Lochness Socialism?

[undo11]

what's everyone's opinion on this?

[thorfourwinds]

Thank you for sharing.

MOST EXCELLENT, IMHO, of course.   



tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)

[zorgon]

[burntheships]

@Undo, I would agree.

For added measure:

[zorgon]

So your saying that ....

NESSIE ISN'T REAL?

[petrus4]

Derisive mockery?  Check.
Use of the body count troll?  Check.

The Left annoy me because they insist on self-victimisation, and generally can't get Marx out of their heads to save their lives.  The Right, however, annoy me because they are apparently not capable of making rational counter-arguments which rely on actual data, but insist on using derision and other indications of negative emotional bias. 

The one decent attempt at a coherent conservative argument that I've yet come across, was Mencius Moldbug's Open Letter to Open Minded Progressives.  He was still wrong to the point of being insane, but he genuinely, sincerely tried, and I can't adequately verbalise how refreshing that was.

I barely even need to respond to this, but I will; with a documentary that I've known about for a while now, called Our Technical Reality.



This documentary demonstrates the fact that, yes, massive labour automation is completely technologically possible, right now; and many forms of it have been for at least a hundred years.  Telsa performed very basic experiments in robotics.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. 

Material inequality does not exist because it physically or technologically needs to, but because the Right want it to. 

The man in that video can be as derisive as he wants; but the simple fact is that the Right psychologically need both war and the Zero Sum Game.  They don't believe that continued human development is possible without them.

There is another issue here which needs to be brought up; and that is that the Right always assume that economic or material equality is unavoidably associated with large central government.  By contrast, I am a strong anti-federalist; I do not believe that it is appropriate for any single nation or geopolitical entity, to ideally have a population of more than a hundred people.  This is because the human brain can only keep track a hundred relationships at maximum.  Beyond that, and social intimacy and accountability are lost, and the psychopaths start taking control.

With such a small national population, every person could easily be a member of said nation's legislature, and no law would be passed that was binding on anyone who was not physically present in the room.  The issue of such a small group being unable to maintain a contemporary standard of living, would also be resolved via automation.  You don't need a large number of human beings living in a society if you have robots.

The next Right objection to this, is inevitably the mention of war, and the idea that such small nation-states could not exist without being conquered by others.  My answer to that is that it is not the entirety of the population that want war, but primarily the psychopaths.  If the psychopaths were diagnosed and permanently incarcerated as soon as they were born, and if we stopped telling ourselves that war is necessary, it would no longer need to occur at all.

We do not need war.  We WANT it.  We do not need scarcity.  We WANT it. 

Neither of these things have to be inevitable.  They only are because we insist on it.

[RUSSO]

[burntheships]

Material inequality does not exist because it physically or technologically needs to, but because the Right want it to. 

The man in that video can be as derisive as he wants; but the simple fact is that the Right psychologically need both war and the Zero Sum Game.  They don't believe that continued human development is possible without them.

Question for you Petrus;  only "The Right"?

[zorgon]

[petrus4]

Question for you Petrus;  only "The Right"?

You're correct that I'm generalising; but I do view a pre-occupation with the Zero Sum Game as an element of Right or conservative thinking.

[burntheships]

You're correct that I'm generalising; but I do view a pre-occupation with the Zero Sum Game as an element of Right or conservative thinking.

I was pretty much thinking outloud there, however.......

Also...I wonder if there are more in power that just are intent to use other
peoples money, whatever they are labeled?

[burntheships]

"Greed" is good when it comes to keeping ones money out from the hands and the coffers of the gubbments....in that clip the Holly Wood... they fuzz the line
between keeping what is ones own, and greed.

IMO, keeping ones own from others is not greed, it is simply wise.
If one so wishes to be benevolent, one can choose whom to share with.

[undo11]

[petrus4]

Also...I wonder if there are more in power that just are intent to use other
peoples money, whatever they are labeled?

This is arguably true as well; but the video in the OP was overwhelmingly playing the Left/Right game, so I am going to call it as I see it. 

The other reason why I bring up the Left/Right dichotomy here, is that the Right's argument against what they perceive as socialism, is always based around the expectation that socialism's advocates want to steal their money, because according to conservative thinking, money (and everything else) is in very limited supply.  They are hence always going to assume that wanting to provide for everybody, means stealing from somebody, because the idea that we can actually produce more resources rather than stealing them from someone who already has them, exists outside conservative thought.  It is unthinkable to them; it does not compute.

Although practically every political test online consistently profiles me as a Leftist, I do not actually consider myself either Left or Right.  Both sides, when they are viewed in exclusion, have serious problems.

It's also true that most of the people in power are psychopathic, who don't care what political or economic label applies to them, as long as they get what they want.

[undo11]

hehe