[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1675697731499.png ( 56.42 KB , 1454x980 , falling rate of profit wit….png )

 No.465059[View All]

Before Karl Marx wrote the political economy of capital, he was studying energy conservation laws. The tendency for the falling rate of profit is partially an expression of that.

Capitalist ideologues that are pretending that capitalism can go on for ever are basically peddling the same scam ass free energy perpetual motion devices.

In Marxist theory, the falling rate of profit is caused by the capitalist system changing the material conditions until it can no longer reproduce its existence.

Capitalism is not a perfect machine that will continue working until the profit-rate reaches zero. It will likely stall out some time before that. In this context perfect capitalism has perfect market-competition between capitalists, and all the capitalists are reinvesting 100% of their profits into new/upgraded means of production. No surplus goes into prestige projects, ruling class luxury, wars and means of political domination. All those expenses will make the system stall out earlier than the theoretical ideal of capitalism.

Marx also said that the mode of production changes once the old mode of production can no longer advance the productive forces.
That is also something that arises from statistical mechanics of thermo dynamics. In simple words low entropy increasing systems are statistically less likely to exist than systems that increase more entropy. The productive forces are really good at increasing entropy and the more advanced the better they become at increasing entropy. War is also very good at increasing entropy, so if you value peace, you value investing in developing the productive forces. It is not possible to choose a low entry path, like for example going back to agrarian society, because it will anger the gods of entropy.

Should we say it's a cooling rate of profit ?
84 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.465947

>AES20th doesn't look half-bad. Even if it had really big problems.
This is the only part I agree with. AES solved a lot of problems while engendering others. The difference being, I don't pretend like a ruling elite caste/class didn't exist. I don't pretend like the working class wasn't effectively exploited, or that their lives were some leisurely paradise of plenty.
Like I said, it was trading in a set of problems associated with bare monopoly capitalism for a set of problems (perhaps better problems) associated with bureacratic state capitalism.
>>

 No.465948

>>465946
>No contradiction there
You can have efficient bureaucracy that mostly works, it can be a useful tool.
Corporations are basically just privatized bureaucracies, but nobody screams muh burocraticness on that end, it's only when somebody suggests that this tool can be used on behalf of the working class, when they big REEEEing starts.

I get it bureaucracies are annoying to deal with, but somehow that's only recognized when the working class is the beneficiary.

>In the ideal system

I'm not suggesting that using telecommunication technology for polling labor-preferences about surplus allocation is an ideal system. Please avoid attacking a strawman caricature of my argument.
>>

 No.465950

>>465947
There are two ways to go about this.

The first is recognizing what the short-comings of previous attempts at building socialism were, and that leads down a constructive path where you can find ways to improve upon it.

The second is to just declare the Soviet system and the other type of socialisms to not be any different than capitalism, and that leads into a dead-end where you think history has ended and nothing can ever change.

Guess which way the ruling class wants you to go.
>>

 No.465951

>>465948

We were originally talking about how
>the proletariat decides how much surplus they give and what the surplus is spend on, rather than the capitalists deciding that.
You then noted that, well, actually no, it's a bureacracy that decides, but it's practically the same thing (it's not).

>Corporations are basically just privatized bureaucracies,

I think you mean corporate management, but sure.

>But nobody screams muh burocraticness on that end, it's only when somebody suggests that this tool can be used on behalf of the working class, when they big REEEEing starts.

People 'reeh' because it's a naive fantasy that never plays out that well in reality. And top heavy management structures are typically seen, even by capitalists, as inefficient from a profit-maximizing perspective.

What typically happens in the socialist context is that the bureacracy itself begins to form something of a ruling caste/class.

>I get it bureaucracies are annoying to deal with, but somehow that's only recognized when the working class is the beneficiary.

>Omg, why won't you ignore something that is an obvious flaw in my fantasy

>Please avoid attacking a strawman caricature of my argument.

I'm sorry. Did you not state that the proletariat itself decides the amount and allocation of surplus given to the state before backtracking and admitting that the state bureacracy itself decides?

>In the ideal system

>I'm not suggesting that using telecommunication technology for polling labor-preferences about surplus allocation is an ideal system. Please avoid attacking a strawman caricature of my argument.
No, I said it was a system that only exists in your imagination and thus appears to you as ideal. Please don't strawman me..
>>

 No.465952

>>465950
>There are two ways to go about this…
Agreed.
Which of the AES countries have you spent considerable time in to learn from and improve upon?
>>

 No.465955

>>465951
>originally talking about how the proletariat decides over surplus
>You then noted that, well, actually no, it's a bureacracy that decides, but it's practically the same thing (it's not).
You are mischaracterizing my point.
At a technological level that only allows for a paper based information system, the best you can achieve in terms of creating a system that lets the workers decide over surplus, is a bureaucratic system that has a very high quota of laborers in decision making positions.

If you level up the technology tree to digital information systems, you can create a much better system that allows for labor decision power over surplus to a much larger degree.

Over time the possibilities for implementing labor control over surplus are improving.
The Soviet system had some successes of realizing labor control over surplus, but also many failures.
The next attempt at this was perhaps Cyber-syn in Chile, although it was violently interrupted, you could see signs that people were making improvements on the core concepts.
There will be future attempts, and those will be able to utilize much better technology and that will probably yield much better results.

>it's a naive fantasy that never plays out that well in reality.

But It's neither naive nor a fantasy, the technical base and the core concepts are rigorously rooted in realism.
It's beyond obvious every ruling class will put a lot of ideological effort into instilling the idea that a world without them is not possible.
You are not providing a counter argument but rather are attempting to socially discredit the ideas that <surplus allocation doesn't need a ruling class.
<society doesn't need a ruling class.

You can prove me wrong, saying something that breaks with current ruling ideology, that a ruling class is inevitable and indispensable.

>And top heavy management structures are typically seen, even by capitalists, as inefficient from a profit-maximizing perspective.

Lol No
Have you looked at the gargantuan size of corporate management structures that the capitalists have build, the Soviet Union was a lean mean efficiency machine compared to that.

>What typically happens in the socialist context is that the bureacracy itself begins to form something of a ruling caste/class.

That did happen in the Soviet Union, the managerial strata and the technical intelligentsia were comparing them self's with their counter-parts in capitalist countries and they basically betrayed the soviet proletariat because they thought they'd get a better deal under capitalism. But that's a fixable problem, you can fix the political organizational mistakes that lead to poor discipline, you can fix the political system so that it negates sellouts.

>Did you not state that the proletariat itself decides the amount and allocation of surplus

Yes this can be achieved by asking people 2 questions:
<What do you want in return for the surplus ? (ask)
<How much surplus are you willing to part with ? (give)

Obviously people will tend to give you a reply that amounts to them wanting more returns than they are willing to provide surplus for. And you solve that by taking the arithmetic mean. Basically half-way between the ask and the give.

>No, I said it was a system that only exists in your imagination and thus appears to you as ideal.

Well no there have been conceptually similar systems, so there is real world precedent.
And i don't think that this system will be an ideal society, i think it will solve most of the economic problems we have now. But I have no illusions that this system will also generate new contradictions.
It'll work better than what we have now, as a step in a better direction, and then future generations can figure out where to go from there.

The point we are arguing is whether it's possible to have a better system, we're not talking about a perfect system.
>>

 No.465959

>>465955
>But It's neither naive nor a fantasy, the technical base and the core concepts are rigorously rooted in realism.
Cool. Can you point to a real world example of this in practice. Otherwise it is, by definition, a fantasy.

>But that's a fixable problem, you can fix the political organizational mistakes that lead to poor discipline, you can fix the political system so that it negates sellouts.

Example in the real world where this was done and successful.

>Yes this can be achieved by asking people 2 questions:

<What do you want in return for the surplus ? (ask)
<How much surplus are you willing to part with ? (give)
example of this from the real world?

You have a lot of great ideas. But you don't seem to be able to distinguish between ideas and practice.

And you keep avoiding any questions about you real world practical experience or qualifications. That's why I keep hammering the point that you are stuck in a fantasy world, but have no successful practice to show for it.

Here, I'll help you plan your trip to investigate AES:
https://www.airbnb.com/s/Cuba/homes?adults=1

>The point we are arguing is whether it's possible to have a better system, we're not talking about a perfect system.

Cool. Of your just concerned for creating a better system, why not settle for a system which has some plausibility and real world precedent, i.e., bureacratic state capitalism, minus all the ghey infatuation with so called workers democracy and equality?
>>

 No.465962

>>465959
Some Actually existing socialist countries like Yugoslavia were more market based, but all the others had at least some of the elements of what i'm talking about. You can find partial practical implementations, that allow you to draw conclusions from. Obviously this being a new system, you can't expect it to exist already. That would preclude the possibility for new things.

I'm not going to respond to anything personal.
I consider Politics is never personal a cardinal rule.
Because i've witnessed how liberal politics turned into a total disaster after it got personalized.

>Of your just concerned for creating a better system, why not settle for a system which has some plausibility

I think this is very plausible.
I take it as a point of ideological struggle to conceive of futures without rulers because, that hole end of history narrative and the neoliberal there is no alternative narrative. Basically there is no future for people that insist on eternal rulers in an unchanging system. It's a physical impossibility.

I don't know why you are opposed to workers democracy and economic equality.
Please make it a real criticism, not a expression of dismissal (like labeling it unrealistic or implausible)
The current ruling class does not like the idea of workers democracy or economic equality, and because of that i will just consider it ideological struggle if you only make dismissive comments.

>bureacratic state capitalism, minus workers democracy and equality?


The capitalist class (especially the imperial big bourgeoisie) is absolutist in their refusal to make any concessions, like political reforms that would include at least some representation for the interests of the rest of the population. They block any kind of wealth-redistribution that would bring down economic inequality to tolerable levels (like in post WW2 socdem systems). They won't even consider taming down the warmongering and brinkmanship.

So they basically have ruled out the possibility for any kind of improvement in material conditions of the masses, they are in fact driving towards worsening conditions for the masses.

That means realistic improvements of the situation has to be based on beating them into submission. If you go through all the trouble of making that happen, why not get rid of the possibility for something like a ruling class to exist ever again ?

There are countries like China that allow some capitalist elements, without it hindering the development of society and social outcomes too much. But you have to understand that entails following in their foot steps to make that happen, like for example when Mao did a culling for the landlords and druglords. The Chinese communists have "moderated" elite ambition for installing their own class dictatorship with an Iron-fist for roughly a century. Are you really willing to do that ?

One thing has to be clear progress in the material conditions for the masses have to become irreversible.
>>

 No.465963

You are literally retarded

Of course you don't want to get personal. As I said, you have no practical success to speak of, especially in terms of political activism, and aren't qualified to offer a opinion of reality. You're stuck in a fantasy world, and hence the practical reality of your life is in shambles and any attempts you've made at political ventures have gone nowhere. I can't even prod you into creating leftist content to improve the traffic on your leftist website. That's how incompetent you are, and why you're stuck with so much of my shitpoasting.

You can't even get a plane ticket and go for a month or two to a country like Cuba. Well, you could, if you had a slight bit on common sense and competence.

>Some Actually existing socialist countries like Yugoslavia were more market based, but all the others had at least some of the elements of what i'm talking about.

No they didn't. At best, they were bureacratic state capitalist social democracies with very little direct input from workers about how much surplus was allocated. Again, I'd say that's awesome, and in many ways an improvement upon bare capitalism, albeit with problems of its own.

>Obviously this being a new system, you can't expect it to exist already. That would preclude the possibility for new things.

Nothing is ever 'new' but always built upon more rudimentary forms. This is dialectical materialism 101 as its taught in those very state socialist countries that you claim to know so much about (while having never visited).
>I think this is very plausible.
You think a lot of things yet have nothing to show for it.
You're like a fat guy offering weight loss tips ("it's possible that you can eat tons of junk food, exercise minimally, and be trim"), or a defacto incel giving advice about women. Or like a guy claiming you learned to fight from books. It would be comical if you were being purely ironic.

>I take it as a point of ideological struggle to conceive of futures without rulers because..

Cool, so basically a mystified religion that's based on wishful thinking and not grounded in any sort of practical reality or worldly experience

>Basically there is no future for people that insist on eternal rulers in an unchanging system. It's a physical impossibility.

Admitting there will always be some form of power relations =\= insisting power relations will never change form. Assuming that there will always be a ruling class =\= believing the current ruling class will always exist. This is one of those areas where you thing you're being deep, but you kinda come across as mentally underdeveloped.

>I don't know why you are opposed to workers democracy and economic equality.

I'm generally a practical person, as opposed to believing in things that sound good. There's a reason why one of us is better travelled than the other and has more experience in a wider variety of places. It's also the same reason why one of us is probably more successful in most measures of life (though I'm guessing you could probably outlast me in a drug taking contest). Life is better when you do things that work, instead of soaking your brain in fantasy. I say this as someone who used to be fully bought into the vision of communism. Again, doing things that work based on practical experience vs doing things that sound good or to make 'an ideological point.'

>Please make it a real criticism (of workers democracy and equality)

How am I supposed to critique something that doesn't exist and never really has.
I guess, if we were to use an example like the Paris Commune or Allende's Chile, my critique would be that it got defeated rather easily.

>The capitalist class (especially the imperial big bourgeoisie) is absolutist in their refusal to make any concessions, like political reforms that would include at least some representation for the interests of the rest of the population.

This is quite hyperbolic considering that they most certainly made tons of concessions in order to placate and coopt the American working class during the 20th century.
This imperialist system has somewhat morphed into an oligarchal system in which a national labor aristocracy has been transmuted into a technocratic and managerial worker elite, but that's a whole other discussion. (And granted, I'd take my own ideas with a grain of salt on that matter).

>why not get rid of the possibility for something like a ruling class to exist ever again ?

Umm, because as a somewhat universal principle, power congeals. This is something you can attempt to mitigate and put checks on (and you should), but it's pretty retarded and childish to just assume that you can do away with any and all ruling class because you want to. (Going back to you being naive and deeply affected by dunning kruger syndrome)

>There are countries like China that allow some capitalist elements, without it hindering the development of society and social outcomes too much. But you have to understand that entails following in their foot steps to make that happen, like for example when Mao did a culling for the landlords and druglords. The Chinese communists have "moderated" elite ambition for installing their own class dictatorship with an Iron-fist for roughly a century. Are you really willing to do that ?

Minus the failed disaster that was the GPCR, ya…
I'd caution you against speaking so confidently about modern China, since I can guarantee I'm more familiar with the matter (while its painfully apparently that eating Kung Pao chicken is the closest you've coming to visiting there).

>One thing has to be clear[colon] progress in the material conditions for the masses have to become irreversible.

A fellow theory of the productive forces enthusiast, I assume… Um based..
>>

 No.465964

>>465963
No you can't bait me with insults. Politics isn't personal.

Actually existing socialist countries were not the same as social democracy, can you please refrain from overusing the equivocation bludgeon

<Workers controlling the surplus of society, isn't possible because bad dieting advice

I'm sorry , noclue what you mean

>ideological struggle is religion

no

<Basically there is no future for people that insist on eternal rulers in an unchanging system. It's a physical impossibility.

This wasn't directed at anything you said, this was a jab at ruling ideology
>Admitting there will always be some form of power relations =\= insisting power relations will never change form.
>Assuming that there will always be a ruling class =\= believing the current ruling class will always exist.
See this is why politics can't be personal, it took away your ability to consider that i was talking about a structural element of society that wasn't really related to you.

>I'm

I'm not interested in your personal live, it has no bearing on the validity of the arguments you make. If you do this, you just look like you are attempting to construct an authority fallacy.

>if we were to use an example like Allende's Chile, my critique would be that it got defeated rather easily.

That is a valid criticism, but Allende had to much of a pacifistic streak, which doesn't really relate to their economic experiment. They could have done their economics system while also ensuring that they were armed enough to put down the Pinochet coup.

>This is quite hyperbolic considering that they most certainly made tons of concessions in order to placate and coopt the American working class during the 20th century.

But they later reversed the concessions with the introduction of neo-liberalism. To what extend is this really proof of good will and willingness to compromise, rather than just clever strategic behavior ? If they had not done social democracy, they couldn't have generated enough industrial expansion and the Soviet Union would have lapped them economically and militarily. Just look at how much they can't keep up with industrial warfare against Russian state capitalism, even-though Russia has barely recovered from the shock-doctrine in the 1990s.

>ruling classes a somewhat universal principle

I think this is a strange ideological conviction of yours.
From the perspective of historical materialism, class society looks like a phase in prehistory, where societies figure out how to create higher order social organization.
Ruling classes manifest as a result of organizational errors. Once we patched all those errors, history proper begins.

The cultural Revolution was borked indeed, but please refrain from attempting to speak from authority based on self referencing personal anecdotes. It's not a valid form of argumentation, and i'm too jaded to believe any of these stories, don't take it personally.

>A fellow theory of the productive forces enthusiast, I assume… Um based..

Yes
>>

 No.465965

>>465964
take the l
>>

 No.465966

>>465965
You don't win debates with rhetorical tricks, you keep the L
>>

 No.465967

>>465966
Ya, comrade dunning kruger, you're out of your depth. I'd trust you to tell me which strains of weed are the best though.
>>

 No.465969

>>465934
If the argument for socialism is that it would be a steady state or would not grow, that's a shit argument. Living things will grow and accumulate resources. That impulse to say "growth is bad" is really saying people, or certain people, shouldn't be allowed to grow at all. Whether you should grow is a different question from wehther you will. Simply to live, humans require certain property and will accumulate the means by which they can live and be secure against predators.

"Profit" is a specific outcome of economic exchange, rather than the concept of growth itself. It is a simple reality that if you want nice things like a home, you need some energy inputs. That doesn't happen just because. Even in natural conditions, human will seek security in their environment and the means to do what they wanted to do before the state came along to raise the going price to live. It is not "profit-seeking" to gather food in nature, or manage a farm to increase its output. Profit-seeking concerns financial activity, and so deals with quantities of money, which don't line up to the qualities someone would want to extract from the world.

>>465947
This just gets to the silliness of defining communism as this unattainable ideal state where everyone lives in perfect conditions. It's a unicorn and doesn't concern the thing we wanted in the first place. Nothing the Soviet Union did was for ideology or these conceits that an intellectual has about what humanity is supposed to be. I don't see the USSR being so different from the rest of the world. Those that hold the state do not poison themselves with ideology. They were something different, and did to an extent care about socialism succeeding, but this idea that communism conforms to an impossible situation where humans are depoliticized is a wholly alien idea. It is how they treated the subjects they considered stupid.
>>

 No.465972

>>465927
Holy shit the same fag; He can't argue against me so now he is literally same faggot. That is just pathetic.
>>

 No.465978

File: 1677065046186.png ( 30.14 KB , 1000x440 , internmittentgrowth.png )

>>465969
>If the argument for socialism is that it would be a steady state or would not grow, that's a shit argument.

I think we have to design socialism so that society has the ability to control it. We might be able to continue growing for several centuries until we reach the limits of the solar system, and then we might stay at that level for a while until we can develop interstellar travel.

It's not very likely that we'll have a smooth continuous growth because we will likely have no/slow-growth waiting-periods while new sciences gets discovered and new technology gets developed.
>>

 No.465980

>>465978
Hold up - if socialism is a situation alien to "society", what exactly is the point of a revolution, except to switch one set of bosses for another? The ecological concern is inherently in favor of an aristocracy, rather than any genuine resource limitation. If you want to speak of the actual "limits to growth", you're speaking of a human population in the hundreds of billions. Just from what exists now, you could easily fit 20 billion people without changing much. We produce a shit ton of food and could produce more if there were a market for it. We've become so efficient at agriculture that a lot of land is left fallow.
In any event, depopulation and family planning likely lead to population reduction, and we are locked in for severe depopulation for the next two generations. It's gone on for too long. I don't know what world you live in where population growth is out of control. Everywhere in the world, the people are defeated. Who can have children in a world like this?

Never mind that "outer limits of the solar system" would take centuries simply to reach, let alone develop every planet. Human spaceflight can't get anything out of low Earth orbit, and couldn't find a compelling reason to go beyond that. I don't expect humans to build any offworld colonies for several centuries. It is politically impossible, because any colony would not be a thing that Earthbound states could control. It is the lack of control that really stops anyone from contemplating deep space missions. Either the colony will be made dependent and thus it will never be particularly productive and needs to be resupplied at cost to Earth, or the colony will have enough independence and Earth gets orbitally bombarded while the rebels already built underground bunkers and have the advantage of not escaping Earth's gravity well. Maybe the colonies could play nice, but they would have no reason to, and the would-be "cosmists" already made it clear they consider themselves a different species from the rest of humanity. You already see this splitting of humanity into two camps become a split in the species. One way to depopulation is simply to say who is actually "human" and who is cattle. A false equality is maintained by the cajolers even though everything the new aristocracy wants has been thrown at us like an anvil dropped from high in the sky. Eventually that turns on itself and the dispossessed and the damned have no more reason to pretend there can be reconciliation. We've already passed the point of no return on that - no one can ever trust the scientists again after what they did in 2020.
>>

 No.465983

>>465980
>Hold up - if socialism is a situation alien to "society"
>what exactly is the point of a revolution, except to switch one set of bosses for another?
What ? That's your take away from intermittent growth.
How ?

Marx said we are living in pre-history, where
<"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please"
Capitalism goes through phases of growth, stagnation and decline, according to the crisis cycle of capitalism, people have no control they are just along for the ride.

Socialism marks the beginning of history-proper when humanity takes fate in to their own hands, that's what's meant with society being able to control growth.

>The ecological concern is inherently in favor of an aristocracy, rather than any genuine resource limitation. If you want to speak of the actual "limits to growth", you're speaking of a human population in the hundreds of billions.

I literally said that we had centuries of growth before we level off.
Earth has a carrying capacity of close to a trillion people.
The solar system with a Dyson swarm might be roughly 4 quadrillion.

Regardless of that we still have to put in the growth-rate-dial, even if it's not relevant for another 20 generations. We can't be as reckless as capitalists, and create a system with hard-coded tendencies that takes away the agency from our descendants.

My intent is to do better at future-proofing the system and avoid fucking over future generations.

This has nothing to do with aristocratic malthusianism, and i don't understand why you think it does.
>>

 No.465985

>>465983
>Marx said…
Hallelujah!
>>

 No.465986

>>465983
That's a cute dodge you have, saying "oh, it's totally distant in the future and you don't have to worry about it, but still, you can't have infinite growth in a finite world! remember!" That's not the point - saying the world has a finite amount of resources is a trivial statement unless you're Maupin-tier bullshitting. If you are constraining people "for their own good", you're just invoking the old greater good excuse rulers have always used. If there is an actual resource shortfall, people tend to be aware of that. The capitalists themselves are aware of that - that is why they invented the ecological excuse and always raise arguments that capitalism is necessary because of scarcity. The "scarcity" in question is purely a matter of placing a premium price on security and survival, which is intended to be unpayable. The shrinking of the wage fund is deliberate - that is the overall obsession of those who rule. Did you think the capitalists wanted you to be paid anything more than the bare minimum? The capitalist does not raise wages out of the kindness of his heart. It's funny how people talk about the immortal profit motive, and then insert an assumption that capitalists really want to raise your wages and living conditions and they're totally trying. It's funny how that works.

