I think you have the right idea,apart from the part about the authoritarian presence. That is the opposite of what we need. We need flat,local governance structures. And we need a post-scarcity society,because economy is at the roof of most of our problems. So much of politics is about the distribution or redistribution of resources. This will be solved,production costs will eventually go so low that most basic needs can be purchased cheaply. And then the next step is collaborative ownership of the means of production,including many services that will be automated. I belive this will happen naturally, because it cuts costs.
A very central point here is that we can only produce as much much as our environment can take,i.e the economy has ecological constraints. This needs to be a central premise in our philosophy as a society.
Now for those services that can´t be automated, we have different models. My wiew is that the remaining work should be divided in a kind of collective gift economy.
Alternatively, and this might agree with you more, capitalism will continue in limited fashion, but the goods and services that we trade will be ever more based on information and attention. This is already happening.
My conclusion is that socialists, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists should agree to disagree for now. If we really want to create a better society, let´s accelerate events, and fight for the post-scarcity society,and then go from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Scarcity_Anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
there's no such thing as a post-scarce society. Discussing about how to plan for one now is the equivalent of discussing how to survive a zombie apocalypse, it's fun, but completely unrealistic.
Give some arguments please, captainpuppy. I mean we can claim things all day, to no avail.
I disagree. In fact there are historical examples of 'abundant' economies. PreColumbian NorthWest Indians for example.
I agree with the need for any 'centralized' authority. How about a 'decentralized authority' instead? One where you could choose which group you want to pay tribute (taxes) to (if at all) for various services like protection, fire fighting services, etc.
interesting idea, can you explain more? I would rather have a non monetary system,as I think money will be redundant in the future, but this future might be far off still. Meanwhile we need transition models. Your idea could fit there. This reminds me of a project called resilience, made by a swedish guy called Johan nygren,who is also on Steemit
Please check this link and compare it to your idea;
https://resilience.press/taxemes-voluntary-wealth-redistribution-through-natural-selection-d1f586987c71#.a2xsxnp7s
I meant -- I agreed with your comment that a central authority is not needed.
Basically, the idea behind a 'decentralized authority' is that the power structure exists and you cannot remove / dismantle it completely, as then something else would naturally form in its place in the wake of the vacuum.
Instead, decentralization of power should be the goal; how that can be accomplished, or even what that is are another matter.
this is very thought provoking. automation, AI and robotics will increase the amount of liesure to the point that a gift - busking economy will be possible, greatly enhancing conviviality, the development of the unique human individual and the releasing to the greater good of the concomitant creativity and enquiry. concentrations of power, pyramid, style would be inimical to this possibility. decentralisation would be its very condition which is why blockchain technology is so important.
Yes, the blockchain is a key technology. Decentralisation is extremely exciting, because it seems to change the nature of the game, giving power to the people. THese are very exciting times.
Also the safe network is a key technology.