381–390 of 572 posts
I like to imagine a world where people don't have to work or worry about health care. It's all done by AI and robots. People are free to pursue their hobbies and other interests. How would we treat each then? Would we still be in terrible conflict with hate and prejudice prevalent?
> Would we still be in terrible conflict with hate and prejudice prevalent?
Yes, definitely yes. We don't stop being human when we are freed from labour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh, tired of hearing this same old shit. Do you believe the luddites would have burned the looms if instead this offer would have been on the table "Hello, instead of being starving beggars in the street, we will offer you retraining, and provide meals while doing so" Oh, look, a social safety net actually can benefit capital owners and keep their factories from burning.
They didn't want retraining as mill workers. It was much lower paid work. They wanted their old jobs which didn't exist anymore. I agree that the government should absolutely take care of people who lose the capitalism lottery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a strike, damaging machines and planting bombs.
I'm not aware of a violent non-state actor that exclusively or primarily attacks the means of production instead of military personnel and regular civilian targets. Is there any?
The luddite example is one of suddenness: The owners see the massive advantage of mechanization and move in fast. The workers are blindsided - they don't have the time and spend all the time they do have in a ludicrous war. The regions are somewhat mono-industry which completes in making a giant mess. All in all the exact quandary not to get caught in. Now that they have demonstrated it, long ago, do we really have t…
To note, luddites' issues were not just losing their job. Let's remember that the earlier machines were very crude, safety was absolutely not in their design, and a worker life's also didn't have much weight. So, the early days of machine assisted production were in inhumane conditions, people losing limbs, kids getting killed in them (less skills needed also meant kid labour was a viable option) etc.
So yes, regulation on how the machines work, how much they get introduced, how the workers are impacted, trial periods to see the impacts etc. should help a lot in all respects. The difficult part being that those all mean putting breaks on profit making.
> Today, the word “Luddite” is used as an insult to anyone resistant to technological innovation Interesting, I never thought of the term as pejorative. I always thought of the movement as a kind of working-class heroes trying to navigate an uncertain future where rich people made them obsolete.
Along with being skilled laborers, Luddites were also proprietors and small business owners.
Change isbinevitable, and in the long run society usually benefits as whole. The transition period is the problem, and on that front we are making no progress what so ever right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) We need a radically different one now - one that shifts the burden *off" labor and back on to asset owners - especially land owners (there is literally only an economic upside to taxing them more). 2) somebody still has to fix those robots. 3) if control over the economy were wrested from oligarchs and were put under democratic control, the economy wouldnt be geared towards frittering away billions on trying to de…
> 2) somebody still has to fix those robots. This argument always gets made, but I don't think it works. If 10 factory workers are replaced with 1 robot, the technician job created will not go to any of the people displaced by the robot. It goes to someone privileged enough to have gone to robot-mechanic school. We then avoid all mention of those 10 factory workers and pretend they never existed. We tell ourselves th…
It's not sustainable, or even just possible on a larger scale. You can't have people doing simple, low paid jobs owning apartment buildings, as that means there'd need to be a 100+ million apartment buildings (or investments of comparable value) in America.
The luddite example is one of suddenness: The owners see the massive advantage of mechanization and move in fast. The workers are blindsided - they don't have the time and spend all the time they do have in a ludicrous war. The regions are somewhat mono-industry which completes in making a giant mess. All in all the exact quandary not to get caught in. Now that they have demonstrated it, long ago, do we really have t…
Well put. To note, luddites' issues were not just losing their job. Let's remember that the earlier machines were very crude, safety was absolutely not in their design, and a worker life's also didn't have much weight. So, the early days of machine assisted production were in inhumane conditions, people losing limbs, kids getting killed in them (less skills needed also meant kid labour was a viable option) etc. So ye…
The luddite example is one of suddenness: The owners see the massive advantage of mechanization and move in fast. The workers are blindsided - they don't have the time and spend all the time they do have in a ludicrous war. The regions are somewhat mono-industry which completes in making a giant mess. All in all the exact quandary not to get caught in. Now that they have demonstrated it, long ago, do we really have t…
I remember the mantra of some in the tech field of "no problem - just learn to code" when blue collar jobs in the manufacturing in the US was on the wane as production moved to cheaper locations overseas.