Transcendent Man

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: I personally think that this idea ( of labor being completely voluntary and scarcity no longer being an issue) is Utopistic and pointless. I highly doubt technology will become that advanced in our lifetimes and even if it will what would be the point of it?

You're correct in claiming that discussions related to theoretical technologies in the distant future are Utopian, but that doesn't mean they're "pointless." While I agree that artificial intelligence will most likely not be reached within our lifetime, there are still emerging technologies which are going to fundamentally change our lives nonetheless. Furthermore, the development of these technologies (e.g., further automation, gene therapy, pharmacological treatments, etc.) within the context of capitalism is going to be problematic for a whole host of reasons.

I mean if machines do all the work then what are all the humans going to do ( if they choose not to work)? Have free time all day long? This idea sounds like something out of a science fiction book to me.

The notions of flight, telecommunications, and space exploration were once thought to be unrealistic as well, and yet humanity accomplished all of those within a relatively short span of time. Just because it may seem outlandish by our standards doesn't mean it's beyond feasibility. If, for example, automation is to be developed further, we have the very real possibility of having work schedules as minimal as 4-6 hours a day without any loss in our current standard of living—provided said automation is implemented within a planned economy.

As for what humans would do if machines were performing all forms of labor, we'd be able to spend our short time on this earth developing our other human potentials—cultivating relationships with friends and family, enjoying nature and the arts, traveling, mastering our various hobbies, and so forth.

I also strongly disagree with the notion that work is usually unfulfilling and undesirable. Many people do enjoy what they do. Believe it or not there are people out there who like doing hard and dangerous work as well.

I haven't read anyone claiming that work is "usually unfulfilling and undesirable." On the contrary, I believe we all acknowledged that labor is something which people naturally take pleasure in. That some people like doing dangerous work, however, is irrelevant to the wider point I've been trying to make. People shouldn't have to work life-threatening jobs just to make ends meet. If technology can be developed which would reduce the number of hours necessary in such jobs, or render them completely obsolete, then it should be used—under the strict condition that structural unemployment doesn't ensue as a result, of course. People could still find self-realization in threatening their lives, or performing physical labor, via other outlets in their extended leisure time.

And believe it or not many blue collar workers Ive spoken to think the same way. To replace workers with machines would cause many to lose the meaning of their existence.

Workers have hitherto not been presented with the option of having labor become completely voluntary. If you asked people whether or not they'd like to maintain their current standard of living without having to be forced to work, I suspect the vast majority would prefer having labor become voluntary.

Im proud of being the descendant of people who spent their lives doing hard labor. And so are many other working class people. If you were to take labor away from the worker then you would pretty much kill the meaning of a workers life.

I disagree. Socially necessary labor isn't the only sort of labor a person can perform or find self-realization in. Taken to its extreme, Neo-Luddism would result in permanently leaving the workday at 8 hours and reducing the possibility of life saving medicines and technologies being developed.

To finish up my humble opinion is: Socialism is for Work not against it.

Socialism is for justice: economic, political, and social. If the people democratically choose to reduce the workday, or even have machines completely replace humans in the performance of socially necessary labor, then their will should be followed.

Pantheon Rising wrote:That surely sounds interesting, and I like the idea. I believe we have a long way to go for that though. Question though: let's say that I didn't want to do that? Would my material needs still be provided for?

You would not be compelled to work in a society wherein labor has attained a wholly or predominately voluntary status—not out of material concerns nor other factors. You aren't "forced" to work under capitalism either, but your alternative is not one that offers much in the way of compromise: you work, or you starve. Individuals would not need to exert themselves in contributing to society or in the pursuit of self-fulfillment (the two often follow one another), but I believe that most would do just that. I cannot imagine an ethic of laziness permeating a society that offers its citizens vast opportunities for personal growth. Rampant listlessness is a trait found in social formations that are exploitative and repressive; such societies strangle personal initiative and responsibility (for the majority at least) because they crush the individual's expectations.

Nooo way, sorry if you thought I implied that. Only that there should be a demand for people to do labor is all and people to manage their own labor. If workers had control over their workplace such things would be eliminated due to the undesirability of the conditions by the workers themselves.

