Sky Hedgehogian Maestro
13th June 2013, 03:43
Now let's get right down to the dirty business.
One of the reasons I joined this place, amongst the many reasons, is because I needed to debate something near and dear to my beliefs that I find to be not only extremely bizarre, but also very possibly inevitable under the current system.
I beg you to come into this with a very, very open mind.
This is the Postcapitalist theory.
Here are two spoilers of this said idea with some added commentry from others, but the point of the matter, this is woefully incomplete as a theory as a whole, and I need your help in refining it.
Capitalism works through supply and demand, the balance between the producer and the consumer, and a host of other factors, including incentive and technology. Technology! Keep that word in mind.
Competition advances technological progress. And what has been the dominant method of doing things for as long as humans have been animals? Competition- we're animals, aren't we? We constantly compete for our own vanity. Capitalism is our expression of this competition. As since the Industrial Revolution, perhaps even the late Middle ages, technology has been increasing exponentially every century.
Conservative capitalists want you to believe that this method should be upheld until Jesus comes home. Hail Jesus. Whatever. What they don't think of is "where would capitalism logically lead us to?" Where has it already led us?
Simple. Look at the field of robotics. It has increased tremendously in recent years- for the longest time, robots were generally the same. It was only until the past few years- couple of years even- that enhanced levels of precise touch and human-like movement have been achieved in experiments. Soon, these may be the norm. No, these will be the norm.
Separately, but equally, important is the rise of the computers. Here, progress is very stinted as of currently, although some experimental means may get us past this. I say this because computers really haven't changed since the 1960s. They've just gotten faster. Nevertheless, they're still adding machines. They have no creativity.
Like I said- we may be changing this with the likes of monopole magnets finally having been created (which could easily lead to artificial intelligence-esque systems), not forgetting memristors. Of course, it's how robot dexterity progresses that matters the most in this case.
At some point, progress will push us towards the Singularity- IN SOME FORM. The Technological Singularity, I'm sure is going to happen. After all, imagine us as scientists in 1813 trying to figure out how an MMORPG works. But the Capital Singularity may occur well before then- all that needs to happen is for machines to be able to outproduce humans, outwork humans, and most of all, outclass humans. Yeah, robots can build some good cars, but do you really want that industrial behemoth makin' you your McCheesyburgers?
The point is, at some point, machines will render humans obsolete. Robots wouldn't need to rest or need recreation. If they're advanced enough to be profitable, then they should be capable of self-repair. They don't complain- hopefully- and they don't ask for raises since they don't need to be paid. Hence this post----
Let's be very clear. The situation we are now facing is unprecedented in the history of the world. For the first time in human history, 99% of people are going to be redundant. Not just out of work, but redundant. Not needed any more.
Throughout history the Elites have always needed the masses, the plebs, the prols, the riff-raff, to do their work for them and produce the things that they - the Elite - need and want.
Now, for the first time ever, the Elite will no longer need the bulk of humanity.
Worse still, as long as these billions of people are allowed to go on living they will pose an ever-present threat to the Elite. As long as they are allowed to go on living there is the risk that they will rise up and overthrow the Rulers.
You don't need to be Einstein to see where this is going to end. It won't be pleasant.
We know from history that Rulers have no qualms whatever about the mass murder of “common” people. Over millennia we have records of Rulers who killed people en masse or simply allowed them to die.
Historically, however, Rulers were limited in their ability to wipe out swathes of humanity without repercussions. Hitherto, they needed all those trolls to do the work and fight the wars. Rulers who killed off too many minions were liable to be overthrown.
Now, for the first time ever, that constraint is about to be lifted. Is there anyone - anyone with any understanding of how Rulers think and act - who does not see how this is going to end?
There is nothing the mass of the people can do about it. They’re told they live in a “democracy” and that it’s government “of the people by the people for the people”, and that their “representatives” will protect their interests.
What garbage!!
The moment they no longer need the riffraff, the politicians and their influential buddies will have no qualms at all about “wasting” them.
How will this happen?
It probably won’t happen overtly with Rulers killing “their” own people. That would be likely to precipitate the very uprising the Rulers seek to avoid.
Historically, mass murder usually takes place in the context of wars between different Rulers. The masses will be sacrificed in the name of a “just war” against some other regime.
(PS, I didn't write this, and I digress- if we ever reach such a technologically advanced period of time, there'd be no need for war. They'd just "turn us off.")
My guess is that sooner or later the baboons who rule in Washington and the baboons who rule in Beijing will want to have a showdown to see which monkey has the biggest dong. It’s what male homo sapiens do. They’re programmed by evolution. It’s inevitable.
And in that conflagration, which will probably be a nuclear war, the big baboons will sit in their shelters while the mass of people outside are killed by neutron bombs (which kill the people but not the machines) . . . all in the name of a “just war”.
When it’s all over, the Rulers will emerge, make up with one another, and enjoy an empty planet with all their needs provided by robots.
The Ruthless Will Inherit the Earth.
----
Dark.
But the point is, if it's more profitable to use machines to work for you, what use are humans? None! Unless you fancy hiring your nephew, losing out a couple hundred thousand bucks because quality declines and you fail to meet quotas that could easily have been met by the superhuman droids.
So what happens to the producer and consumer? The consumer base collapses. The proletariat and middle class are done. The workers can't work, the middle class is outdone, and that's it. People can't buy anymore. They can't earn money. They're nothing compared to the Machine Proletariat. Capitalism evolved into Postcapitalism.
What happens to the poor? That's up to the rich. I bet that, in some cases, massive welfare will be dished out. In others- as stated above...
Well, so what can be done to stop this? Simple. Destroy capitalism now. Otherwise, it's inevitable. The only way to stop this from happening would be to replace capitalism because technological growth is integral to capitalism. Stopping said growth stagnates capitalism and turns it into something else- in any attempt to preserve capitalism past any sort of Singularity, you only wind up destroying it.
So either way, capitalism is done for after a few more decades. Whether it becomes technological postcapitalism or something else has yet to be seen.
What happens after. *Sigh* Note word: SINGULARITY. I CAN'T KNOW. NO ONE KNOWS.
Good day.
Myself: I've been meaning to ask for your take on it= how would you revise the Post Capitalist theory? I'd recommend taking into consideration such things as transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and matter reconstruction.
Re: - Transhumanism
There's no way we can keep the genie in the bottle, so we need to make sure upgrades are available to everyone. Government oversight is required for this but it's not airtight because rich people could go to the black market to get more than their allotted upgrades (which would be very bad because it creates a snowball effect making the rich exponentially richer and unbeatable). We need to prevent there being very rich people at all (maximum income).
- Artificial Intelligence
To prevent abuse of AI (by the elite) and uprisings by AI we need to give machines human rights when there it is reasonable to belief they might be self-aware. We probably cannot prove a machine is self-aware (just like we can't prove other humans aren't p-zombies) so the law would have to be written in such a way that we err on the side of caution. In addition this keeps the number of AIs low (since they can't be used as slave labor).
- Matter reconstruction (and other advanced production technology)
We need to shorten working hours after global economic equalization has really lifted off, this requires international accords. In addition there would have to be a guaranteed minimum income and the aforementioned maximum income to deal with a completely different economy. Again this all requires government oversight: any notions of a minarchist future that's even remotely livable for anyone but the elite is a pipe dream (just think of what would happen if private parties get their hands on advanced potentially destructive technologies with no stringent government oversight, a single corporation skimping on security could kill us all with bio-weapons).
So what I've been following recently has been a series of reports based on the unsustainability of capitalism.
Everyone: OK. Got it.
Except that I'm not necessarily talking about today, or in the 20th century, or in the near future.
Everyone: Got it.
Please, hear me out before you laugh and click off the thread! So what I've also studied in intense detail in recent days is the rapidly advancing capabilities of machines- particularly in areas of artificial intelligence and dexterity. I'm convinced human-grade artificial intelligence is possible, but it's not the only possibility.
Why bother with that when you could create an abstract thinking machine that behaves more like an ant?
And besides, just how dexterous are robots these days?
It's those two questions that led to me stumbling upon Postcapitalism. Already created, yet I had never heard of it until a very recent google search. (And yet, somehow, I thought of it 2 years ago? Waaay too much time on my hands)
The point?
This relies solely on the point that artificial intelligence is possible, and current increases of machine dexterity continue at their current pace.
Consider this: you're an owner of a factory, and you hire 800 workers. You need to pay them, right? Not only that, but you also have to deal with the fact that these workers can only work for so long, and that overexerting or underpaying them could lead to unionization, or worse. Most have families and homes. But they're also consumers of your product.
Word reaches you that scientists have developed robots that can do the same skill as said workers, with the same level of skill, and that they rely on long-lasting fuel cells and can repair themselves. Soon, it becomes economically clear that it's more profitable to use machines than humans. If they don't need to recharge and can repair themselves, this leads to them becoming capable of working nonstop. If they're as dexterous as imagined, they far surpass the quality of work of humans. And with artificial intelligence- some form of it, at least- they are capable of abstract work as well.
But that's factory work. What about professional jobs? Today, in 2013, are you honestly going to give your job to a toaster? Or a calculator? Do you know how much blood would run in the streets?
But let's go with it. Let's say that people are unemployed by this incoming machine proletariat. Would you hire humans at your business? It's more profitable to use machines, and they are far more productive than humans. In all respects, in everything save perhaps- perhaps- the arts, there's no reason to hire a human being.
The producer and consumer balance breaks down. The workers and consumers are no longer capable of buying anything, so economies will stop. The ruling elite, on the other hand, have the machine proletariat to produce goods for them.
We could create welfare states to share the overproduced goods, but that's socialism! We could let the rich keep the goods, but that would be dystopian, a feudalist future. And without the ability to buy these machine proletarians, it's not like you'd be able to become rich unless you entered a profession that droids haven't taken over (providing artilects don't become artists). So by nature, capitalism couldn't work. It would either become communism or fascism.
Very vague economic theory and I'm sure it's going to be torn apart, but that's it- postcapitalism. Any thoughts? Any criticism? Anything to add? And note, this only works considering artificial intelligence occurs. Artificial dexterity is something real, but intelligence, we barely know our own brains so it currently seems unlikely that we'd develop AI anytime soon. Then again, we said the exact same thing about so many other developments that we didn't know everything about... We didn't know (still don't know) everything about genes yet we cloned a sheep in the '90s and mapped the human genome...
One question I've already faced is "how do we stop this from happening?" I equate this question to "how do you stop capitalism?" I guess- and it's a shaky guess- that the only way to stop this from happening is to prevent capitalism and technology from progressing, thus adopting a hardline socialist/fascist system. (And the guy got angry and called me a socialist liberal without giving me a chance to explain myself, go figure) But that's just me, and I haven't had any real debate with this, so this will be a great opportunity for me.
And like I said, the only way to stop it is to kill capitalism. So in effect, capitalism is doomed either way we look at it; it's not going to survive this century, or if- by some miracle- it does, definitely not the next.
Another win- I need this debate to help me write a massive story.
Re: SkyHMaestro:
I've given some thought to the machines taking over as well. Have you read Race Against the Machine by Erik Brynjolfsson? Excellent read on this topic.
I did not know this scenario was called post-capitalism, but I think that's an apt term for it.
I believe that post-capitalism is inevitable, with the advance of artificial intelligence. Human workers will be about as relevant as horses pulling plows. The only people left with jobs will be those who can repair and program the machines - until they invent machines that do that too, creating a self-sufficient system with no need for human input.
There are two possibilities:
1. The economy collapses, because although it is in each business's individual interest to hire machines instead of people, it is not in the collective interest (game theory scenario). Since everyone is without work, no one has any money to buy the things the robots are producing.
[My response- seems to be missing the point. If the robots produce everything, the robot-owning class simply hoards the goods with no need to worry about money. They have no need to share with us, the proles, the trabs, the plebs...]
2. A divergent economy is created, one for the robot-owning class - which produces things and sells them to each other using robot labor - and the non-robot owning class, which is permanently unemployed and without any access to the robot-produced goods. The government attempts to alleviate their poverty through social welfare systems, but ultimately they are left out of the robot economy entirely, left to fend for themselves. They are forced to create a primitive barter or cooperative economy to survive.
I'm partial to scenario 2. I believe that the non-robot owning class will rise up and capture the means of production (robots), initiating a socialist system (hopefully a democratic one). We will finally liberate ourselves from the drudgery of work, because we will have robots produce everything we need, and the products are distributed freely, "to each according to his need." Capitalism, a system designed to deal with scarcity through self-interest, will be replaced with a new system based on abundance and the public interest.
And just to end it, there's this guy—
Marx is the devil.
I don't understand why it is fair that people who work hard can make as much as a lazy worker.
Capitalism has existed in thousands of years. I know that the poor worker doesn't think it's fair, but it's the only way that's fair.
Fascists aren't bad people, they're just misunderstood.
They weak ones shall die.
