Fully Automated Luxury Communism

[Distracted1]

Indeed, it is! Liberty, Equality and Private Property: As Good As Their Reputation?

That's some dense language that seems to be being used point out what many have observed more clearly for a long time- it's a dog eat dog world.

 

[Distracted1]

Meritocracy allocates wealth and power according to ability. Inhereted wealth (which means inhereted power) skews that.

The ability to do what, though? Seems like the answer is that "meritocracy" allocates wealth and power to those with the ability to accrue wealth and power. A bit circular, no?

I have been in sales for a number of years, working for people of varying levels of integrity.
My job is to motivate people to pay more than they "should" for things. Of late I have questioned why being "stupid" is considered such a character flaw that our culture approves of the "smart" preying on them.
Is it illegal, or immoral, to be less smart than I am?
Why am I-and those that I work for- rewarded for being able to outsmart someone else in a particular transaction to their detriment? Is that truly "merit"?

 

[uke2se]

The ability to do what, though? Seems like the answer is that "meritocracy" allocates wealth and power to those with the ability to accrue wealth and power. A bit circular, no?

Sure, absolutely.

I have been in sales for a number of years, working for people of varying levels of integrity.
My job is to motivate people to pay more than they "should" for things. Of late I have questioned why being "stupid" is considered such a character flaw that our culture approves of the "smart" preying on them.
Is it illegal, or immoral, to be less smart than I am?
Why am I-and those that I work for- rewarded for being able to outsmart someone else in a particular transaction to their detriment? Is that truly "merit"?

I dunno. I think it's morally wrong. I don't think much of meritocracy myself. In my ideal world, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need would be law.

 

[Puppycow]

Meritocracy doesn't allow for the giving of gifts?

Meritocracy allocates wealth and power according to ability. Inhereted wealth (which means inhereted power) skews that.

You have to ask if we're truly living in a meritocracy to begin with.

I am a believer in private property and that people should be able to pass most of their wealth to their heirs. But for the very wealthy at least, I also think it's fair for the government to take a haircut, above say, 5 million.

 

[Crossbow]

Now that new, improved Socialism 2.0 is here thanks to Bernie Sanders and AOC, can the updated communism be far behind? No, thanks to the New York Times' opinion page.

... remainder snipped for brevity ...

Let's remember that the last time communism was tried on a vast scale, it couldn't even provide fruit, let alone the fruits of technology.

Well, ...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Im a pretty extreme libertarian. The notion that property rights include the ability to dictate it's disposition after death is not given.

When you are dead, you don't own the stuff anymore (but neither does the government).

 

[uke2se]

You have to ask if we're truly living in a meritocracy to begin with.

I am a believer in private property and that people should be able to pass most of their wealth to their heirs. But for the very wealthy at least, I also think it's fair for the government to take a haircut, above say, 5 million.

I don't see the US as a meritocracy. It's the great American myth. The US is an oligarchy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't see the US as a meritocracy. It's the great American myth. The US is an oligarchy.

How do you figure?

 

[Horatius]

Rather than abolishing Capitalism, make Capitalism obsolete, I say. Make it so that everyone has their basic needs met, and let Capitalism take care of things that aren't basic needs: art, entertainment, luxury goods, etc. Capitalism needs consumers, and consumers need money.

This. The underlying problem here is that both communism and capitalism were developed in a world in which material wealth was fundamentally limited. When faced with the problem that we can't make everyone rich, what do you do?

In capitalism, you say, fine, let everyone compete, and some will be rich, some will be middle class, and some will be rat-ass poor. In communism, you say, fine, let's make everyone equally not-quite-rat-ass poor.

But in a post-scarcity economy, that problem simply doesn't exist. Given sufficient technology, we could make everyone "rich". That is, adequate housing, food, entertainment, fulfilling work/hobbies, and what not.

The problem is how to get from here to there.

 

[kellyb]

How do you figure?

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

 

[Distracted1]

Sure, absolutely.



I dunno. I think it's morally wrong. I don't think much of meritocracy myself. In my ideal world, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need would be law.

That's a pretty vague motto.

Their ability to do what? Lie convincingly? Beat people up? Tap dance?

And "need"is also problematic, although less so for obvious reasons- water,food,air being necessary to sustain life.

 

[kellyb]

Income inequality is increasing dramatically but that doesn't translate into everybody else getting poorer. The poor are getting richer too, just at dramatically lower rate. Poverty measured globally and poverty in the US are on the decline. Inequality has its own issues for sure.

Nope.