Self-management would indeed grant workers an enhanced ability to improve their workplaces (although this would be limited in a market system), but the goal should be to liberate humanity from the constraints imposed by socially necessary labor. It is completely arbitrary to state that there should be some overarching demand for people to perform labor. People do not have to labor for anything other than survival and to maintain a particular standard of living; if both are met as a result of technological advancement (that is, if both survival and an adequate standard of living are ensured without the widespread input of labor), then labor would become a voluntary activity. Economic growth is not always admirable; it can be and is undesirable if it merely acts to perpetuate the system (as we witness under capitalism).

The universe (perhaps multiverse) is an unimaginably vast expanse, and we are but an infinitesimal unit in it. I, for one, wish to explore and manipulate this reality according to my creative desires, not to remain shackled to a mechanized existence in order to survive or to meet some meaningless (especially if it is market driven) social quota. Survival for the sake of survival is not, in my view, an acceptable basis for existence. To deny the emergence of a new society wherein we labor because it inundates us with a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction (of genuine happiness) in place of bare necessity and economic "efficiency" would be an atrocious injustice.

Rev Scare wrote:You would not be compelled to work in a society wherein labor has attained a wholly or predominately voluntary status—not out of material concerns nor other factors. You aren't "forced" to work under capitalism either, but your alternative is not one that offers much in the way of compromise: you work, or you starve. Individuals would not need to exert themselves in contributing to society or in the pursuit of self-fulfillment (the two often follow one another), but I believe that most would do just that. I cannot imagine an ethic of laziness permeating a society that offers its citizens vast opportunities for personal growth. Rampant listlessness is a trait found in social formations that are exploitative and repressive; such societies strangle personal initiative and responsibility (for the majority at least) because they crush the individual's expectations.

I think I am thinking too far ahead here. You're suggesting some stage of higher socialism or communism. I think there will always be a demand for hard labor though. People will be technically forced to do the labor, simply because it is socially necessary. It should be up to the community on how to dish out the labor in a socialist society.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I think I am thinking too far ahead here. You're suggesting some stage of higher socialism or communism. I think there will always be a demand for hard labor though. People will be technically forced to do the labor, simply because it is socially necessary. It should be up to the community on how to dish out the labor in a socialist society.

Yes, I am assuming a society that can be described as having achieved communism. By "necessary" labor (it is important to distinguish one's intended meaning when employing qualifiers such as "creative" and "necessary" so as to avoid semantic games) I mean labor that corresponds to the needs of society (it provides for survival and a certain standard of living). Under communism, society would presumably have attained the technological sophistication to meet the basic means of subsistence as well as, at the very least, maintain the present standard of living for all. If society desired to enhance the standard of living of its members (remember that we are postulating a planned economy consisting of freely associated producers), then a concerted effort on the part of "laborers" (in this case, individuals who have decided to contribute to social labor) would be decided upon. Individuals who have cultivated their knowledge and skills would work together to improve society.

Why would they do this? Well, apart from the obvious ends it would meet, this form of voluntary labor would bring fulfillment to individuals; they would leave behind a mark of their personal creativity upon the world. Doctors would practice medicine because practicing medicine and theorizing new medical applications would allow them to influence society; they would gain social recognition. Engineers would work because their discipline would likewise allow them to realize their ideas by applying them socially. I believe that one of the defining features of the individual pursuit of happiness is to convince ourselves that our existence will matter in the end; that we have made a genuine difference in some way. This implies a social connection since our existence has no ultimate meaning if one rejects religious convictions.

Celtiberian wrote:You're correct in claiming that discussions related to theoretical technologies in the distant future are Utopian, but that doesn't mean they're "pointless." While I agree that artificial intelligence will most likely not be reached within our lifetime, there are still emerging technologies which are going to fundamentally change our lives nonetheless. Furthermore, the development of these technologies (e.g., further automation, gene therapy, pharmacological treatments, etc.) within the context of capitalism is going to be problematic for a whole host of reasons.

By Utopian I mean unreachable. I think that such a world will never come into being and therefore it is useless to talk about it.

