Socialism is dead
Communism is dead
Capitalism is…
In each of these words, i mean the govern-cement type.
And, i really was tempted to write Capitalism is dead, too. Because, its old meaning is, indeed, dead. The banksters killed it. However, it could make a come back, when real money is reintroduced.
But, really the new economies don't even have names.
I mean, really, what would be the name of a family based communism? The business is owned by the family. The food is owned by the family. The governing body has a stake in everyone doing well. That's communism? right??
And, if the landscape was dotted by "families", what would the inter-family economy type be called?
Further, automation has been threatened for decades. And now AI is being touted as replacing people and their jobs. (I still do not know if this is just a story. A story of how the corporations can get rid of employees that have been doing nothing, there job was to do nothing. And have been doing nothing since the 80s)
Well, we are on the verge of entirely new economic systems. And i pretty sure that many of them will be tried, by various groups. Massive parallel development and testing. (if anyone remembers these words)
The Oligarch View of the Future
What those banksters, those mother WEFers want is a world where they are completely in control. In this world, you can have just not quite enough. It is the way to keep you coming back and begging for more.
Think about it. If we got mostly-free-energy, and almost complete automation, what is preventing you from having everything you want? Closet space?
What stops that is the oligarchs want to keep control. So they must limit the availability of items. (even if they must throw the items in the land fill) And they must limit the availability of money into that market.
What does this excellently? UBI. Universal Basic Income allows the oligarchs to limit how much of things can be sold/bought. And with CBDCs they can even tell you which things you can buy.
It isn't about the money
It is about the control.
The "Families View of the Future
The problem with building robotics and AI is that these things get cheaper and cheaper. Until most people/groups can build the things themselves. All the plastic toys we used to buy from Toys'R'them can now be printed on a 3D printer. And this will only get easier.
We will make washing machines, refrigerators and cars ourselves. We will make the repair parts too.
Soooo, the oligarchs want to control everything by making robotics and AI, but they will not be able to put the genie back in the bottle. As soon as they make it (have it made) it will be everywhere.
And when people start forming themselves into tribes/"families" each will choose something that they can build to trade to other families. A bunch of mostly independent small communities dotting the map.
What kind of economy would this be? If you create/grow most of what you need, then you can bargain for what you want. But you are bargaining with people who do not NEED what you produce, but simply want it. There is no need to sell. No one really sells for money, the may make things because they love it, or because they want something to trade for other things.
Would this be true communism, or true capitalism?
Replicator View of the Future
The end state of 3D printers is how STNG showed replicators working. What happens to our economy when we get to this level of manufacturing?
Of course, you could think of humans using their minds to visualize a structure and then pull it down, through plasma, into a physical form. I doubt we would be making food this way (no Gray Earl Tea, in its hot state). But, all the objects you can imagine are just a meditation with your friends away.
After this point is reached, everything that we currently call "economics" just becomes meaningless. Supply-demand curves? What's that. In fact, we are almost beyond supply-demand curves now. Supply is artificially suppressed, and demand is controlled via money flow and marketing.
Novelties / works of art are the only things that have "value". But, what will that "value" actually mean? Will it mean something like the difference between a Louis Vuittan hand bag, and a knock-off hand bag made in the same factory in China? As in, no real difference except that certain people may hold importance of having an "original".
Would this economy be "true communism".
Probably not because someone will complain that they can't have an original "Louis Vuittan hand bag" because those dirty so-and-sos wouldn't give it to her.
However, by this time, i hope we come up with better words for economic models.
It is interesting to me that as we move into the future, the meaning of capitalism and communism completely lose their meaning.
After we get rid of money, what is "capital"ism?
If we all live in tribes, is then everything communism? Even the tribes that vehemently uphold a level of personal ownership which leaves some people without?
Communists like to shout about "seizing the means of production". Why must they seize? It is always about the seizing. We are on the cusp of all of us being able to own the means of production.
The problem we need to actually tackle is people going without needs, and people who believe that some want is beyond their ability to get.
Should we provide everyone with food? Probably not. Should we work out a way that everyone has land to grow their own food? This will go a long way to getting everyone's food needs met.
Should we provide everyone with a Louis Vuittan hand bag? Absolutely not. That would destroy what is special about such a bag. Everyone would be upset by such a move. However, everyone who has use for a hand bag, should be able to get a functional one.
These two lines of questioning really needs to be explored far more deeply then we have allowed. We need to go way past Marx and Hayek. And we must really uncover the oligarchs plan of control. Because it is really there, that people go without. It isn't the capitalists "that are greedy" that is causing the problem. It is people who want to control others by controlling the food.