To my fellow people in the working class — you know, the 99% of us who do all the useful work to produce everything but get an increasingly tiny amount of access to the vast wealth we can now mass produce while being saddled with dozens of bills per month?
Among the torrent of material presented in this post are some true historical facts. However, it contains almost entirely the musings of the writer, unsupported by any serious documented research whatsoever. Thus, the writer’s conclusions cannot reveal a believable pathway from the mass unhappiness and burdens of the 99% whose labor is exploited by the handful of capitalists controlling the rest of us. Currency evolved as the medium of exchange in response to the requirements of growing communities, fueling a system of international commerce that is vast and growing larger by the day.
Post-capitalism will arise eventually, in my opinion. It may present a more favorable framework than the oligarchic form that Christofer and I agree exists today, and which is failing. Alternatively, it might generate less favorable outcomes for the vast majority of the world’s eight billion (and growing) inhabitants. It’s not predetermined. But what is all but predetermined is that the present world order will fight like viscous monsters to preserve the status quo and most of the victims of that struggle, as always, will be same victims of capitalism who toil endlessly in tedious labor and wage-slave poverty today.
The path that history has taken, including how and why currency was developed as a tool, is well known and documented, Bobby. Including the fact that technology prior to the Industrial Revolution was far less advanced and not capable of mass production.
"Currency evolved as the medium of exchange in response to the requirements of growing communities, fueling a system of international commerce that is vast and growing larger by the day."
Yes, which is precisely my point: commerce, meaning *business*, meaning a markets based system, meaning class divisions and *scarcity*. The latter of which is now entirely *artificial* in our post-industrial world. Meaning all the problems and stresses and inability for so many of us to.meet our material and therefore psychological needs due to not having enough money is totally unnecessary and the pathway towards a better system is pretty clear. More of the same and efforts to transform all of us into entrepreneurs (e.g., gig.work) is not helping matters.
"It’s just not as simple as Christofer suggests."
I think our collective inability to think beyond the systems, behavior, and tools we're used to so that we can make full use of modern automation to free us from toil and want, and therefore end all the insecurities, stresses, and psychological issues to create an actual posts capitalist world (as opposed to another class-divided system that will be another variation of capitalism) is simple at its core. And this resistance to change is a recurring issue for humanity, and one of our main psychological obstacles to needed fundamental change.
I can’t figure out why I try to debate with you. I gave you my best shot, though, and having just re-read it, I stand by my original response. Particularly, I reiterate the viscousness of the oligarchs when threatened. The transition from late-stage to end-stage capitalism promises to harm hundreds of millions of today’s workers, or their children and grandchildren. The continuation of that transition into post-capitalism likely will be as bad, or worse. The end result is a toss up also.
"I can’t figure out why I try to debate with you."
Because you disagree. And that is why I debate with you. I do not expect agreement as a result.
"I gave you my best shot, though, and having just re-read it, I stand by my original response."
As I stand behind mine. I think I was very clear with my points, and I believe they hold up. I do not expect everyone to agree or accept my insistence that money has to go. It's very ingrained into our collective zeitgeist, which was my main point.
"Particularly, I reiterate the viscousness of the oligarchs when threatened. The transition from late-stage to end-stage capitalism promises to harm hundreds of millions of today’s workers, or their children and grandchildren."
This we agree on. Which is why I believe we need to end capitalism first, on our terms, utilizing Article V of the Constitution and our superior numbers, with a solid plan on what to replace it with. If we simply let it collapse of its own accord, and leave the ruling class intact to decide what it's going to be replaced with, then yes, the working class is going to be in serious trouble.
"The continuation of that transition into post-capitalism likely will be as bad, or worse. The end result is a toss up also."
Also agreed. Which is why the transition has to come on our terms, and the vast majority of us has to have that psychological revolution first before the physical revolution takes place. Otherwise, it will happen under the terms of the ruling capitalist class, many of whom seem to see the post-capitalist system of their choice as what Marxists have been calling Industrial Feudalism for a long time, but in more recent years has been referred to by people on the Left as Techno-Feudalism.
Among the torrent of material presented in this post are some true historical facts. However, it contains almost entirely the musings of the writer, unsupported by any serious documented research whatsoever. Thus, the writer’s conclusions cannot reveal a believable pathway from the mass unhappiness and burdens of the 99% whose labor is exploited by the handful of capitalists controlling the rest of us. Currency evolved as the medium of exchange in response to the requirements of growing communities, fueling a system of international commerce that is vast and growing larger by the day.
Post-capitalism will arise eventually, in my opinion. It may present a more favorable framework than the oligarchic form that Christofer and I agree exists today, and which is failing. Alternatively, it might generate less favorable outcomes for the vast majority of the world’s eight billion (and growing) inhabitants. It’s not predetermined. But what is all but predetermined is that the present world order will fight like viscous monsters to preserve the status quo and most of the victims of that struggle, as always, will be same victims of capitalism who toil endlessly in tedious labor and wage-slave poverty today.
It’s just not as simple as Christofer suggests.
The path that history has taken, including how and why currency was developed as a tool, is well known and documented, Bobby. Including the fact that technology prior to the Industrial Revolution was far less advanced and not capable of mass production.
"Currency evolved as the medium of exchange in response to the requirements of growing communities, fueling a system of international commerce that is vast and growing larger by the day."
Yes, which is precisely my point: commerce, meaning *business*, meaning a markets based system, meaning class divisions and *scarcity*. The latter of which is now entirely *artificial* in our post-industrial world. Meaning all the problems and stresses and inability for so many of us to.meet our material and therefore psychological needs due to not having enough money is totally unnecessary and the pathway towards a better system is pretty clear. More of the same and efforts to transform all of us into entrepreneurs (e.g., gig.work) is not helping matters.
"It’s just not as simple as Christofer suggests."
I think our collective inability to think beyond the systems, behavior, and tools we're used to so that we can make full use of modern automation to free us from toil and want, and therefore end all the insecurities, stresses, and psychological issues to create an actual posts capitalist world (as opposed to another class-divided system that will be another variation of capitalism) is simple at its core. And this resistance to change is a recurring issue for humanity, and one of our main psychological obstacles to needed fundamental change.
I can’t figure out why I try to debate with you. I gave you my best shot, though, and having just re-read it, I stand by my original response. Particularly, I reiterate the viscousness of the oligarchs when threatened. The transition from late-stage to end-stage capitalism promises to harm hundreds of millions of today’s workers, or their children and grandchildren. The continuation of that transition into post-capitalism likely will be as bad, or worse. The end result is a toss up also.
"I can’t figure out why I try to debate with you."
Because you disagree. And that is why I debate with you. I do not expect agreement as a result.
"I gave you my best shot, though, and having just re-read it, I stand by my original response."
As I stand behind mine. I think I was very clear with my points, and I believe they hold up. I do not expect everyone to agree or accept my insistence that money has to go. It's very ingrained into our collective zeitgeist, which was my main point.
"Particularly, I reiterate the viscousness of the oligarchs when threatened. The transition from late-stage to end-stage capitalism promises to harm hundreds of millions of today’s workers, or their children and grandchildren."
This we agree on. Which is why I believe we need to end capitalism first, on our terms, utilizing Article V of the Constitution and our superior numbers, with a solid plan on what to replace it with. If we simply let it collapse of its own accord, and leave the ruling class intact to decide what it's going to be replaced with, then yes, the working class is going to be in serious trouble.
"The continuation of that transition into post-capitalism likely will be as bad, or worse. The end result is a toss up also."
Also agreed. Which is why the transition has to come on our terms, and the vast majority of us has to have that psychological revolution first before the physical revolution takes place. Otherwise, it will happen under the terms of the ruling capitalist class, many of whom seem to see the post-capitalist system of their choice as what Marxists have been calling Industrial Feudalism for a long time, but in more recent years has been referred to by people on the Left as Techno-Feudalism.