To make this clear - today, we are already in conditions of abundance, or could produce the means of survival for 8 billion people without great difficulty. The greatest cost to everyone is the threat posed by other humans. Providing food and energy is an almost trivial problem if it were merely a resource allocation problem, given the resources, industry, technology, and so on available in 2020. It is so trivial that despite the effort to push depopulation, and to deliberately make goods scarce, it is nearly impossible to constrain the interest of people to get what they originally wanted out of society. The great cost is that someone is there to take away the thing that was easy to produce. That's what enclosure is, and ecology is a narrative for enclosing the world and its natural resources. That's why you see fears of a water shortage and commodification of rainfall and air. There wouldn't be a water shortage if there were any interest in building the desalination plants and paying the energy costs. But hey, we have all the energy to run data centers so people can watch their favorite Twitch streamers! Right…

If you have to invent an ecological pretext and then say people are inherently too stupid to see the world, you're a fake. If you do have an actual resource shortage, and you are operating a planned economy with democratic input, then most people will be aware of what is produced, the nature of the global economy, and will have an awareness of the environment. They can decide for themselves if there is in fact an ecological crisis. All evidence today is that there is no such crisis, and the ecological narrative has always been pushed by dishonest actors. The difficulty so far as it exists is purely in the choices the commanding heights make, which is to deprive people specifically of those qualities that allow life to be tolerable. They will allow you endless prolefeed and shit, but they will place a premium on the price of fixing a broken leg or anything to repair heart disease. They don't want a cure for heart disease, which we possess already, because that would prolong the life of people they want to remove from society. The people who they actually want to keep don't have to go through the rigamarole of waiting for a heart transplant, and if there were any sort of desire to solve the problem once and for all, artificial hearts would have been engineered by now. Very likely they exist, but only for people who are in the know.

I don't know how anyone after 2020 is still convinced that the ruling class doesn't seek depopulation. They talk about it all the time and have done so since the 1990s. I grew up around this shit and heard the true believers proclaim they will choose who lives and who dies. It's been madness to see the left encourage this, out of some mistaken belief that the Boogaloo will totally happen and bring the revolution. The worse the condition of the people, the stronger the hand of those who rule. Certain idiots built a narrative that the key to revolution is to make the poor suffer as much as possible, and this is the exact opposite of what you would want.

If you go to the majority of people in the world, and if you follow what remains of a genuinely socialist force in the world, they are horrified at what is happening and have been for some time now. That's where your revolution is - in defending the basic shit that certain of the rulers want to take away. That's how the Bolsheviks are able to win - they were one of the few who were stridently opposed to the war with Germany and willing to break the alliance. They didn't promise to make life worse. They promised to end the war, redistribute land, and not be slaves to the imperial system which is what the liberals in Russia wanted. The Bolsheviks didn't scheme to engineer a war or suggest that the war is a good thing. The war happening was the worst thing for international socialism or any sort of force for world peace. If someone knocked some sense into the Krauts and made it clear that starting this shit was going to lock the world in incessant warfare for at least two centuries, we'd all be spared this bullshit. Because these screaming warmonger idiots don't know who their betters are and decided to throw away the world for their stupid reactionary cause, we're made to suffer. It would have been better if Germany were dismantled then and there. The dumb fucks made war into their religion and sold this extremely reactionary model for the state that has never fucking worked, preventing us from having a society worth living in. They'd rather marvel at some shitty uniforms and revel in faggotry. Of course, you can't blame one race for all the problems, but encouraging their faggotry is the worst thing you can do, and we have a lot of this poison in the world. Cheering on another such conflagration is about the worst thing you can do in the 21st century, which is exactly why the Ziggers want to push their fake narrative. It is even more pointless now than it was back then, and the same people have always wanted to cause war wherever they go. That's their eternal cope for being a loser race with a stupid philosophy, and they keep trying the same shit ad nauseum. It's dumb and it's been enabled for far too long. Anyway, obligatory anti-German racism time over for now…
>>

 No.465987

>>465983
So the real problem isn't that there's a resource shortage, but that we live in a society that revels in lying about everything and lies for the sake of lying. If not for the rampant lying, it would be clear that the current rulers are not only unnecessary but they are the only thing holding us back from the thing we wanted, and if we just got rid of those fuckers, we'd be in a much better world. You're left with a problem of what to do when they're gone, and this gets into the great problem of human politics - that is, that the same sort of people insinuate themselves across regimes. The only check against that is vigilance from the countervailing force, which is why you see a value placed on freedom in a genuine sense. The imperious idiots who want to cajole and lie are the enemies of the people. If you're on the side of the people, you're not a cajoler and you don't need to resort to such rampant levels of lying. It is difficult to hold to that because the enemy has no compunction about lying, and grasping the method of their big lie requires someone to acknowledge certain truths about the human project that make the quest for socialism problematic to say the least. You're back to the push for democracy in a real sense, which the world has never really known and which has become politically impossible as an idea with currency. Realistically, democracy of the republican type is a farce and always has been.

I've said before, those who rule do not fear a revolution or a conspiratorial party. That's how they came to power, so it's in their wheelhouse. What they truly fear is a Caesar who has no reason to play ball with the ruling system, who is able to rally the mob by going to the people and possessing the personal virtue to up-end the republican myth where everyone marches in lockstep to keep the system and thought-form going. That would be the thing that undoes this, and it would be a very horrible thing - but at this point it is probably the only thing that would change the situation. How someone would go about that today is the great question, but it will happen in one way or another.
>>

 No.465991

>>465987
Unfortunately, Trump was too much of a grifting faggot to cross the Rubicon
>>

 No.465992

>>465991
Trump was a way of disengaging people from the idea that such a thing is possible. You were expected to look at the spectacle and hate the idea of letting people vote for anything. The real power would not be any elected office, but the men behind the curtain. It's not a matter of if but when, and when it happens, it won't be the sort of spectacle with fake opposition. Such a figure today would be able to build a machine to get everyone to go along with him or else. He would most likely be a guy deep in the CIA world, rather than someone "outside the system". You'd see him when the winners of the race to the top consolidate around one man, and the losers cope about how they're actually "the best" and try to stop him for real. It won't work, and such a man would remember the Ides of March and not let that happen.

Basically imagine if Bootygay had any actual charisma and suddenly had all the big money going to him. Guy had some serious cult leader energy when he was running in 2020, and it was weird how this guy was promoted… then again they did the same with Obama, bringing a guy who was largely unknown before 2008 and making a cult around him. Obama was a team player through and through, but I could totally see Bootygay possessing Roman Emperor vibes.
>>

 No.465996

>>465986
this post >>465983 talks about whether or not you set up an economic system that's like a bolder rolling down a mountain, that once it's set in motion it's impossible to stop and incredibly hard to steer, and it will keep going until it exhausted all its momentum.

You talk about something else entirely.

I do agree with a lot of it, it does appear that the ruling class is genuinely pushing towards outcomes that will make survival harder and get many people killed. While it is true that subjecting people to bad condition can be a tool for suppressing a population in some situations. Tho I'm not convinced that it will secure their position , because it is going to make the demographic decline worse and create a wicked labor shortage, that will cause a resurgence of working class power. So what they are doing is brutalizing a workforce before they are regaining their political power. That doesn't appear to be particularly wise if you ask me.
>>

 No.465997

>>465987
>So the real problem isn't that there's a resource shortage
I have something to add to this.
I think that you can't have a resource shortage until your productive forces can do matter-energy conversion and fabrication at a molecular level.