...in the years since 1996, a new group of
American poor has emerged: families with children who are living on virtually no income—$2 or less per person per day in a
given month. These are America’s “extreme poor.” The U.S. official poverty line for a family of three would equate to roughly $17
per person per day. What scholars call “deep poverty”—incomes
at less than half the poverty line—is about $8.50 per person per
day, over four times higher than our cutoff. This new group of
American poor, the extreme poor, are likely experiencing a level
of destitution not captured in prior poverty measures, one that
few of us knew even existed in such a rich country.
The purpose of this article is to expose the rise of extreme poverty and to examine how the safety net is—or is not—addressing
it. We cannot fully address why extreme poverty is on the rise, but
it may well be related to the landmark 1996 welfare reform

Trends in Extreme Poverty
Are more people in extreme poverty now than 15 years ago? No matter which of the three measures we use, the answer is yes

The bottom line is that extreme poverty has grown sharply
since welfare reform. And though means-tested public programs
have done much to stem the tide, growth in extreme poverty is
still substantial even after accounting for major federal meanstested transfers.

https://inequality.stanford.edu/sit...mer_2014/Pathways_Summer_2014_ShaeferEdin.pdf

 

[uke2se]

That's a pretty vague motto.

Their ability to do what? Lie convincingly? Beat people up? Tap dance?

And "need"is also problematic, although less so for obvious reasons- water,food,air being necessary to sustain life.

It's from Marx. It has to do with those who are able to taking care of those who aren't able. Basically describing a decent society.

 

[kellyb]

And most people through most of history have considered providing for their descendants after their death to be one of the most meaningful dispositions of their private property.

Not understanding this is, I think, an anti social trait.

I doubt most people throughout history have had much of anything TO pass down to their kids, much less enough to qualify as "providing for their descendants after their death."

Your sentence might be accurate if it read "Most fantastically wealthy members of the hereditary aristocracies through most of history have considered providing for their descendants after their death to be one of the most meaningful dispositions of their private property", though.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps there's a difference between Granny leaving you $2000 and her good china and Mrs Vanderbilt leaving you three mansions and $200,000,000? Unless it's very good china indeed.

 

[Myriad]

This. The underlying problem here is that both communism and capitalism were developed in a world in which material wealth was fundamentally limited. When faced with the problem that we can't make everyone rich, what do you do?

In capitalism, you say, fine, let everyone compete, and some will be rich, some will be middle class, and some will be rat-ass poor. In communism, you say, fine, let's make everyone equally not-quite-rat-ass poor.

But in a post-scarcity economy, that problem simply doesn't exist. Given sufficient technology, we could make everyone "rich". That is, adequate housing, food, entertainment, fulfilling work/hobbies, and what not.

The problem is how to get from here to there.

We should table this question for about 90 years, until we're no longer dependent on fossil fuels for our "post-scarcity" condition. By then a lot of currently entrenched oligarchies will be gone, and the population will be more environmentally sustainable.

 

[lomiller]

Because private property is a thing

So is feudalism.

most people through most of history have considered providing for their descendants after their death to be one of the most meaningful dispositions of their private property.

AKA feudalism.

I think a lot of the anti inheritance attitude is rooted in a belief that individual wealth belongs to the state, and that the individual is merely borrowing it.

No, it comes form the historical perspective that feudal societies are an anathema to both freedom and economic success. Modern free societies heavily based on merit, not something you have inherited form some ancestor 20 generations back.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The one thing parents have provided to their children, historically, is their profession and social rank.

 

[theprestige]

Being born to rich parents is not a meritorious achievement under any standard.

Agreed. But I invtited you to make a case that "it's all about meritocracy." Why should I care that inheritance isn't based on merit, if "it" (whatever "it" is) isn't actually "all about" merit-based inheritance.

My original statement was that gifting your descendants with your wealth has been an important value in most cultures throughout human history. This concept of the value of inheritance is not all about meritocracy.

So maybe you should start making your case by explaining what "it" is, in your "it's all about".

 

[Myriad]

In my ideal world, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need would be law.

I have extensive abilities but relatively small needs. I've therefore chosen employment that satisfies me emotionally and morally, but is only minimally "productive" (and commensurately, only minimally rewarding) economically.

The present system therefore regards me as an underachiever, which can feel a bit insulting, but it makes no attempt to intervene against my own preferences.

Your "ideal world" would demand more from me based on my ability, yet based on my needs, would provide no additional reward. Therefore if someone should attempt to impose it on me, I'd instead apply those same abilities to thwarting them.