Will people implement Communism when all jobs are taken by robots?

Will people implement Communism when all jobs are taken by robots?

Other urls found in this thread:

lmgtfy.com/?q=distributism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

yes it'll eventually have been tried
we'll all be neet

no thanks

they gonna keep trying until the whole world turn to shit

What will happen when robots take all jobs though?

>we'll all be neet
How do you know that? I've heard that some goverments are currently deciding on universal basic income, but most current jobs will probably be replaced with new ones.

It'll probably be like the transition from agriculture to industry. Once robots are in, people can focus more on creative jobs.

YES fully automated luxury communism is inevitable

that will put hundreds of thousands of people out of the job market, you think Dale the steelworker is going to transition flawlessly to journalist or some other creative work? what demand is their for these new creative jobs anyway?

capitalists will build, own and manage the robots, it will strengthen capitalism, capitalism will be with us for at least as long as genetically modified humans exist

So everyone is going to compete for YouTube bux and every third women will be filming the most depraved porn imaginable?

Future seems bright. Anyone wanna watch my review of the new star wars movie so I can buy a hot lunch?

Pls

Where did I say that everyone will do these jobs?

so what will the working class do?

Maybe a higher rate of /K selection? I could see people reproducing less while investing in their offspring more and more until mass unemployment is almost entirely gone. Or, humanity might take a page from the NSDAP's plan and give all the useless guys jobs working on farms doing task the old school way for the sake of employment.

I don't know. Probably the part where you said "it will be like the transition from agriculture to industry".

Exactly and what will all the people who lost their millions of jobs do? millions and millions of neets? Basic income for everyone?

>russian federation flag
I don't understand

>useless guys jobs working on farms doing task the old school way for the sake of employment.
Seems sensible. All those guys on the farm surely won't complain a tractor that you took away the keys for would make 25 of them obsolete while the rest of the world gets the comfy jobs.

Fertilize the earth.

aw I'd say at least a quarter of folks who go on about post-scarcity are in the tech industry
the other three quarters, let's uh, let's not talk about them.

>post-scarcity capitalism will totally work guise you just have to kill 3/4 of the population

What do you think about the /K selection part?

the same thing they are doing now, most of the world is already underemployed

well they'd better start making some smart investments

/K selection happens all the time anyway though. Some people may have more children than others but humans aren't regularly giving birth to octoplets.

Or am I wrong.

a lot of people are underemployed doing exactly the type of work that automation replaces. this would be an unprecedented amount of unemployment.

And exactly how is China supposed to be shit?

It's basically doing the World Bank's job for it, having brought more than 700 million people out of poverty in 30 years.

No, they'll all just move into customer service jobs so that the people who own the robots will have someone to feel superior to.

>customer service jobs won't be automated
they already have fast food restaurants with machine servers

Hmm. I think we may be on the wrong page.

Let's say we have 10k jobs left in the world with 20k people. Do to need to invent in offspring for them to secure a job, the birth rate naturally switches to being dominated by /K instead of r/ due to more time needed for each individual offspring. Eventually, with the switch lowing the birthrate, there is now 10k people for 10k jobs. Do you see this being possible or?

If we are on the same page, then sorry for my misunderstanding.

A lot of people like the "human element". Many people choose to buy groceries from the cashier or order their pizza over the phone rather thsn using the app. Not just old people, either. I don't get it personally, but I recognize that there's a market for it.

Well in that scenario you'd have to "manage" the population yeah.

But again how do people respond to that?

>A lot of people like the "human element".
businesses don't care what people "like" if it cuts into their profits
all they care about is what people will tolerate

>some people still prefer the bank teller to the ATM, let's have the entire economy revolve around this

if robots were everywhere doing literally every task imaginable then the unemployed humans could live off the scraps, nothing needs to change

Farming will be one of the first jobs to go to robots

I always avoid the machine servers whenever possible, just to do my bit to help someone keep their job. Consumers generally should think more about the impact of what their behaviour does as the consumer is last bastion of people power. The legal system and government institutions sold out in the 70s.

Of course businesses care about what people want. If a large grocery store uses their capital to implement fully automated stores, that opens up opportunities for smaller grocery stores to charge a premium for the products by providing superior customer service.

Who is buying all the crap your robots make and where do they get their money from?

People don't understand that the implications of full automation make both the would be consumer and the owner of the robots equally obsolete.

>Well in that scenario you'd have to "manage" the population yeah.
In my situation, it self manages itself by (...

>But again how do people respond to that?
...) how the West is now. As education goes up, the birthrate correlates and goes down.

So, to explain further, as jobs go into a more intelligent-demand, the new emphasis on education would, by correlation, cause the birthrate to fall, making the supply of labor lower, therefore decreasing unemployment.

Does that make sense or I am just pipe dreaming?

But wouldn't long term K selection trends cause demand to contract and the economy to shrink more and more with more and more of the highly specialized jobs disappearing?

pretty sure population changes aren't that easy to figure out, to start with you'd need to plan 18 years in advance, tech is moving way too fast and most predictions say the futures fucked unless we make some drastic changes while no one really knows what they actually want to do.