So what do you think of the Postcapitalist theory, and how would you edit it if there's something you believe should be changed?
One of the reasons I joined this place, amongst the many reasons, is because I needed to debate something near and dear to my beliefs that I find to be not only extremely bizarre, but also very possibly inevitable under the current system.
I beg you to come into this with a very, very open mind.
This is the Postcapitalist theory.
Here are two spoilers of this said idea with some added commentry from others, but the point of the matter, this is woefully incomplete as a theory as a whole, and I need your help in refining it.
Capitalism works through supply and demand, the balance between the producer and the consumer, and a host of other factors, including incentive and technology. Technology! Keep that word in mind.
Competition advances technological progress. And what has been the dominant method of doing things for as long as humans have been animals? Competition- we're animals, aren't we? We constantly compete for our own vanity. Capitalism is our expression of this competition. As since the Industrial Revolution, perhaps even the late Middle ages, technology has been increasing exponentially every century.
Conservative capitalists want you to believe that this method should be upheld until Jesus comes home. Hail Jesus. Whatever. What they don't think of is "where would capitalism logically lead us to?" Where has it already led us?
Simple. Look at the field of robotics. It has increased tremendously in recent years- for the longest time, robots were generally the same. It was only until the past few years- couple of years even- that enhanced levels of precise touch and human-like movement have been achieved in experiments. Soon, these may be the norm. No, these will be the norm.
Separately, but equally, important is the rise of the computers. Here, progress is very stinted as of currently, although some experimental means may get us past this. I say this because computers really haven't changed since the 1960s. They've just gotten faster. Nevertheless, they're still adding machines. They have no creativity.
Like I said- we may be changing this with the likes of monopole magnets finally having been created (which could easily lead to artificial intelligence-esque systems), not forgetting memristors. Of course, it's how robot dexterity progresses that matters the most in this case.
At some point, progress will push us towards the Singularity- IN SOME FORM. The Technological Singularity, I'm sure is going to happen. After all, imagine us as scientists in 1813 trying to figure out how an MMORPG works. But the Capital Singularity may occur well before then- all that needs to happen is for machines to be able to outproduce humans, outwork humans, and most of all, outclass humans. Yeah, robots can build some good cars, but do you really want that industrial behemoth makin' you your McCheesyburgers?
The point is, at some point, machines will render humans obsolete. Robots wouldn't need to rest or need recreation. If they're advanced enough to be profitable, then they should be capable of self-repair. They don't complain- hopefully- and they don't ask for raises since they don't need to be paid. Hence this post----
Let's be very clear. The situation we are now facing is unprecedented in the history of the world. For the first time in human history, 99% of people are going to be redundant. Not just out of work, but redundant. Not needed any more.
Throughout history the Elites have always needed the masses, the plebs, the prols, the riff-raff, to do their work for them and produce the things that they - the Elite - need and want.
Now, for the first time ever, the Elite will no longer need the bulk of humanity.
Worse still, as long as these billions of people are allowed to go on living they will pose an ever-present threat to the Elite. As long as they are allowed to go on living there is the risk that they will rise up and overthrow the Rulers.
You don't need to be Einstein to see where this is going to end. It won't be pleasant.
We know from history that Rulers have no qualms whatever about the mass murder of “common” people. Over millennia we have records of Rulers who killed people en masse or simply allowed them to die.
Historically, however, Rulers were limited in their ability to wipe out swathes of humanity without repercussions. Hitherto, they needed all those trolls to do the work and fight the wars. Rulers who killed off too many minions were liable to be overthrown.
Now, for the first time ever, that constraint is about to be lifted. Is there anyone - anyone with any understanding of how Rulers think and act - who does not see how this is going to end?
There is nothing the mass of the people can do about it. They’re told they live in a “democracy” and that it’s government “of the people by the people for the people”, and that their “representatives” will protect their interests.
What garbage!!
The moment they no longer need the riffraff, the politicians and their influential buddies will have no qualms at all about “wasting” them.
How will this happen?
It probably won’t happen overtly with Rulers killing “their” own people. That would be likely to precipitate the very uprising the Rulers seek to avoid.
Historically, mass murder usually takes place in the context of wars between different Rulers. The masses will be sacrificed in the name of a “just war” against some other regime.
(PS, I didn't write this, and I digress- if we ever reach such a technologically advanced period of time, there'd be no need for war. They'd just "turn us off.")
