different between luddism and socialism.?
Answers
Answered by
4
Luddism is mere opposition to increases in technological development that result in the obsolescence of workforce. As deprecated as it is by technocrats and those who fetishise technology, it’s a logical response by people whose survival in the capitalist system is contingent on the value of their work. The perils of workforce obsolescence are about to become sharper than in any previous stage of human development.
Liberals and homologues usually think it’s every individual’s responsibility to “reinvent themselves” and “keep themselves economically relevant” (here I’m even evoking Elon Musk’s words). Thus, if you end up “economically irrelevant” it is your fault and your fault only, not of the technocrats, those who develop technology, policies or market forces. And, whatever happens to you, is, of course your own fault and responsibility. That’s the moral alchemy of individualistic delusional mental frameworks - those in power can liquidate millions by sheer dispossession and it’s all their fault. Very practical!
Socialism, on the other hand, is a system wherein the economy is completely owned and democratically managed by the society for the reproduction and improvement of life. In socialism the obsolescence of workforce is a desirable endgoal because, rather than threatening the survival of workers, it makes their condition of toil obsolete as new technologies belong to them and so their produce. Full automation does not result in the destitution of millions - it results in the liberation of all. Socialism makes the concerns that result in luddism obsolete by making risk to life obsolete.
That’s also why capitalist development of technology and the chimeric notion of “progress” is dangerous, murderous even and why socialism is an imperative to save humanity.
Hope this may help you........
Liberals and homologues usually think it’s every individual’s responsibility to “reinvent themselves” and “keep themselves economically relevant” (here I’m even evoking Elon Musk’s words). Thus, if you end up “economically irrelevant” it is your fault and your fault only, not of the technocrats, those who develop technology, policies or market forces. And, whatever happens to you, is, of course your own fault and responsibility. That’s the moral alchemy of individualistic delusional mental frameworks - those in power can liquidate millions by sheer dispossession and it’s all their fault. Very practical!
Socialism, on the other hand, is a system wherein the economy is completely owned and democratically managed by the society for the reproduction and improvement of life. In socialism the obsolescence of workforce is a desirable endgoal because, rather than threatening the survival of workers, it makes their condition of toil obsolete as new technologies belong to them and so their produce. Full automation does not result in the destitution of millions - it results in the liberation of all. Socialism makes the concerns that result in luddism obsolete by making risk to life obsolete.
That’s also why capitalist development of technology and the chimeric notion of “progress” is dangerous, murderous even and why socialism is an imperative to save humanity.
Hope this may help you........
Similar questions