|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 05 2016 03:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 00:57 puerk wrote:
i explicitly said that free trade and globalization is not a problem, but also no solution to the real problem we are facing which is the obsolence of labor through automation that is going to happen.
You totally strawman my whole position by shifting back to globalization when i repeatedly stated that i am not talking about globalization or free trade, as those are fine by themselfs but inadequate in dealing with the comming issue that not only our workers will become obsolete because of chinese, but also chinese will become obsolete. You can only shift around so many sectors: when primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of wage labor are gone, there will be nothing left for people to earn wages to barter for food and housing.
I am not arguing for anti globalization policies but for redistribution policies of the gains being made through automation.
When labor is worthless, people have nothing to trade. You tell me they will trade, but neglect to say what.
I exist at the whims of corporations able and willing to hire me because i can help them automate away bank paralegals drafting regulatory documents for their derivatives. At a point when all work is replaced that is approaching suprisingly quickly, tell me what i have to trade for my continued existence?
Our whole society builds upon extreme levels of labour division and specialisation. We did become a complex society of millions because only a tiny minority needed to work on food, and others could build, craft, innovate, plan, transport, communicate, provide services and more....
It implicitly works, because every person in this society respects the value of the currency it uses. The trust that you will be able to buy the stuff you want with it is the reason you work for it. When your work becomes useless, you have nothing to barter to the producer of food, because he does not want your personal service, your personal talent, as those are inflexible.
We are to many, too specialized and too disconnected in our immediate needs that we can not go to a functioning barter society, without losing a majority of people in the process. Yeah, I don't really believe in infinite energy machines. Automation takes up resources. Power to keep the lights on, to keep things running. To believe that robots will eventually take over industry and we would have a society where corporations makes stuff for people who can't pay/trade for that stuff is very very weird. When humans have been replaced by automation, and the automation is making (whatever it is they make), who are those automations making it for? Each other? The company that's running them? For what gain? Yes, right now you're working for a company who is automating away a section of their work force. Does that mean 100% of all companies are automating? And if you honestly believe that 100% of companies are doing so, if you honestly believe you'll be made obsolete during a specific period of your lifetime--why not prepare? Why not start learning, practicing, saving, adapting. Its not an on/off switch. You either believe you're being made obsolete (and so prepare) or you don't actually believe you're being made obsolete and would rather just whine about it. People are resilient. No matter how shitty the circumstance people are resilient. If they believe, if you honestly believe that what you are doing is pointless and has no future--absolutely ZERO things is stopping you from changing course. The only reason you believe you're stuck, why you believe there is no way out is you do not want to change your standard of living, you do not want to change the way you're going.
As a single person i can do nothing to prevent the coming obsolesence of my work.
But i can lobby and vote for a basic income guarantee to distribute the gains and stabilize society for future shocks to come.
I am saving but i will by my current outset not reach "owner"-class quick enough, as kwark proposes as a way for everyone to have part of the pie.
People are not that resilient, humanity is resilient, but individual humans suffer and die all the fucking time.
The story is not heroic as you make it out to be, where everyone is a super adaptable survivor that can live of the land if he just wants it hard enough, never mind the millions of other people with their own survival instinct around him........
Totally not a recipe for violent disaster.
|
|
|
So, there is no actual police at "events" like this?
|
Wild Trump supporters, am I right?
|
On September 05 2016 05:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/kuZcx2zEo4k
I thought there was a lawsuit going that was supposed to prevent them from working there until it was resolved. Had that been cleared up already?
Edit:On September 05 2016 06:25 Sermokala wrote:
This isn't the xl pipeline its a local water pipeline that the protesters trespassed and chased away the workforce.
Ah, ok. I did notice that they seemed to cross the line first before any retaliation by the security force occurred.
|
On September 05 2016 06:12 a_flayer wrote:I thought there was a lawsuit going that was supposed to prevent them from working there until it was resolved. Had that been cleared up already?
This isn't the xl pipeline its a local water pipeline that the protesters trespassed and chased away the workforce.
|
Canada11354 Posts
On September 05 2016 03:25 Nevuk wrote:
I really don't see the upside, Kissinger's endorsement would just annoy people who support her and the people who don't aren't going to care.