The notions of flight, telecommunications, and space exploration were once thought to be unrealistic as well, and yet humanity accomplished all of those within a relatively short span of time. Just because it may seem outlandish by our standards doesn't mean it's beyond feasibility. If, for example, automation is to be developed further, we have the very real possibility of having work schedules as minimal as 4-6 hours a day without any loss in our current standard of living—provided said automation is implemented within a planned economy.

As for what humans would do if machines were performing all forms of labor, we'd be able to spend our short time on this earth developing our other human potentials—cultivating relationships with friends and family, enjoying nature and the arts, traveling, mastering our various hobbies, and so forth.

Such things would basically destroy the blue collar working class. Which I am totally against. Not only because I am a blue collar working class dude but also because I think such a thing would cause my Nation to totally degenerate into a bunch of effeminate hedonists who would be easily slaughtered by the surrounding Nations. No offence but this proposal sounds totally, may I say " bourgeoisie". I highly doubt a Nation that doesnt dirty its hands at work will be able to dirty its hands defending itself.

I haven't read anyone claiming that work is "usually unfulfilling and undesirable." On the contrary, I believe we all acknowledged that labor is something which people naturally take pleasure in. That some people like doing dangerous work, however, is irrelevant to the wider point I've been trying to make. People shouldn't have to work life-threatening jobs just to make ends meet. If technology can be developed which would reduce the number of hours necessary in such jobs, or render them completely obsolete, then it should be used—under the strict condition that structural unemployment doesn't ensue as a result, of course. People could still find self-realization in threatening their lives, or performing physical labor, via other outlets in their extended leisure time.

And why shouldnt people have to work dangerous jobs for a living? What is wrong with that as long as there are no scumbag Capitalists lording over them? Again, no offence dude, but your view of right and wrong seems very strange and idealistic to me. This world never has and never will be some awesome paradise where people are always happy and bounce around all day singing lullabies.

Workers have hitherto not been presented with the option of having labor become completely voluntary. If you asked people whether or not they'd like to maintain their current standard of living without having to be forced to work, I suspect the vast majority would prefer having labor become voluntary.

You may be right but I personally wouldnt be too sure about that.

I disagree. Socially necessary labor isn't the only sort of labor a person can perform or find self-realization in. Taken to its extreme, Neo-Luddism would result in permanently leaving the workday at 8 hours and reducing the possibility of life saving medicines and technologies being developed.

I dont see what my opinion has to do with Neo Luddism. Im not a Luddite but I do believe in purposely slowing down technological progress if it is in the benefit of blue collar members of my Nation. Automatization has resulted in tons of jobs that required much skill to turn into easy boring ones that nobody can take pride in.

Socialism is for justice: economic, political, and social. If the people democratically choose to reduce the workday, or even have machines completely replace humans in the performance of socially necessary labor, then their will should be followed.

I disagree. Like I wrote before a Nation that is too lazy to work will probably be too lazy to defend itself. If such a large percentage of my Nation were to choose so then I could do little to stop them but I would immediately hope they would come to their senses before being butchered by the Little Entente nations. Not to mention that Socialism and Democracy are two different things.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:By Utopian I mean unreachable. I think that such a world will never come into being

If you were to ask, say, Thomas Jefferson whether he felt humanity would ever be capable of inventing a device that could not only fly, but actually enable human beings to explore outer space, he most likely would have considered such an idea "unreachable" as well. If history has taught us anything, it's that one shouldn't be myopic regarding technology. Many of the scientists actively engaged in research pertaining to artificial intelligence not only believe it's possible, but that we'll be witnessing major advancements toward that end within our lifetime.

Of course, there's no guarantee that so-called "strong AI" will ever be developed. Maybe the existing theories of consciousness are fundamentally flawed in some capacity; perhaps our species will become extinct before it can be developed, due to not addressing global climate change, or possibly some unforeseeable natural disaster; maybe a war, resulting in nuclear holocaust, will destroy us; there are plenty of possibilities.

and therefore it is useless to talk about it.

No one forced you to participate in this discussion.

Such things would basically destroy the blue collar working class. Which I am totally against.

Fully automated labor would render basically every working-class job (blue collar and white collar alike) obsolete.

