(06-19-2014 02:40 PM)DoA Wrote:  And that is why the principle of a capitalistic meritocracy must be retained; why socialism will not work if it remains a tool of the state.

(06-19-2014 03:49 PM)magikarp Wrote:  And what happens in 25 (or so) years when most jobs can be automated, including some not currently considered low-skill?

Also, that quote might mean something different in the biblical context (i.e., where the vast majority of 'work' was subsistence agriculture).

(06-19-2014 04:12 PM)WalterScottDempsey Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 03:49 PM)magikarp Wrote:  And what happens in 25 (or so) years when most jobs can be automated, including some not currently considered low-skill?

Also, that quote might mean something different in the biblical context (i.e., where the vast majority of 'work' was subsistence agriculture).

If it gets to be the point where the machines threaten our livelihood, then perhaps we should treat the machines as a tumor that which must be excised. And I refer to those who are able-bodied and have work opportunities, but refuse them.

Quote:I'd be much happier watching THEM starve than let them be free-riding scum sucking up the money of you and I while driving up the cost of food and property, making US starve so they can live in relative luxury! What good are they to the working class? What good are they to us, those who make our lives harder through their putrid sloth! What good is a worker's paradise when the workers slave away while the underclass slugs live like kings on OUR money? What good is a safety net when they use it as a hammock?!

(06-19-2014 07:12 PM)SoulRiser Wrote:  I don't really work. I guess I'm scum. I'm OK with that.

(06-19-2014 06:03 PM)Rule_BreakerXVIII Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 04:12 PM)WalterScottDempsey Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 03:49 PM)magikarp Wrote:  And what happens in 25 (or so) years when most jobs can be automated, including some not currently considered low-skill?

Also, that quote might mean something different in the biblical context (i.e., where the vast majority of 'work' was subsistence agriculture).

If it gets to be the point where the machines threaten our livelihood, then perhaps we should treat the machines as a tumor that which must be excised. And I refer to those who are able-bodied and have work opportunities, but refuse them.

Other opportunities will open up in the future. For example, people don't scream that sewing machines or computers are taking away their jobs, do they?? Besides, we'll still need people to operate the machines and supervise them so nothing goes wrong. Machines need to be told what to do, they cannot substitute for human intelligence.

Reading your comment made me think of Wall-E somehow..we need to make sure that such a future doesn't happen.

(06-19-2014 11:29 PM)Dead Wrote:  Is someone who gets government assistance and doesn't work, but goes to college so they can get a job still 'scum'?

(06-19-2014 10:16 PM)magikarp Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 06:03 PM)Rule_BreakerXVIII Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 04:12 PM)WalterScottDempsey Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 03:49 PM)magikarp Wrote:  And what happens in 25 (or so) years when most jobs can be automated, including some not currently considered low-skill?

Also, that quote might mean something different in the biblical context (i.e., where the vast majority of 'work' was subsistence agriculture).

If it gets to be the point where the machines threaten our livelihood, then perhaps we should treat the machines as a tumor that which must be excised. And I refer to those who are able-bodied and have work opportunities, but refuse them.

Other opportunities will open up in the future. For example, people don't scream that sewing machines or computers are taking away their jobs, do they?? Besides, we'll still need people to operate the machines and supervise them so nothing goes wrong. Machines need to be told what to do, they cannot substitute for human intelligence.

Reading your comment made me think of Wall-E somehow..we need to make sure that such a future doesn't happen.

I'd argue that current advances in technology are fundamentally different from that in that they're replacing increasingly more complex tasks, and can, to a degree, replace human intelligence. A sewing machine allows someone to be more productive. Driver-less cars essentially replace people, and the fact that we likely won't have them in 10 years is more a regulatory hurdle than a technological one.

It's not the case anymore that the result of new technologies is that there are more-skilled jobs and increased productivity (which was important at a time when you were dealing with significant material scarcity, but now increased productivity basically means less time working). Newer technologies require fewer and fewer workers, and often in a less demanding, basically supervisory, capacity.

And I don't necessarily think that it's useful to ban labour-saving technologies just for the purpose of creating more (unnecessary!) work.

(06-19-2014 11:41 PM)WalterScottDempsey Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:29 PM)Dead Wrote:  Is someone who gets government assistance and doesn't work, but goes to college so they can get a job still 'scum'?

Do you really think I'd call you scum for laboring over your college assignments, especially since it's among the ways to better your employment opportunities in this society?

(06-20-2014 12:03 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  If a machine takes over the position of a human worker, then it is as how time intended. Progress is not pretty, but why should the masses of the future suffer due to the selfishness of todays? Why must innovation, creativity, technology and growth be limited simply because of the unfortunate case of many losing their jobs to far more efficient tools?

(06-19-2014 02:35 PM)WalterScottDempsey Wrote:  As a socialist I can never hold anything other than resentment towards those who are able to and are given the option to work but refuse it. It sickens me to see people suck away my hard-earned money with nothing to show for it, no output whatsoever! It is absolutely sickening! Just sickening! I hate them! Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... how I absolutely LOATHE those goddamned worthless leeches! The thought of them makes my stomach retch.

I'd be much happier watching THEM starve than let them be free-riding scum sucking up the money of you and I while driving up the cost of food and property, making US starve so they can live in relative luxury! What good are they to the working class? What good are they to us, those who make our lives harder through their putrid sloth! What good is a worker's paradise when the workers slave away while the underclass slugs live like kings on OUR money? What good is a safety net when they use it as a hammock?!

(06-20-2014 04:29 PM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 02:35 PM)WalterScottDempsey Wrote:  As a socialist I can never hold anything other than resentment towards those who are able to and are given the option to work but refuse it. It sickens me to see people suck away my hard-earned money with nothing to show for it, no output whatsoever! It is absolutely sickening! Just sickening! I hate them! Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... how I absolutely LOATHE those goddamned worthless leeches! The thought of them makes my stomach retch.

I'd be much happier watching THEM starve than let them be free-riding scum sucking up the money of you and I while driving up the cost of food and property, making US starve so they can live in relative luxury! What good are they to the working class? What good are they to us, those who make our lives harder through their putrid sloth! What good is a worker's paradise when the workers slave away while the underclass slugs live like kings on OUR money? What good is a safety net when they use it as a hammock?!

This sounds a bit like satire to empower anyone who wants to say "this guy is socialist and this is why socialism is wrong, capitalism is awesome", but I honestly just have a terrible sense of troll detection after browsing the RL introduction section for too long.


The quotation in the title was actually repeated by Lenin in the context of the reactionary czars who lived in luxury and did relatively nothing while the workers starved (to the point of disability, important to note) and etc.
There was a bit of discussion about that very saying in a recent revleft thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/he-does-not-t188018/index.html

(06-20-2014 04:29 PM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  The quotation in the title was actually repeated by Lenin in the context of the reactionary czars who lived in luxury and did relatively nothing while the workers starved (to the point of disability, important to note) and etc.
There was a bit of discussion about that very saying in a recent revleft thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/he-does-not-t188018/index.html