@matrix the movie is a capitalist dystopia, not a socialist post-scarcity
@orekix I may be retarded, but not that retarded. Why can't it be both?
@matrix
I mean it's obvious a capitalist depiction, just look at all the billboards and ads and so on, it's THE consoomer dystopia.
I mean it's obvious a capitalist depiction, just look at all the billboards and ads and so on, it's THE consoomer dystopia.
@orekix Duh. It's screaming in your face. I'm not saying it's some 1000IQ criticism of socialism. I just think that functionally, there would be no difference between this type of capitalist dystopia and socialist post-scarcity even if the motivation and pathway to it are essentially opposite.
@orekix @matrix Socialism doesn't free anyone of anything though, it simple changes the yoke, hence my comment. Even if the revolutionary utopia of destroying current power structures succeeded, the new masters would be the new power structures, and if those were destroyed, the master would be a primal state of disorganization and lack of basic resources. Post-scarcity magitech doesn't solve this, because it'd only last so long until the knowledge of how to mantain that tech is lost in the chaos.
@orekix @matrix It's a nightmare scenario. Even in the hypotetical case where magitech works forever and everyone is capable of materializing whatever they can imagine, society would stratify anyway, simply because some people would be so much better at doing so than others, and the rest would envy their creations. This is not an issue in a society built upon the principle of "you have what your potential allows, be happy", but in one that is built upon the idea of militant egalitarianism, it's a corrosive truth.
And with unlimited resources, there's nothing preventing that stratification from devolving into open warfare and back again to the stone age.
And with unlimited resources, there's nothing preventing that stratification from devolving into open warfare and back again to the stone age.
@nerthos @matrix
But it's not built on egalitarianism, that some people that call themselves 'activists' have conflated equality of people before the state with equality of outcome is egregious and detrimental but dismissing that socialists themselves also criticize such ideas(and have been doing so for the past 170 years) is quite frankly disingenuous
What matters here is the process of building towards it, raising questions of how such things may work from different areas(engineering, medicine, etc) is useful.
>And with unlimited resources, there's nothing preventing that stratification from devolving into open warfare and back again to the stone age.
The last failed attempt at it didn't regress into stone age, it actually disintegrated quite peacefully.
But it's not built on egalitarianism, that some people that call themselves 'activists' have conflated equality of people before the state with equality of outcome is egregious and detrimental but dismissing that socialists themselves also criticize such ideas(and have been doing so for the past 170 years) is quite frankly disingenuous
What matters here is the process of building towards it, raising questions of how such things may work from different areas(engineering, medicine, etc) is useful.
>And with unlimited resources, there's nothing preventing that stratification from devolving into open warfare and back again to the stone age.
The last failed attempt at it didn't regress into stone age, it actually disintegrated quite peacefully.
@orekix @matrix And yet the problem lies in that manner of "building towards it"
Barely anyone opposes the idea of unlimited resources and free access to them. I certainly don't, and I'm elitist to the point of having no issues with simply vaporizing the groups I see as a source of mostly just trouble. I'd gladly go for truly free healthcare, basic housing, food, etc. But never if the cost of that is society adopting leftist ideas, because those ideas are the dangerous part. Not dangerous to "the elites", dangerous to the wellbeing of decent people, their works and the fruits of their labour.
Rediscussing how things are done is in theory a good idea, but just look at the understanding the average normie has of anything, and then add to that how many people actually have good intentions and display the trait of incorruptibility. It's suicidal. The bit about egalitarianism confused for equality of outcome is a good example of this, this stuff is beyond most people, they'll only grasp the most superficial bits of it and misinterpret or plainly ignore the rest.
Barely anyone opposes the idea of unlimited resources and free access to them. I certainly don't, and I'm elitist to the point of having no issues with simply vaporizing the groups I see as a source of mostly just trouble. I'd gladly go for truly free healthcare, basic housing, food, etc. But never if the cost of that is society adopting leftist ideas, because those ideas are the dangerous part. Not dangerous to "the elites", dangerous to the wellbeing of decent people, their works and the fruits of their labour.
Rediscussing how things are done is in theory a good idea, but just look at the understanding the average normie has of anything, and then add to that how many people actually have good intentions and display the trait of incorruptibility. It's suicidal. The bit about egalitarianism confused for equality of outcome is a good example of this, this stuff is beyond most people, they'll only grasp the most superficial bits of it and misinterpret or plainly ignore the rest.
@nerthos @matrix I mean when I think of post-scarcity I'm not saying infinite resources but rather sustainable production of most goods, and the sustainability part is by far the most important question right now.
