I have built a delta robot which does not yet do exactly what I want it to do and exactly when I want it.

I’m thinking about the work ethic here. George Washington opposed slavery because he thought it destroyed the work ethic, while here I am madly focused on a thing which would make things for me without my having to do any work.

To Karl Marx it seemed like common sense (and indeed, natural law!) that those who do the work should own the means of production. Yet there has always been a struggle among the “those.” Those who create versus those who technically make that which was created to be made by them. These two are not synonymous, and thus even Marxists have been forced to recognize the power of those — or that — which we would call the creator.

If workers should overthrow what was deemed the state, if workers could seize what was called the “means of production” because they were already operating it, is that not an argument for robots doing the same thing?

Seriously, why not Marxist robots?

I don’t mean this shit.

No, Marxism is supposed to be based on scientific, natural processes.

Nor this.

In neither case are the robots themselves being considered. If they are the ones doing the work, then according to classical Marxist theory, why should they not take over?

I think that a good case could be made for a Marxist-style takeover by robots.

And if you factor in “the environment,” why, the case becomes even more compelling. Robots do not consume — nor do they need to consume –anywhere near as much energy or natural resources as humans. They have an inherently much lower carbon footprint, are much “greener,” and I think many environmentalists would agree if they were to think about it.

Perhaps the robots should take over the world. By any logical standard, they would do a better job.

Hell, isn’t that what it’s all about?

Building a better world?