is there a war between those with means / food / weapons and those who have nothing, because the money left them behind? Here's what I think will happen. The same people (Buffet, etc.) that tricked everyone into thinking something like "luxury communism" would ever happen will have everyone virtual reality and Soylent, and call that "luxury communism". If you think otherwise, than ask yourself why they don't give their own money to you now. But, I don't think these people will literally hand everyone this VR and Soylent. I think they'll trick everyone into believing they've achieved "luxury communism" with a "basic income" (read: "printed money", lest we forget where the means will come from), and then inflation will reduce the value of this income and the need for better efficiency will force the population into VR and Soylent.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>Out of curiosity, I have some questions about the "luxury communism" idea (I've heard of it a few times, sometimes maybe worded differently - I picture something like the ship on Wall-E): No you don't. You have an opposition to any kind of socialism, and a support for capitalism. You have asked a leading question by which you hope to accuse leftists of (shock and horror!) using force, as if capitalists and capitalism do not use force to institute their system each and every day, right here in the real world.

mangeletti 10y ago
I'm truly not accusing leftists of anything. I'm using this Socratic method to try to get you to recognize that all of the plebeians don't have the kind of leverage to create such a future, and that the wealthy elite (read 1%) have been using the promise of "luxury communism" as a means of pitting the bottom 70% of income earners against the next 29% of income earners, in an effort to hold tightly onto their hegemonies. Think about it; why else would people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates call for higher taxes on millionaires' income, while not giving up their own money to the treasury, and also not calling for taxes on people that already have billions of dollars? Because they want to keep anybody else from getting close to where they are[1] In other words, I am on neither side, nor in the middle. 1. The 48 Laws of Power. It explains this concept of using the bottom to hold down the middle, among many others.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Since when were Buffet and Gates communists, of either the anarchist or Marxist varieties? They're liberals. They're capitalists. They're second on the list of the working class's enemies, right after the oil barons and landlords.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Curiously the 100,000 people working jobs created by Gates might call it a different relationship than 'enemy'