• Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hehe basing actual society on media representation of the extremes lol

  • CoderKat@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Actually, now that I think about it, has there even been a piece of media showing a utopia as capitalist? All the genuine utopias I can think of are usually at least socialist leaning. I say genuine cause there’s also a huge number of works about “utopias” where the whole plot is about how the society isn’t actually a utopia.

    • thawed_caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      There has to be one, but i think most sci-fi authors are left-leaning so their utopias and dystopias both reflect that.

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you’re, uh, pretty super wrong about sci-fi authors being leftists. Maybe the modern ones, but historically they’ve been pretty right wing.

        • masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’ve got a point there… Robert Heinlein’s books were so fashy that Verhoeven decided the only way Starship Troopers could be turned into a film was if it was done as satire.

  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s the future under post-scarcity, not socialism. They have replicators, which has made manual labor, capitalism, and socialism obsolete. We do not have any such technology and therefore cannot achieve such a thing at this time.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We already live in a “post-scarcity” world… there is absolutely nothing humans could need that we couldn’t grow or produce. All the scarcity you see around you is artificially created and maintained - and that means socialism is far, far from obsolete.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        there is absolutely nothing humans could need that we couldn’t grow or produce.

        Yes, but much of it is made using human labor. Labor is what’s scarce in real life and not scarce in Star Trek, and a technological Holy Grail is required to bridge that gap.

        So no, present-day scarcity is not artificial. Not entirely artificial, at least.

        • masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Labor is what’s scarce in real life

          No, it isn’t. We have more labor on this planet that we would know what to do with if we stopped repressing it in order to keep a small group of billionaire parasites in the money.

          and a technological Holy Grail is required to bridge that gap.

          Absolutely not… there is nothing humans would need that we couldn’t produce in spades using already existing methods. The heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources in our current mode of production does not require techno-fetishizing non-solutions - it requires a social solution. Hence, socialism.

          • interolivary@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s like with famines: globally we produce more than enough food to feed everyone, we just choose not to.

            Our problem isn’t the production of goods, but the allocation.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We have more labor on this planet that we would know what to do with if we stopped repressing it in order to keep a small group of billionaire parasites in the money.

            We would run out of it very quickly if there wasn’t anything compelling laborers to perform labor. Nobody’s going to grow crops for you out of the goodness of their hearts. That’s hard, miserable, thankless, dangerous work. That’s why capitalism exists in the first place.

            The heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources in our current mode of production does not require techno-fetishizing non-solutions - it requires a social solution. Hence, socialism.

            That has already been attempted several times, each attempt ended in catastrophic failure, and that failure itself involved heinous abuse and mismanagement of human resources.

            Machines may yet solve this problem for us, but humans definitely won’t, and we’ve got the history to prove it.

            • masquenox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We would run out of it very quickly

              No. We wouldn’t. The labor would simply be spent on that which people find important.

              Nobody’s going to grow crops for you out of the goodness

              Says who? PragerU?

              That’s why capitalism exists in the first place.

              No, Clyde… that’s not it. Maybe don’t extrapolate your politics from Civilization games, okay?

              That has already been attempted several times

              Yes, it has… and everywhere it was tried it was destroyed by fascists, capitalists and other power-hoarders because they were afraid it might work. For instance, Catalonia in the middle 30s and Ukraine in the early 20s.

              Machines may yet solve this problem for us,

              No, they won’t.

              and we’ve got the history to prove it.

              Alt-history doesn’t actually count as real history.