My guess is that sooner or later the baboons who rule in Washington and the baboons who rule in Beijing will want to have a showdown to see which monkey has the biggest dong. It’s what male homo sapiens do. They’re programmed by evolution. It’s inevitable.
And in that conflagration, which will probably be a nuclear war, the big baboons will sit in their shelters while the mass of people outside are killed by neutron bombs (which kill the people but not the machines) . . . all in the name of a “just war”.
When it’s all over, the Rulers will emerge, make up with one another, and enjoy an empty planet with all their needs provided by robots.
The Ruthless Will Inherit the Earth.
----
Dark.
But the point is, if it's more profitable to use machines to work for you, what use are humans? None! Unless you fancy hiring your nephew, losing out a couple hundred thousand bucks because quality declines and you fail to meet quotas that could easily have been met by the superhuman droids.
So what happens to the producer and consumer? The consumer base collapses. The proletariat and middle class are done. The workers can't work, the middle class is outdone, and that's it. People can't buy anymore. They can't earn money. They're nothing compared to the Machine Proletariat. Capitalism evolved into Postcapitalism.
What happens to the poor? That's up to the rich. I bet that, in some cases, massive welfare will be dished out. In others- as stated above...
Well, so what can be done to stop this? Simple. Destroy capitalism now. Otherwise, it's inevitable. The only way to stop this from happening would be to replace capitalism because technological growth is integral to capitalism. Stopping said growth stagnates capitalism and turns it into something else- in any attempt to preserve capitalism past any sort of Singularity, you only wind up destroying it.
So either way, capitalism is done for after a few more decades. Whether it becomes technological postcapitalism or something else has yet to be seen.
What happens after. *Sigh* Note word: SINGULARITY. I CAN'T KNOW. NO ONE KNOWS.
Good day.
Myself: I've been meaning to ask for your take on it= how would you revise the Post Capitalist theory? I'd recommend taking into consideration such things as transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and matter reconstruction.
Re: - Transhumanism
There's no way we can keep the genie in the bottle, so we need to make sure upgrades are available to everyone. Government oversight is required for this but it's not airtight because rich people could go to the black market to get more than their allotted upgrades (which would be very bad because it creates a snowball effect making the rich exponentially richer and unbeatable). We need to prevent there being very rich people at all (maximum income).
- Artificial Intelligence
To prevent abuse of AI (by the elite) and uprisings by AI we need to give machines human rights when there it is reasonable to belief they might be self-aware. We probably cannot prove a machine is self-aware (just like we can't prove other humans aren't p-zombies) so the law would have to be written in such a way that we err on the side of caution. In addition this keeps the number of AIs low (since they can't be used as slave labor).
- Matter reconstruction (and other advanced production technology)
We need to shorten working hours after global economic equalization has really lifted off, this requires international accords. In addition there would have to be a guaranteed minimum income and the aforementioned maximum income to deal with a completely different economy. Again this all requires government oversight: any notions of a minarchist future that's even remotely livable for anyone but the elite is a pipe dream (just think of what would happen if private parties get their hands on advanced potentially destructive technologies with no stringent government oversight, a single corporation skimping on security could kill us all with bio-weapons).
So what I've been following recently has been a series of reports based on the unsustainability of capitalism.
Everyone: OK. Got it.
Except that I'm not necessarily talking about today, or in the 20th century, or in the near future.
Everyone: Got it.
Please, hear me out before you laugh and click off the thread! So what I've also studied in intense detail in recent days is the rapidly advancing capabilities of machines- particularly in areas of artificial intelligence and dexterity. I'm convinced human-grade artificial intelligence is possible, but it's not the only possibility.
Why bother with that when you could create an abstract thinking machine that behaves more like an ant?
And besides, just how dexterous are robots these days?
It's those two questions that led to me stumbling upon Postcapitalism. Already created, yet I had never heard of it until a very recent google search. (And yet, somehow, I thought of it 2 years ago? Waaay too much time on my hands)
The point?
This relies solely on the point that artificial intelligence is possible, and current increases of machine dexterity continue at their current pace.
Consider this: you're an owner of a factory, and you hire 800 workers. You need to pay them, right? Not only that, but you also have to deal with the fact that these workers can only work for so long, and that overexerting or underpaying them could lead to unionization, or worse. Most have families and homes. But they're also consumers of your product.