As I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread, I'm opposed to allowing this technology be developed under the capitalist mode of production, due to the human suffering which would ensue as a result of the structural unemployment it would cause. However, even under a socialist market economy, blue collar workers would continue to adopt new technologies and, consequently, some formerly necessary jobs would become obsolete; such is the nature of technological progress.

Not only because I am a blue collar working class dude but also because I think such a thing would cause my Nation to totally degenerate into a bunch of effeminate hedonists who would be easily slaughtered by the surrounding Nations. No offence but this proposal sounds totally, may I say " bourgeoisie". I highly doubt a Nation that doesnt dirty its hands at work will be able to dirty its hands defending itself.

Artificial intelligence research is already occurring on an international level, and AI technology will most likely be adopted by every developed country as soon as it can be (just as prior forms of automation have been). I don't know what makes you think such technologically sophisticated nations would be "slaughtered" by would-be imperialists since, long before artificial intelligence is ever reached, military weaponry will have developed to the point wherein very few human beings will actually be necessary to engaged in warfare—we're already witnessing the embryonic phase of this, with unmanned drone aircraft, and so forth.

As for people becoming "degenerate hedonists" due to not having to engage in socially necessary labor, that very much depends on what your conception of human nature is. Are human beings just narrowly self-interested organisms, which only engage in labor because they're essentially forced to in order to survive? As I wrote earlier, I believe human beings have a natural impulse towards inquiry, creativity, and physical activity. Just because technology has the potential to eventually free us of our need to work doesn't mean we'll cease from releasing our creative potentials through other outlets.

And why shouldnt people have to work dangerous jobs for a living? What is wrong with that as long as there are no scumbag Capitalists lording over them?

People shouldn't be forced to engage in life-threatening labor. Under a socialist mode of production, they wouldn't be—even if such jobs continued to exist, the individuals employed in them would be doing so entirely at their own volition. Priority for automation, in my opinion, should be given to those jobs in which very few people wish to perform, e.g., menial/rote tasks, various disempowering jobs, etc.

Again, no offence dude, but your view of right and wrong seems very strange and idealistic to me. This world never has and never will be some awesome paradise where people are always happy and bounce around all day singing lullabies.

You're creating a complete straw man of my position. I never wrote that everything will be perfect one day, that no one will ever feel unhappiness, or what have you. I simply said that there's a legitimate possibility that socially necessary labor will eventually be conducted by machines and that there's nothing particularly wrong with such a scenario. You, on the other hand, have failed to demonstrate how fully automated labor is beyond the scope of possibility.

You may be right but I personally wouldnt be too sure about that.

As the old cliché goes, 'time will tell.'

I dont see what my opinion has to do with Neo Luddism. Im not a Luddite but I do believe in purposely slowing down technological progress if it is in the benefit of blue collar members of my Nation. Automatization has resulted in tons of jobs that required much skill to turn into easy boring ones that nobody can take pride in.

I detected (perhaps wrongly) a streak of Neo-Luddism in your posts since you seem to possess a general aversion toward automation. It is, of course, completely healthy to be skeptical of how emerging technologies will be utilized under capitalism, but there's a difference between rational skepticism—e.g., concerns about technology exacerbating class inequalities under capitalism—and irrational fear.

Not to mention that Socialism and Democracy are two different things.

They are, but I would contend that the latter is an integral part of the former. However, that's a subject more appropriate for different thread.

Celtiberian wrote:If you were to ask, say, Thomas Jefferson whether he felt humanity would ever be capable of inventing a device that could not only fly, but actually enable human beings to explore outer space, he most likely would have considered such an idea "unreachable" as well. If history has taught us anything, it's that one shouldn't be myopic regarding technology. Many of the scientists actively engaged in research pertaining to artificial intelligence not only believe it's possible, but that we'll be witnessing major advancements toward that end within our lifetime.

Of course, there's no guarantee that so-called "strong AI" will ever be developed. Maybe the existing theories of consciousness are fundamentally flawed in some capacity; perhaps our species will become extinct before it can be developed, due to not addressing global climate change, or possibly some unforeseeable natural disaster; maybe a war, resulting in nuclear holocaust, will destroy us; there are plenty of possibilities.

Im not saying AI will never be developed. Im saying that a world where nobody has to work is unreachable, in my opinion.

No one forced you to participate in this discussion.

By that I mean I think its useless to try to strive for such a thing (which many on here seem to advocate). Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to shut down this discussion.

Fully automated labor would render basically every working-class job (blue collar and white collar alike) obsolete.

As I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread, I'm opposed to allowing this technology be developed under the capitalist mode of production, due to the human suffering which would ensue as a result of the structural unemployment it would cause. However, even under a socialist market economy, blue collar workers would continue to adopt new technologies and, consequently, some formerly necessary jobs would become obsolete; such is the nature of technological progress.

I know your opposed to utilizing this tehcnology under Capitalism. Im opposed to using it to the point of making labor completely voluntary
under Socialism as well.

Artificial intelligence research is already occurring on an international level, and AI technology will most likely be adopted by every developed country as soon as it can be (just as prior forms of automation have been). I don't know what makes you think such technologically sophisticated nations would be "slaughtered" by would-be imperialists since, long before artificial intelligence is ever reached, military weaponry will have developed to the point wherein very few human beings will actually be necessary to engaged in warfare—we're already witnessing the embryonic phase of this, with unmanned drone aircraft, and so forth.

As for people becoming "degenerate hedonists" due to not having to engage in socially necessary labor, that very much depends on what your conception of human nature is. Are human beings just narrowly self-interested organisms, which only engage in labor because they're essentially forced to in order to survive? As I wrote earlier, I believe human beings have a natural impulse towards inquiry, creativity, and physical activity. Just because technology has the potential to eventually free us of our need to work doesn't mean we'll cease from releasing our creative potentials through other outlets.

Well you do have a good point here. But I must say making warfare that modern would take all the fun out of it. Call me crazy but I think warfare can be a very sacred thing and letting it get taken over by machines will spoil every good thing in war.

People shouldn't be forced to engage in life-threatening labor. Under a socialist mode of production, they wouldn't be—even if such jobs continued to exist, the individuals employed in them would be doing so entirely at their own volition. Priority for automation, in my opinion, should be given to those jobs in which very few people wish to perform, e.g., menial/rote tasks, various disempowering jobs, etc.

I see nothing wrong with people having to work life threatening jobs in a Socialist system but hey your opinion is your opinion.

You're creating a complete straw man of my position. I never wrote that everything will be perfect one day, that no one will ever feel unhappiness, or what have you. I simply said that there's a legitimate possibility that socially necessary labor will eventually be conducted by machines and that there's nothing particularly wrong with such a scenario. You, on the other hand, have failed to demonstrate how fully automated labor is beyond the scope of possibility.

Yes what I wrote looks kind of like a strawman so let me rephrase it: Based on some of your posts ( regarding this topic and I think genetic
engineering) you seem to be in favor of making everything progressively better for humans. Indeed you havent written anything that says a paradise must be created but you seem to be in favor of bettering many things as much as possible. And personally I think that is too optimistic. But I guess that is just because Im more pessimistic than you are. As for why I think fully automated labor is beyond the scope of possibility, I honestly dont have an argument against it but it just sounds too good to be true to me, which is why I think its unreachable.

As the old cliché goes, 'time will tell.'

Fair enough.

I detected (perhaps wrongly) a streak of Neo-Luddism in your posts since you seem to possess a general aversion toward automation. It is, of course, completely healthy to be skeptical of how emerging technologies will be utilized under capitalism, but there's a difference between rational skepticism—e.g., concerns about technology exacerbating class inequalities under capitalism—and irrational fear.

Well I dont consider myself a Luddite since I dont believe in destroying or completely doing away with modern technology or any of that. But on the other hand, how am I being irrationally fearful of the sort of emerging technologies you write of ? I mean an economy where all the work is done by machines would pretty much do away with workers. There is nothing irrational to fear about that for a person like me ( who is against fully automated labor).

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Im not saying AI will never be developed. Im saying that a world where nobody has to work is unreachable, in my opinion.

If you analyze how capital intensive most industries have become in the last few decades, and couple with that the prospect of attaining artificial intelligence, then the idea that labor will become essentially voluntary at some point in the future seems quite reasonable. AI technology will be most relevant in maintenance and service sector work, though it may prove useful in health care and outright innovation as well.

By that I mean I think its useless to try to strive for such a thing (which many on here seem to advocate).

It's not as though any of us are suggesting that revolutionary parties should be incorporating the philosophy of artificial intelligence into their political programs, or what have you—that would be absurd. We're merely looking at the scientific data and judging whether it is, in fact, desirable to have a future wherein socially necessary labor is conducted by machines. Many of us feel that it is but, as this thread proves, the forum is hardly in unanimous agreement about the subject.

I must say making warfare that modern would take all the fun out of it. Call me crazy but I think warfare can be a very sacred thing and letting it get taken over by machines will spoil every good thing in war.

I'm sure there was a time when skilled swordsmen and archers felt that guns and cannons were destroying the "sacred" art of warfare as well. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing particularly sacred or noble about war—it's an unfortunate state of affairs which causes immense human suffering, and it should always be viewed as a last resort.

Based on some of your posts ( regarding this topic and I think genetic engineering) you seem to be in favor of making everything progressively better for humans. Indeed you havent written anything that says a paradise must be created but you seem to be in favor of bettering many things as much as possible.

I do believe in improving the human condition as much as possible, and advancements in genetic engineering, automation, and pharmacology possess the ability to assist greatly toward that end—provided they're developed and allocated justly, of course. We are the beneficiaries of countless advancements made by our ancestors, from antibiotics to modern forms of transportation. This tradition of progress should be viewed positively, in my opinion. And yes, I may have a relatively optimistic outlook regarding the liberatory potentials of technology, but I don't feel that optimism is ill-founded.

But on the other hand, how am I being irrationally fearful of the sort of emerging technologies you write of ?

I think that some of your concerns with respect to the implications of fully automated labor are unwarranted.

I mean an economy where all the work is done by machines would pretty much do away with workers.

A more accurate way to phrase that is: 'an economy where all work is done by machines would pretty much do away with socially necessary labor.' People would undoubtedly continue to work (ergo, there would still technically be 'workers'), but they'd being doing so entirely at their own discretion, i.e., performing whatever type of labor they choose and for as long as they'd like to.

Celtiberian wrote:If you analyze how capital intensive most industries have become in the last few decades, and couple with that the prospect of attaining artificial intelligence, then the idea that labor will become essentially voluntary at some point in the future seems quite reasonable. AI technology will be most relevant in maintenance and service sector work, though it may prove useful in health care and outright innovation as well.

Well who knows what will happen. It just sounds too good to be true to me.

It's not as though any of us are suggesting that revolutionary parties should be incorporating the philosophy of artificial intelligence into their political programs, or what have you—that would be absurd. We're merely looking at the scientific data and judging whether it is, in fact, desirable to have a future wherein socially necessary labor is conducted by machines. Many of us feel that it is but, as this thread proves, the forum is hardly in unanimous agreement about the subject.

Fair enough. I only wanted to put my 2 cents in by saying that. Nothing more.

I'm sure there was a time when skilled swordsmen and archers felt that guns and cannons were destroying the "sacred" art of warfare as well. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing particularly sacred or noble about war—it's an unfortunate state of affairs which causes immense human suffering, and it should always be viewed as a last resort.

To be honest I would totally agree with those archers and swordsmen. I think modern warfare has gotten too boring. Anyways, this topic is probably better suited for another thread but I will say that I think war has both good and bad aspects.

I do believe in improving the human condition as much as possible, and advancements in genetic engineering, automation, and pharmacology possess the ability to assist greatly toward that end—provided they're developed and allocated justly, of course. We are the beneficiaries of countless advancements made by our ancestors, from antibiotics to modern forms of transportation. This tradition of progress should be viewed positively, in my opinion. And yes, I may have a relatively optimistic outlook regarding the liberatory potentials of technology, but I don't feel that optimism is ill-founded.

Fair enough. You are entitled to your own opinion. As you may already know Im pessimistic about such things because Im sort of a misanthrope ( which I know is weird for a Socialist and a Nationalist).

I think that some of your concerns with respect to the implications of fully automated labor are unwarranted.

Well you know Ive seen and heard so much nonsense and failure ( on the part of humans) in my life that I sometimes wonder if my beliefs arent just another load of Utopistic bullcrap. I havent given up my beliefs but I must admit I do question if they will ever work out. Humans ( me included) seem to have so many faults that prevent them from making any real progress in their lives. Therefore I highly doubt such great progress will come about.

A more accurate way to phrase that is: 'an economy where all work is done by machines would pretty much do away with socially necessary labor.' People would undoubtedly continue to work (ergo, there would still technically be 'workers'), but they'd being doing so entirely at their own discretion, i.e., performing whatever type of labor they choose and for as long as they'd like to.

Well we shall see what happens.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Fair enough. I only wanted to put my 2 cents in by saying that. Nothing more.

I understand, no worries.

To be honest I would totally agree with those archers and swordsmen. I think modern warfare has gotten too boring. Anyways, this topic is probably better suited for another thread but I will say that I think war has both good and bad aspects.

I think George Orwell summarized war quite well when he wrote: "Bullets hurt, corpses stink, men under fire are often so frightened that they wet their trousers." I would only add that it's not only the men on the front line who bear the scars of war; there are regularly civilian casualties, and families and entire communities are obviously dramatically affected by their loved ones being killed in battle.

That's not to say I'm a pacifist. There are obviously instances wherein war is entirely justifiable and necessary, I just don't believe there is anything desirable about this unfortunate reality.

Fair enough. You are entitled to your own opinion. As you may already know Im pessimistic about such things because Im sort of a misanthrope ( which I know is weird for a Socialist and a Nationalist).

I can understand why one can be somewhat misanthropic, for I have moments when I am as well. In fact, one of the reasons I believe so strongly in human social and biological improvement is because I feel our species should strive to be better than it currently is.

Well you know Ive seen and heard so much nonsense and failure ( on the part of humans) in my life that I sometimes wonder if my beliefs arent just another load of Utopistic bullcrap. I havent given up my beliefs but I must admit I do question if they will ever work out. Humans ( me included) seem to have so many faults that prevent them from making any real progress in their lives. Therefore I highly doubt such great progress will come about.

There is nothing nonsensical about your beliefs, comrade. The socialist system you advocate on behalf of consists of economic institutions which have been conclusively proven to work. Capitalism is incapable of maintaining itself as a system indefinitely and, as history has shown, revolutions happen. Change is going to come about one way or another.

Well we shall see what happens.

Indeed.

Well I dont consider my beliefs to be nonsensical but I sometimes doubt if they will ever work out in the real world to be honest. I definitely want change but I can get frustrated of waiting for it to happen. At any rate Im going to try sticking to my guns as best I can.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: Well I dont consider my beliefs to be nonsensical but I sometimes doubt if they will ever work out in the real world to be honest. I definitely want change but I can get frustrated of waiting for it to happen. At any rate Im going to try sticking to my guns as best I can.

Worker self-management is operationally viable and quite efficient (the empirical evidence has proven this beyond doubt) and nationalized financial institutions also function just as well as private lenders (while possessing the added benefit of being non-exploitative). All that the socialism you espouse requires is the generalization of both of those institutions, along with national self-determination. It's certainly feasible, it's just a matter of how to get from where we currently are to there.

In other words, it can work, the only question is if it'll be given the opportunity to. No one can predict the future, but it's important to stay true to your convictions and fight to have them realized.

Celtiberian wrote:Worker self-management is operationally viable and quite efficient (the empirical evidence has proven this beyond doubt) and nationalized financial institutions also function just as well as private lenders (while possessing the added benefit of being non-exploitative). All that the socialism you espouse requires is the generalization of both of those institutions, along with national self-determination. It's certainly feasible, it's just a matter of how to get from where we currently are to there.

In other words, it can work, the only question is if it'll be given the opportunity to. No one can predict the future, but it's important to stay true to your convictions and fight to have them realized.

Indeed. Fair enough.

Since the issue of the various consequences inherent in the development of genetic engineering under the capitalist mode of production was raised here, I felt the following short video would be in keeping with the general theme of this thread.

Below, bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe discusses how the culture of a nation will undoubtedly influence the decisions individuals make insofar as choosing which aspects of our offspring to enhance, and why bourgeois culture in particular may lead to the emergence of a genetically enhanced but psychologically distressed population.