Read Marx, but read this first.
Read Marx, but read this first.
Yeah, the bourgeoisie under no circumstances would allow itself to become outdated even if possible, it would take a revolution to technologically overcome outpace capitalism because as long as the capitalist class holds state power they will not allow the material weakening of their class power.
That's why you're gonna starve and we can all eat shit while they rocket themselves to Mars or whatever. Bourgeois ideology isn't always very coherent, you know.
capitalism will never allow that to happen and technically the same thing has already happened a few times.
we are already so efficient that a huge proportion of the population doesn't need to work in order get the essentials + even some luxuries like entertainment. in other words a part of the population produces enough for the other part. in order to combat that, capitalism creates materialistically useless industries in order to increase profit, not give anything for free and not have jobless hungry millions rioting (even with that there is still a small part of the population that can't get a job which is why welfare exists)
so yeah automation won't do shit and we will probably see even more useless shit like maybe internet social life manager, an even bigger marketing sector, memes professor or analyst, rent-a-friend services, etc.
What you mean the entire chapter in capital that talks literally about machines taking jobs and acting as the ultimate scans causing an increase in output and also a massive increase in the rate of exploitation?
You might as well say that capitalism will never allow the Earth to become uninhabitable to humans.
you know that "computer" used to be an occupation right? We didn't descend into chaos when machines were invented to do arithmetic.
So did carthorse.
Nothing bad happened to the horses when machines were built which surpassed them in every way, right?
yeah pretty much this
You know almost everybody who could work used to be employed right
You know wages were generally higher before the 1970s and then things got more automated even though we made more stuff we got the same spending power
This is stupid, the rate of productivity increase ("automation") has actually been decreasing as wages stagnate/fall and there labour is just cheaper.
where is the bellybutton?
OP is a Moldbug shill btw
Gothic Anne is unironically hotter than princess Anne
Dunno m8, the aristocracy allowed themselves to become outdated when they could have easily just bought factories and become bourgeois.
They did though, they were not classicided and merged with the bourgs, you see many higher ups in poltics, finance etc who are offspring of old aristocrats, like all these "von" types etc.
What you're missing is that the bourgeoisie are already in the perfect position to survive the transition from capitalism to full automation. They'll be the ones owning the automated factories, so they won't lose anything. It's the proles who have everything to lose because they don't own the means of production required to keep themselves alive.
Why would the bourgeoisie try to stop automation when they have everything to gain and nothing to lose?
Are you literally 12?
Who gives a fuck about profit when you've got an autonomous factory capable of building more autonomous factories? Money doesn't even make sense any more.
this has to be possible first
Obviously we're talking about future technology here.
And what knowledge about technology do "we" have?
and? Just saying "it will happen in the future" doesn't make it so
So you think that discussing (very likely) future technology is pointless, but meta-discussions about our ability to predict future technology are useful?
We are living proof that self-replicating intelligent machines are possible. The only question is how long it takes us to figure out how to build them ourselves.
this isn't what is being discussed
no we're just laughing at a non argument your presenting
that isn't how proof works bud.
no the question of possibility is still the main question and right now the answer is no.
Sorry, I understand now. I was wrong. Life is incapable of self replication and/or doesn't exist.
well at least you admit it
Do you get just how staggeringly stupid your assertion was?
If a thing exists with a certain property, you can't claim that things with that property are impossible.
No, but I suspect you don't have any knowledge regarding this topic exceeding that which is found in breathless PR wank like dotcom-bubble era Wired magazine.
your assertion was stupider xD
except that isn't what is happening
Judging from the quality of posts since , Wired magazine would probably be far too high-brow for you. I'd suggest a coloring book and a pack of edible crayons.