Yeah I don't get this move. I understand trying to win over current Republicans because the Bush side of the Republicans is appalled with Trump. But what do you gain with Kissinger? In the past I only recall Democrats speaking ill of Kissinger and I don't think he gains much with teetering Republicans because the Kissinger era seems more from a bygone time. Is it to shore up Foreign Policy credentials? If her own record isn't sufficient, Kissinger really isn't the guy I would bring in as back up.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It seems mostly like a way to explicitly say "fuck you" to Bernie Sanders supporters.
|
United States42775 Posts
I assumed she was angling to create a broader centrist platform that includes disaffected Republicans who are mad as hell about the current direction while at the same time winning the left by default because seriously who the fuck is going to vote Trump.
|
On September 05 2016 03:33 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way. What I'm waiting to see is how Hillary supporters here go about processing it. Is Hillary seeking the endorsement of a despicable person (makes david duke look like a boy scout), or is the koolaid so strong that now that Hillary wants his support, Kissinger isn't such a bad guy any more? After beating Bernie Sanders, Hillary has basically been running on a platform of "I'll do as I wish and I refuse to change a damn thing." That's the main reason I said earlier that Trump is a danger in that he gives Hillary the boldness to do as she pleases and just use the "but Trump" line. It's a dilemma and a coerced choice to be sure. The Hillary consensus is hurting democracy. Is Hillary actually more fascist than Trump??
Why don't you want a popular consensus? Or are you saying that there's something wrong with the current Clinton Third Way consensus?
|
Didn't you read that Zizek editorial I posted?
The message of this consensus to the Left is: You can get everything, we just want to keep the essentials, the unencumbered functioning of the global capital. With this frame, President Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!” acquires a new meaning: Yes, we can concede to all your cultural demands, without endangering the global market economy—so there is no need for radical economic measures. Or, as University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan put it (in a private communication to me): “The consensus of ‘right-thinking people’ opposed to Trump is frightening. It is as if his excess licenses the real global capitalist consensus to emerge and to congratulate themselves on their openness.”
This is why WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is right in his crusade against Clinton, and the liberals who criticize him for attacking her, the only person who can save us from Trump, are wrong: The thing to attack and undermine now is precisely this democratic consensus against the villain.
|
|
|
On September 05 2016 04:42 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 05 2016 00:57 puerk wrote:
i explicitly said that free trade and globalization is not a problem, but also no solution to the real problem we are facing which is the obsolence of labor through automation that is going to happen.
You totally strawman my whole position by shifting back to globalization when i repeatedly stated that i am not talking about globalization or free trade, as those are fine by themselfs but inadequate in dealing with the comming issue that not only our workers will become obsolete because of chinese, but also chinese will become obsolete. You can only shift around so many sectors: when primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of wage labor are gone, there will be nothing left for people to earn wages to barter for food and housing.
I am not arguing for anti globalization policies but for redistribution policies of the gains being made through automation.
When labor is worthless, people have nothing to trade. You tell me they will trade, but neglect to say what.
I exist at the whims of corporations able and willing to hire me because i can help them automate away bank paralegals drafting regulatory documents for their derivatives. At a point when all work is replaced that is approaching suprisingly quickly, tell me what i have to trade for my continued existence?
Our whole society builds upon extreme levels of labour division and specialisation. We did become a complex society of millions because only a tiny minority needed to work on food, and others could build, craft, innovate, plan, transport, communicate, provide services and more....
It implicitly works, because every person in this society respects the value of the currency it uses. The trust that you will be able to buy the stuff you want with it is the reason you work for it. When your work becomes useless, you have nothing to barter to the producer of food, because he does not want your personal service, your personal talent, as those are inflexible.
We are to many, too specialized and too disconnected in our immediate needs that we can not go to a functioning barter society, without losing a majority of people in the process. Yeah, I don't really believe in infinite energy machines. Automation takes up resources. Power to keep the lights on, to keep things running. To believe that robots will eventually take over industry and we would have a society where corporations makes stuff for people who can't pay/trade for that stuff is very very weird. When humans have been replaced by automation, and the automation is making (whatever it is they make), who are those automations making it for? Each other? The company that's running them? For what gain? Yes, right now you're working for a company who is automating away a section of their work force. Does that mean 100% of all companies are automating? And if you honestly believe that 100% of companies are doing so, if you honestly believe you'll be made obsolete during a specific period of your lifetime--why not prepare? Why not start learning, practicing, saving, adapting. Its not an on/off switch. You either believe you're being made obsolete (and so prepare) or you don't actually believe you're being made obsolete and would rather just whine about it. People are resilient. No matter how shitty the circumstance people are resilient. If they believe, if you honestly believe that what you are doing is pointless and has no future--absolutely ZERO things is stopping you from changing course. The only reason you believe you're stuck, why you believe there is no way out is you do not want to change your standard of living, you do not want to change the way you're going. As a single person i can do nothing to prevent the coming obsolesence of my work. But i can lobby and vote for a basic income guarantee to distribute the gains and stabilize society for future shocks to come. I am saving but i will by my current outset not reach "owner"-class quick enough, as kwark proposes as a way for everyone to have part of the pie. People are not that resilient, humanity is resilient, but individual humans suffer and die all the fucking time. The story is not heroic as you make it out to be, where everyone is a super adaptable survivor that can live of the land if he just wants it hard enough, never mind the millions of other people with their own survival instinct around him........ Totally not a recipe for violent disaster.
The fact that you think the only way to progress is to reach owner status is the reason you don't understand what I am saying. Trying to measure yourself by the measurements of the system you disagree with does nothing but enforce your disagreement of the system. If you disagree with the current system and believe that it leads to doom--get off of it. If you believe it will lead to your death--stop being part of it. Start from scratch if you have to. Go back to school, move to a different country, shift to a different industry. It will be hard, and most people will fail--as is true for everywhere else in the fucking world that isn't US or EU--and even there its much the same.
In the Philippines right now, almost 2000 vigilante killings has happened because the public disagreed with the system's policy on drugs. Is it right? Is it wrong? Doesn't matter--it's what happened. People either adapt to a system, or revolt against it. It happened in Russia, it happened in China, it happens fucking everywhere. If you dislike it because you, yourself, feel that its too hard to walk away from the life you lead that you already believe leads to your doom--that is you're flaws not the system's flaws.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 05 2016 07:17 IgnE wrote:Didn't you read that Zizek editorial I posted? Show nested quote +The message of this consensus to the Left is: You can get everything, we just want to keep the essentials, the unencumbered functioning of the global capital. With this frame, President Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!” acquires a new meaning: Yes, we can concede to all your cultural demands, without endangering the global market economy—so there is no need for radical economic measures. Or, as University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan put it (in a private communication to me): “The consensus of ‘right-thinking people’ opposed to Trump is frightening. It is as if his excess licenses the real global capitalist consensus to emerge and to congratulate themselves on their openness.”
This is why WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is right in his crusade against Clinton, and the liberals who criticize him for attacking her, the only person who can save us from Trump, are wrong: The thing to attack and undermine now is precisely this democratic consensus against the villain.
That's sort of what a lot of people have been saying. But I really don't think this election is really one in which there is a good chance of meaningful change, so it's probably best just to wait a while longer. Both parties chose to act like inflexible goons and now we're stuck with two candidates that very few people actually like.
|
On September 05 2016 03:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:33 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way. What I'm waiting to see is how Hillary supporters here go about processing it. Is Hillary seeking the endorsement of a despicable person (makes david duke look like a boy scout), or is the koolaid so strong that now that Hillary wants his support, Kissinger isn't such a bad guy any more? After beating Bernie Sanders, Hillary has basically been running on a platform of "I'll do as I wish and I refuse to change a damn thing." That's the main reason I said earlier that Trump is a danger in that he gives Hillary the boldness to do as she pleases and just use the "but Trump" line. It's a dilemma and a coerced choice to be sure. The Hillary consensus is hurting democracy. Is Hillary actually more fascist than Trump?? It's not just because of Hillary, the left wing generally is an unself-critical blob right now compared to the contentious assemblage of factions that is the right wing.
It's not just the left right now. The blob is expanding rapidly (and may continue to expand rapidly) as they leverage "what should I say about Trump" to win kudos from the media and supporters both without saying a word about policy.
