[Video] Capitalism Has No End Game and We're All Doomed :) - General

https://youtu.be/HxjpvPSKkLw People get kind of triggered when they hear people criticise capitalsm, but I think this is an argument we can all get on board with. That automation and the increased productivity it leads to is harming people, when it should be liberating them. Problem is that under our existing framework, there's no really viable way forward but perpetuating work endlessly. I've actually noticed this in my own workplace, I work in IT and there's a fair bit of complaints about the automation of our sys admin coming in because some members of our team are arguing them that they're developing themselves in obsolescence. Even members of computing fields are worried they'll lose their jobs, where they should be glad that they're actually lowering their own workload and can do more interesting or cool things with their time. also yeah Sean Parker really did say that

Capitalism has such complete control over the west and the world in general nothing's gonna happen without it being far too late without literal class revolution and the execution of the wealthy.

Congrats on identifying the upcoming issue of automation. We've all done it. The hard part is coming up with a solution - "dismantling capitalism NOW"? Really? This guy probably sleeps with The Communist Manifesto by his nightstand. Doesn't help how he refers to his channel for more videos on pro-anarchism + criticizing capitalism multiple times throughout the video. Yeah man, people get triggered when you criticize capitalism - it's because we're deathly afraid of the alternatives. "It sounds good on paper" - does that sound familiar? "We have too much surplus" isn't even the issue here, why are you arguing so hard against it?

Interesting rationale behind the long term effects of UBI. It's definitely worrying in terms of power structure. However, he's not offering a good alternative other than "dismantle capitalism and distribute everything fairly" which is a huge pie in the sky idea. How do you "dismantle capitalism"? You have some large powerful force take from the rich and give to the poor, which requires manpower, leaders who aren't just going to take control of the resources themselves, and violence. People are comfortable right now, and convincing everyone to risk their lives to make things fair isn't going to work unless they're going to die anyways, because people will look at the risk versus reward and bow out. It's basically class warfare and won't end pretty because the people with wealth can hire people to protect them, will have stronger, more powerful weapons, and the state isn't going to back down from control. It'll just be feudalism 2.0. The wealthy elite won't give up their way of life or assets unless they are forced to. People crowd behind charismatic leaders, and then those leaders have power and aren't necessarily benevolent with it. His ideas of anarchism are absurd because it doesn't take human nature into consideration (actual psychology, evolutionary biology, even just researching tribal cultures from uncontacted or recently contracted tribes). Humans can be greedy, violent, and selfish because we are animals and those evolutionary traits helped us as hunter-gatherers to survive in small groups. It's not all "learned behavior" and there is a huge component of nature. The state as an institution is just an evolution of a tribal counsel - it's representative in nature because there's too many people to govern and if everyone has a say it will be cacophony. It exists to exert order and force based on the wishes of leaders who act in accordance with the general will of their population. If it's not the state, then it's just gangs. Humans group up because they are stronger in numbers, but expecting millions of people to follow one ideology and rule of law without some way to force them is absurd. Besides, even if one group of people decides to be friendly and anarchistic, another group can simply take advantage of their generosity and just wipe them out. For anarchism to work you'd need to pacify everyone. Anarchism just has to many assumptions to work. It assumes everyone's going to get along, it assumes whatever power structure in place already can be easily overthrown without bloodshed, it assumes people won't try to turn the resulting power vacuum into a dictatorship, it assumes that everyone can be governed with one voice but without a threat of force, it assumes every bad characteristic of human nature is simply learned, etc. Anarchism works in very small groups, but unless we abandon all of our benefits of civilization and go back to tribes then people will always disagree, hoard resources, exert power and influence, etc.

IMO the best thing short term would be increasing democratization of businesses.

we U/ACC now

Isn't market socialism maybe something worth trying out? Or aspects of it? Giving employees a share of the company they work at, for example. Many left-wing parties in Europe had this idea in their programs not that long ago, either. It's having a slight revival now, I think.

For the record... yeah I'm not onboard with anarchism. It's just I definitely agre with the UBI thing, I'm onboard with it short term but want to see more of a transition to socialism going forwards. Truth be told the existing system we have is kind of insane, and leads to so much unjust suffering. I would like to see that change, and find it absurd that so many people are against even discussing changing the way the world works.

I don't know where you got that idea in any point during my response. Yes, it's a problem we're facing, and people are struggling to find answers. The most common job for the US male is in driving. Automation will completely kill that job - and that's just one industry that will shrink or disappear due to automation. It's a huge problem, and if the solution was that simple, we'd have one by now. What's offensive is... this video. This isn't a proposed solution, but just another plug for marxism. He's blaming and heavily criticizing capitalism while seriously missing some basic concepts of economics. This isn't going forwards - it's moving backwards.

^ i was responding to sleepy al about that dude i'm replying to 2 posts

not even that will stop capitalism. it might slow it down some but we will always return to capitalism, everything does.

From a Luddite point of view all of UBI, Capitalism and Socialism do not provide answers as they are all a continuation of what would essentially be the collecting and centralization of power that they originally protested against during the Industrial Revolution. As such, the answers we tend to turn to are rather preventing automation and using the inherent limitations in biological functions to create systems that mimic our biological functions. Essentially, relying on policy designed less around efficiency and profit and more about bio-mimicry and reduction of impact. As an aside, a lot of people talking about GDP growth and being more efficient with our tools but its been noted in several studies that when you make a group aware that because they're more efficient with their resource management they actively consume more hence why the chase for efficiency is fairly naive. The other massive problem is just how overly complex and abstract our systems have become, automation isn't a solution to a problem inherent to life as most beneficial technologies are, but rather a solution to a problem we manufactured. Things are too complex, supply is too high and we need to keep costs down. Our systems are so inherently fragile that, even with automation, if a single massive disruption occurred a global economic meltdown and complete collapse of society would take 1 week. This is not healthy, this is not good right now. You throw in an automated world where the government hands out UBI checks and imagine what would happen if a catastrophe shut everything down for even a day. A Luddite response would instead would be to adopt a Zero Growth Policy system structured around a Steady State Economic functions that focused more on repairing the earth. I differ from many luddites because I'm not against automation, but I am against it in everywhere currently. With a capitalist world, a purely automated one would destroy this planet faster than we could fix it and we'd never see it because humans do not care about something that does not immediately impact them to the same extent something does. We need to see the damage we do and understand it so that we can make better policies for us to survive and thrive, as well as making sure our own little island of a planet stays safe till either the inevitable occurs or we leave the little blue ball.

My hot take is that automation won't actually be that bad. Yes people will lose their jobs, but it's in my opinion that the automation of certain jobs will enable other jobs to flourish. Basically, continue like this for the foreseeable future. Note: this does not mean don't fix problems like unaffordable healthcare and college.

I kind of agree... I definitely used to think this, especially whilst doing my Economics A Level. Because basically what I was taught told me that automation would lead to other job markets being created. The problem is two fold: The suffering in the short term. It's all well and good saying it'll sort itself out in the long term (imho it won't) but there will be tons of suffering in the short term. What is the point of that suffering? Is it necessary? I'd argue absolutely not. Why wouldn't we do anything about it? Why should other job markets be created? Why are we perpetuating jobs endlessly? Is working menial shitty jobs just our endgame. Why can't we genuinely aim for a Star Trek society where people's lives are about learning, improving and exploring, not working, working and working. Surely automation can bring us closer to that future? A world where nobody needs starve or go without healthcare, even if they can't or won't get a job.

I would hesitate to reference Star Trek considering the Federation only came about after 3 World Wars, a Superhuman Ruled Genocide, a Nuclear war and a Post-Atomic Holocaust.

Star Trek happened not only because of the things that @Swilly detailed, but also because an alien race practically swooped in and saved us at the witching hour of our species, when there was a critically low amount of human population left and a peaceful settlement just happened to be discovered first.

I reject the issue of automation because automation potentially means the government can produce things at zero or near zero cost. It's the logical conclusion of a world where workers are no longer needed.

I completely agree with your points. I just was lazy and didn't want to expand.

The neet will inherit the Earth.