[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1693873250120.png ( 63.59 KB , 468x467 , key-digital.png )

 No.473038

Here is an article about Bill Gates sounding like a comic-book villain
https://slaynews.com/news/bill-gates-every-person-earth-should-prove-their-identity-digital-id/
TLDR: he complains that not enough people have digital IDs and he shills his product to IDtag more people.

At best this sounds like a conspiracy to commit massive crimes against privacy, but also a megalomaniac billionaire trying to control people. By the way the first group to use computers to catalog people were the Nazis, they bought IBM punch-card computers for the holocaust logistics. Not sure if that's a structural problem. Maybe there is a bad tendency to put people on lists and that should not be amplified with technology or something.

Anyway once they try turning IDs into digital control-collars, people will grow to absolutely despise ID systems. And that means IDs will become a ideological liability. So i'm thinking we should consider making cyber-socialism work without IDs.

We could treat cyber-socialism like a computer system for civilization that people can access via anonymous accounts tied to cryptographic-key-gadgets that lack any identification data. Such a key would give people access to government services and the economy. People would obviously be able to get multiple keys. That can work to our advantage, if people spread their important life stuff over a dozen keys there would be a lot more redundancy and the equivalent of ID-loss, ID-theft and Fake-ID would be less dramatic. There would also be less incentive to steal/fake those keys.

Anybody have objections to this scheme ?
>>

 No.473041

Base>structure>superstructure

Technology has developed to the point where 'capitalism' doesn't quite encapsulate the realities of lived class structure.
>>

 No.473042

>>473041
I can see where people are coming from with this argument, but, it never really made sense to me. All the class dichotomies still exist just as they did in the industrial revolution. Not a lot really has changed.

Those who have nothing to sell but their labor power: Working class

Those who live off the labor of others: Bourgeoisie.

there's nuances, but, everyone on earth falls into these two classes of people.
>>

 No.473043

>>473042
I agree with you that capitalist class relations are still in effect.

But your definitions are kinda sloppy.
First there still are roughly .5 billion people living off subsistence farming, they neither are bourg, nor are they selling their labor-power.

Second "Those who live off the labor of others" is also true for children, old people, workers in the reserve army of labor, sick people and the hobo going to the soup-kitchen. None of these people are bourgeois. Maybe it would be better to define the bourgeoisie by private surplus appropriation ?
>>

 No.473050

>>473043
Even if some one is not selling their labor they still only have their labor to sell. rural peasants still meet this definition.
>>

 No.473051

>>473043
Also no because all those people don't live off capital. Maybe I was not clear enough.
>>

 No.473058

>>473051
Nope that isn't a robust definition either, some pension-funds are based on capital investment, and technically that means retired workers would be living off capital. Some workers are payed in stock-options, it's not very common but in theory they could potentially replace wages with some sophisticated form of stock options. There are orphanages that are funded by passive capital income and technically that would mean those parrentless children would count as bourgeoisie.

<private surplus appropriation

still seems like a more robust definition.

It seems like you are trying to avoid using the Marxist concept of surplus
Can you explain why ?

Unique IPs: 4

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome