If you are reading this and are one of those "Tail End Charlies" that only starts reading at the very end of a thread, you have the option of going back to the very last message on the previous page (page 1) if you want to see an actual thought.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-03-2022).]
Fully Automated Luxury Communism is a phrase that's being used by the current day journalist and author Aaron Bastani.
Aaron Bastani has ideas that are beyond what the famous (or infamous) Karl Marx could have imagined when Karl Marx was writing, some 170 years ago.
If anyone has come to this second page of the forum topic (thread) and wants to see something other than a string of banal, clichéd image memes and other nonsense, they do have the option of going back to the previous page (page one) of this discussion. The very last message on page one is the obvious place to start.
"Perhaps you'll come up with your own theory." The last message on page one of this thread is "a mighty fine place to start."
' Watcha up to ? ' ' отдыхающий ' ! To this day, the icons of marxism -leninism-stalinism are reminders of the millions of lives destroyed to suppress dissent, that, of the greed of armed men. Without armed defense by citizens, no freedom will be achieved, a malevolent gang of moronic thugs driving nations into poverty for all, except themselves. Every few centuries, a reckoning is necessary to expunge evil from human societies, cleansing them of cults, false ideologies, dogmas, so that truth is visible. Have a happy life.
This seems to echo the similar argument put forth about CRT. It doesnt exist, no one is doing it. Nothing to see here. So its just another Utopian dream it seems. Utopian like what I said, see my two posts.
But then you nullify your remark by saying "This "Luxury Communism" is something that could only be achieved in gradual stages. First you would see enlargements to the social safety net."
Yes indeed, that is clear.
"foreseeable future" indeed. The foreseeable depends on the eye of the beholder right? Some only see so far...as I mentioned in my post.
Whitlock isn't looking at this politically. He's looking at it in terms of technology, economics and human societies. Bastiani describes Fully AutomatedLuxury Communism as being possible because of "A, B and C", but Whitlock doesn't think that "A, B and C" are realistic expectations, even in some fairly distant future of the world.
But Whitlock is not saying that everyone will understand this and so be led to reject the idea of Luxury Communism. Whitlock isn't saying that some people will not continue to imagine Luxury Communism (LuxCom?) anyway, and try to move towards it with intermediate steps. Intermediate steps like Universal Basic Income. I don't think that Whitlock says that, but I'm saying it. Universal Basic Income could be envisioned as a step on the road towards Luxury Communism.
Whatever arguments can be made for or against Universal Basic Income, or raising the Minimum Wage, or shortening the standard work week, or other ideas of that kind, those arguments should proceed without reference to Luxury Communism. These ideas should be examined on their own merit, but not "sold" as steps on a road that leads to Luxury Communism.
That's my take. I'm probably more in step with Whitlock's "Anti-Luxury Communism" than Bastiani's "Pro-Luxury Communism." As far as which of the two sides seems more believable.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-05-2022).]
There are three types of people who are attracted to, and promote, Communism
Lazy, Irresponsible and Evil
1. Lazy people. Those people who will not work to provide for themselves. People who believe that their station in life somehow puts them above productive work to earn their own way. Lazy people that expect that it is the responsibility of other people and the government to provide for them. Lazy people who believe that any effort they put forth, no matter how minimal or inconsequential, has value grossly out of proportion to its benefit and value to society. They are called LEFTISTS
2. Irresponsible people. People who take no responsibility for themselves or their own lives. Those who constantly claim to be victims. Those who blame society and others for their own problems. People who blame their own failures in life due to life being "unfair" or "inequitable". Those who continually claim to be "oppressed" and project their own failure in life onto an “oppressor” who they claim is the cause of their failure. They are also called LEFTISTS.
3. Evil people. Power hungry, evil, people who utilize liberty to destroy liberty. People who are fanatical about their quest for personal and political power over others. People who have no faith in God or any power higher than themselves because only they, people who agree with them and the government power that they form can be a “higher power” over mankind. They are people who will use any means, including violence, to silence any and all debate and resistance to their attempt to gain and hold power. People who will use any tool, including race and class resentment, to pit people against each other so that they can use that division and turmoil to gain power. They are overwhelmingly called LEFTISTS.
"174 years of the continual failure of Communism proves nothing"......Karl Marx
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-06-2022).]
But Whitlock is not saying that everyone will understand this and so be led to reject the idea of Luxury Communism. Whitlock isn't saying that some people will not continue to imagine Luxury Communism (LuxCom?) anyway, and try to move towards it with intermediate steps. Intermediate steps like Universal Basic Income. I don't think that Whitlock says that, but I'm saying it. Universal Basic Income could be envisioned as a step on the road towards Luxury Communism.
Whatever arguments can be made for or against Universal Basic Income, or raising the Minimum Wage, or shortening the standard work week, or other ideas of that kind, those arguments should proceed without reference to Luxury Communism. These ideas should be examined on their own merit, but not "sold" as steps on a road that leads to Luxury Communism.
Exactly, and why I responded as I did. A few times. What am I missing?
! The packages are different, the prices are too, some sweeteners added, always the lousy kopeks for change, if you're lucky. Open the package, it smells of rotting corpses, looks like excrement, sugar coated. Destroy it when you can, before it grows strong. May cause false images and election results. One taste and it stays for generations. ( Side effects may be permanent loss of freedom and wealth ) Spit it out !
Originally posted by 2.5: Exactly, and why I responded as I did. A few times. What am I missing?
You're not missing anything, sir. It's just that in a discussion like this, where at least 10 different "voices" have been heard, things can get confused. Because there's a conflict in every human heart between the rational and irrational. Between good and evil.
It's a story oft told.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-10-2022).]
! Karl and the Kommunists - 20th Century Tour. Coming to Madison Square Garden, NYNY, May 7-8 '22 Rebels are We Tickets available at the UN lobby reception desk.
Miso Robotics Taking more jobs away from the youngsters (idle hands), so they can't get a start in life (life is a word elitists don't care about. Pawns). One can see why abortion is being pushed by the elitists. Cause food shortages, get this stuff in place (2030 and other deadlines), execute the plan. The humiliation of wearing masks by the SERVANTS/SUBJECTS wasn't enough.
Originally posted by olejoedad: Farmers seldom plow since the introduction of no-till farming practices. Maybe once every four years or so....
OK... but I don't think that should obscure the point that I was trying to make. I went further in the same direction as the previous message from WonderBoy, did I not? As a way of asking "Is there a flaw or inconsistency in the way that WonderBoy is thinking about this new level of automation in the fast food industry?"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-22-2022).]
OK... but I don't think that should obscure the point that I was trying to make. I went further in the same direction as the previous message from WonderBoy, did I not? As a way of asking "Is there a flaw or inconsistency in the way that WonderBoy is thinking about this new level of automation in the fast food industry?"
All of that modern farm machinery burns diesel fuel. Where are the wind and solar powered tractors? Gretta wants to know and she is not amused.
I wouldn't know rinse, as I seldom read your long winded word-salad posts.
Your wasteful use of excess words detracts from whatever points you strain yourself to make.
You seemed to have read that one. Hardly any "word salad" going on there. Hardly a case of "rinse" channeling James Joyce's Ulysses, or anything like that.
I perceive your response here as expressive of a slightly resentful or "chippy" attitude towards me. Not uncommon on your part, but I can't help but think that you are trying to hit me with some (small) extra "payback" for some messages that were posted earlier today, on another thread, where some other forum member—neither you nor me, but a third forum member—got "nuked".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-22-2022).]
Should farming be changed to do without tractor-drawn plows, seeding and harvesting machines and automated irrigation systems?
The hands and bodies of the very young commonly used to do that work. The very young. The very old. And a lot of ages in between.
Eventually, that will all be fully covered. Things like roomba, driver-less cars, driver-less 18-wheelers, pilot-less/driver-less light air delivery, auto-mowers. Won't need many to do the repairs. Just like the fantasy of everyone learning to code. Many idle hands. Or not many hands/mouths left to begin with? What are all these millions of border crossers gonna do? Hmm. "The plans, master, the plans."
I know where you're trying to go. And what you're trying to imply. Enough eggs in the past have been broken to create the perfect semi-automated omelette we have today, and fully automated in the future. Where does it stop? Will it or should it? Life imitates art. Imagination is limitless, but to what end? A life of doing nothing and all automated is a life of............? What would those say, or be allowed to know, about those from the past and how it got to that point?
Most farms (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how my family started out in PA in the 1750's) used to be fully independent. The large family and the kids/YOUNG would do the labor. Worked JUST like the Amish. Supplying JUST the local community and others close by if needed. Then Big Gov and globalism came into play. Farms combined/bought. Now food shortages. New avian bird flu now also? Where is the FDA? Oh yeah, more interested in drugging/jabbing/CONTROLLING the subjects. Bet drugging the chickens killed them off.
Paths from other threads DO converge here with this topic. You try to play and advertise it lightly. Sugar coating the pill.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
All of that modern farm machinery burns diesel fuel. Where are the wind and solar powered tractors? Gretta wants to know and she is not amused.
Give it time, that will change. As I've stated before, I've got no problem with renewable sources of energy. As long as it's reliable and outperforms current forms (diesel electric hp/watts=Railroads or gas hp for cars or methods for flight) and the market determines without yearly federal government and private billionaire bailouts to keep those new industries running/afloat year over year. Billionaire bailouts still come from the tax-payers. Be able to work in ALL environments/weather. The ICE has advanced so much since the first ones. Sames size block, yet more efficient and power. Forced 2030 goals and bankrupting the masses is the plan. And what Brandon and the commies are pushing is not there yet.
Notice how the president is still in a motorcade FLEET of NON EV Vehicles? Yet they are talking EV Humvees? EV tanks? WTF? "Rules for thee, but not for me." Sames goes for personal protection. "Rules for thee, but not for me."
See the pattern?
[This message has been edited by WonderBoy (edited 04-22-2022).]
Fully Automated Luxury Communism floating offshore wind energy turbine generators. Since Capitalism is no longer a "thing", everyone enjoys joint ownership of all essential infrastructure like these turbines.
"What Would Happen If You Worked Only 8 Hours a Week?"
quote
The 2019 study, published in Social Science & Medicine, found that working just eight hours a week was enough to gain the well-being benefits of employment and that happiness and well-being did not increase alongside hours. Simply put, people working eight hours a week felt as happy as those working a full week and felt that their contributions to society were just as meaningful. . . .
The study was big. It used data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, which held information on more than 80,000 people. The researchers looked at how changes in the number of hours people worked affected mental health over time and asked at what point a person's well-being improved. Basically, after that eight-hour shift, well-being plateaued, and working more did not increase it by any significant amount.
The researchers were not trying to establish that any society could function or function well if no one had a job that required them to work more than just 8 hours a week.
They were only looking at the psychological and emotional nexus that connects "having a job" with a "feeling of well being."
Originally posted by 2.5: "You will own nothing and be happy."
Fair enough. But lest there be confusion, I am here to say that that sentence does not appear in the article that I just posted. Nor is there anything that parses as "Fully" or even "Partly Automated Luxury Communism." There are no references to "Communism" or "Socialism" in the article. Here's a little more from the article:
quote
At the beginning of this month, more than 3,300 workers in 70 UK companies began a six-month trial of a four-day working week. Its aim is to prove that you can decrease stress, and improve well-being, without affecting productivity.
<SNIP>
But back to the four-day working week. The pilot, running for six months, has been organised by the 4 Day Week Global in partnership with the thinktank Autonomy, the 4 Day Week Campaign, together with researchers at Cambridge University, Oxford University, and Boston College.
The trial is based on a 100:80:100 model, which means that workers will receive 100 percent of pay for 80 percent of the time, in exchange for maintaining 100 percent productivity.
Juliet Schor, a professor of sociology at Boston College and lead researcher on the pilot (which rolls out soon in Spain and Scotland), described it as a historic trial. “We’ll be analysing how employees respond to having an extra day off, in terms of stress and burnout, job and life satisfaction, health, sleep, energy use, travel, and many other aspects of life,” she said.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-28-2022).]
Quoted from the article: The pilot, running for six months, has been organised by the 4 Day Week Global in partnership with the thinktank Autonomy, the 4 Day Week Campaign, together with researchers at Cambridge University, Oxford University, and Boston College.
The trial is based on a 100:80:100 model, which means that workers will receive 100 percent of pay for 80 percent of the time, in exchange for maintaining 100 percent productivity. Juliet Schor, a professor of sociology at Boston College and lead researcher on the pilot (which rolls out soon in Spain and Scotland), described it as a historic trial. “We’ll be analysing how employees respond to having an extra day off, in terms of stress and burnout, job and life satisfaction, health, sleep, energy use, travel, and many other aspects of life,” she said.
While my initial thought is that this would be fantastic, I don't think it's realistic. Let's say for example that they can maintain no loss of efficiency, so now it becomes law.
What then when people start to take it for granted and that 100% efficiency drops to 80%? Now there's a permanent 20% productivity loss, and employers are still paying 100%.
article: "The trial is based on a 100:80:100 model, which means that workers will receive 100 percent of pay for 80 percent of the time, in exchange for maintaining 100 percent productivity."
That I guess is called being efficient. A 20 % more efficient value to be exact? Akin to "when you get your work done you can go home"? Paid for the job not the time?
If the private businesses decided to do this without government meddling, so be it. Government meddling such as dictating a minimum wage.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-29-2022).]
?
