Happy Holidays Mother Fuckers - Page 3

On January 02 2020 03:39 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2020 03:37 hiems wrote:   On January 02 2020 01:34 Stroggoz wrote:   On January 01 2020 14:36 hiems wrote:   On January 01 2020 04:51 froboy12342 wrote:   On December 31 2019 18:06 hiems wrote: socialism in scandi =/= socialism in america. the population in scandi countries are homogeneous. they have common values, culture, etc. the average person in those countries have in general higher human capital value, intelligence, ability to delay instant gratification, etc. (far less retards in sweden,finland,norway). furthermore its really stupid to justify socialism on the basis of identity politics prevalent in today's society. and pls dont give me the bs about how all forms of communism before has been authoritarian forms of communism as opposed to democratic. the leaders of america's democratic party act very much like oligarchs with high paychecks, back end business deals, $$$ from speaking engagements, parlays into lobbying jobs, law firm partnerships, etc. basically use the race card to get votes to get yourself in office then reap the financial rewards for yourself. nothing has changed. andrew yang's ubi seems kind of too early too. he talks about automation as if it has already happened, citing trucking jobs as his main example when in actuality it is yet to be known if this is going to be a thing or not. yes let's spend trillions of dollars solving a problem that hasnt even happened yet... With whatever socialistic/UBI/welfare system put forward, I think that a proper implementation of it would involve establishing it, but then gradually divesting it over time.. Its a way of helping people sure, but also a way of enabling people right? Thus imo, it shouldn't be a mainstay, but a tool to help those who help themselves. And on the other end, with a gradual decrease in funds, this approach should gently spur those who want to abuse the system; the people who will need the assistance to stay the same or increase can petition w/ their local social service to have that happen or something... lol you make socialism in america sound so civil. socialism right now (in america) is not driven in earnest by actual needs. in reality its largely driven by things like allocating resources based on race/tribalism largely in due to the democratic leadership (astutely) realizing that they can manipulate the black/hispanic minority into buying into a certain narrative of oppression by using propaganda. its not even about enabling people vs people who actually need the help. its just straight up tribal warfare imo. whether its black vs white, hispanic vs white, poor vs rich, right now everything is fueled by false narratives, anger, emotion, etc. actual quality of life of even the poor in america really is not that bad. basic needs are met. food can be obtained easily and housing as well. its just the supposed "injustice" of not having the NICE things like the new iphone, instagram lifestyle, etc that causes ppl to get so fucking worked up // get themselves into debt, student loans, etc. ^^ all of this so that a few idiotic leftists can seize power, get elected to office//boost their linkedin page//play the power game in washington. If you're going to make a proper critique of socialism, quote what socialists actually say and explain what is wrong with it, myself being a socialist i don't share any of the views you stated here, except that we do indeed live in a society of poor vs rich, that is true since the rich have different values than the poor and influence politics according to their contrasting interests. The other post you made, marx was not a theorist of socialism, but a simple advocate of it. It's unclear what kind of socialism he even wanted though, however marx expressed sympathy for non-statist forms of socialism like the paris commune in 1870. And socialism has had a long history of practice, not just theory. It began from illiterate sweatshop workers in the early 19th century before marx's time, and the practice of those socialists back then (1789-1848 in particular, the age or revolution), is the reason why people have things like 8 hour working days now, because of their constant antagonism against the forces of capitalism. Socialism has a very rich history in america, the people that built the railroads for the robber barrons like carnegie had to work 364 days a year, and as a result of their constant antagnoism we all enjoy the labour rights you have today, although they could be a lot better and they are weaker in america than europe. i dont have time/interest to research politics all day and have no interest in getting a degree in political science like u. i dont care whether marx was a theorist of socialism or not whether its marxism communism whatever. i think i was originally thinking of das kapital which sounds like a title an overly theoretical nerd would make. and idgaf what engels was a proponent of either. to me both are overly theoretical nerds. yeah of course there is some balance of socialist elements and capitalist ones. obv i dont think we should go back to how it was in the guilded age or whatever. i mean thats clearly not my point.The socialist movement TODAY in america is stupid. . if you want me to quote actual socialists, ill quote elizabeth warren she said on twitter when she tweeted her policy proposals something along the lines of "black/hispanic ppl are most affected by student loan debt so my proposal is to eliminate all student loan debt using xyz STUPID ASS method". ill say this again the socialist movement in america is NOT driven in earnest by actual needs, but by rather "racial" ones which are in my opinion a manipulation by democratic leadership and their desire to win elections. seriously what kind of stupid policy is something that says "oh ok so we are going to take shit from ppl with this skin color and give to these skin colors." its so ridiculous. its basically just a grab to get votes. a racial motivation for socialism is morally outrageous to me. frankly, black people and hispanic people are not as diligent and make worse decisions than whites/asians here. im sorry but its true. obv it depends on the individual but on average this is what i see as the reality right now. i mean clearly if you dont work as hard and you make bad life decisions, you shouldnt just be entitled to cry racism and take away what isnt yours. like i said the socialism in scandi countries works better because they are homogenous. homogenous societies on a whole fare better in alot of aspects socialist policies being one of them. thats not to say we should segregate the population here or anything like that. its too late, we must coexist. but this race based socialism thing is the stupidest thing ever. also, theres nothing wrong with rich ppl.

You don't actually need to get a degree in political science to be informed in politics, reading a wide range of news will get you more informed than doing 7 years of phd in poli science. I spend around 30-40min reading the news every day and subscribe to news across most of the political spectrum, from far right think tanks like the cato institute, the new york times, to left non capitalist owned news media like democracy now, and truthout. If you read a wide range of news critically and carefully, it would make you more informed than 99% of the public.

On January 02 2020 19:03 Loco wrote: Most people in America believe in angels. Do you also side with the majority on that point? and am I being a sad overly theoretical nerd who doesn't get laid enough because I don't believe along with the majority that angels are real? Why do you think I should be imprecise with my use words and concepts to suit what most people think when they have been taught and manipulated to think the wrong things? Warren has specifically said that she is "a capitalist to her bones" and she is correct in that assessment. She is not a socialist; she wants to use some half-assed measures to save capitalism from itself in the short term, not usher in a post-capitalist world. The "overly theoretical" statement you rely on so much in your bad argumentation is also wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but flat out wrong. If it was "overly theoretical" then by definition no one could have dreamed of trying to apply it to the real world. But since countless people have, and the world has evidently been changed by his writings, you are proven wrong. You don't have to "like" Marx to admit to this truth. And it doesn't matter for the sake of this one specific argument that "communism hasn't worked according to Marx" or whatever claim you might want to defend. If it was all utopian or airy-fairy abstract nonsense it wouldn't have had the reach that it had and moved so many people into action. Parts of his theories were wrong because he was limited in what he could know at the time of writing. This is true of all knowledge including scientific knowledge. One person never gets everything right. And one person never stands on their own but on the whole of accumulated human knowledge. That doesn't mean that you can dismiss the entirety of someone's writings as inconsequential rubbish. It cannot be overstated just how wrong Marx was on some things and how his later followers and those who would pervert his writings went on to create enormous suffering, but that suffering and blood is also on the hands of capitalists and capitalist apologists who support unnecessary violence and exploitation when it is in line with their specific interests.

I deleted this post cause it is just attacking Loco. We will agree to disagree.

