Daily reminder that capitalism can't survive 3D printing + space mining + automatization + aging population

>There will always be scarcity of something
Could you provide a warrant?
>When people can 3D print exact replicas of the mona lisa the original will still be worth millions
nigga what?

Quick reminder that real communism has never been tried and can never be tried until every human submits

So impossible?

>When people can 3D print exact replicas of the Mona Lisa, the original will still be worth millions. Because it's the fucking original. There is only one.

You don't understand what "exact replica" means. If it were an exact replica you would have no way of telling it apart from the thing it's a replica of.

Nope, just going to take a lot of murder

So basically, socialism is serfdom? I mean according to that picture it literally is, there is no difference.

>3D printing
>space mining
these are memes

>competition for limited goods remains a constant

If hyper-intelligent machines become objectively better at every single thing human beings do then competition for limited goods will no longer exist. You would be unable to compete at anything as a human and those machines wouldn't be dependent on you in any way for direction on their actions since they'd be hyper-intelligent, so you couldn't even have a robot compete on your behalf.

Well in that case I look forward to this peaceful utopia!

>it's another "human behaviour of the past three centuries is natural because it's the time i'm alive in" retard

there are sophisticated enough forgeries of major paintings that 99.9% of the population would never tell the difference

understand supply and demand, realize there is and only ever will be one "Mona Lisa" even if there are millions of mona lisas floating around. Enjoy your velvet elvis,

You know what is natural in society on the macro-level though?

Power dynamics and social classes.

>Could you provide a warrant?
Humans, by their very nature, create scarcity.
Even when there is none.

Give a rich person two identica wines, tell him Wine 1 costs $12 dollars a bottle, while Wine 2 costs $70 dollars a bottle, and when he tastes them, he will consider Wine 2 better, even though it's the same product.

amazon.com/gp/product/B0096EGFZK/

>nigga what?
Common sense, use your little head.

We already can create almost exact replicas today. Yet, even if the replicas were perfect, the original would still have value.

I imagine the replicas would probably have to get some watermark added or some other small difference by law to tell them apart. That's what we do with money.

This.

>capitalism is human nature despite only existing for 200 years

Competition for limited resources has been a constant throughout human history.

>there are sophisticated enough forgeries of major paintings that 99.9% of the population would never tell the difference

You're talking about 100%, not 99.9%. Exact, not near-exact. Exact means it's the same thing just in a different location in space.

>there is and only ever will be one "Mona Lisa"

Not if there's a method of creating an exact replica like you're suggesting. You could try to claim you know which one is the original based on it being located in a particular museum, but you would, by definition, have no way of knowing for sure it was the original and not just an exact replica someone substituted in the museum one night after overwriting that night's security camera feed with the prior night's.

>capitalism evolved from feudalism
>capitalism has only existed for 200 years

YOU MAY ONLY CHOOSE ONE MARXIST HISTORIOLOLIS

Then what happens when there is no limited resources you dongle?

See >Humans, by their very nature, create scarcity.

>even if the replicas were perfect, the original would still have value.

It can't have a special value if you have no way of telling it apart from replicas.

>some watermark

Then it's not an exact replica.

The French Revolution was in 1798

>You're talking about 100%, not 99.9%.

i said 99.9% of THE POPULATION you fucking invalid

>You could try to claim you know which one is the original based on it being located in a particular museum, but you would, by definition, have no way of knowing for sure it was the original and not just an exact replica someone substituted in the museum one night after overwriting that night's security camera feed with the prior night's.

You can argue forever on Veeky Forums with your sophistic axioms about the nature of value but you will never change the fact that there will only ever be one "Mona Lisa" no matter how many velvet elvises you print.

Socialists don't understand the economy, so it's okay.

>i said 99.9% of THE POPULATION you fucking invalid

So am I retard. A perfect replica would convince 100% of the population, not 99.9%.

>there will only ever be one "Mona Lisa"

Not if you have exact replicas. You don't understand what exact means.

