I largely agree with you but I also think advocates of radical change like this need to create a working model of what this actually looks like and implement it somewhere before people will trust that these ideas can help them. Obviously this is very difficult within the context of modern society but I don’t think it’s surprising that most people are wary of radical political and economic change.
I don’t think people are as worried about one day being rich as they are about utopian charlatans wrecking the economy and dropping them into poverty. There is a lot of propaganda that works to heighten this fear as well.
I hear you, but It’s impossible to create a working model. The US literally toppled South American governments to make its resource markets open to our market capitalists. Look what we’ve inflicted on Cuba for half a century, and I look to their survival in the face of it as inspirational.
The global market capitalists endeavor to exploit and enshittify every national economy that dares to serve its citizens over private shareholders at every turn, to dehumanize societies for profit.
You may be right, that if all we can do is make claims in our appeal for radical action, the market capitalists will maintain power. To that I say, that is probably what will happen. This isn’t a fairy tale or a movie where everything will work out in the end, the trajectory we’re on leads to hell for our species, and we will in all likelihood arrive to that hell. If we’re too comfortable or too afraid to do otherwise in spite of the evidence and increasingly our experience of the consequences, this only ends one way.
Market capitalism has been tested, run its course, and imho, it takes a fool not to declare it a complete failure and danger to the species. But I’m just a random perceptive asshole, so that doesn’t change anything.
Difficult but I disagree that it is impossible. All things end eventually, even capitalism. The question is how can we best move towards that inevitable end? I think practicing what we preach in an organized collective manner is a key element that has been missing.
advocates of radical change like this need to create a working model of what this actually looks like and implement it somewhere before people will trust that these ideas can help them
We all could put money together and go start some intentional communities out in Oregon or something.
This sort of thing was attempted many times in the 60s and 70s. They tended to devolve into the kind of petty authoritarianism you see in homeowners associations, then chaos, then nothing.
Hell, we can look at the Amish to see what works and what doesn’t.
This sort of thing was attempted many times in the 60s and 70s. They tended to devolve into the kind of petty authoritarianism you see in homeowners associations, then chaos, then nothing.
So we need to build an economic model that allows people to truly be independent of one another, so we’re not dependent on one another to survive anymore. 🤔 That could be doable with today’s technology, certainly with near-future stuff
I highly recommend the documentary series All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace by Adam Curtis. He outlines connections between applications of computer technology, Rand’s Objectivism, Alan Greenspan’s influence on economics, and techno-utopian ideas, especially through the 70s, 80s and 90s. A lot of it is the groundwork for today’s big tech companies and the current state of the economy. Episode 2 addresses the attempts at intentional communities directly.
So we need to build an economic model that allows people to truly be independent of one another, so we’re not dependent on one another to survive anymore.
This is functionally impossible. We are all interdependent and the direction of technology development and international trade has made this ever more true. A great example is Thomas Thwaites’ attempt to build a toaster from scratch (a relatively simple, inexpensive consumer product requires a very complex trade and manufacturing infrastructure to bring into existence).
And personally, I would argue that it is the wrong direction, and the wrong intention. Rather than trying to divest ourselves of interdependence, we should be acknowledging it and recognizing cooperation and mutual assistance as the true power of human society. We are all in this thing together.
Ultimately, you can’t solve social problems with technology.
People have done this but what I’m envisioning is something in more direct contact and dialogue with broader society. Rural ICs are cool but they are a bit isolated. Not to mention, most people live in cities and probably won’t want to move to the country. So I think this idea would work better as embedded in an urban area.
I largely agree with you but I also think advocates of radical change like this need to create a working model of what this actually looks like and implement it somewhere before people will trust that these ideas can help them. Obviously this is very difficult within the context of modern society but I don’t think it’s surprising that most people are wary of radical political and economic change.
I don’t think people are as worried about one day being rich as they are about utopian charlatans wrecking the economy and dropping them into poverty. There is a lot of propaganda that works to heighten this fear as well.
I hear you, but It’s impossible to create a working model. The US literally toppled South American governments to make its resource markets open to our market capitalists. Look what we’ve inflicted on Cuba for half a century, and I look to their survival in the face of it as inspirational.
The global market capitalists endeavor to exploit and enshittify every national economy that dares to serve its citizens over private shareholders at every turn, to dehumanize societies for profit.
You may be right, that if all we can do is make claims in our appeal for radical action, the market capitalists will maintain power. To that I say, that is probably what will happen. This isn’t a fairy tale or a movie where everything will work out in the end, the trajectory we’re on leads to hell for our species, and we will in all likelihood arrive to that hell. If we’re too comfortable or too afraid to do otherwise in spite of the evidence and increasingly our experience of the consequences, this only ends one way.
Market capitalism has been tested, run its course, and imho, it takes a fool not to declare it a complete failure and danger to the species. But I’m just a random perceptive asshole, so that doesn’t change anything.
Difficult but I disagree that it is impossible. All things end eventually, even capitalism. The question is how can we best move towards that inevitable end? I think practicing what we preach in an organized collective manner is a key element that has been missing.
The CIA would have a word about that
So how long are you going to let fear stop you from doing what is right?
Fear isn’t stopping me, a lack of power and influence is stopping me.
Fear is clearly what’s stopping you because you are not trying to gain power and influence because of it.
I have less money to my name than the average person earns in a week, what do you want me to do? I’m busy surviving.
🤔 We all could put money together and go start some intentional communities out in Oregon or something.
Hell, we can look at the Amish to see what works and what doesn’t.
This sort of thing was attempted many times in the 60s and 70s. They tended to devolve into the kind of petty authoritarianism you see in homeowners associations, then chaos, then nothing.
Religious fanaticism works for them.
So we need to build an economic model that allows people to truly be independent of one another, so we’re not dependent on one another to survive anymore. 🤔 That could be doable with today’s technology, certainly with near-future stuff
I highly recommend the documentary series All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace by Adam Curtis. He outlines connections between applications of computer technology, Rand’s Objectivism, Alan Greenspan’s influence on economics, and techno-utopian ideas, especially through the 70s, 80s and 90s. A lot of it is the groundwork for today’s big tech companies and the current state of the economy. Episode 2 addresses the attempts at intentional communities directly.
This is functionally impossible. We are all interdependent and the direction of technology development and international trade has made this ever more true. A great example is Thomas Thwaites’ attempt to build a toaster from scratch (a relatively simple, inexpensive consumer product requires a very complex trade and manufacturing infrastructure to bring into existence).
And personally, I would argue that it is the wrong direction, and the wrong intention. Rather than trying to divest ourselves of interdependence, we should be acknowledging it and recognizing cooperation and mutual assistance as the true power of human society. We are all in this thing together.
Ultimately, you can’t solve social problems with technology.
People have done this but what I’m envisioning is something in more direct contact and dialogue with broader society. Rural ICs are cool but they are a bit isolated. Not to mention, most people live in cities and probably won’t want to move to the country. So I think this idea would work better as embedded in an urban area.