5 ms·

hmmm. Interesting. I see it the other way around. If the robot's ownership is concentrated in few hands, then there's indeed reason for the mob to arise. If the

by trgn 4y ago

hmmm. Interesting. I see it the other way around. If the robot's ownership is concentrated in few hands, then there's indeed reason for the mob to arise. If the mob owns the robots instead, then there will be little reason for the mob to raise pitchforks, they'd just collect dividends. Mob can then go vacation in Florida or whatever.

throwaway173738 4y ago
Marx was right about what but wrong about when and how.
jjoonathan 4y ago
> If the mob owns the robots Collective ownership of the means of production? I, too hope that automation will eventually help us figure out how to do Socialism that Doesn't Suck, but it's one hell of a jump to imagine that it will just happen automatically on top of existing systems given their long and well established history of relentlessly concentrating the ownership structure -- what is it, 90% of stocks are owned by 10% of Americans, or something? Even if super construct-o-bots became cheap, you'd also have to unwind the private ownership of natural resources. No, I don't see any of this happening smoothly. Do you?
- trgn 4y ago
  > Collective ownership of the means of production? I was thinking of proliferation of existing, but still uncommon incentive structures. More stock compensation, in more industries. More co-ops for smaller orgs. More unionization, while not distributing ownership directly, at least balances board memberships. More sovereign trust funds for resource extractions etc... I wasn't thinking state-controlled production, it's been tried, and failed horribly. One reason why US is reasonably stable is precisely because of 401ks. That is, a large middle class has a true stake in the stability of the system, and will not rock the boat. Increase that stake, there's existing mechanisms. > I don't see any of this happening smoothly There's no reason it needs to devolve into violence. Small example: USA-gov specifically needs to co-opt resource extraction, and setup trust fund, like Alaska. This is primarily a political program that we're being hoodwinked into not accepting. The onus is not on evil Exxon, they're not threatening to kill us if we try to (because they don't); the onus is on the american people to actually demand this from our representatives. Violent transformation will throw away the baby with the bathwater. Take what works, dial it up. Devalue (in your heart and actions) what does not work. Vote & advocate accordingly. The doom&gloomers are missing that so many pieces are there, already, today.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    I suspect we agree on policies but not on terminology; I'd describe your vision for the future as market socialism, I would agree that reforming our institutions in that direction is the happy path for the future, and I would share your aversion to state socialism. I even think it's understandable to dissociate from the terminology -- FDR avoided the word "socialism" too, just remember that the businessmen got together and tried to coup him all the same.
- trasz3 4y ago
  It would work smoothly in a democracy, where the “mob” can vote the private owners out. Of course it won’t work in a fake democracy where corporations are allowed to buy politicians.
- unity1001 4y ago
  The French, found a very good solution to all of that ~230 years ago...
  - trgn 4y ago
    and yet they didn't. It famously devolved in a terror state, and a restoration of the monarchy in half a lifetime. the french revolutionary program traded aristocratic rights for bureaucratic corruption. all we really got was the metric system. the true lesson imho is that any positive project for the future will need to reject iconoclasm, and lean into incrementalism. preserve the good, prune the bad.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      > It famously devolved in a terror state The 'terror' is 'famous' only because of the ~300 years long propaganda of their enemy, the English establishment - the aristocratic establishment that hates anyone or anything that threatens the aristocracy with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. Otherwise, what is called 'the terror' accounts for ~3000 people, and most of them in Paris. And it consists of aristocrats, their surrogates, their servants who aided them with their conspiring with their foreign relatives to come to France and massacre their own people so that they wouldnt lose their privileges and the 'plebs' would 'know their place'. Conspiring against your own country in wartime in that manner still carries the death penalty even today. Even in the most democratic countries. > the french revolutionary program traded aristocratic rights for bureaucratic corruption Corruption existed in all eras and all societies in human history. 'Bureaucrats being corrupt' at or after one point does not invalidate a system. That system worked spectacularly well when it was first instituted, literally reforming the entire continent by removing aristocrats from power and appointing non-nobility to those positions on a meritocratic basis. It worked so well that even after the aristocrats were able to destroy the Napoleonic remnants of the revolution, they kept that 'bureaucratic' system. If it became corrupt, you can tie it to the influence of the aristocrats - not the revolution. ... No, the French did find the solution to it - the French Revolution is the unique event in human history that destroyed the elitist, aristocratic stranglehold of the minority on the society by invalidating all the historic traditions and trappings that trace back to the Agricultural Revolution and all the norms that those enforced on the people. And it set the standards for our actual modern society. It has basically created the blueprint of how we live today.
ethanbond 4y ago
Right... so violent revolution and if successful then the mob owns the robots. That middle bit doesn't seem a bit worrisome?