Just think of things like defective by design, DRM, planned obsolescence as part of all this waste, for what purpose other than just generating extra profits is this part of the chain of production? Things are intentionally made like shit, this idea that the best product is the one that becomes the most successful is quite frankly bullshit.
Not to mention the entire cancer behind celebrity and brand identities, all of this crap is honestly alienating to a lot of people, society changes alongside it and it's increasingly more difficult for people to have genuine human relationships and I think that is the most tragic part of the people who defend this shit as normal.
Like ffs just look at the whole incel phenomenon as another pathology, are collapsing marriage and birth rates not any warning sign that capitalism might the thing disintegrating society to people trying to defend it? increasing suicide rates? depression?
Just think of things like defective by design, DRM, planned obsolescence as part of all this waste, for what purpose other than just generating extra profits is this part of the chain of production? Things are intentionally made like shit, this idea that the best product is the one that becomes the most successful is quite frankly bullshit.
Not to mention the entire cancer behind celebrity and brand identities, all of this crap is honestly alienating to a lot of people, society changes alongside it and it's increasingly more difficult for people to have genuine human relationships and I think that is the most tragic part of the people who defend this shit as normal.
Like ffs just look at the whole incel phenomenon as another pathology, are collapsing marriage and birth rates not any warning sign that capitalism might the thing disintegrating society to people trying to defend it? increasing suicide rates? depression?
@orekix @matrix Yes, all these things are extremely bad, but the solution isn't a flip to the other end of the spectrum.
Only retards defend all that, the tankies of capitalism. But the threat of actual commies getting anywhere near power makes moderate people defend those horrible things, simply because no other group in human history has been directly responsible for so many atrocities as commies, and socialists sharing many of the same beliefs, it's not hard to imagine the moderate branch giving way to the stalinist one.
The success of the left is in getting a lot of people to see capitalism as the worst expression the model can take, attacking it indiscriminately, and thus rallying people to defend its worst flaws because of that attack. Leftism is a huge part of the reason why those issues are allowed to be perpetrated. The success of the opposite side is, in turn, using this to show any attempt at change as a communist plot to destroy everyone's way of life.
All the things you listed there, in particular planned obsolescence, DRM, mass media and so on need to get scoured by nuclear fire, but bring in threats like "redistribution" and that sends anyone who isn't either piss poor or crazy into fight or flight mode. The actual solution would be third positioning on this, instead of the capitalism/socialism fight. Get rid of all these ills but without eroding the right to property or self determination, without building a megastate or land seizure for no good reason. And, you know, class cooperation instead of the self-sabotaging idea of class warfare, the aids of socialism.
Only retards defend all that, the tankies of capitalism. But the threat of actual commies getting anywhere near power makes moderate people defend those horrible things, simply because no other group in human history has been directly responsible for so many atrocities as commies, and socialists sharing many of the same beliefs, it's not hard to imagine the moderate branch giving way to the stalinist one.
The success of the left is in getting a lot of people to see capitalism as the worst expression the model can take, attacking it indiscriminately, and thus rallying people to defend its worst flaws because of that attack. Leftism is a huge part of the reason why those issues are allowed to be perpetrated. The success of the opposite side is, in turn, using this to show any attempt at change as a communist plot to destroy everyone's way of life.
All the things you listed there, in particular planned obsolescence, DRM, mass media and so on need to get scoured by nuclear fire, but bring in threats like "redistribution" and that sends anyone who isn't either piss poor or crazy into fight or flight mode. The actual solution would be third positioning on this, instead of the capitalism/socialism fight. Get rid of all these ills but without eroding the right to property or self determination, without building a megastate or land seizure for no good reason. And, you know, class cooperation instead of the self-sabotaging idea of class warfare, the aids of socialism.
@matrix can't believe WALL-E invented fully automated luxury gay space communism (in space)
>Time after time, the villain in Hollywood films will turn out to be the 'evil corporation'. Far from undermining capitalist realism, this gestural anti-capitalism actually reinforces it. Take Disney/ Pixar's Wall-E (2008). The film shows an earth so despoiled that human beings are no longer capable of inhabiting it. We're left in no doubt that consumer capitalism and corporations - or rather one mega-corporation, Buy n Large - is responsible for this depredation; and when we see eventually see the human beings in offworld exile, they are infantile and obese, interacting via screen interfaces, carried around in large motorized chairs, and supping indeterminate slop from cups.
>It seems that the cinema audience is itself the object of this satire, which prompted some right wing observers to recoil in disgust, condemning Disney/Pixar for attacking its own audience. But this kind of irony feeds rather than challenges capitalist realism.