Capitalism can not function without scarcity so it is at complete conflict with transumanismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Capitalism can not function without scarcity so it is at complete conflict with transumanismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf
I think it's overly narrow to define transhumanism as exclusively referring to post-scarcity existence. Creating abundance is clearly a goal in the transformation of humanity, but transhumanists and transhumanism are also compatible with scarcity.
Capitalism is a decentralized system for non-destructively resolving the conflicts that result from scarcity when they occur. As abundance increases such systems will become less relevant and less frequently used, because the overhead costs of tracking ownership are wasted effort when the resource in question is so abundant that no conflict exists.
In an entirely post-scarcity environment, there would be no value in maintaining a capitalist system because there would be no conflict to resolve. However, in such an environment maintaining a capitalist system would also have no cost, since the resources required to maintain it would not be scarce.
going from capitalist to post scarcity would be very hard. Even today here in the US we have 10x as many empty houses as homeless people
The US doesn't have much to do with capitalism, but a significant portion of our disagreement may be over definitions. The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism defines human rights as split between individual rights and collective rights, while capitalism defines all human rights as applying to individuals. Collective rights demand centralized or hierarchical structures in order to resolve conflicts over their use. Empty houses and unused property are the result of socialist/centralized policies for defining ownership of property rather than decentralized/capitalist policies. Under capitalism, ownership is established by original appropriation or voluntary transfer, and maintained by a continued relationship to the property in question. Unused resources of which the previous owner fails to maintain ownership can be considered abandoned and are free to be originally appropriated by someone else.
"capitalism defines all human rights as applying to individuals"
getting what somebody else produces is an individual right?
also did you just call our government socialist?
did you just call socialism centralized?
Like I said, we have some conflicting definitions.
Getting what others produce is not a necessary part of capitalism. Many would associate that idea more with socialism. Again, the core difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism defines all ownership in terms of individuals rather than collectives. Within capitalism and socialism the specific principles vary between individuals, but that's the criteria for differentiating the two.
Yes, the US government is based on the idea that society has collective rights that cannot be used by all individuals in a decentralized way.
Government is created as a supposedly collective (but centralized) entity to represent the people and use their collective rights for them. Defining rights as collective such that they cannot be exercised individually inevitably results in centralized power.
I don't have time to explain basic economic systems
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf
just read this
also socialism is literally being able to labor on the means of production and literally get everything you fucking produce
what your'e thinking of is anti-socialist propaganda......
Clearly you have the time, but you may lack the capacity or the interest.
I've read that, and it's full of holes. Obviously labor has different value to the laborer than to the employer, or they would never agree to exchange it. Workers also have and can accumulate capital. While envy and social context are a factor in people's desires, wealth is not entirely relative: greater prosperity is worthwhile even if others also prosper to the same degree.
What you're describing as socialism is simply the end you hope to achieve, not a system or means by which it could be realized. You have answered none of my points, and seem more attached to fervently voicing your support for the word "socialism" than to any particular meaning implied by that word.