[the_af]

In an hypothetical future where society has completely broken down because of extreme concentration of wealth (and means of production and everything) I can see there not being any possibility for a human-based society. In such a doomsday scenario, regular people wouldn't be able to trade anything because they wouldn't be able to produce anything, because all the land will be taken over by the very few ultrarich. Nowhere to live, nowhere to grow food, etc. Essentially surplus population. No government to protect you either, since it will have been coopted by the ultrarich (essentially, them becoming the government). Enforcement could be done by robots, and robots do not revolt or go on strike, nor will they question orders. Maintenance can be done by other robots, harvesting, even health care for the ultrarich.

So how (in this admittedly doomsday scenario that I hope won't come to pass) will a human-based society be able function?

[mc32]

Unless expropriation happens the rich can’t simply take over land. They still have to buy it. Ted Turner, Bill Gates still had to buy land from individuals. So unless people sell all their land to these people, there will still be land.

[the_af]

First, let me clarify my dystopian scenario is extreme. I'm aware of this, and I'm not saying it will necessarily come to pass.

(edit: removed a wall of text that was repeating my previous comment).

What I describe can start gradually, like arguably it may be already happening, and pick up speed after a certain tipping point. After enough automation + concentration of power and wealth has been achieved, then the masks can fall off.

And then...

> Unless expropriation happens

Exactly. If you're completely amoral and powerful, you only buy or ask for permission if the other side has something to bargain with (such as labor or violent revolt). If they don't anymore, and you have all the force in the world, why not simply take whatever you want?

[mc32]

In the USSR, Cuba, China, etc., where expropriation or nationalization happened, first they confiscated everyone’s firearms. That’s always step one to take rights or property from people.

I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to problems (like violence), but it also gives pause and prevents overzealous or corrupt governments or individuals from going too far. Yes there was ruby ridge and Waco and Kent state and others but still the government has to think hard before it goes further encroaching on liberties. All those examples are tragedies; however in a society with oppression not only would that be routine but they’d be hidden or accepted as fate of counter revolutionaries.

[the_af]

> In the USSR, Cuba, China, etc., where expropriation or nationalization happened, first they confiscated everyone’s firearms.

I don't think this is strictly the order of how it went in any of those cases, even though, of course, access to weapons will be heavily controlled and restricted in any country with a strong centralized government. And rivals will be disarmed.

> I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to problems (like violence), but it also gives pause and prevents overzealous or corrupt governments

I honestly believe this is a red herring. It made sense in the age of musketry and whereabouts, when the weapons available to civilians vs governments were technologically not too dissimilar, but I think in this day and age believing civilians can have AR-style rifles or shotguns and compete with a government-like army of helicopters, rocket launchers, aircraft, drones (even before we get to the AI-autonomous robots in my scenario) is completely absurd. Or even biochemical weapons if they designed to unleash them (and they could be conceivably be of the kind that damages humans but leaves the planet relatively unharmed). Even assuming guerrilla warfare, that only matters when the intent isn't just extermination, which is reasonable to assume in the current world, but what about a dystopian future?

So I think the 2A makes no difference, because the tech gap would be huge. It already is, imagine in the future.

[mc32]

Well, in the USSR from 1918 to 1920 they confiscated private gun ownership via various campaigns. They targeted kulaks in the early thirties and carried out mass executions of kulaks in the late '30s.

In Cuba they began confiscation almost immediately after the revolution and instituted programs to get rid of all arms from civilians in the mid 60s. Around the same time the government began religious and cultural persecutions.

Vietnam, almost immediately after the fall of Saigon began confiscating guns from civilians (despite these helping them win the civil war). After the confiscations they began securing absolute control over the south especially and began massive persecutions, re-education camps and forced collectivization, etc.

China was more gradual but there too they eliminated private gun ownership.

There certainly would have been more resistance and couterrevolutions and less repression if they had not confiscated firearms from the people.

If you have an armed militia made up of a subject class, and you have a ruling class they risk having to eliminate the whole of the subject class and having no one left to rule over. It would be like having an elite colony on Mars but no common people thus they become the common people. And being armed the militia made up of everyone who's not elite would put up fierce resistance. Most of the professional soldiers would defect. The elite would be unable to manage the armament not have the methods to deliver lethality. They can't just lob thermonuclear bombs as that would poison the very land they would live on and want to control. No, I think an armed militia is insurance against this scenario. We have witnessed authoritarian regimes who before they go on their repression campaigns do confiscate private firearms ownership from the population.

[the_af]

I think you're mistaken about this, because you're stuck in previous eras where the technological gap between "the people" and those in power was manageable; but now it's far wider, and will only get even greater.

Also, no common people are needed, and the ultrarich only compete among themselves. You only need serfs if those serfs can give you something your vast robot armies and robot workers cannot give you, which won't be the case in the dystopian future.

As for nuclear bombs: not needed. You can just starve people to death if you own all the land and all the resources, and you can use neutron bombs which are far cleaner than nuclear bombs, or given enough resources you can engineer a plague/bioweapon that just targets other people and not you.

There's be absolutely NO reason to keep anyone alive, and some guys with ARs won't be able to resist.

It's unwise to draw lessons from history about past conflicts and revolutions, since this wouldn't resemble them at all. At no point in history was there ever a situation where the ultrarich didn't need serfs at all.