 
     |
| Fully Automated Luxury Communism (Page 2/9) |
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAR 30, 08:08 AM
|
|
|
This whole concept infuriates me. I get so angry that people think the world and the fruits of other's labors should just be presented to them because they don't want to have to struggle for it. Society, life as a whole, is about meritocracy. This is NOT a wrong concept. We encourage growth in ourselves, and we encourage people to seek to better themselves. Not live fat on the land. Who would even want to live in a world like this...? One in which you've accomplished nothing, and all you've ever done is get stuff for free?
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 30, 12:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
This whole concept infuriates me. I get so angry that people think the world and the fruits of other's labors should just be presented to them because they don't want to have to struggle for it. Society, life as a whole, is about meritocracy. This is NOT a wrong concept. We encourage growth in ourselves, and we encourage people to seek to better themselves. ... |
|
The concept of "we all get basic income" is even more outlandish, it is essentially:
People think the world and the fruits of IMAGINARY labors should just be presented to them because they don't want to have to struggle for it.
Yeah we all get stuff from the magic stuff giver til a short time later when we see that that can't work, then what? I think the then what is the agenda.
Not to mention we forgot how, and we'd no longer have the intrastructure to labor ourselves...
Look at all the stuff we used to know that is passing with generations.
Hey do you know your relatives phone numbers, or need to look at your phone?[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-30-2022).]
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 30, 12:31 PM
|
|
Ah the classic appeal to classism to motivate the short sighted and move the agenda:
"Everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, will have equal access to education, health care, and information. Thousands of years of human progress should finally result in greater happiness and freedom. This time not just for the rich, but for everybody. Nobody who lives in poverty is truly free."
Nothing new under the sun
By the way will law enforcement also be robots or do those poor folk still have to "toil"? Doctors? Lawyers and courts?[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-30-2022).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 30, 02:16 PM
|
|
The mistake that "you all" are making is that you are reacting to this "Luxury Communism" idea as if it were something that could be put into effect right away, or in some immediately foreseeable future.
It's not even being "pitched" that way by the people that are talking about it. They are "Futurists" and this is a Futuristic idea. Like the human colonization of Mars or interplanetary commerce and space tourism.
This "Luxury Communism" is something that could only be achieved in gradual stages. First you would see enlargements to the social safety net. Thirty-hour weeks as the work week standard. Universal Basic Income. And more technical innovations involving (likely) automation to lower the cost of producing goods and services. "Nanobots..."
There's no direct path to Fully Automated Luxury Communism, and it could not become a reality until the world is already much changed and transformed from how it is today.
That's why a lot of the reactions here are off the mark, and non-sequiturs. And of course, we have the usual suspect bellowing about "Karl Marx" and taking the opportunity to "rant-post" about "Leftists" for the sole purpose of vicariously smearing Democrats.
Maybe I've missed something, but has there been any talk of Fully Automated Luxury Communism from "The Squad", or AOC, or Bernie Sanders and his ilk, or from Nancy Pelosi? (You can enlarge that question in your own mind.)
That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is "No." But this isn't the way that Pennock's number one practitioner of rant-posting wants you to think about it. He wants you to think that Fully Automated Luxury Communism is at the very top of the Democratic Party's agenda. On the top of every Democratic officeholder's mind, at all levels of government, and at the top of every person's mind that doesn't think or vote exactly as he would like.
He's a canard on steroids.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-30-2022).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAR 30, 02:27 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
This "Luxury Communism" is something that could only be achieved in gradual stages. First you would see enlargements to the social safety net. Thirty-hour weeks as the work week standard. Universal Basic Income. And more technical innovations involving (likely) automation to lower the cost of producing goods and services. "Nanobots..."
|
|
This is why leftist philosophy is called "Progressive".
"We are not coming for your guns (just your high capacity magazines)"
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
MAR 30, 03:25 PM
|
|
Several of us here on the Forum, and most citizens of this country, realize that the Progressive Left is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the continuance and prosperity of this Nation.
The Progressive Left is the 'canard on steroids'.
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 30, 03:49 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The mistake that "you all" are making is that you are reacting to this "Luxury Communism" idea as if it were something that could be put into effect right away, or in some immediately foreseeable future.
It's not even being "pitched" that way by the people that are talking about it.
|
|
This seems to echo the similar argument put forth about CRT.
It doesnt exist, no one is doing it. Nothing to see here.
So its just another Utopian dream it seems.
Utopian like what I said, see my two posts.
But then you nullify your remark by saying "This "Luxury Communism" is something that could only be achieved in gradual stages. First you would see enlargements to the social safety net."
Yes indeed, that is clear.
You see:
"taking the opportunity to "rant-post" about "Leftists" for the sole purpose of vicariously smearing Democrats"
I see:
"talking about people and ideas that are being strived for and generating a following for the sole purpose of exposing their flaws, putting forth reasons, debating."
"foreseeable future" indeed. The foreseeable depends on the eye of the beholder right? Some only see so far...as I mentioned in my post.
Classic appeals to motivate the short sighted and move the agenda forward.[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-01-2022).]
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 30, 03:57 PM
|
|
Did you hear that in his voice as you read?  [This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-30-2022).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAR 30, 04:59 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
.... we have the usual suspect bellowing about "Karl Marx" and taking the opportunity to "rant-post" about "Leftists"......
|
|
Because IT'S A THREAD ABOUT COMMUNISM you dimwit.
An ideology proposed by an alcoholic German deadbeat, penniless, moocher, named KARL MARX that lived off of his "friend" Friedrich Engels, who in turn mooched off of his own wealthy father.
An ideology that for 174 years has been pushed by every other parasite that has accomplished nothing worthwhile in their life and contributed nothing worthwhile to society and, fittingly, here you are are pimping for communism too.
The writer of that "luxury communism" bullshit, Aaron Bastani, whose name is really Aaron PETERS, before he took on the name Bastani after he was arrested multiple times during communist riots in the UK, said himself:
"the concept is based on Karl Marx's Das Kapital and Grundrisse".
There you have it, straight from the self-proclaimed LEFTIST'S mouth himself.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-01-2022).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 30, 05:02 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
You see:
"taking the opportunity to "rant-post" about "Leftists" for the sole purpose of vicariously smearing Democrats"
I see:
"taking about people and ideas that are being strived for and generating a following for the sole purpose of exposing their flaws, putting forth reasons, debating." |
|
I think the difference between what you see and what I see in that other message is that you are not as closely familiar as I am with that individual's body of work on this forum over the (many) years.
You're not "reading between the lines."
"Prove me wrong"[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-30-2022).]
|
|
|
|