'Post-scarcity in our future? Oh no! What will we do?' 5 stupid ideas

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Apr 1 2014 21:53
'Post-scarcity in our future? Oh no! What will we do?' 5 stupid ideas

Post-scarcity is an emerging threat to capitalism. So this blog is thinking up ideas of how to deal with this "problem." Spoiler alert: They all suck.

http://declineofscarcity.com/?p=3053

Why bother reading a blog post full of stupid ideas? Because it gives us some insight into what types of bullshit pundits in the media, in the universities, etc. will be spewing as the post-scarcity topic gets discussed more and more.

(Though if global warming is bad enough, the discussion will be increasing scarcity, instead - which is quite likely.) sad

It's amazing what nonsense people will come up with when they see post-scarcity as a problem instead of liberating. WTF is wrong with people? Can't they see the obvious?

Here's the 5 ideas if you can't be bothered with the article:

1. Ban automation technology
2. Create more artificial scarcity
3. "Commodifiying things not currently commodities
4. Market capitalism with a guaranteed income / heavy welfare state
5. Centrally planned socialism

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Apr 2 2014 00:24

I'll give this a read later, but, just from your post, 2-4 make sense (if I may use that word very loosely) within the "logic" of capitalism. Artificial scarcity is already a thing, commodifying things that are "public" now are, I'm certain, a capitalists wet dream and pretty much every contemporary left-liberal political philosopher argues in favor of market capitalism "on a leash". However, 1 and 5 come straight out of left field to me. Let's purposely hold ourselves back with technology that may help, or we can try that system that failed in numerous countries...sounds like a plan.

Quote:
what types of bullshit pundits... in the universities, etc. will be spewing...

One particular theorist I'm reading for an environmental ethics class proposes reducing nations into many self-sustainable communities which will operate in a "free as possible"-market within said communities, but under a more controlled market at the national/global level. How's that for some bullshit?

ralfy
Offline
Joined: 21-03-13
Apr 7 2014 14:13

In 2007, the ave. ecological footprint per capita was around 2.7 global hectares, but bio-capacity per capita was only 1.8:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

In short, the world is in overshoot.

The ave. ecological footprint per capita is expected to rise as more people worldwide seek to join the middle class. Bio-capacity per capita will drop given an increasing global population coupled with environmental damage and global warming.

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Apr 7 2014 14:47
Quote:
that system that failed in numerous countries

Well, they were extremely succesful at enacting extremly fast primitive accumulation in countries that were still peripheral to capitalist society, which was arguably their primary goal.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Apr 7 2014 23:24
Malva wrote:
Quote:
that system that failed in numerous countries

Well, they were extremely succesful at enacting extremly fast primitive accumulation in countries that were still peripheral to capitalist society, which was arguably their primary goal.

Ah, yeah I was operating under certain presuppositions (not shared by those who propose centrally planned "socialism" in that article, I'm sure) there, i.e. "failed" was supposed to be taken as "failed to establish socialism". Something that was (allegedly) their goal.