Before you reach that level of technical proficiency, problems that appear as a lack in resources usually can be fixed with more advanced technology. For example you can't have an oil-shortage if your society has mastered fusionpower. However for a society that hasn't mastered such technology, a lack in fusion-power may appear as a shortage of oil.
>>

 No.465999

>>465996
How does lots of dead workers + an apparatus to liquidate those who survive, populated by screaming death cult fanatics = workers have a stronger position? It has long been understood that the strength of the workers is their numerical superiority and the resources they bring to bear - their bodies. Access to machines can be revoked at any time if any worker is considered a potential trouble source, but actually killing many millions of people, who are ostensibly of your own nation, is not an easy task. The subordinated classes do not have any good reason to turn on each other, and a sense that if an open democide is the organizing principle of human society, they are likely to be next no matter what promises they are given that they're in the know and in the group selected to live. That has been one of the greatest barriers to depopulation - that even the groups selected to live have a sense that this operation is grotesque and not truly in their interest. The great numbers of workers are of little consequence to most people of the middle or upper classes, because many of the upper classes did not have a personal vendetta against the lower classes, and the lower classes are deferential to a fault to their social superiors. All of this depopulation agenda is driven by certain middle and upper class elements that are driven by ideology and a particular ethos, rather than any true incentive for it. Ideology and institutions can perpetuate the cycle of death, but none of this depopulation death and the torture involved is actually helpful or beneficial. It doesn't make us better in any way, and the ideas of depopulation have to invent insane and self-contradictory moral and ethical codes just to get their loyal officers to lock ranks with the program. The middle and upper classes already secured their property against any lower class incursion - the lower classes simply didn't want to seize the property of the rich, because that wasn't really the concern of the lower classes. What the lower classes wanted was not to rule, but to be able to live their life. Actually ruling is difficult because politics, as you might have figured out, is not easy and it is not a sport that weak men can play. That is one problem with making the whole economic system a political matter down to the smallest detail; and that is why in practice, a socialist society would not indulge in obsessive micromanagement, but would mitigate the worst of it. The political struggle largely concerns the oligarchic concentration of wealth, which is predicated on denying to the subordinated classes exactly that which would allow them to live and be secure. It is not that the oligarchy takes literally everything or they're concerned with the paper money. The oligarchy knows that the way to control the subordinated groups is to make them dependent on institutions controlled by the oligarchy, and threaten to remove their means of survival if they offend the oligarchy by merely existing or not conforming to what the oligarchy wants. That means that it is precisely that which workers truly need that is denied to them. They can have however much garbage they want, so long as they don't have quality of life that would allow them to escape the oligarchs. The lower classes simply want that apparatus gone, and they don't care how it is done.

It should be noted that this depopulation isn't done by a tiny cabal that is super-secret. The drive for depopulation has a base supporting it that is class collaborationist. It is not a particularly large conspiracy, and the drivers of the conspiracy - the leaders giving the thumbs-up saying this torture and death is approved - are a small group selected as the vanguard for this task. Many of the people enthusiastically going along with depopulation and eugenics are habitual followers and the shittiest sort of people, who have always found some pretext to attack other people to get ahead. Eugenics selected those people for advancement, and encourages that behavior among people who would see that eugenics does nothing for them. How this is done is a complicated story, but eugenics is able to prevail because of institutional approval, and because it is basically illegal to oppose eugenics in any way that would truly impede its progress and its invasion of private life. Those who truly are oppositional to the system are neutralized or othered, because meaningful opposition to eugenics would run against political principles that are active today, that are not reducible to simply an idea. Meaningful opposition to eugenics would entail something new is possible, and the framework of acceptable ideas was designed specifically so that this alternative is never allowed independence or a way to assert demands in the slightest. You are allowed fake rebellion, even fake revolution, but you are not allowed to actually defend yourself, and if you show signs that you will defend yourself regardless of permission, you will be attacked and isolated. The first thing eugenics did was enforce discipline among the classes that would be tasked with the eugenic doctrine, and even if someone was opposed, there are not that many who will throw away their lives for the residuum, especially when many in the residuum are the Judas goats of their race and among the most faithful soldiers for eugenics.

For us, depopulation is encouraged by those who hold the money. You might oppose depopulation, but you're given a story that varies depending on what class you belong to and the interests where you are vulnerable. For the rich and the scientific elite, they style themselves as the rightful stewards of the land in one way or another. For the politicians, they aspire to power in cut-throat competition with each other, in a vain effort to be the leading man or woman in the world. For the workers who are slightly favored, they are told that "they're taking our jobs", as if the jobs were a precious resource to be rationed out. For the lowest classes, the race for crumbs and the celebration of bumfighting is the only life they're told they're allowed to have, and maximum degeneracy is the order of the day. The lumpenized residuum, as mentioned, is seeded with faithful soldiers for eugenics, as many of them are easily influenced and have no principles. If such people are not found organically, trained liars are seeded among the lumpen to goad them into action. This was done to ensure, for example, black gangs would fight each other over the stupidest shit, and drugs would be used as a pretext to heighten the shittiness. If there weren't enough takers among the urban black proles, some asshole in a suit would give the hint and bring some fuckers who are the lowest of the low, and push money around to induce the necessary competition. Eventually, whatever solidarity exists will break, and this was supported by certain white liberals who wanted to see the inner cities turn into cesspits, because that comported with their moral philosophy. Amplifying the death cult from Reagan onward was a new project, and one that could not be done until the time it happened - and make no mistake, the hardliners who imbibe that ideology are basically Satanic and there's no changing them. I've seen people who get into that mindset and it really is beyond the pale. In all cases, men attached to ample pay are tasked with advancing depopulation and given virtually unlimited money to pursue it, while the honest struggle to continue doing anything, because the oligarchs don't want to reward productivity or even sound distribution of the product. The entire point is depopulation, and the economic incentives are set up to reward only that which aids depopulation. That is why the tech sector is boosted - it grants to the oligarchs the machinery it needs to truly suppress a large population, to make the conditions of eugenics fully real and enforceable. This also required time for the eugenic creed to percolate, after a few generations were taught nothing but eugenics and their education was stripped of any historical knowledge of a time before eugenics.

Anyway, capitalism wasn't exactly a planned system that was implemented atop a blank slate. The existence of a middle class was a condition the rulers had to accept, not something they chose. Captialism has been described as a Jewish money making scheme for a reason - the free trade mentality doesn't work towards strengthening the middle class, but encouraging the middle class to fork over their money to stocks, which included the trading companies that really did the work of making capitalism a force in the world. Capitalism isn't premised foundationally on a desire for economic growth. From the start, Malthus wants depopulation and says the poor breed too much, and this is a common aristocratic sentiment. That runs contra to any desire for economic growth. The growth of the system as a whole is less important than what that system does for those who command it. Economic growth was desired only so far as it allowed for industrialization and competition of empires on the world stage. Economic growth was not about making the middle class happier, but because the middle class was invested in these operations, they were going to demand a pay-off for their investment. Some would win, many would lose, and some of the middle class were concerned not with the growth of the system but with ulterior motives. Those who win do not have any solidarity with those who lose, and the same is true within every class.
>>

 No.466000

>>465997
The abundance does not require any new technology. We already possess abundance, and certainly no shortage of labor if there are way too many people. It's not a matter of building new technology that is mysterious and inaccessible. We know we're being screwed and denied basic things, and the rich and those in the know hoodwink and laugh at us because we're forced at gunpoint to accept being shit on like this. Everything about state schooling, especially the social engineering from post-1945 on, has been a direct assault on any basic decency we might have held on to. During the 1990s I'm wondering why the kids aren't ready to riot, because they had to realize that death was coming for them. I suppose many of them believed they would totally win, and enough of them were in the know and were always committed to the creed. The true faithful are raised with that ideology and it is drilled into them in the gifted programs. They don't have any other belief and they brag that they're the only ones who are actually human, while the others are just lumpen. I know exactly how they think because they don't fucking shut up about how great they are.

