3 ms·
I hear this argument being repeated a lot but I think it shows a lack of imagination to stay stuck on the idea that modern capitalism has to continue (at least
by bonobo 1mo ago
I hear this argument being repeated a lot but I think it shows a lack of imagination to stay stuck on the idea that modern capitalism has to continue (at least for the super-rich). Capitalism is just a means to an end, that is to generate wealth. The wealthy's goal is abundance for themselves, and screw the rest.
The only reason they tolerate the proletariat is the need for labor to handle tasks that still require human beings. That’s what the modern capitalist machine does: it harvests labor. If they manage to eliminate the need for intellectual labor via AI and automate enough physical work using tech like Boston Dynamics and John Deeres, whoever's still around become trash. The reliance on this system of money flowing back and forth ends, because the only reason to maintain it is having people generate wealth for them. Once they can eliminate that "cost," they’ll do it without blinking.
We’re already seeing jobs being wiped out by the tens of thousands with the arrival of AI, and billionaires hoarding capital far beyond what they could ever consume, driven simply by the pleasure of having more than the next guy. We’ve also seen how some are depraved enough to treat human beings as mere resources for their own gratification. Why would them keep people around they don't need anymore? People are failable, expensive to keep and unreliable. If all can be automated, it will be. Expecting wealth distribution from them is also a fantasy. If they cared they would do it now, but the talk is always "when we reach certain goal the riches will tricke down, just wait."
The argument that "there won't be anyone left to buy products and keep capitalism running" might hold true during a transition phase, but that would just be like ripping off a Band-Aid. None of them super-rich will care about the money flow once this structure becomes obsolete and can be replaced by another system that’s more efficient and easier to control.
- visarga 1mo agoI think AI won't make anyone rich by what it can do, but by what it still can't.
- iamleppert 1mo agoThis take is the correct one. You don’t need to go far to see what will happen. Just visit any former American coal town, or one that used to do manufacturing. They are desolate waste dumps. The people there are completely cut off from the economy. That’s what’s going to happen, only on a much greater scale. Say goodbye to all those office parks, small and medium sized companies. The future will be most of the country looking like a desolate wasteland, with a few very ultra rich areas. The process of consolidation will continue until there are only a few places left that actually participate in the economy.
- skeptic_ai 1mo agoI completely agree with you. If you want to read similar stuff in a more blunt answer check this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49474061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49474061
- bonobo 1mo agoYeah, I think you described well how the the super-rich would act in this scenario. That's exactly how I think they'd deal with it.
- weatherlite 1mo ago> None of them super-rich will care about the money flow I think they do care. If someone like Mamdani becomes U.S president in 10 years - when significant segments of the population are unemployed and/or radicalized, the U.S can actually become real socialist - like REAL socialist. That means business owners lose parts or all of their business. What if Musk and Zuckerberg won't like it and fight? They're not really gonna have an army of robots, nothing large enough to take over a country. The state controls the monopoly over violence. The state controls the ability to print dollars to build a bigger army. Legislation will make it impossible for a private citizen to accumulate a private army. Guardrails will be put in place. Governments are not that stupid. I think the super rich have an incentive to see the current system keep ticking and not turn into a shit show, they will have no way to control what happens if it turns into a shit show.
- bonobo 1mo agoI don't know, the US already looks like an oligarchy to me, with billionaires pulling some strings. I'm slightly surprised Mamdani won in NY, but not shocked since urban centers usually lean more left. A president though? I don't see it. People can vote if they want, but the far right (which is heavily influenced by the super-rich) is already working to erode the legitimacy of the voting system. And people will have a hard time revolting against the state because the state is far more capable now than it was in the past. Trump implies every now and then that he intends to stay in power. Even if he doesn't follow up on these threats I don't think we can expect democracy to keep order, it seems unlikely to me. When capitalism fails, democracy is the first casualty.
- rewgs 1mo agoCorrect. The ultra wealthy are effectively building "fully automated luxury communism" for themselves.