Are there models of society that do have a state but do not have money?
Framed differently, this means adopting moneylessness as in radical communism, but without a necessary rejection of a state apparatus. In a way, this would amount to the polar opposite of an ancap crypot-currency world.
Maybe some technocracies imagine such a thing.
Other urls found in this thread:
You mean like a society where when you are born they cut off your arms, legs, and genitals. Pluck out your eyeballs, and place you into a pod until you die?
no, I mean like Star Trek
Not until you eliminate scarcity, which AI and robotics might actually accomplish in our lifetime.
>>.12418285
But what about the Africans?
>television
post more marzia pls
Marzia would be 10x without the pink hair
Yeah almost every country on Earth. There are only 3 countries that still have their own money, the rest have to borrow from central banks.
You cannot eliminate scarcity without taking away freedoms from people like having as many children they want with zero consequences.
What countries are those?
She's okay, lookswise.
But she seems child-like and chill, so good
The communist idea aims at avoiding statification of society by eliminating the means of accumulating capital.
The Marxist speaks of alienation - you work for gathering more of this plain sort of currency, your being completely detached from the outcome of your efforts - you just want trade labor against currency. I'm not advocating anything, and surely not a Marxism->Communism route. But the rise of automation makes the question of how to collectively manage shit more important and currency may not necessarily be part of the equation - if not, I wonder how things will look like
Cuba, North Korea and Iran.
What a coincidence! These are countries you hear bad things about in the (((news))).
In 2000 the list was still bigger:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
(Cuba, North Korea and Iran)
Can you see a pattern in what happened to these countries and what has yet to happen with the 3 remaining countries?
Pewd's bitch is so hot
The reasons you cannot eliminate scarcity is as follows. A basic rule of thermodynamics states that you cannot create something from nothing. You must use energy to do anything, perform any action, create anything. If technology improves and people get cheaper access to water/food/shelter people will have children until those resources become scarce again.
we're already pretty close to scarcity. The real issue is probably satisfaction as each new generation demands and strives for more.
hierarchy gives people a reason to live despite how illogical or artificial it may seem
Not cuba since the cold war
Well tge main reasom i live is because there is no pleasant way to die
shes not a 10/10 but my point is still proven
KEK
robots manufacturing everything doesn't eliminate scarcity, not even close. it makes the lack of scarcity even more apparent, because these robots mean human labor approaches zero, so why would we want to keep all these pointless non-contributing humans around, especially immigrants and other sub-cultures, when all they're good for is consuming something that now doesn't need anybody to produce it?
a massive population decline is absolutely necessary if we're ever going to progress into a society that doesn't require work.
I'd say my meat is scarce, the contents of my character are scarce, the food that i consume, I own. The pattern of life on earth is dominated by organisms asserting dominance over their property and territory.
You have to render the human beings helpless by removing their arms, legs, genitals, and eyes, and placing them into pods untill they die. In order to preserve your utopia.
Soon we will all be drinking water filtered from human waste, lab grown meat, and we will pay for the oxygen we breath.
>But the rise of automation makes the question of how to collectively manage shit more important
No it doesn't. Automation happens in private companies and it's literally their fucking business and NONE of yours. Kill yourself.
Hey OP. What do you think about the population? we got too many people for your sustainable youtopia. What do you think the best way to dispose of all the 7 billion useless eaters is?
If we remove everyone's arms, legs, genitalia, and eyes, we should be able to pack more of them into pods until they die. seems like the efficient plan.
the point was that food and entertainment is cheaper and more varied than ever. If "post scarcity" meant that people will be able to escape wagecucking and devote their lives into more meaningful pursuits, then we are now very close to post scarcity. It's just that societal expectations and desires grows with progress, so what was considered great centuries ago becomes average or undesiring by today's standards
This is why a world where nobody will need to work is destined for chaos - desires are infinite. Modern society derives meaning from artificially created hierarchies and milestones.
>companies
as we now know it seems unnecessary in that money-less scenario.
Alright, you got me. let's go with the balls and eye removal plan.
I don't know about the population - maybe there'll be a 12 monkey kind of scenarios where humans get killed off..
I'm also not advocating for a plan towards any utopia - if anything, I'm a pessimist.
Some of you guys don't need to get angry just from someone contemplating foreign scenarios. People also commonly make the error of projecting fears inherent to capitalism even into those post-capitalist scenarios. E.g. joblessness isn't an issue if you already got rid of the necessity for wages.
Africa has been doing this for years user. They also have alot of blacks.
Money is just a technology, it's not some fucking political thing like commies think, it's just a way of practically transmitting value instead of keeping a book record of all the services and goods you owe to each others.
The fuckery is when (((people))) mess with the supply.
Money will always be a thing because value itself will always be a thing for us human.
If tomorrow we lived in a place where everything material was free, the concept of value would still be here, it would just shift to something else, the most precious thing would be the attention and time of others like it's already the case when you go see a shrink, a prostitute or an entertainer.
>Not until you eliminate scarcity, which AI and robotics might actually accomplish in our lifetime.
Retarded, we are not even near close to the beginning of that, even if we have nuclear fusion and a universal constructor tomorrow we would still have to deal with a limited natural ressources and the things I have mentioned before.
Besides the blind faith in technology is likely what will be our doom.