We don't have a resource shortage now. The people in Africa have known that for decades, and will say this to anyone who is passing by - that the African people are not beggars asking to be uplifted, and that the aid money is just siphoned to some warlord, which is of course the intent of such "charity" from the Empire. We certainly know in America that there is no resource shortage. Countries with resource shortages don't spend inordinate wealth paying for death squads or pay someone six, sometimes seven figures purely so they can tell us how to hate poor people correctly. Countries with resource limitations don't pay athletes millions of dollars for playing sportsball to give the lumpenized masses some prolefeed. We see the services available, then stripped away because the wage fund is slashed over and over again; and as we do, we see a class of murdering murderers elevated and praised and told how great they are, while the honest are humiliated day in and dsy out, and the thrill of seeing the "retards" suffer is everything. After what was done in the 1990s, I knew there was no going back. If I could go back, I would tell 8 year old me to end his life because it really is never going to get better. He already knew it wasn't going to get better, but he let himself hope that something could be different, and that the world could change. The world certainly can change, but people never change. Once they commit to eugenics, they're gone for life. Those who knew what side of the war they were on early are the winners today, until they get got - and when they get got, they never renounce eugenics. They know better than to do that - once eugenist, always eugenist. It's the Hitler Youth of today, and they would have blooded themselves to stay where they are. So did the scum of the residuum who enabled it, often under the threat that if they didn't they'd be relegated to "retarded" treatment. They usually wound up being called retards anyway for all their trouble, but animals are trained to act in certain ways, and they followed their programming.

I really wish people would stop thinking we need some fancy new technology to solve our problems, when the nature of the problem has always been political will and the existence of this predatory ethos. To do that, though, requires going against the moral philosophy of the eugenic creed, and that is no longer admissible in any serious sense. We can say how stupid eugenics is, but we aren't allowed to envision a world where this doesn't happen, because that would necessitate rooting out all of the eugenists and likely exterminating them before they exterminate us. You're not going to reason with people who are blooded and committed to maximal torture on phliosophical grounds, then confirm their commitment to the cause by oaths and secret pacts made with those in the know. It's crazy to expect the Satan to be anything else, and a decent number of these people really are Satanic - like, when they're around the right people, they drop the mask and brag that they're going to win, and that the honest are retards who exist to be raped. They drop mask with me because they know I can't fight back, and if I try it's just dismissed as "retarded, retarded, retarded". Me fighting back publicly just strengthens the hand of the creed, and that's exactly how they engineered society. Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death.
>>

 No.466001

>>465997
Also, oil is the second most abundant liquid on the Earth. Even without speculating for new wells, we have considerable known reserves that aren't extracted because it is not cost-effective to do so. The constraint on productivity is also a constraint on energy use. If you know where the oil reserves are, you want to sit on that monopoly for as long as possible and not let anyone else in on the oil business. Of course, even if everyone got cheap oil or an abundant supply of it, oil isn't terribly useful to people except for what it does for transportation. The oil expenditure per civilian is very low, especially when they don't possess cars, and more Americans will not own cars. They're completely unaffordable for the working class, and the only thing left are very old used cars.

So the "energy crisis" is another myth, as is this idea that we need to build wind farms everywhere. But, oil would likely be phased out because there are alternative power sources that are cheaper. The overall objective is to deprive the people of the power grid, and to make the power grid a servant of the oligarchy. They don't want to remove electricity entirely - they need their surveillance equipment - but they would pass laws making it effectively illegal to use energy for anything other than oligarchy-approved purposes, citing "ecological concerns" unless you could prove your energy use and existence was "socially useful" - i.e., in line with eugenics.
>>

 No.466020

>>466001
Literal nonsense. Oil is decomposed organic matter that forms into crude oil under very specific conditions. It is a finite resource and although the total reserves maybe large, the amount of 'conventional oil' or petroleum grade oil is what is important for cars and is very limited. Oil is classified according to its API-gravity score, the important grades are the ones used for cars, and trucks. Once the oil that is used in those things run out its over for the modern world as you won't be able to run your tractors in the farms. The ERORI is the only number that matters when talking about peak oil. Once its too expensive to pump it out of the well, most of the world won't have cars.

Fusion energy is a scam. Fusion requires extremely rare Tritium, and hence people wish to substitute it with Lithium, but Lithium is also a finite resource. This isn't an engineering problem, its a physics and supply problem which won't go away. Fusion is a pipe dream.
>>

 No.466022

File: 1677145101148.jpg ( 66.33 KB , 805x371 , political economy of labou….jpg )

>>465999
demographic changes will bring back the political economy of labor power
>>

 No.466025

File: 1677147736122.png ( 94.02 KB , 220x220 , big ball of fusion.png )

>>466020
>Fusion energy is a scam.
No it isn't we already get most of our energy from it.

>Fusion requires extremely rare Tritium, and hence people wish to substitute it with Lithium, but Lithium is also a finite resource.

At present it is indeed easier and perhaps more rational to build nuclear fission reactors, however breeding Tritium from lithium blankets is not a big deal, and it does not use much lithium at all. Any given energy production technique only is a step towards a more advanced technology. Down the line we probably would build more advanced fusion that doesn't use tritium. (Deuterium-Tritium) D-T fusion is the easiest to build, it would allow us to massively expand our industrial capacity and with that we could go for D-D Fusion and eventually even fuse regular hydrogen like the sun.
>>

 No.466030

>>466025
>No it isn't we already get most of our energy from it.
<No we are not constrained by the limited resources and declining marginal efficiency (energy required to produce more energy) because of a natural fusion reactor in the sky that took cosmic levels of energy to be there.
That's what arrogance does to a mf.

>Any given energy production technique only is a step towards a more advanced technology. Down the line we probably would build more advanced fusion that doesn't use tritium.

The question is, can your "probably more advanced technology" outset the rising costs of the new energy due to the falling efficiency of extraction (including of rare metals)?
"Probably" doesn't cut it, especially when ITER is a fucking black hole that keeps sucking funds with nothing to show for it, so maybe those funds could be used on a more advanced nuclear fission that actually works.
>>

 No.466031

>>466020
Looks like someone bought the propaganda put out by the oil companies to maintain their monopoly.
Seriously, there is no great oil shortage. The US sits on untapped oil wells, but a rule of empires is that you want to drain everyone else's resources before consuming the resources of the metropole. This is even more true of the Americans, who sat on vast tracts of land and were conscious of their long-term ambitions. Sitting on a strategic reserve is exactly what you would do if you are running the American Empire, back when it was a going concern. Now the strategy is global - you don't want to extract resources to place them in the hands of plebs, and you want to sit on resources for as long as possible.
Just by developing the oil resources in Venezuela you would sit on ridiculous wealth, if you wanted it. The oil extraction there is only partially developed, because the local elites understand the value of what they hold and don't want to sell it for nothing. There is an incentive of everyone who holds a proven oil well to not see new wells discovered, and speculation for oil is expensive once the obvious sources are claimed by the oil barons. There's a patch of proven reserves in the US that could be developed and would dwarf existing oil production, but it makes no economic sense to extract that yet, so it doesn't happen, and we're told of a fake oil crisis.

Leave it to you to get that fusion is a scam, but then faceplant about the reason why. The simple truth is that fusion doesn't work the way the bullshit models of physics suggest, and you're spending a lot of energy chasing after a thing which won't do what you want it to do.

