[mdakin]

We're moving towards a future in which "working" will be an optional activity.

If you can get enough farms/factories producing the widgets of everyday life essentially for the sum of the input commodity costs, energy costs, and some small overhead (and the free market/technology relentlessly drives overhead towards 0), you wind up being able to take care of everyone-- but you don't take care of everyone with jobs. You take care of the people by enabling them to not worry about the basics of life. You remove the survival problem from the game, and allow people to choose between living little or thriving through voluntary creative pursuits. Some people will certainly focus on the creative pursuits, and generate wealth that enables them to thrive instead of merely survive. But I have a feeling that a bunch of people will focus on their tennis game instead (which is fine with me).

I don't think most people yet realize that this sort of model is coming into humanity's reach. Most people are looking for ways to recreate the solutions of the past. But that's a horrible idea-- the past had problems because the solutions of the past create problems. We're almost on the verge of a technological/humanistic revolution in which everything will be changeable. But things won't change if we keep recreating the past (or, more accurately, if our ancient social structures keep trying to maintain control of the population by merely tweaking what are actually completely obsolete mechanisms).

I hope we can overcome the status quo and turn this world into a true utopia, instead of letting it continue to become yet another of the countless possible dystopias that are outlined by science fiction and other speculative fiction, and which have constituted the dystopian reality that most people ever born here have had to live through.

I'm very optimistic-- I think the hard part is mostly behind us. The social power structures (the institutions that use money, violence, and killing to control people) have not routinely killed scientist and engineer society-changers for probably several hundred years, at least in the West. Money is still used to this day-- e.g. the VCs (and other financial industry and government people) hold the capital-- not some science/engineering/humanist foundation headed by scientists/engineers/humanists. I think it's possible to work within these constraints though, and to have a significant impact.

[steveklabnik]

> If you can get enough farms/factories producing the widgets of everyday life essentially for the sum of the input commodity costs, energy costs, and some small overhead (and the free market/technology relentlessly drives overhead towards 0), you wind up being able to take care of everyone-- but you don't take care of everyone with jobs.

Congratulations, you're a communist! (This is basically the communist manifesto, if you squint.)

(So am I, this is not sarcastic. Always good to find more here on HN.)

[mdakin]

I'm probably more of a social anarchist than anything, but I think labels are often unhelpful. The beauty of our current situation is that we can build it on top of America as it exists today. No need to label it-- just build it. :)

[steveklabnik]

I switch between autonomous Marxism, anarcho-communism, or post-{anarchy, communism} depending on how I'm feeling and who I talk to, so I know that feeling.

Labels are useful, but your emphasis on building is absolutely accurate.

[mdakin]

I think labels can be useful when they are used to facilitate communication and understanding. But they can also be used as weapons and to manipulate people who have trouble communicating and understanding. I suspect we're on the same page. :)

[RickHull]

I'd say that quote means he is a utopian. Communism describes a particular methodology (e.g. abolition of private property) that is theorized to lead to said utopia. I'm not so certain he is a proponent of Communist methods.

[mdakin]

Yeah, I think the "Communist methods" that were tried in Eastern Europe and Asia are generally horrible ideas. And those methods are now tied up with the philosophy for better or worse. I def. don't think those methods work.

America provides a stable foundation upon which new experiments may be conducted. I know it's critical to take care of and fix America within the system as much as possible so that it can maintain its stability. But I think the real value of America involves it being that stable foundation upon which different people can try different ideas. America is not as wed-to/obsessed-with the past as much as many parts of the world-- thankfully. As breaking away from the past is critical to the advancement of humanity.

[steveklabnik]

The strategies are to bring about the abolishment of the Law of Value, but they're talking about after that.

(And Marxism is specifically a critique of Utopianism...)

[bisrig]

If you haven't already, it would be worth your time to read Player Piano by Vonnegut - the setting is very similar to what you describe above, and it's a pretty interesting take on those themes.

[mdakin]

I haven't read it, but I did love _Cat's Cradle_. Thanks for the reference!