3 ms·
Aren't we just back to rehashing vapid Marxist arguments? In your experiment a brilliant computer scientist working on a breakthrough invention will be forced t
by overrun11 4y ago
Aren't we just back to rehashing vapid Marxist arguments? In your experiment a brilliant computer scientist working on a breakthrough invention will be forced to do menial tasks like data entry and accounting him/herself rather than split the profits evenly with a laborer. This is not going to work, a society where geniuses spend most of their days using Quickbooks, cleaning the bathroom etc, will be outcompeted by ones where they can specialize.
- NhanH 4y ago> This is not going to work, a society where geniuses spend most of their days using Quickbooks, cleaning the bathroom etc, will be outcompeted by ones where they can specialize. Which is exactly why Marx makes his “vapid” argument: cleaners and other menial jobs contribute as much to society as any geniuses (evidently, as societies without those menial jobs got outcompeted). And the way society currently evaluate those values seems to be incorrect. The issue with Marxist is that the solution he proposed is troublesome, not that the problem doesn’t exist. And until the next genius figures out a different solution, we should at least try to limit the problem as much as possible
- overrun11 4y ago> cleaners and other menial jobs contribute as much to society as any geniuses (evidently, as societies without those menial jobs got outcompeted) Scarcity is clearly an important component of value. This is essentially the "why is gold more valuable than water when I need water to live." question. I don't see the point in rehashing this stuff as if it's new.