>>466022
The demographic change is that the workers will be completely defanged, and few enough in number that a class of guards and Einsatzgruppen will pick off those who survive at will. Strikes were never a sound strategy for the working class to stage an offensive. They were always a defensive strategy because the workers were under constant attack from the word go, and the strike only works so long as workers can constrain anyone else who would break the strike. Try telling people on the brink of starvation that they shame themselves for being scabs. It's very easy to get high and mighty when you're winning, but the way the scabs were dealt with is that eugenics killed them off in droves. The workers never actually gained much from striking, except a temporarily reprieve when the rulers overstepped what they could do, and couldn't recruit enough guard labor to break strikes. It was far cheaper to co-opt the union stewards and integrate them into the ruling system, and encourage the eugenic impulse among the working class. The workers will destroy themselves and cheer it on, and they internalize the anti-human logic of Malthus and think they're totally winning. It's pure Boogaloo shit.
>>

 No.466033

>>466025
Also the sun works because of the gravity of enormous amounts of matter.
Now you need to explain to me how are you gonna cheat nature and produce the same amount of energy while requiring almost none of the matter of the sun.
This all sounds like another perpetuum mobile delusion. Those ITER faggots literally said that it requires "too much energy" to keep plasma from melting everything by using the magnetic field. WELL NO SHIT! MAYBE YOU SHOULD REPEAT YOUR THERMODYNAMIC COURSE, IMBECILE!
>>

 No.466035

File: 1677159796744.jpg ( 112.31 KB , 1200x1172 , mr big fusion.jpg )

>>466030
You are making a straw-man argument.
Fossil fuel energy is mostly prehistoric plants that grew by converting energy from sunlight and that's still fusion energy with extra steps.
>efficiency
Fossil fuel has terrible efficiency. The first step in the process of generating fossil fuel was photosynthesis of ancient plants, and that's typically less than 1% efficient. Then you gotta wait a really long time for geological processes to turn it into fuel. Compared to that, direct fusion power is a big step up.

If you look at this from a narrower perspective of human economic activity. The energy returns on energy investment is higher for nuclear power generation than for chemical power. If you build a state of the art generation4 nuclear fission reactor with liquid nuclear fuel, you get 230x the energy out than you put into it. The best oil-well had about 100x, but those golden-age oil-wells are gone and the currently exploited wells have considerably less energy-returns than that. (the worst are oil-sands with 5x return and the best regular oil is at 60x)

Large scale fusion reactors of the magnetic confinement type (which currently are the most advanced type) can realistically have 500x energy returns. We are talking about reactors the size of offshore-oil rigs that so large that they can only build on the ocean, and produce so much power that 3-5 are probably sufficient for earths energy needs

The only reason this isn't pursued is because those technologies a very capital intensive to build and have a very long run time. A typical fission reactor you would build today would probably run for 60 years. A really large scale offshore fusion power generator that's optimized for ultra low cost utility power, probably has a runtime of 200 years. Private investors don't have that kind of patience. And most capital is still in it's neo-liberal phase, they don't want to invest in a big utility, they want small stuff that requires low capital investment and turns a profit in 18 months.

Those technologies have problems being realized by the current political and economic structures.
But it's not scientific or technical barriers.

Let me stress this again, you principle argument is false, if you go to higher technological levels of power geneeration, you get much more energy out for every unit of energy that you put in.
>>

 No.466036

Obligatory post on the peak oil myth.
>>

 No.466037

>>466031
>The demographic change is that the workers will be completely defanged, and few enough in number that a class of guards and Einsatzgruppen will pick off those who survive at will.
Ok maybe some countries will turn to fascism, and kill off workers, but those societies will just collapse under the weight of a murderous parasitic ruling class.

The countries that will grow strong and powerful will be those that best manage the scarce workers resource they have. (meaning workers have to be treated better). Those will be the countries that will shape the future.

Fascism has no future, it's not a operational model, it's usually an artifact of an imperial bourgeoisie throwing away a country for imperial ambition.

The fact is that if there are fewer workers they become harder to exploit, your doomer posting not justified.
>>

 No.466038

>>466033
<big physics words
>little physics understanding

Yes you can do fusion via a big gravity well, but you don't have to, you just need to supply enough energy to overcome the coulomb barrier and make two light nuclei touch -> bam fusion energy.
Fusion power is not violating the first/second law of thermo-dynamics. WTF why do you think that ?

The ITER reactor is a research reactor meant to study plasma physics, it's not meant to be a power-plant.

>Those ITER faggots literally said that it requires "too much energy" to keep plasma from melting everything by using the magnetic field.

They probably didn't because the purpose of the magnetic field is to prevent the plasma from touching the side-walls of the reactor, causing the plasma to cool off below the temperature where it can undergo fusion. The purpose of the magnetic field is to keep the plasma hot, it's not preventing the reactor from melting.
>>

 No.466039

>>466037
So the workers will be well-treated pets. Congratulations, you won the class struggle by liquidating 90% of the working class and ensuring the remainder are under lock and key. But, out of some altruistic sense, the slaves are better off than the workers anyway.
You DO realize how workers are disciplined, and what limits a manager has to disciplining billions of people, when they face difficulty finding people who will be enforcers in the first place? The entire project has been to kill off anyone who is not habituated to slavery, so that a managerial society can run the world into the ground. It's the same mentality of the Southron slave masters, except even they had more humanity than the eugenists.
>>

 No.466040

File: 1677166619159.png ( 87.12 KB , 697x728 , dog.png )

>>466039
>the workers will be pets
what the ?

In the 1970s the neo-liberals began outsourcing production from the core into the periphery.
They did that because it increased their accessible labor-supply, which destroyed the political leverage of the working class in the imperial core and periphery alike.
The conditions for the workers in the imperial core began to worsen as exploitation was increased when industry was off-shored an the reserve army of labor started to grow. Imperial capitalism was also able to exploit the workers in the imperial periphery harder because those countries did not have the necessary development to defend them selves against imperialism.
On the hole the working class got the ass-card as capital began draining more life out of them. The result of that was of course the demographic decline.

As brutal and inhuman as all of this was/is, it has a silver lining for 2 reasons:

1. The reason why the big bourgeoisie became so powerful, was the abundant labor supply.
Since the demographic shift (that the neo-liberals caused) is going to undo that abundance of labor-power, it will also undo their strangle hold over political power. Labor will be able to regain political power.
2. The periphery had industrial development and is now beginning to produce the means to defend it self against imperialism. The wages in the periphery are rising and as such the wage-bottom is rising too.

the effects will vary and some countries will have
-a successful reformist movement that reforms out of capitalism with a more effective version of Rosa Luxemburg
-a successful revolution that imposes a full class dictatorship of the proletariat.
-a new variation on social democracy
-a socialism with regional characteristics model like Vietnam or China
-a state-capitalist model
but
Some countries will go
-fascist hard and fast collapse
-something resembling a "neo-feudal rentier capitalism" slow(er) collapse

Overall the working class will gain a lot of political power as many new socialist governments and perhaps new economic experiments will form. The reason the workers will be treated well is because they gained the political power to change their conditions. I don't know where you get the idea of benevolent slavers, i haven't found slave societies that treated their slaves well. You can find some anomalies of individual slavers having compassion, or like in the roman empire when some people freed them selves from slavery in material terms but still technically counted as slaves in idealist administrative terms.

The countries and places that come closer to socialist economics will likely halt their population decline and maybe even start nudging the trend back upwards (takes at least a generation to manifest). Those countries will also become the primary industrial and technological powerhouses of the world. The reason for that is that if an economy can exploit neo-liberal type cheap labor it has no economic incentive to develop and deploy more advanced technology for the sake of increasing labor productivity with superior tools.

