That's a good one, I haven't noticed that. Sure, we should get out of the Marxist box and jump into yours because we go extinct by definition if we don't.
However, the Marxist box has a great advantage to the Qatzian box, namely that people could be convinced to jump into it easier because it doesn't ask them the impossible or unimaginable at least. It's a Western box for Western people (which I know you consider a bad thing), which makes it a lot more realistic and practically useful box. Because the point right now is whether how people could be convinced to get out of the current box and get in another one in which they can make decisions for themselves at least, not that bestiality should be made accepted and normal or even desirable in your lifetime (in order to avoid extinction, of course).
To clarify, I would say that the Marxist approach is a 'Western box', for *all* people -- just because Marxism comes out of the Western Enlightenment tradition doesn't mean that it's *beholden* to any kind of conceivable traditionalism there. Marxism addresses the concerns of *humanity*, to *benefit* humanity by annihilating *private* material interests ('class'), once and for all.
I am talking about all the Abrahamic "traditions" that came out of Europe. All gold-worshipping amorals.
You're talking to the right guy, then -- I'm an atheist. 'Belief' is *bullshit*, and most likely indicates a ruling-class ideological justification for a privileged, hegemonic social position in today's society. Or it's the 'opiate of the masses', as Marx said.
Your "hope" that future super-communists
That *reminds* me -- we gotta get those costumes finished, with the capes and everything.... (grin)
will have machine-made lattes in their hands seconds after they wake up, is a taste of that "gold" only "acquired through intrusive technologies" instead of via slavery.
Well, your habitual moralism aside, this is just a critique of privileged, unthinking *consumerism*, which is a valid critique, especially within the context of capitalism's available excess, but I don't think it holds up in a *post-capitalism* context because that society would be *post-scarcity*, by definition. If I could spend 10 years taking balloon rides and flying supersonic jets without harming anyone or anything, no one could really say that I was doing a 'bad' thing. Oh, yeah, and lattes. (grin)
Really, you and Christopher Columbus are a lot alike.
We share the same first name, but that's about it, really.
He just saw the future of golds-and-diamonds via slavery, whereas you dream of it via gadgets. Many capitalists dream of a future of gadgets as well.
Really? You're going to compare *human slavery* to gadget-usage?
No, sorry, but your *stereotyping* doesn't fly here -- personally I'm not some gadget freak, and even if someone *was*, it's not your place to go around indicting people for their *lifestyles*, especially if they're not harmful to *others*.
You're all-too-willing to ditch the soapbox for the pulpit. You're as moralist and lifestylist as the European types that you rag on, over lifestyles.
This is not communism. It's dreaming of machines - which is much sicker than beastiality.
See -- you really don't understand the *point* of Marxist politics. It's about *lessening the load*. Wouldn't you rather have *machines* do the shitwork for society rather than forcing *slaves* or *wage slaves* to do those tasks? (And, in the end, it's *all* shitwork if people aren't able to live the kind of lives they *want* to live.)