There are plenty of Republicans that are getting huge group hugs and their flaws ignored based upon tossing a few anti-Trump words in the mix. Just look at Kasich's transformation-he managed to sell himself as a Huntsman "moderate everyone should love" and people lapped it up when he's anything but.
Not enough to win him much of anything, but enough to boost his image.
|
On September 05 2016 07:17 IgnE wrote:Didn't you read that Zizek editorial I posted? Show nested quote +The message of this consensus to the Left is: You can get everything, we just want to keep the essentials, the unencumbered functioning of the global capital. With this frame, President Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!” acquires a new meaning: Yes, we can concede to all your cultural demands, without endangering the global market economy—so there is no need for radical economic measures. Or, as University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan put it (in a private communication to me): “The consensus of ‘right-thinking people’ opposed to Trump is frightening. It is as if his excess licenses the real global capitalist consensus to emerge and to congratulate themselves on their openness.”
This is why WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is right in his crusade against Clinton, and the liberals who criticize him for attacking her, the only person who can save us from Trump, are wrong: The thing to attack and undermine now is precisely this democratic consensus against the villain.
I did, and I thought it was interesting. I wasn't sure of the extent to which you agreed with it, though.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 05 2016 07:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:33 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way. What I'm waiting to see is how Hillary supporters here go about processing it. Is Hillary seeking the endorsement of a despicable person (makes david duke look like a boy scout), or is the koolaid so strong that now that Hillary wants his support, Kissinger isn't such a bad guy any more? After beating Bernie Sanders, Hillary has basically been running on a platform of "I'll do as I wish and I refuse to change a damn thing." That's the main reason I said earlier that Trump is a danger in that he gives Hillary the boldness to do as she pleases and just use the "but Trump" line. It's a dilemma and a coerced choice to be sure. The Hillary consensus is hurting democracy. Is Hillary actually more fascist than Trump?? Why don't you want a popular consensus? Or are you saying that there's something wrong with the current Clinton Third Way consensus?
The consensus only really exists among the status quo fanbase, which includes many people in public office but not as big a portion of the electorate (though probably a majority of active posters in this thread). There will be a backlash - the timing just wasn't right to change the results for this election.
|
On September 05 2016 08:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 07:17 IgnE wrote:Didn't you read that Zizek editorial I posted? The message of this consensus to the Left is: You can get everything, we just want to keep the essentials, the unencumbered functioning of the global capital. With this frame, President Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!” acquires a new meaning: Yes, we can concede to all your cultural demands, without endangering the global market economy—so there is no need for radical economic measures. Or, as University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan put it (in a private communication to me): “The consensus of ‘right-thinking people’ opposed to Trump is frightening. It is as if his excess licenses the real global capitalist consensus to emerge and to congratulate themselves on their openness.”
This is why WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is right in his crusade against Clinton, and the liberals who criticize him for attacking her, the only person who can save us from Trump, are wrong: The thing to attack and undermine now is precisely this democratic consensus against the villain. I did, and I thought it was interesting. I wasn't sure of the extent to which you agreed with it, though.
Hillary is the technocratic neoliberal par excellence. She seems to have every intention of extending American imperial dominance through any means possible. The Clintons are regulars at such events as the Davos World Economic Forum, and her waffling on the TPP is all for show. Extremely unlikable but a savvy political player behind the scenes, she is the 2016 version of Richard Nixon, right down to Kissinger's influence.
But there's so much frothing at the mouth by most "progressives" opposed to Trump that they either don't care or are completely ignorant of Hillary's shortcomings. I didn't expect much this election cycle anyway, but Bernie provides a harsh contrast. As Max Horkheimer said, "He who does not wish to speak of capitalism, should also remain silent about fascism."
|
If Hillary loses her supporters will never stop blaming Sanders for it, regardless of how inaccurate that blame may be.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Bernie Sanders is smart enough to realize that to have any influence in the future, he will need Hillary to win. So he gave her a full endorsement despite the fact that she doesn't really have a platform that is particularly palatable to his supporter base.
Again, it's not really "lesser of two evils" as much as it is "the timing is wrong to make a change."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
