Perhaps the biggest issue which is
overlooked in this article lies in the political mesh and foundation
of this concept as a whole. Though it's mentioned that there is a
political aspect or background to this idealistic notion, it's not
brought up as a real, practical issue with which supporters of this
movement are going to have to work around. It's easy to say that the
ideas of a world without labor or a people wholly united are
negative, but there absolutely would be sacrifices made in the
process, and convincing those who hold different sociopolitical/world
views would be nearly impossible. Not only that, not having those
people along for the ride would take away from this prospect greatly,
if not ruin it entirely. There will always be men and women who
choose to fight for a capitalistic society—to some, this is simply
the most appealing way for a society and an economy to function.
Missing cogs in a machine such as this one are going to take away
from the big picture in a vital way. What good is a laborless society
if someone around the corner is offering a better product? At that
point, the whole issue becomes messy and even more political. The
whole concept of capitalism undermines entirely what luxury communism
seeks to do. There are some nice concepts to daydream on, with these
ideals and any other sort of utopian complex—equality (and perhaps
even less labor for humans) is something we can strive for and view
as an objective good for society. But you're not gonna get everyone
on board the boat to abandon these strongly ingrained capitalistic
and individualistic worldviews (not to mention fear/loathing of
communism). Even if the majority agreed, it leaves room for
exploitation by those who want to play outside the rules of the game.
It's fine to believe that this brand of luxury communism is a
natural progression of things, but the truth is that it will never be
practical in a first world which is inhabited by many who despise
communism or who would look to cheat the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment