English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

if eventually (way in the future), we can create infinite resources for ourselves, and produce them with minimal human labor, robots cooking, farming, etc. why can't people just work when they feel like it and pursue hobbies for fun? isn't that what Marx envisioned? i think he was just way too far ahead of himself in understanding limited resources and human nature.

2007-02-09 19:02:28 · 3 answers · asked by ajj085 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

but doesn't our greed come from our competition for resources (which hypothetically wouldn't exist)?

2007-02-09 19:20:35 · update #1

and also, i'm saying that eventually through free markets this condition would arise, not to build it through marxism

2007-02-09 19:22:12 · update #2

3 answers

sounds good in theory but when it comes down to it human beings have greed embedded into them and that will prevent a utopia from ever existing,I know its kind of depressing but that's the way it is

2007-02-09 19:09:34 · answer #1 · answered by JOHN D 6 · 1 0

The Vanguard of the Proletariat are exactly those people who can get whatever they want with minimal labor: they use their comrades to produce the goods for them, so they don't need robots.

North Korea's leadership provides a great example, where Lil' Kimmy has plenty of time to engage in his great art of designing performances and collecting movie-land divas.

Unlimited, infinite resources are like the money that doesn't grow on trees. Way too idealistic, not based on reality whatsoever. Marxism seeks to solve everyone's problem by the economic enslavement of the individual. It does not lead to innovation in the future; it is stagnant and stillborn.

I suggest a reading of "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand.

2007-02-10 03:19:58 · answer #2 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 0 0

The United States remains, for the moment, the most powerful nation in history, but it faces a violent contradiction between its long republican tradition and its more recent imperial ambitions.

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

2007-02-13 09:26:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers