4 ms·

The future you're describing doesn't seem likely to me because in this event the public will force redistribution through political action.

idiotsecant 4mo ago
No they won't, not if they have just enough bread and circuses and someone below them to hate. Boil the frog slowly enough and it'll work out just fine for the capital class.
- c-smile 4mo ago
  Yep. Evolutionary way to get to communism where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [1] [1] "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...", circa 1875
  - ako 4mo ago
    I don't see how you can relate this to communism. Sounds more like oligarchy/roman empire: a few own almost everything, but most have almost nothing and are being controlled with bread and games. Marxism is the opposite where everything is owned by everyone (in theory).
    - c-smile 4mo ago
      What would be the name of the society where, say, 30,000 people + technology produce enough food and goods to satisfy the needs of the rest of Earth population? So those people will get whatever they need for life but will not be technically obligated to produce anything. We will first switch to 4 day working week, then 3 and so on, right? We will see Universal Basic Income "experiments" [1] more often until they become a norm. At least we are on the way to all this... [1] https://weall.org/resource/finland-universal-basic-income-pilot#:~:text=Finland%E2%80%99s%20two-year%20scheme%2C%20which%20ran%20in%202017%20and,reduction%20in%20their%20payment%20if%20they%20accepted%20one. https://weall.org/resource/finland-universal-basic-income-pi...
      - fwip 4mo ago
        For a fictional example, you can look at the United Federation of Planets, from Star Trek.
      - ako 4mo ago
        Some suggestions for naming this, depending on how you organize ownership, redistribution, who gets to decide what you need: paternalism, welfare capitalism, neo-feudalism, technofeudalism, welfare state, social democracy, UBI-and-oligarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy. We are already in a position where we could house and feed everyone, but we choose not to do so. Instead a few own almost everything, money gets spend on killing people, instead of feeding them. If we choose not to do it now, i don't see how we can make UBI work in the future.
  - idiotsecant 4mo ago
    Imagine literally being afraid of communism in 2025. I don't know if you noticed but there haven't been any communists in quite a while.
- bonoboTP 4mo ago
  Bread, circus, strife, anger, hopelessness, antinatalist cultural products and it doesn't need anything aggressive or spectacular. People will just cease to reproduce seemingly of their own will. South Korea to the nth power.
scarmig 4mo ago
"Forcing redistribution" doesn't always happen. Typically, redistribution happens when negotiating leverage has increased such that the beneficiaries of any redistribution can make it more painful to not redistribute than to redistribute. I.e. they have labor power, which can be converted to force if necessary. In a world where capital can substitute for labor, however, that substitution also applies to force-wielding labor. People want to strike because of intolerable working conditions? Send in robot scabs. People want to demonstrate en masse against a regime? Have robot officers police them, and have models identify participants so post-event disincentives can be applied. They want to have a violent uprising? Send in the mass fleet of drones. Ideally, you'd avoid these outcomes entirely by molding the population into ideal consumers and distract them with superficial sports team style conflicts, so they never get to the point where collective action is even conceivable. But they're a useful backstop if those strategies fail.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- coffeemug 4mo ago
  I think your first equilibrium would be hard, for two reasons. First, empirically insurgencies are extremely difficult to exterminate; over the long run they tend to win. Second, in the U.S. at least, people tend to look at politics up close, and when you're myopic like that it appears that the government is a force onto itself. But zooming out, U.S. government actually mirrors the will of the people extremely well (with the exception of some issues on the margin). If there is overwhelming political support for redistribution it would be very difficult to resist. The second equilibrium seems more likely-- the capitalist class grants the public a bare minimum to keep us from forcing political action. In the AI world "the minimum" is probably a much better standard of living than we have now, as the marginal cost of many products and services approaches zero. So we end up living much better material lives, but are still not free. Maybe this is stable, or maybe the ruling class loses dominance over time. At that point, who knows.
  - ryandrake 4mo ago
    The capital-owning class owns the political apparatus, so they're not really worried about "political action." Through their ownership of government, they also own and control the military and police, so they are not worried about a violent uprising. So, what will actually happen when all economically relevant activity can be done cheaper than human labor, by a mixture of AI and robotics, and 99% of us are economically irrelevant?
red-iron-pine 4mo ago
hasn't happened in the US yet, and probably won't. and they have all of the guns and trucks and toxic masculinity culture that requires survivalism and toughness and defending muh freedom if the yanks won't, why would the public elsewhere?
- fragmede 4mo ago
  There are plenty of other countries, with different cultures, and different expectations for how things should work. France for instance, is known for having unions that strike, frequently. Socialism isn't a evil concept in some countries. When America has been co-opted by various factions, why would it be up to the "Yanks" to show the rest of the world the way?
  - hunterpayne 4mo ago
    The French government will be bankrupt in the next couple of years. Over the last 100 years, France went from one of the richest countries in the world to somewhere with a median (not mean) GDP that is considerably lower than Mississippi's. Probably not the example you think it is. That being said, if nobody has a job, nobody can afford the stuff being sold then everything collapses. Acting like that isn't true isn't rational either.
    - kelnos 4mo ago
      > The French government will be bankrupt in the next couple of years. Their finances aren't in great shape, but if you think the ECB will let that happen, I have a bridge to sell you. (And the need for a bailout is far from a foregone conclusion.) > a median (not mean) GDP That's not a measure anyone uses for anything, so not sure how that's relevant. But sure, let's go with the idea that Mississippi is "better off" on this metric. GDP per capita (which is a mean, not a median) is not a good proxy for standard of living. A French person working 35 hours per week living modestly might be much happier with less money than someone from Mississippi working 3 jobs, 6 or 7 days a week, for a total of 60 hours, who doesn't really have the time for "living" at all, modestly or otherwise. (I'm being generous to you when I say "might be" there. What I really mean is "almost certainly is".)
asdff 4mo ago
How low do we go before that happens? Look at how poor people are in other countries and still aren't threatening their ruling oligarchy at all. And that is going to happen when all we have are what maybe some AR15s, and they have drones firing precision targeted ordinance at us from 50k feet?
- rootusrootus 4mo ago
  > And that is going to happen when all we have are what maybe some AR15s, and they have drones firing precision targeted ordinance at us from 50k feet? We have enough guns for every man, woman, and child to have at least one. There aren't enough drones or expensive precision targeted ordinance in the world to defend against that for any length of time. It's another version of the lessons recently taught in Ukraine and Iran. Plus I think it is different when a poverty stricken population tries to rise up as compared with one that is historically wealthy. I expect we won't wait until we are actually poor before we collectively decide to refactor our government.
  - OKRainbowKid 4mo ago
    I sincerely hope your optimism doesn't turn out to have been naivety.
  - asdff 4mo ago
    The US has some 5000 nuclear warheads, of the stock we know about at least... Hope you don't live anywhere near a city in the top 500 list I suppose.
    - notahacker 4mo ago
      I'm the last person to accuse the US of being sanely-governed, but you'll forgive me for not worrying any more about a conspiracy of billionaires with access to US nuclear arsenal all agreeing that the best way to ensure they live long and healthy lives unencumbered by vengeful proles/superpowers is to nuke the top 500 cities than I do about Roko's Basilisk or the end of the world as predicted by the Aztecs...
forgetfreeman 4mo ago
Through what mechanism? In an oligarchy the ultra-wealthy control the government and the government has a monopoly on the use of violence.
yaur 4mo ago
One signficant difference this time is that they can rely on empathyless murder bots to quell riots instead human police.
- generic92034 4mo ago
  On the other hand they would never be able again to leave their bunkers, given that it is not hard to assemble a DIY drone and equip it with some explosives.

idiotsecant 4mo ago

No they won't, not if they have just enough bread and circuses and someone below them to hate. Boil the frog slowly enough and it'll work out just fine for the capital class.

c-smile 4mo ago
Yep. Evolutionary way to get to communism where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [1] [1] "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...", circa 1875
- ako 4mo ago
  I don't see how you can relate this to communism. Sounds more like oligarchy/roman empire: a few own almost everything, but most have almost nothing and are being controlled with bread and games. Marxism is the opposite where everything is owned by everyone (in theory).
  - c-smile 4mo ago
    What would be the name of the society where, say, 30,000 people + technology produce enough food and goods to satisfy the needs of the rest of Earth population? So those people will get whatever they need for life but will not be technically obligated to produce anything. We will first switch to 4 day working week, then 3 and so on, right? We will see Universal Basic Income "experiments" [1] more often until they become a norm. At least we are on the way to all this... [1] https://weall.org/resource/finland-universal-basic-income-pilot#:~:text=Finland%E2%80%99s%20two-year%20scheme%2C%20which%20ran%20in%202017%20and,reduction%20in%20their%20payment%20if%20they%20accepted%20one. https://weall.org/resource/finland-universal-basic-income-pi...
    - fwip 4mo ago
      For a fictional example, you can look at the United Federation of Planets, from Star Trek.
    - ako 4mo ago
      Some suggestions for naming this, depending on how you organize ownership, redistribution, who gets to decide what you need: paternalism, welfare capitalism, neo-feudalism, technofeudalism, welfare state, social democracy, UBI-and-oligarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy. We are already in a position where we could house and feed everyone, but we choose not to do so. Instead a few own almost everything, money gets spend on killing people, instead of feeding them. If we choose not to do it now, i don't see how we can make UBI work in the future.
- idiotsecant 4mo ago
  Imagine literally being afraid of communism in 2025. I don't know if you noticed but there haven't been any communists in quite a while.
bonoboTP 4mo ago
Bread, circus, strife, anger, hopelessness, antinatalist cultural products and it doesn't need anything aggressive or spectacular. People will just cease to reproduce seemingly of their own will. South Korea to the nth power.

scarmig 4mo ago

"Forcing redistribution" doesn't always happen. Typically, redistribution happens when negotiating leverage has increased such that the beneficiaries of any redistribution can make it more painful to not redistribute than to redistribute. I.e. they have labor power, which can be converted to force if necessary. In a world where capital can substitute for labor, however, that substitution also applies to force-wielding labor. People want to strike because of intolerable working conditions? Send in robot scabs. People want to demonstrate en masse against a regime? Have robot officers police them, and have models identify participants so post-event disincentives can be applied. They want to have a violent uprising? Send in the mass fleet of drones. Ideally, you'd avoid these outcomes entirely by molding the population into ideal consumers and distract them with superficial sports team style conflicts, so they never get to the point where collective action is even conceivable. But they're a useful backstop if those strategies fail.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
coffeemug 4mo ago
I think your first equilibrium would be hard, for two reasons. First, empirically insurgencies are extremely difficult to exterminate; over the long run they tend to win. Second, in the U.S. at least, people tend to look at politics up close, and when you're myopic like that it appears that the government is a force onto itself. But zooming out, U.S. government actually mirrors the will of the people extremely well (with the exception of some issues on the margin). If there is overwhelming political support for redistribution it would be very difficult to resist. The second equilibrium seems more likely-- the capitalist class grants the public a bare minimum to keep us from forcing political action. In the AI world "the minimum" is probably a much better standard of living than we have now, as the marginal cost of many products and services approaches zero. So we end up living much better material lives, but are still not free. Maybe this is stable, or maybe the ruling class loses dominance over time. At that point, who knows.
- ryandrake 4mo ago
  The capital-owning class owns the political apparatus, so they're not really worried about "political action." Through their ownership of government, they also own and control the military and police, so they are not worried about a violent uprising. So, what will actually happen when all economically relevant activity can be done cheaper than human labor, by a mixture of AI and robotics, and 99% of us are economically irrelevant?

red-iron-pine 4mo ago

hasn't happened in the US yet, and probably won't. and they have all of the guns and trucks and toxic masculinity culture that requires survivalism and toughness and defending muh freedom if the yanks won't, why would the public elsewhere?

fragmede 4mo ago
There are plenty of other countries, with different cultures, and different expectations for how things should work. France for instance, is known for having unions that strike, frequently. Socialism isn't a evil concept in some countries. When America has been co-opted by various factions, why would it be up to the "Yanks" to show the rest of the world the way?
- hunterpayne 4mo ago
  The French government will be bankrupt in the next couple of years. Over the last 100 years, France went from one of the richest countries in the world to somewhere with a median (not mean) GDP that is considerably lower than Mississippi's. Probably not the example you think it is. That being said, if nobody has a job, nobody can afford the stuff being sold then everything collapses. Acting like that isn't true isn't rational either.
  - kelnos 4mo ago
    > The French government will be bankrupt in the next couple of years. Their finances aren't in great shape, but if you think the ECB will let that happen, I have a bridge to sell you. (And the need for a bailout is far from a foregone conclusion.) > a median (not mean) GDP That's not a measure anyone uses for anything, so not sure how that's relevant. But sure, let's go with the idea that Mississippi is "better off" on this metric. GDP per capita (which is a mean, not a median) is not a good proxy for standard of living. A French person working 35 hours per week living modestly might be much happier with less money than someone from Mississippi working 3 jobs, 6 or 7 days a week, for a total of 60 hours, who doesn't really have the time for "living" at all, modestly or otherwise. (I'm being generous to you when I say "might be" there. What I really mean is "almost certainly is".)

asdff 4mo ago

How low do we go before that happens? Look at how poor people are in other countries and still aren't threatening their ruling oligarchy at all. And that is going to happen when all we have are what maybe some AR15s, and they have drones firing precision targeted ordinance at us from 50k feet?

rootusrootus 4mo ago
> And that is going to happen when all we have are what maybe some AR15s, and they have drones firing precision targeted ordinance at us from 50k feet? We have enough guns for every man, woman, and child to have at least one. There aren't enough drones or expensive precision targeted ordinance in the world to defend against that for any length of time. It's another version of the lessons recently taught in Ukraine and Iran. Plus I think it is different when a poverty stricken population tries to rise up as compared with one that is historically wealthy. I expect we won't wait until we are actually poor before we collectively decide to refactor our government.
- OKRainbowKid 4mo ago
  I sincerely hope your optimism doesn't turn out to have been naivety.
- asdff 4mo ago
  The US has some 5000 nuclear warheads, of the stock we know about at least... Hope you don't live anywhere near a city in the top 500 list I suppose.
  - notahacker 4mo ago
    I'm the last person to accuse the US of being sanely-governed, but you'll forgive me for not worrying any more about a conspiracy of billionaires with access to US nuclear arsenal all agreeing that the best way to ensure they live long and healthy lives unencumbered by vengeful proles/superpowers is to nuke the top 500 cities than I do about Roko's Basilisk or the end of the world as predicted by the Aztecs...

forgetfreeman 4mo ago

Through what mechanism? In an oligarchy the ultra-wealthy control the government and the government has a monopoly on the use of violence.

yaur 4mo ago

One signficant difference this time is that they can rely on empathyless murder bots to quell riots instead human police.

generic92034 4mo ago
On the other hand they would never be able again to leave their bunkers, given that it is not hard to assemble a DIY drone and equip it with some explosives.