>From: "Emlyn \(hotmail\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>think that Zero's point that socialism can work well in an abundant future
>has merit. Certainly capitalism will also "work", as in continuing, but
>measuring it along any metrics related to equity are going to show enormous
>shortcomings, more so as technology provides more surplus without the need
>for human labour, because the surplus produced by technology is just not
>going to get around.
>I'm hoping marxism doesn't get a run, unless someone can postulate a
>variant. The self-organising power of dynamic social systems is well
>demonstrated by capitalism, nasty beast that it is, and that's something I
>wouldn't like to see lost.
If/when we reach the stage where material wealth is equivolent to
information then, finally, there will be universal abundance. With that
will come the end of the need to work for one's living. This would lay the
ground work for practical Marxism.
However, at that point there will be no practical difference between "rich"
and "poor." When we have the nanotech to effortlessly and cheaply create
haute cuisine from raw sewage, and diamonds from dirt, there will be no need
for human production. This will lead to its own problems for us humans who
have a need to feel useful and productive. But at that point there will be
no difference between a "capitalist" and a "communist." There will be a
universal leisure class searching for purpose and meaning in their otherwise
effortless and uncomplicated lives. Utopia? Perhaps not. But IMO better
than poverty, illness and hunger.
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:20 MDT