>there will always be scarcity of something
>profit motive is the strongest driver of mankind
>Humans, by their very nature, create scarcity.
primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

2/10 read a book produced outside of your circlejerk and come back again

>you would, by definition, have no way of knowing for sure it was the original and not just an exact replica someone substituted in the museum one night after overwriting that night's security camera feed with the prior night's.
If someone went though all that trouble to replace the original with a replica and steal it, then it means the original has more value.

Checkmate.

>muh materialism

Enjoy your worthless velvet elvis in thirty years.

>Marx was right
Partially right, and that only because the part he was right about was the safest part about his theory.

It doesn't mean anything about value if no one actually did that in reality and it's just a hypothetical of what someone could do.

It means a lot.

Hypothesis:
Perfect world where exact replicas of the Mona Lisa can be created.

My thesis:
The original will still have more value than the replicas.

Your thesis:
No it won't, because you can't tell them apart

My Argument:
You can tell them apart, since the original will be hanged in a museum.

Your Counter-Argument:
What if someone replaces it and steals it?

Checkmate:
Then the original has move value because it's worth stealing.

You either acknowledge that you can tell the original apart from the replicas by hanging a little sign, or you acknowledge that it is worth stealing, thus that it has value.

I used to be a Marxist. Waste of fucking time; like evangelicals predicting the Rapture or liberal centrists proclaiming the End of History, it keeps getting exposed and then doing mental gymnastics to show how, actually, they were never wrong.

Read Kolakowski if you want a good critique of Marxism (as opposed to something from lolbertarians or /pol/yps) and become a dour social democrat like me.

But I'm not a Marxist my friend, I hate you and Marxists equally.

The primary difficulty with Marxism is really that capitalism thrives off of collapse. Every instance where it seems when it is most imperiled is when it is in fact at its strongest.

I'm beginning to feel that while his contributions were great, Marx and Marxism, at least when filtered through a Western lens, breed passivity when it comes to direct action.

>Then the original has move value because it's worth stealing.
>it's worth stealing

Here's where your argument fails. Not one actual person found it worth stealing in reality. A hypothetical was introduced where it was stolen. You can't infer a value to actual people from based on what imaginary people do in a hypothetical because a major feature of hypotheticals is there is no cost involved in imagining what someone could do. It wouldn't make sense to speculate on the motivations of whoever put Russell's teapot in orbit or the value that act must have had to them for them to go through all that trouble because it's a hypothetical meant to make a point clearer, not something anyone actually did in reality.

The primary difficulty with Marxism is that it was constructed in the vacuum of Marx's mind with absolutely no input from observed phenomenon.

Capitalism, being the description of emergent phenomenon, will always outpace Marxism because Capitalism will always adapt to reality while Marxism will always shun it.

The only way to make Marxism work is to drop Marx.

>it was constructed in the vacuum of Marx's mind with absolutely no input from observed phenomenon
wut

If I can't use your hypothetical scenario in a logical argument then why introduce it at all? You are trying to escape from your very own logical scenario that you created. You have built a hypothetical prison for yourself.

Yet my argument is simple,
1. You can tell it apart from the replicas by hanging a sign. The sign indicating it is the original, by itself, already makes it different from the million other replicas, giving it value.

2. If someone steals it and replaces it with a replica, you won't be able to tell it apart. But the action of it being stolen means it has more value than the replicas.

Either way it has more value.
Hence the checkmate, buddy.

>Give a rich person two identica wines, tell him Wine 1 costs $12 dollars a bottle, while Wine 2 costs $70 dollars a bottle, and when he tastes them, he will consider Wine 2 better, even though it's the same product.
The fuck? In a post sacristy world, all wines are made relatively equal

Non-scarcity is a logical nonsense. It breaks the law of physics.

>Non-sacrity defies entropy
It is an economical possibility, not a scientific one.

>Facebook meme
This is the kind of people I'm posting here with? No wonder this board is shit.

>If I can't use your hypothetical scenario in a logical argument

Wrong, I can and I did use it in a logical argument.

>You are trying to escape from your very own logical scenario that you created.

No, you're incorrectly trying to infer value based on a cost that doesn't exist. There is a cost to actually stealing / substituting the painting. There is no cost to the hypothetical possibility theft / substitution has already happened.

>You can tell it apart

Then it's not an exact replica.

>If someone steals it and replaces it with a replica, you won't be able to tell it apart. But the action of it being stolen means it has more value than the replicas.

The possibility it's already been stolen isn't the same thing as someone stealing it in reality. The former makes it so that you can't know for sure you have the original in a post-replica world but says nothing about the latter. That alone means your argument fails, but there are other ways you're wrong in addition to that. For example, you're assuming the actor behind a theft / substitution is acting in his best economic interests by doing what he did. A schizophrenic could be the culprit and he could be acting based on an arbitrary command hallucination.

>economics is not science

Only praxeologists and marxists tell themselves this, and they're both equivalent to what voodoo witch doctors are to modern evidence based medicine.

No. Entropy is a concept that all matter will slowly descend to chaotic energy. Post scarcity just means that with the rise of technology, we would be able to obtain almost everything we want at almost no cost until entropy tears everything apart.

Or only people who have only read those two things. Which is everyone on Veeky Forums.

There's plenty of epistemologists that consider economics a pseudoscience or a protoscience.

>Wrong, I can and I did use it in a logical argument.
Then so can I.

>No, you're incorrectly trying to infer value based on a cost that doesn't exist. There is a cost to actually stealing / substituting the painting. There is no cost to the hypothetical possibility theft / substitution has already happened.
That someone would consider the possibility of it being stolen already means it has value. That someone would go through the trouble of trying to figure out if it is the original or not, already gives it value.

You could go even more backwards with that logic. That someone would create a way to manufacture exact replicas of the Mona Lisa, gives the original value, because someone considered it was worth replicating.

>Then it's not an exact replica.
If the original is kept and guarded 24/7, you can tell it apart, but there will still be exact replicas around

>The possibility it's already been stolen isn't the same thing as someone stealing it in reality. The former makes it so that you can't know for sure you have the original in a post-replica world but says nothing about the latter. That alone means your argument fails, but there are other ways you're wrong in addition to that.
The possibility of it being stolen in the past does not matter. If people give it value by hanging a sign that says "original", then it will be considered the "original", and it will be worth more.

You are assuming humans will behave differently, when history shows them behaving as in my example throughout history.

Take the Spear of Destiny. It is said that this was the spear that pierced Jesus. Carbon dating proves it was not. Visually, it looks like any other spear from the period. It is, in fact, an ordinary spear. Yet there it is, on a museum display, because someone at some point decided to fight over it and call it the Spear of Destiny.

Humans create scarcity.

>Then so can I.

You could, but you didn't.

>That someone would consider the possibility of it being stolen already means it has value.

It doesn't. Saying it does isn't an argument.

>That someone would create a way to manufacture exact replicas of the Mona Lisa, gives the original value, because someone considered it was worth replicating.

Not would, could. The possibility makes it so in a post-replica world you can't know which is the original. The possibility says nothing about whether anyone actually has the motivation to do it in reality. That's basically the whole point of thought experiments, they let you imagine wacky elaborate scenarios like a demon that creates free energy or a randomly activated cat killing box to consider the *consequences* of the scenarios, not how likely it is anyone would actually set up those situations or what motivations someone who sets up a situation like those would have. The mere possibility someone *could* have already substituted it means you can't know if any one instance of the painting is the original the moment perfect replication as a technology comes into existence.

>If people give it value by hanging a sign that says "original"

We're talking about a world with perfect replication. Any sign you come up with can be perfectly replicated too.

>You are assuming humans will behave differently, when history shows them behaving as in my example throughout history.

We're talking about a world with perfect replication. Not one second in all of history has had perfect replication so it doesn't make much sense to cite that as a basis for how perfect replication will change things. Not a single person was killed in a car accident prior to the invention of cars, that isn't good evidence to claim automotive fatalities won't exist following the invention of cars.

>Any sign you come up with can be perfectly replicated too.
Not all humans would assign value to the same signs, no matter how identical they are. That was what the Spear of Destiny example proves. (one ordinary spear among thousands of identical spears)

Well, it sort of was. You could certainly leave a collective farm, but only if the purpose was to go to an agricultural school or a field more in demand than agricultural workers (which let me tell ya there weren't many)

not an argument.

Late Marx (the only Marx that matters) was a product of Max Stirner.

wtf is wrong with russians

It was the only way they knew to keep people on farms. For obvious reasons, including of course mismanagement of agricultural policy, it was no fun at all.

No way a real communism is happening any time soon, though the future will definitely look more socialist

It isn't

>We'll see the collapse of capitalism in less than twenty years from now.

That's what Bernstein said tho, as a proponent of Social-Democracy.

Marx thought that capitalism would reach a critical point where it's amassed by a tiny few, which would push the proletariat into no other means than revolution.

Bernstein contested this prediction, and instead said capitalism will not implode on itself, but rather decentralise in the hands of the proletariat, provided it has an active participation in politics where capitalists can be restrained by law.

>capitalism dated on french revolution because it's an ''official event'' and not on agrarian revolution

lol 'history majors'

Pretty sure that would be one of the end-goals for replication.

>Then the original has move value because it's worth stealing.
No, I just replace it and put the original in a sauna to trick sentimental retards like you, while the rest of humanity appreciates a classic piece of art without attaching an arbitrary value to it or caring about its "originality" (btw replicas are put on display all the time and still draws observers because they're more interested in art for art's sake rather than seeing something valuable)

IP laws will keep 3D printing an inconvenient novelty, space mining is not going to happen and automatisation will be severely held back by future energy crises. I dunno why aging population is a threat to capitalism, any state can import labor if that's what the private sector asks for, pensioners will simply be left to die.

>IP laws will keep 3D printing an inconvenient novelty

IP laws are inherently ironically both inherently anti capitalistic and exist only to artificially support capitalism where it otherwise would have broke/made the entire system obsolete.

if nothing else I hope I live long enough to see the companies absuing and changing IP laws in their favor die a slow death of refusing to adapt to new technology even if in the end the laws still stay fucked.

why are their suits so shit

Company names will change, their practices and the laws won't.

I'm somewhat optimistic, at least in regards to digital ownership.

All it would take is something like steam going down and millions of people losing access to thousands of dollars in games and there's gonna be hell to pay. I think that would light fires under legislator's assholes.

Copyright term lengths sadly are likely not gonna get unfucked for centuries thanks to being locked in due to trade deals, but I could see fair use get more lenient as the internet gets more popular and fanworks get more widespread.

SOPA and PIPA were killed just due to the internet uproar. They'll try to pass them again under other names but it shows that it's going to be a battle for them from now on to fuck the laws furhter now that the impact of IP law is actually affecting people's day to day lives. That's only going to happen more as stuff like DRM and anti-circumvention legislation impacts electronic cars and the like and people not being able to repair them, etc.

People losing access to video games isn't going to trigger a political revolt, come on now. Even if only meant as an example, it's stupid.

A political revolt, of course not, but it is going to piss a lot of people off.

That exact sort of situation is the type of things that have caused consumer protections and regulations to start to happen in the past. I think you are trivilizaing the situation. Steam has MILLIONS of users, and most have spent hundreds of dollars on the platform. If millions of US citizens lose thousands of dollars in purchased content at once that's gonna get some attention and ire.

Look at what happened with Doom and Mortal kombat back in the 90's with congressional hearings on violent video games and the like. That's then, video gaming is way, way, way bigger now.

Capitalism dates from the 18-19th century onwards, right after mercantilism. It's dated on the french revolution, because that's what it was, a middle class capitalist orientated population against the aristocracy and their right to hold the monopoly over economic and political power

leftism seeks to get rid of white people

reminder

>Yui/K-On poster from /leftypol/
You have to go back.

>he fell for the 3D printing meme
Embarrassing.