Word reaches you that scientists have developed robots that can do the same skill as said workers, with the same level of skill, and that they rely on long-lasting fuel cells and can repair themselves. Soon, it becomes economically clear that it's more profitable to use machines than humans. If they don't need to recharge and can repair themselves, this leads to them becoming capable of working nonstop. If they're as dexterous as imagined, they far surpass the quality of work of humans. And with artificial intelligence- some form of it, at least- they are capable of abstract work as well.
But that's factory work. What about professional jobs? Today, in 2013, are you honestly going to give your job to a toaster? Or a calculator? Do you know how much blood would run in the streets?
But let's go with it. Let's say that people are unemployed by this incoming machine proletariat. Would you hire humans at your business? It's more profitable to use machines, and they are far more productive than humans. In all respects, in everything save perhaps- perhaps- the arts, there's no reason to hire a human being.
The producer and consumer balance breaks down. The workers and consumers are no longer capable of buying anything, so economies will stop. The ruling elite, on the other hand, have the machine proletariat to produce goods for them.
We could create welfare states to share the overproduced goods, but that's socialism! We could let the rich keep the goods, but that would be dystopian, a feudalist future. And without the ability to buy these machine proletarians, it's not like you'd be able to become rich unless you entered a profession that droids haven't taken over (providing artilects don't become artists). So by nature, capitalism couldn't work. It would either become communism or fascism.
Very vague economic theory and I'm sure it's going to be torn apart, but that's it- postcapitalism. Any thoughts? Any criticism? Anything to add? And note, this only works considering artificial intelligence occurs. Artificial dexterity is something real, but intelligence, we barely know our own brains so it currently seems unlikely that we'd develop AI anytime soon. Then again, we said the exact same thing about so many other developments that we didn't know everything about... We didn't know (still don't know) everything about genes yet we cloned a sheep in the '90s and mapped the human genome...
One question I've already faced is "how do we stop this from happening?" I equate this question to "how do you stop capitalism?" I guess- and it's a shaky guess- that the only way to stop this from happening is to prevent capitalism and technology from progressing, thus adopting a hardline socialist/fascist system. (And the guy got angry and called me a socialist liberal without giving me a chance to explain myself, go figure) But that's just me, and I haven't had any real debate with this, so this will be a great opportunity for me.
And like I said, the only way to stop it is to kill capitalism. So in effect, capitalism is doomed either way we look at it; it's not going to survive this century, or if- by some miracle- it does, definitely not the next.
Another win- I need this debate to help me write a massive story.
Re: SkyHMaestro:
I've given some thought to the machines taking over as well. Have you read Race Against the Machine by Erik Brynjolfsson? Excellent read on this topic.
I did not know this scenario was called post-capitalism, but I think that's an apt term for it.
I believe that post-capitalism is inevitable, with the advance of artificial intelligence. Human workers will be about as relevant as horses pulling plows. The only people left with jobs will be those who can repair and program the machines - until they invent machines that do that too, creating a self-sufficient system with no need for human input.
There are two possibilities:
1. The economy collapses, because although it is in each business's individual interest to hire machines instead of people, it is not in the collective interest (game theory scenario). Since everyone is without work, no one has any money to buy the things the robots are producing.
[My response- seems to be missing the point. If the robots produce everything, the robot-owning class simply hoards the goods with no need to worry about money. They have no need to share with us, the proles, the trabs, the plebs...]
2. A divergent economy is created, one for the robot-owning class - which produces things and sells them to each other using robot labor - and the non-robot owning class, which is permanently unemployed and without any access to the robot-produced goods. The government attempts to alleviate their poverty through social welfare systems, but ultimately they are left out of the robot economy entirely, left to fend for themselves. They are forced to create a primitive barter or cooperative economy to survive.
I'm partial to scenario 2. I believe that the non-robot owning class will rise up and capture the means of production (robots), initiating a socialist system (hopefully a democratic one). We will finally liberate ourselves from the drudgery of work, because we will have robots produce everything we need, and the products are distributed freely, "to each according to his need." Capitalism, a system designed to deal with scarcity through self-interest, will be replaced with a new system based on abundance and the public interest.
And just to end it, there's this guy—
Marx is the devil.
I don't understand why it is fair that people who work hard can make as much as a lazy worker.
Capitalism has existed in thousands of years. I know that the poor worker doesn't think it's fair, but it's the only way that's fair.
Fascists aren't bad people, they're just misunderstood.
They weak ones shall die.
So what do you think of the Postcapitalist theory, and how would you edit it if there's something you believe should be changed?