• @PugJesus
    link
    English
    228 months ago

    Woah, that’s dangerous thinking! Why don’t we bring back house-servants instead to give all of these filthy poors Gainful Employment™?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      78 months ago

      Or…we could say “fuck the poors, my house servant will be a robot”.

      To be fair though I think that the really rich will find another way to use us for their amusement.

      • @PugJesus
        link
        English
        38 months ago

        Well, they have robots for the actual tasks, the human employees are just there so they have someone to lord over.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -18 months ago

      Servants? That’s bourgeois-adjacent (/s). The reality is 80 % of people used to be farmers until the industrial revolution, so if we want to undo AuTOmAtiOn, in all likelihood your ass is either going to be wielding a hoe all day long or if you’re lucky you’ll be hand-spinning loom. Or to be even more pendantic, we’ll be starving to death because pre-industrial and pre-fertilizer agriculture cannot possibly provide enough calories for the current world population by a very long shot.

      Or maybe the wannabe communists in this thread should remember that Marxism is about the value of labor and (this is where communists disagree very hard on the specifics) distributed capital so that advances in (e.g.) automation benefit the many instead of the few. The idea that “communism = no need to work anymore” is some new-age bullshit perpetuated by an illiterate disillusionment with capitalism coupled to a very incorrect perception that we live in (or close to) a post-scarcity world and the related tech-bro propaganda that “AI is going to replace us all” (it’s not, not in its current form nor the one after that, but it makes for a nice narrative to pitch to venture capital investors).