No your judgement of societies by their “technological progress” is eurocentric. It’s the same reactionary positions of Liberal historians who look at Africans as “primitive” because they didn’t use wheels, despite wheels being useless for certain terrains. It’s giving terra nilus BS that justified stealing productive human-managed ecosystems of the Amerindians and razing them for plantations worked by slaves. I’m saying there’s no “objective” level of progress. It can not be calculated based on how many gadgets you have.

All of these things are cool and great, when used towards definite human needs. There is no march on progress that we need to shape our societies towards today because petty bougies like to live lavish lives through Imperialism. There will never be a time in which human labor shouldn’t be directed to developing material conditions. You are comparing exploitative work with time loss for what, hobbies, isn’t that still labor? Peoples’ hobbies require labor. We have no need for Aristocratic Marxism. You took issue with me calling full automation Idealism, because it is. I’m an automation engineer, I build it for a living. I can only accelerate human labor, make it more efficient, but there will always need to be humans doing work toward definite goals.

Utopian views of a laborless society are bourgeois because they are a class of exploiters who seek to or live that dream already. The difference in our stances is that I believe you can never eliminate work, and if you could, you are only limiting your society from the benefits of socialized labor. You believe that there is a point in which labor itself is unnecessary. I’m asking what technology this would require, and is that technology even feasible? Is it even worth this being a goal for our movement? I think it completely focuses on Capital and dead labor instead of the living labor that makes any society run. It’s the same grand vision of the bourgeoisie.