The places where the ruling class holds on to power and rides society into the ground, those will fade away as will their influence on the history of humanity.
>>

 No.466041

>>466035
>You are making a straw-man argument.
I'm not, because you pointed to the Sun as an example of an actually working fusion reactor.

>Fossil fuel has terrible efficiency.

The thing is, fossil fuels are an already conserved energy that can be easily freed by burning. It doesn't matter that fossil fuel engines are far less efficient, because the fossil fuel is abundant. Majority of work has been done by the nature already.

>Large scale fusion reactors of the magnetic confinement type (which currently are the most advanced type) can realistically have 500x energy returns.

dude, tokamak reactors were known from the 50s, most advanced my ass

there were numerous experimental reactors that only confirming that to keep high-energy plasma from melting the walls and cooling down you need to expend more energy than you would get out of the reactor

If you don't see a comparison here with the perpetuum mobile - to try and cheat nature by creating energy out of nothing - then you're blinded by your techno-utopianism

The fact is, after more than 70 years of experimentation STILL the only working thermonuclear reactor is a gravitational one - the Sun.
Maybe it's time to take a look in the mirror and stop daydreaming.
>>

 No.466042

>>466038
>you just need to supply enough energy to overcome the coulomb barrier and make two light nuclei touch -> bam fusion energy.
no retard, you "just" need to keep the reaction going and not melt the fucking reactor
which requires comparable amounts of energy that you would get out of the reactor

hmmm… I wonder the laws of thermodynamics have to do with this..

>The ITER reactor is a research reactor meant to study plasma physics, it's not meant to be a power-plant.

It still should be fucking able produce more energy that is required to keep it stable

>They probably didn't because the purpose of the magnetic field is to prevent the plasma from touching the side-walls of the reactor, causing the plasma to cool off below the temperature where it can undergo fusion. The purpose of the magnetic field is to keep the plasma hot, it's not preventing the reactor from melting.

It is both to keep the plasma how AND to prevent the walls from melting
what do you think fucking happens to the walls when the plasma "cools down"
>>

 No.466043

>>466040
The working class only had the leverage they were allowed after the post-war settlement. Neoliberalism was only reasserting what the settlement was from the start, rather than a sudden reaction, as if the state were passively responding to events instead of actively planning a generation ahead. Everything that was done in education between 1945 and 1970 was preparing for such an event, and the last piece of the act was to reconcile with China and abandon the idea that they were going to eliminate the CCP outright. This is what could have happened from the start, because there were forces in China that wanted to reconcile with the US right away and a faction in the US that didn't have any problem dealing with Mao. Eventually, cold warrior Nixon goes to China to do what should have happened during the 1950s, and they sell it with the line "only Nixon could go to China". None of this is reactive, like the rulers are some evolutionary flotsam at the whim of the superior minds.

Everything you're writting is in the passive tense, like all of this just sort of happened, or was the result of some diabolical and ahistorical perversion of the natural order. States, by nature, are active creatures rather than passive ones. So are the people at the helm of states. They only sell the fiction of a passive state after the fact, to naturalize their very deliberate intervention into society. It's always worked that way, but it could only realize its control in certain ways. After the war, the state's invasion of private life would proceed according a general plan, escalated every generation. This is when the marketing geniuses created the idea of naming each generation not according to their organic development, but in accord with the general plan for societal development. Therefore, there would be a "new normal" for each generation and an overarching plan for how the common stock would be disposed, and this idea would be sold.
The number of workers in China was less relevant than the generational plan proceeding and calling for depopulation. Had there not been reform in China and 1 billion workers weren't added to the rolls of the capitalist workforce, depopulation and degradation measures would have continued regardless. You saw what that would look like with the confusion around Ford and Carter, and Reagan "saved" the situation by reassuring certain elements that they could just exploit China, or Mexico, so long as they embraced Reagan's ideology and a stupid final confrontation with the USSR, thus opening up Russia.

You'd have to believe the rulers are completely passive to think that they'd just-so treat the workers better if there are fewer of them. The only thing keeping the working class alive is their sheer numerical superiority, and the unwillingness of many of their number to comply wholly with technocratic dictates. If depopulation happens, the logic of depopulation consumes the whole society. There won't be the assumption of even the form of democracy continuing, and that is happening now. The advocates for this have been salivating since the 1990s for a general purge, and they got what they wanted. That's locked in now.

The working class' true strength was always in their numerical superiority, so long as they retained any of their wits. That is why the depopulation project entailed large-scale poisoning and degradation of the human spirit, directed squarely at the residuum. The workers would be segregated into grades of civic worth, and encouraged to attack each other by caste affiliation or some superficial marker. The powers behind the throne would of course be sacrosanct, and anyone calling this what it was got the purge. Those who mystified what this was would be promoted to create a wholly fictitious world-system for public consumption. That's what you are living in - a lie and a story constructed for you. That's how you can see the world as something passive, reproducing the logic of the state in your own brain. That's how you can adopt this strange thinking that if the working class is utterly destroyed and degraded, they will somehow be stronger because of evolutionary psychology and the virtue of "struggling for life" - while the workers are choked to death and have a knife pointed at their throat at all times. Under such conditions, there is no working class agitation. There isn't even the bargain with organized labor that has been permitted. You don't know at all what you are up against, and prefer to live in a narrative where you can still win, any day now. You've been programmed to fall for that narrative and continue failing.

All throughout the history of capitalism, the rulers of the system have bemoaned the existence of too many people. If their belief favored population growth, you would have seen natalist policies and aid given directly to stable families, rather than premising assistance to families on utter destitution and the state's invasion of private life encouraging the breakup of families. Every policy of the capitalist state has been for depopulation and winning the class war by killing their enemy. There are many trivial things that could be done to reduce the death rate, like not rationing out medical care in this absurd militarized system that is designed to decide who lives and who dies according to the dictates of eugenics. If the ruling class was committed to population growth, such eugenics would not be tolerated at all and would have been ruthlessly purged as a clear and present danger. There would be heads on spikes, given what the eugenists represented and their stated fanatical commitment to depopulation and social engineering. Of course, certain people proclaim the vicotry of eugenics as a socialist victory, which begs the question why the actual people would want socialism.
>>

 No.466044

>>466042
Holy fuck. Now comrade dunning kruger is fission energy expert! Lool
>>

 No.466045

>>466044
>no arguments

still no working fusion reactor that actually produces energy. After 70 years. Not even an experimental one. nuff said.
>>

 No.466046

>>466042
There is very little mass in the fusion plasma so it can hardly store any thermal energy, hence it can't impart much heat-energy to the reactor wall by touch. If the fusion plasma touches the reactor wall it just vaporizes the topmost layer of atoms from the reactor wall surface, and that doesn't matter, because that's an insignificant amount of wear and tear compared to everything else.
It won't melt the reactor, because the instant the fusion plasma goes out of vacuum and touches anything it will cool down below the temperature it can sustain fusion and it will instantly cease to produce heat.

Basically if the plasma touches anything the fusion gets extinguished and then it's just an incredibly thin gas.

On the off chance that you are interested in learning why you were wrong, you could read about the difference between thermal energy Q and temperature T.
>>

 No.466047

File: 1677173673364.png ( 124.14 KB , 3200x2400 , funding for fusion.png )

>>466045
>still no working fusion reactor
didn't get enough funding.
>>

 No.466148

>>466047
This is mostly due to people freaking out about nuclear energy with no understanding of it. Things are changing.
>>

 No.466173

>>466148
no
this is simply because there are cheaper, easier and financially safer ways to produce energy in the short-term
its just le "market forces" at work
>>

 No.466187

>>466173
Well, there's that too, but, also what I said. It's multifaceted like all things. The anti nuke movent did play a large role in fear mongering about nuclear energy.

Unique IPs: 29

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome