this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
937 points (97.0% liked)

politics

18966 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

From threatening cage matches to backing RFK Jr., billionaires prove too much money detaches a person from reality

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sure, but more to the point, we need to overhaul the entire socio-economic system. The neolibs experiment in deregulation and privatization and prioritizing profit growth has manifestly failed.

The stunningly stupid thing is that we basically have the tech to automate a huge amount of the labor required to produce all the stuff humans need and to at least try to do that sustainably, the problem is we don’t know how to organize a society that can run on much less human labor.

What keeps me up at night is the thought that one obvious way to reorganize around a much smaller human labor requirement is to have a much smaller population. Isn’t that the radical right end game here? Isn’t that why Very Rich People have gone full fascist?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Most of the words you just wrote are insurmountable to the average voter. But no. The Very Rich People don't want the population to decrease. They can dogwhistle to conservative voters about "demographic group x" and how they want them gone, but the ruling class needs infinite growth, and you can't have infinite growth (realistically at all) without a growing population.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Oh I think they (the tech-fascist oligarchs) accept that the current system has hit its growth limit, is played out. They are aware that the ecosystem interface with capitalism has been shredded to the extent that we are in multiple related crisis - all driven by the perpetual growth requirement of the system, and that the end result is a massive die-off anyway. They intend to accelerate that end while they can still control (or at least think they can still control) the transition to whatever the next phase of the system is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

What keeps me up at night is the thought that one obvious way to reorganize around a much smaller human labor requirement is to have a much smaller population. Isn’t that the radical right end game here? Isn’t that why Very Rich People have gone full fascist?

I've thought about this several times myself. Its like these mfers saw Kingsman and said, lets run with that idea. Wiping out mass swaths of the population would allow them to negate a small portion of human climate impact so they can keep on polluting and add another zero to their quarterly statement. I have no clue if this is something they think about, but one thing I do know is that these people are sick fucks and completely detached from reality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm all for automation but what do the people who are unemployable do (other than not work, lol)? how do they pay for the goods and services they need?

we're nowhere near a post-scarcity society. who/what mechanism pays for and/or creates the resources used by those people that can't get their own resources because their purpose has been automated away?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is arbitrary busy work a good answer? Because that's the system we have now. Also production costs would drop dramatically after the initial investment which would make things cheaper. Of course none of the companies would actually lower prices unless they were forced to but that could be arranged.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

eh... forcing companies to do something like that has the socialism stink stuck to it - no politician is going to ruin their life's work by supporting socialism... unless they're on death's door/have nothing to lose, and really no one should anything they have to say at that point. no, I dont see that happening.

I'm sure there's quite a few meaningless/useless jobs out there - probably at least 30%, but if we automate them away (as with the recent snafu between movie studios and actors), then those people that have been obsoleted will need to find new things to do - preferably, things that positively contribute to society - but you can only have so many musicians, artists, poets, etc before their value is also devalued.

some folks will try to claim that UBI has a place, but they never explain where the resources come from - the government cant just print more money, that leads to rampant inflation. so - how do we support people that have no purpose, no value? how do they eat? ultimately, I suspect that with enough automation and the looming overpopulation crunch, we're in for a few really bad decades.