I only watched the TV show so I don’t know the backstory, but if that’s the case it isn’t very true to life. Such strong social safety nets in a capitalist society could only ever be instated as a result of intense pressure from a mass social movement, and even then is unlikely to last. Automation will only increase productivity - which the capitalists will simply absorb in their pursuit of infinite growth - and never make it so that people can work less.
Don’t underestimate the corruptive influence of power and privilege either. I know it’s unpopular to humanize the people who ruthlessly exploit others, but they aren’t necessarily innately selfish, and are just as much a product of circumstance as others. The wealthy are perhaps the most alienated from the material and human cost of their wealth by a system that is designed to do so, and they are rewarded for behaving selfishly.
If you reduce the complexity of the world to “most people are good but the few bad people ruin it for everyone,” then you run the risk of thinking that the solution to the problem is to remove the “bad people” from power and replace them with “good people.” You’ll inevitably be disappointed when the “good people” turn out to be “bad people” after experiencing power and privilege.
The one saying they use copilot for math problems is the worst part. It demonstrates their complete lack of critical thinking.
They’re just pals, nothing to see here.
Except all the liberals insisted they would vote for Biden’s corpse before letting Trump win. What does it say about them if an actual progressive is the real dealbreaker?
This is not colorblind friendly at all.
Bezos just had to know what the true hero of the story, Jules-Pierre Mao, would get up to next.
Except the moment you have orbital dominance over a planet then no amount of ground or atmosphere based weaponry matters whatsoever. All they would have to do is drop some mass from orbit and they can cause destruction far beyond even the most powerful nuclear weapons.
What you forget is that weapons are just an application of the sciences. Superior science = superior weaponry, even if the aliens haven’t bothered to “spec into” weapons research.
Capitalists are parasites who feed off of crises. Look no further than the COVID-19 pandemic, where the economy faltered and yet the ultra wealthy made record profits. These are not sane people interested in long-term sustainability, they’re egotistical psychopaths addicted to gambling, and their tokens are human lives.
It seems like you’re going down the Silicon Valley Techno-Libertarian rabbit hole, so I highly recommend looking into some Anarchist critiques of Libertarianism and reflecting a bit. This is a trap you’re stumbling into.
Name a more iconic duo than Marxists and Anarchist-erasure.
You seem to think that Anarchism is just the extreme/pure form of Libertarianism, and that it’s just about more/less government, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
I’ll acknowledge my bias upfront, I consider myself an Anarchist, so keep that in mind as you read my comment.
American Libertarianism presents itself as being about “small government,” which makes it sound appealing to people who are skeptical of authority but have a very shallow understanding of politics. In truth, it’s an ideology that holds individual property rights as superior to all others. To an American Libertarian, any infringement on their property rights is the most egregious possible violation of their freedom.
Anarchism means “without rulers.” Anarchists oppose all forms of exploitation and oppression, which is described as any arrangement in which one person or group exerts authority over another person or group, usually by force. They favor organizing society via “voluntary free association,” which is when people make decisions together on the basis of general consent. To an Anarchist, private property (as opposed to personal property, there is a distinction) is just another way for someone to exploit another, such as when a landlord collects rent.
This text explains what anarchism is pretty well.
Leftist fascism is called fascism, because the term leftist doesn’t actually mean anything but fascism and communism do.
Because the electoral college was established with the explicit purpose of giving less populated states an advantage, and that would defeat the point. A lot of my fellow Americans don’t know or don’t want to admit that the electoral college was intentionally undemocratic from the start.
Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you’re referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I’m aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about “alpha” wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study’s findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.
People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The “tragedy of the commons” is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.
If that’s something they need then that’s something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.
These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The “lie down” movement - also “let it rot” - is similar to the “quiet quitting” movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).
The technology we create takes the form of the incentives that drive its’ creation. If we create technology for the exploitation of others we shouldn’t be surprised that people use it for the exploitation of others.
Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.
Capitalism does what you’re doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.
This depends heavily on where in the US you live/work. In the more conservative rural areas racism is tolerated so long as you’re not screaming it from the rooftops or wearing it on your sleeve. I have the appearance of someone who most would assume is very conservative so people feel far too comfortable being total racist shitbags around me.