>But wouldn't long term K selection trends cause demand to contract and the economy to shrink more and more with more and more of the highly specialized jobs disappearing?
We would then, either A. hit a barrier in technological progress that sets a standard of human population or B. Keep changing demands in sectors as technology progresses creating different jobs basically for each new generation.

>pretty sure population changes aren't that easy to figure out
No you're right, the best we can do are make educated guesses, but I would agrue these guess can be fairly accurate.

>to start with you'd need to plan 18 years in advance
Explain further so I get the full picture of what you're meaning here.

>tech is moving way too fast and most predictions say the futures fucked unless we make some drastic changes while no one really knows what they actually want to do.
Yes, but we first need to come up with solutions on how to fix these issues that arise and in all honesty, a lot of it comes down to 'we'll just have to wait and see how everything naturally plays out.'

NEET era is coming

Well what's the alternative? Surely technological progress won't just stop, amd surely the economy cannot grow forever so communism is the only logical plan for the future.

>But wouldn't long term K selection trends cause demand to contract and the economy to shrink more and more with more and more of the highly specialized jobs disappearing?
I just reread it and I realized I completely misunderstood your point.

Yes, a decreasing population would decrease demand - but the economy would not 'shrink,' it would instead just adjust/correct the number of supply of goods and demand of labor, to the new amount of the supply of demand.

>more of the highly specialized jobs disappearing?
I would like to touch bases on this more. I, personally (I'm not anywhere near an expert by the way, so please do not be upset by my ignorance), think that some jobs, no matter what, will not disappear. For example, robotic cleaning and repairs. 'Yes, but we can have robots do that work.' Well, who cleans those robots? Robots. And them? Robots. And so on and so forth. After so many lines of robots, you either need to 1. somehow make a never failing robot (I think this is 99.99% impossible, personally) or 2. waste resources making all these robots when you can just cheaply (cheaply in the sense of which is harder resource to obtain, metal or food) pay a human to do it that doesn't waste precious metal and technological resources.

As for more specialized jobs disappearing - absolutely not! Technology will make specialized jobs even more in demand because it will allow people to further focus even more on a subject, design, process, and or area even more allowing further information and innovations to be made, which in return will turn out new goods that will need even further specialty in improving or upkeeping.

Proletarian genocide.

But your forgetting about the thinking machines.

Not to mention, there's going to be such an oversaturation of media content, you couldn't consume it all if lives 100 years, were awake 24/7 and watching 4 things at once.

Except that the correlation between fertility and jobs isn't that great. I mean it exists, but people don't have children as supply side manufacturers to meet economic demand for labor.

It makes the consumer-laborer obsolete.

It does not in any way make the owner obsolete. The owner has shit tons of robot slaves to do their bidding. They just won't gear production towards meeting the wants of the workforce, because the workforce is robots. They'll either make robots, or have robots make them things they want.

Superintelligence emerges and we have to do whatever it says.

The End.

We already have too many artists and writers. Many newspapers are struggling, and a few artists aren't making money unless they get some good patrons. All I'm saying is that the creative industry isn't exactly an untapped market. Also, many people create art or write already just for fun, in their free time. Imagine how many hobby artist will emerge as more and more people get laid off.

Tens of millions or more, not hundreds of thousands.
For just one example, just look at truck drivers alone, we have 1-2 percent of the US population alone employed there.
Robots can drive for days on end, and as an bonus you don't need to fund their stimulant habit.

>Except that the correlation between fertility and jobs isn't that great.
True, but that wasn't my point. My point was as education rises, which happens in industrialized countries, birthrates decline.

>I mean it exists, but people don't have children as supply side manufacturers to meet economic demand for labor.
I don't think I was implying that, I was saying "As automation increases, education will increase sending the decline of birthrates further until unemployment, due to lack of supply of job demand, will even out," but I think you misunderstood me as saying 'people will reproduce on what the demand of jobs are,' which will never happen because, hey, we like to screw.

such as?

Not the guy you're talking to but
Why will education increase? How will they pay for it?

Why will education increase?
Well, what we (more like me, myself, and I) were talking about is would humanity go to more /K selected route of breeding - /K selection obviously favoring intelligence and offspring investment. So, in this hypothetical situation, we are imagining that intelligence would become a positive breeding trait.

>How will they pay for it?
I would imagine like now, taxes and free market admixture.

That's only assuming education loss of fertility can match the needed population decline. There's also the fact that much of the fertility decline has to do with careers, and if there are not careers.

>That's only assuming education loss of fertility can match the needed population decline. There's also the fact that much of the fertility decline has to do with careers, and if there are not careers.
Oh, yes, I agree, hence why I am only speaking in the sense that if humanity turns to more /K selection (i.g., less offsprings and higher investment of offspring) that education would rise and the population would contract to meet the new demand of job supply. If people do not follow /K selection, then my entire proposal would be than more than, nothing less than that, a proposal.

>communist
>state
That's really, really not the point, a means of production owned by state is not a means of production owned by the people.

no the plan is to implement a vengeful Messiah known as the Singularity to avoid implementing communism

Funny how China starts doing better when it adopts a more capitalistic system...

Look up negative income tax.

>Rich people eat exclusively at fast food places
>Anyone but the poorest or least cultured of people eat exclusively at fast food places
You realise sit-down restaurants are a thing, right?

Fascinating.

It seems like the only feasible option.

Without industry jobs a lot of people would not have a job or income.

They would also lack intelligence to perform more difficult jobs.

Either or cyberpunk future. And no senpai, cyberpunk sucks

you we'll just make 80% of the population restaurant waiters that will surely work

...

...

...

...

>HA /liftypool/ exposed now I don't have to come up with explanation for how capitalism could function in a post-scarcity world :)

And that's how you know society is doomed. We have lost touch with God, nature. We are doomed.

There will start the space colonization

the agricultural revolution was a move away from nature too

And you're not entirely wrong, it just didn't take it too far. Communalism with collective farming would be a more appropriate way to live. You can have socialist systems that aren't heartless like Marxism. And you can even develop systems within capitalism that reward collectivity with regard to agriculture. But these days the earth is something neglected in favor of pride and human ''''''intellectualism''''''''.

How's that going to work in a place like America where most of the proles are armed?

No. I don't know why socialists treat automation as if it is the messiah that will finally make socialism possible.

Mixed economies, distributism, and fascism are all perfectly capable of dealing with rising automation. In fact fascism and distributism actually bother to deal with the cultural issues that would arise from automation, whereas socialism and mixed economies don't even attempt to deal with those problems. So why do the leftists think automation will always lead to communism?

Collectivization is shit and inefficient.

Members of kolkhozy had the right to hold a small area of private land and some animals. The size of the private plot varied over the Soviet period, but was usually about 1 acre (0.40 ha). Before the Russian Revolution of 1917 a peasant with less than 13.5 acres (5.5 ha) was considered too poor to maintain a family.[7] However, the productivity of such plots is reflected in the fact that in 1938 3.9 percent of total sown land was in the form of private plots, but in 1937 those plots produced 21.5 percent of gross agriculture output.[8]

>ONE FIFTH OF ALL USSR AGRICULTURE OUTPUT ON ONE ACRE PLOTS LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Only a fool would ever submit to collective farming.

You don't need to be X to wonder if under certain circumstances X would happen.

Sure, but we don't see this with the other ideologies. We don't see distributists going "oh, I wonder if distributism will finally happen with automation", or fascists doing that either.

Then again, neither of those ideologies absolutely require automation like communism does, so I see your point.

who the fuck are distributists?

My thought process was the other way around
"What will happen when automation takes all jobs? Communism?"

Okay, that's fair enough. I don't think communism will happen, but socialism is definitely a possibility.

lmgtfy.com/?q=distributism

If society is stupid enough to let that happen you can look forward to the complete collapse of modern industrial civilization followed by a new dark age.

Maybe because Marxism is Hegelian? Socialism is the now answer. Communism is the pipe dream. Dreaming about communism is like Hitler dreaming about a world with only Aryans and no Jews.

>Who is buying all the crap your robots make
the owners
>where do they get their money from
other owners

No one has actually answered how you get to distributism, and how you keep businesses at just the right size except, taxes and regulations lol. I'm not sure what you think a mixed economy is either, unless you're one of those people that thinks capitalism means markets and socialism means central planning. Fascism is even more prone to [COLAPSE] than communism if you want to look at their relative successes.

>i want socialism but im afraid of socialism lets just imagine regulated capitalism with socialist characteristics
That's what I got from the google search

>no workers to earn a wage
>no workers to spend a wage
>no capitalism for workers to uphold

Are you going to be paying robots a wage and expecting them to fund capitalism?

Kek.

The only people in this future who will have any jobs are the prisoners forced to take care of the robots.

>jobs
You don't need jobs to have capitalism. You think slaveowning is a real "job"?

Unless, it were distributed evenly among small groups? I imagine this to usually be the case, but not in communism, for instance.

Adam Smith himself didn't think capitalism should be unregulated, we need to stop with the regulation=socialism claptrap. Under distributism, there is widespread private property, and private ownership of the means of production. Thus it is not socialism. It's basically "forty acres and a mule" as an economy.

That's mutualism, a form of socialism.

Adam Smith wrote about the fucking markets you mong and said capitalist landowners were shit trash scum. There's a reason there were the Ricardian Socialists before Marx.

>private ownership of the means of production
>socialism
Mfw capitalism is actually socialism

Wat.

No. Distributism is not mutualism.

The point of private ownership is that you can do with it as you please because it is yours. Regulation reduces the freedom of what you can do with it, and regulation is explicitly the control of some other body that is not you, letting them exercise control over your "private" property. But at least it says "private" on paper.

>It's basically "forty acres and a mule" as an economy.
That is mutualism. A really shitty agrarian form of mutualism, but mutualism nonetheless.