AOC feints towards fully automated luxury communism

[tekk]

@Shuck

What’s amazing to me is how (at least every time I see them) they’re losing their minds over something that either A) she didn’t actually say (e.g. the Green New Deal doesn’t mention cattle or beef at all, yet conservatives are certain she’s coming for their burgers)

That one’s from a throwaway line in a previous draft, pointing out that we can’t be zero carbon because that would involve killing every cow in the country among other things, and so aim for zero net carbon.

[simonize]

@tekk

Alternatively, that it ended shows that reasonable restraints on capitalism that keep it from tending towards self-destruction will inevitably be removed in the name of more profits.

I would argue that in all societies, there is a tendency (rather than an inevitability) for power to concentrate. “The rich get richer” is just the capitalist special case. People can and do counteract that, and democracy IS a reaction to that tendency.

[chad_boudreau1]

The idea, I suspect, would be to impose a cost on the bots sufficient to allow people to retire. If the bots are efficient and valuable enough, mission accomplished. If they are NOT valuable enough to support displaced humans, then they can’t displace humans.

[Shuck]

Though some of the aggro seems to be focused on the current draft and its reference to agriculture being a huge source of greenhouse gases that need to be addressed. But it’s hard to know what’s setting them off, as the conservative arguments are often disingenuous, based entirely on fantasies/projection or likely to be based on rumor/misunderstandings, sometimes of random texts that were unrelated to the people under attack. (And I’m sure the concept of net carbon is totally lost on them.)

[simonize]

@Bernel

Even so, she is moving the Overton window.

And I, for one, am REALLY glad to see the Overton window move away from “How big a taxcut should we give the rich THIS YEAR?”

@gmoke

I haven’t seen many people thinking about what happens to the economy when the cost of fuel goes away.

But electricity from solar and wind are NOT free, and they’re not going to be. It takes materials and labor to make the equipment to generate it and they don’t last forever.

[chad_boudreau1]

You dont really need to structure it as a rant. Sure, using the word sin in the Christian sense upsets my atheistic sensibilities, but wo cares?

Pointing to a lack of solidarity as a response to the immoral lack of reciprocity by the powerful is a very sound thing to say.

[Whim]

I don’t disagree, and invoking the idea of an authoritarian dystopia is exactly the opposite of what we want to do with this messaging. But also, I had someone get a bit belligerent with me the other day when he overheard me say the word “socialist” while I was talking with someone else about libertarian-socialism. If we were to abandon every political symbol with baggage attached, we would not have many symbols left. It’s probably an easier project to redefine what it means to be communist than to relabel the whole ideology, and then get called a communist by the right anyway.

[Arduenn]

It is the highest goal for our species: let all the robots do the stupid work for us,

[RandomDude]

I’ve read cat’s cradle and Breakfast of Champions, but I don’t think I’ve heard of this one. Only so much time in the day to read of course.

Seems very interesting I will have to give this a look sometime

[reactionabe]

@some_guy

As much as I appreciate the design of the hammer-and-sickle, we really should abandon it for something with less baggage.

Never cede symbolic ground. Reactionaries and fascists are very good at coopting it and parlaying it into their rhetoric. Ditch the hammer and sickle and they’ll draw an a picture of hiding from the past, use it and they draw a picture of embracing the past.

The advantage of using it is that you own it and get a lot more control over it. See the change in how “socialism” gets used over the past ten years.

[gmoke]

With renewables, the cost of fuel goes away. That’s not free but it’s the elimination of a hefty continuing cost. The cost of maintenance for renewables is on the order of about 2% of the cost of fuel, I’ve read. The major cost of renewables will be the cost of the money over time in order to construct them.

Right now, again according to what I’ve read, new renewables are being contracted by utilities in many parts of the world including the USA at 2¢ per kWh while the cost of operating existing coal plants is 4¢ -20¢ per kWh. That will give you some idea of the scale of economics involved.

Not sure where you got the idea I was writing renewables are free. That’s not what I wrote. Curious as to why you read that into my words because it is not at all what I meant.

[fnordius]

@Purplecat

AOC - Contact agent? If so, certain members of Congress had better look out for any drones or knife missiles.

We should be so lucky, but if The State of the Art taught us anything, it’s that we barely register on the Cultures’s radar. We don’t rate Contact, much less Special Circumstances.

(For those not in on the reference, the novella The State of the Art dealt with a Culture ship examining Earth in 1977, and eventually deciding to leave us as a control specimen: the Minds will let us destroy ourselves without interference to show why their form of interference is necessary after all)

[fnordius]

@RickMycroft

My question for the Star Trek universe: If there’s no money or worry about possessions, how do I get a shiny starship?

