this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
31 points (97.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

670 readers
31 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Basically dress up the economics as futurism instead of tankie shit with its associations.

Marx said we should hold the means of production in common, and follow a socially beneficial plan. But a lot of audiences would roll their eyes and close their ears as soon as I said Marx.

If instead I say, "Artificial intelligence and computerised logistics are becoming so sophisticated we can think about phasing out the human element of management. We can choose democratically what we want the robots to do and they will produce it for us."

This might sound like subterfuge to some of you, but it's not actually dishonest. It's a correct way to describe a Marxian economy. I replaced the phrase "the means of production" with "the robots".

The real win here is you get around "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." People don't expect a Marxist world revolution. People don't expect the fall of capitalism. But people totally do expect robots and AI in the coming decades.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

When appealing to the less reactionary elements, it can be sold as a “decentralized optimization algorithm based on democratic inputs”. Like, just throw in a few buzzwords.

The public is continuously sold on progressive ideas, as a marketing tactic, and this wouldn’t be any different. (Except for compromising capitalist resource allocation, so expect more pushback than most)

If you want more info, I’d recommend you check out people’s republic of Walmart.