by trgn 4y ago

throwaway173738 4y ago

Marx was right about what but wrong about when and how.

jjoonathan 4y ago

> If the mob owns the robots Collective ownership of the means of production? I, too hope that automation will eventually help us figure out how to do Socialism that Doesn't Suck, but it's one hell of a jump to imagine that it will just happen automatically on top of existing systems given their long and well established history of relentlessly concentrating the ownership structure -- what is it, 90% of stocks are owned by 10% of Americans, or something? Even if super construct-o-bots became cheap, you'd also have to unwind the private ownership of natural resources. No, I don't see any of this happening smoothly. Do you?

trgn 4y ago
> Collective ownership of the means of production? I was thinking of proliferation of existing, but still uncommon incentive structures. More stock compensation, in more industries. More co-ops for smaller orgs. More unionization, while not distributing ownership directly, at least balances board memberships. More sovereign trust funds for resource extractions etc... I wasn't thinking state-controlled production, it's been tried, and failed horribly. One reason why US is reasonably stable is precisely because of 401ks. That is, a large middle class has a true stake in the stability of the system, and will not rock the boat. Increase that stake, there's existing mechanisms. > I don't see any of this happening smoothly There's no reason it needs to devolve into violence. Small example: USA-gov specifically needs to co-opt resource extraction, and setup trust fund, like Alaska. This is primarily a political program that we're being hoodwinked into not accepting. The onus is not on evil Exxon, they're not threatening to kill us if we try to (because they don't); the onus is on the american people to actually demand this from our representatives. Violent transformation will throw away the baby with the bathwater. Take what works, dial it up. Devalue (in your heart and actions) what does not work. Vote & advocate accordingly. The doom&gloomers are missing that so many pieces are there, already, today.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  I suspect we agree on policies but not on terminology; I'd describe your vision for the future as market socialism, I would agree that reforming our institutions in that direction is the happy path for the future, and I would share your aversion to state socialism. I even think it's understandable to dissociate from the terminology -- FDR avoided the word "socialism" too, just remember that the businessmen got together and tried to coup him all the same.
trasz3 4y ago
It would work smoothly in a democracy, where the “mob” can vote the private owners out. Of course it won’t work in a fake democracy where corporations are allowed to buy politicians.
unity1001 4y ago
The French, found a very good solution to all of that ~230 years ago...
- trgn 4y ago
  and yet they didn't. It famously devolved in a terror state, and a restoration of the monarchy in half a lifetime. the french revolutionary program traded aristocratic rights for bureaucratic corruption. all we really got was the metric system. the true lesson imho is that any positive project for the future will need to reject iconoclasm, and lean into incrementalism. preserve the good, prune the bad.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > It famously devolved in a terror state The 'terror' is 'famous' only because of the ~300 years long propaganda of their enemy, the English establishment - the aristocratic establishment that hates anyone or anything that threatens the aristocracy with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. Otherwise, what is called 'the terror' accounts for ~3000 people, and most of them in Paris. And it consists of aristocrats, their surrogates, their servants who aided them with their conspiring with their foreign relatives to come to France and massacre their own people so that they wouldnt lose their privileges and the 'plebs' would 'know their place'. Conspiring against your own country in wartime in that manner still carries the death penalty even today. Even in the most democratic countries. > the french revolutionary program traded aristocratic rights for bureaucratic corruption Corruption existed in all eras and all societies in human history. 'Bureaucrats being corrupt' at or after one point does not invalidate a system. That system worked spectacularly well when it was first instituted, literally reforming the entire continent by removing aristocrats from power and appointing non-nobility to those positions on a meritocratic basis. It worked so well that even after the aristocrats were able to destroy the Napoleonic remnants of the revolution, they kept that 'bureaucratic' system. If it became corrupt, you can tie it to the influence of the aristocrats - not the revolution. ... No, the French did find the solution to it - the French Revolution is the unique event in human history that destroyed the elitist, aristocratic stranglehold of the minority on the society by invalidating all the historic traditions and trappings that trace back to the Agricultural Revolution and all the norms that those enforced on the people. And it set the standards for our actual modern society. It has basically created the blueprint of how we live today.

ethanbond 4y ago

Right... so violent revolution and if successful then the mob owns the robots. That middle bit doesn't seem a bit worrisome?