“Well, Mr. Mycroft, we have examined your request for a starship. Your offer of several million credits was amusing, but you simply did not show that you, well, need a starship of your own. Now, should you want to go to Tau Zeit, a berth can be arranged on the next cruiser based upon your value to society, but buying a starship? How quaint!”

[spejic]

I strongly agree with what you wrote about the Star Trek economy. To that I would add two more economies. First, there is money when dealing with worlds outside the Federation (or maybe worlds in the Federation that keep money for some reason), which is where the mentions of Federation Credits come from. Those may come from one of the mechanisms you said or from a stipend given to those, say, stationed on an ex-Cardassian mining station near a non-Federation world. Those are probably controlled to prevent disruptive trade imbalances.

Another economy is scientific. We have seen people given fantastic resources to carry out research, like how 7-of-9’s parents were given a deep-space starship. Many others have been given their own space stations to carry out research (like Dr. Apgar in “A Matter of Perspective”, Dr. Farallon in “The Quality of Life”).

[fnordius]

@MikeTheBard

First, most people do something that benefits others, which they are paid for. Besides Starfleet, we see people running restaurants and shops and hotels and mining and transport operations. They make money and spend it just like we do, except that they don’t have to worry about things like food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc. They probably make a lot less than we would consider a livable wage, but since they don’t need it to live … It pretty much gets spent on total luxuries or personal obsessions- Not stuff you encounter every day.

Were I a show runner on Star Trek I would posit that 99% of businesses are actually hobbies: people running a restaurant not because it’s how they need to earn a living, but because it’s their passion. If most jobs could be automated, then the only ones really working are… er… well…

…hipsters.

Which means Starfleet is made up not of people wanting to earn a living, but people passionate about exploration. And the gun nuts that get to wear red shirts.

[MikeTheBard]

@spejic

Another economy is scientific. We have seen people given fantastic resources to carry out research, like how 7-of-9’s parents were given a deep-space starship.

I would argue that this also goes back to the idea of a reputation economy- I would guess that pretty much anyone could go ask the Federation/Starfleet for a ship or a lab to go study whatever scientific curiosity strikes their fancy, but reputation dictates to what degree that request is granted.

A promising lad fresh from the academy might be offered the chance to tag along on a ship like the Enterprise to work as a lab assistant in their chosen field- One of those dozens of random crew members we see working in all those different labs.

But the brilliant physicist that’s known for developing that revolutionary warp theory? He might be given his own ship to install an experimental drive into, with crew lining up to join him. Or he may be sent to the Enterprise with orders for the captain to “assist him in any way possible” while he collects data on some phenomenon.

@fnordius

Were I a show runner on Star Trek I would posit that 99% of businesses are actually hobbies: people running a restaurant not because it’s how they need to earn a living, but because it’s their passion.

Which is exactly what I think would happen if we were to institute a UBI or negative tax. Freed from having to work for a living, people would turn their hobbies into hobby businesses- Sure, your building historically accurate model train stations isn’t going to make you rich, but it’s going to make you enough money that you can keep building as many of them as you want. You won’t need to divert your attention towards basic survival.

[coherent_light]

@gracchus

I always wonder how Libertarian and conservative Star Trek fans can reconcile themselves to the Federation’s economic model.

Cognitive dissonance, cherry-picking of text, the usual.

[tuhu]

Hmm, reputations… So you think the constant attention to Federation protocol possibly came from a desire to avoid losing face? That maybe some were only good because they feared the loss of reputation from straying from the norm?

I always thought the reason they all liked the rules so much is that each individual member of the Federation had tidy-sized adventures pop up at just the right time for that particular individual, with events that happened to teach them the value of doing things a certain way.

[fnordius]

@MikeTheBard

Which is exactly what I think would happen if we were to institute a UBI or negative tax. Freed from having to work for a living, people would turn their hobbies into hobby businesses- Sure, your building historically accurate model train stations isn’t going to make you rich, but it’s going to make you enough money that you can keep building as many of them as you want. You won’t need to divert your attention towards basic survival.

I think this is the biggest difference between Star Trek and Iain Banks’ Culture: in the Culture, your pursuit of making historically accurate model train stations would be tolerated by the Minds who could do it better on a subatomic scale, because hey, it’s your art, so go ahead, here’s the raw materials and workspace. And if you get tired, well, I am sure a ship would eventually give you a ride, but that’s up to the ship and its current population, as some ships have let their “crew” vote off troublemakers.

In Star Trek, it’s still a currency involved, so getting the workspace and raw materials still involves using credits earned. Said credit could also be traded in for other luxuries like passage to another star or that one rare commodity you’ve been craving.

[anon61833566]

Interesting to mention the GI bill.

One thing people don’t realize is the purpose of it was to provide a subsidized earning for a solider coming home to allow him time to spend on education and training but still have enough money to cover basic living needs.

Today’s GI Bill isn’t even capable of covering your gas bill for your car let alone the other needs within the month.