On January 02 2020 21:15 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2020 03:39 hiems wrote:   On January 02 2020 03:37 hiems wrote:   On January 02 2020 01:34 Stroggoz wrote:   On January 01 2020 14:36 hiems wrote:   On January 01 2020 04:51 froboy12342 wrote:   On December 31 2019 18:06 hiems wrote: socialism in scandi =/= socialism in america. the population in scandi countries are homogeneous. they have common values, culture, etc. the average person in those countries have in general higher human capital value, intelligence, ability to delay instant gratification, etc. (far less retards in sweden,finland,norway). furthermore its really stupid to justify socialism on the basis of identity politics prevalent in today's society. and pls dont give me the bs about how all forms of communism before has been authoritarian forms of communism as opposed to democratic. the leaders of america's democratic party act very much like oligarchs with high paychecks, back end business deals, $$$ from speaking engagements, parlays into lobbying jobs, law firm partnerships, etc. basically use the race card to get votes to get yourself in office then reap the financial rewards for yourself. nothing has changed. andrew yang's ubi seems kind of too early too. he talks about automation as if it has already happened, citing trucking jobs as his main example when in actuality it is yet to be known if this is going to be a thing or not. yes let's spend trillions of dollars solving a problem that hasnt even happened yet... With whatever socialistic/UBI/welfare system put forward, I think that a proper implementation of it would involve establishing it, but then gradually divesting it over time.. Its a way of helping people sure, but also a way of enabling people right? Thus imo, it shouldn't be a mainstay, but a tool to help those who help themselves. And on the other end, with a gradual decrease in funds, this approach should gently spur those who want to abuse the system; the people who will need the assistance to stay the same or increase can petition w/ their local social service to have that happen or something... lol you make socialism in america sound so civil. socialism right now (in america) is not driven in earnest by actual needs. in reality its largely driven by things like allocating resources based on race/tribalism largely in due to the democratic leadership (astutely) realizing that they can manipulate the black/hispanic minority into buying into a certain narrative of oppression by using propaganda. its not even about enabling people vs people who actually need the help. its just straight up tribal warfare imo. whether its black vs white, hispanic vs white, poor vs rich, right now everything is fueled by false narratives, anger, emotion, etc. actual quality of life of even the poor in america really is not that bad. basic needs are met. food can be obtained easily and housing as well. its just the supposed "injustice" of not having the NICE things like the new iphone, instagram lifestyle, etc that causes ppl to get so fucking worked up // get themselves into debt, student loans, etc. ^^ all of this so that a few idiotic leftists can seize power, get elected to office//boost their linkedin page//play the power game in washington. If you're going to make a proper critique of socialism, quote what socialists actually say and explain what is wrong with it, myself being a socialist i don't share any of the views you stated here, except that we do indeed live in a society of poor vs rich, that is true since the rich have different values than the poor and influence politics according to their contrasting interests. The other post you made, marx was not a theorist of socialism, but a simple advocate of it. It's unclear what kind of socialism he even wanted though, however marx expressed sympathy for non-statist forms of socialism like the paris commune in 1870. And socialism has had a long history of practice, not just theory. It began from illiterate sweatshop workers in the early 19th century before marx's time, and the practice of those socialists back then (1789-1848 in particular, the age or revolution), is the reason why people have things like 8 hour working days now, because of their constant antagonism against the forces of capitalism. Socialism has a very rich history in america, the people that built the railroads for the robber barrons like carnegie had to work 364 days a year, and as a result of their constant antagnoism we all enjoy the labour rights you have today, although they could be a lot better and they are weaker in america than europe. i dont have time/interest to research politics all day and have no interest in getting a degree in political science like u. i dont care whether marx was a theorist of socialism or not whether its marxism communism whatever. i think i was originally thinking of das kapital which sounds like a title an overly theoretical nerd would make. and idgaf what engels was a proponent of either. to me both are overly theoretical nerds. yeah of course there is some balance of socialist elements and capitalist ones. obv i dont think we should go back to how it was in the guilded age or whatever. i mean thats clearly not my point.The socialist movement TODAY in america is stupid. . if you want me to quote actual socialists, ill quote elizabeth warren she said on twitter when she tweeted her policy proposals something along the lines of "black/hispanic ppl are most affected by student loan debt so my proposal is to eliminate all student loan debt using xyz STUPID ASS method". ill say this again the socialist movement in america is NOT driven in earnest by actual needs, but by rather "racial" ones which are in my opinion a manipulation by democratic leadership and their desire to win elections. seriously what kind of stupid policy is something that says "oh ok so we are going to take shit from ppl with this skin color and give to these skin colors." its so ridiculous. its basically just a grab to get votes. a racial motivation for socialism is morally outrageous to me. frankly, black people and hispanic people are not as diligent and make worse decisions than whites/asians here. im sorry but its true. obv it depends on the individual but on average this is what i see as the reality right now. i mean clearly if you dont work as hard and you make bad life decisions, you shouldnt just be entitled to cry racism and take away what isnt yours. like i said the socialism in scandi countries works better because they are homogenous. homogenous societies on a whole fare better in alot of aspects socialist policies being one of them. thats not to say we should segregate the population here or anything like that. its too late, we must coexist. but this race based socialism thing is the stupidest thing ever. also, theres nothing wrong with rich ppl. You don't actually need to get a degree in political science to be informed in politics, reading a wide range of news will get you more informed than doing 7 years of phd in poli science. I spend around 30-40min reading the news every day and subscribe to news across most of the political spectrum, from far right think tanks like the cato institute, the new york times, to left non capitalist owned news media like democracy now, and truthout. If you read a wide range of news critically and carefully, it would make you more informed than 99% of the public.

I am adequately informed. Being well informed is being adequately informed. Beyond that is unnecessary and it comes down to whether or not you have good judgement or not imo. For example you are well informed, but in my opinion have poor judgement in processing that information. It's not some race whether the person with the most information is correct. Clearly this is shown by many cases of 2 people who are very well informed with completely different opinions.

Information that you gain through life experience >> information you gain by just reading shit whether its University or Media or whatever else. As long as you can stay objective in your experiences its far better to be your own mental of origin than get your information through articles or some other stuff (there are exceptions of course but in general). For example on issues like foreign policy, I have very little opinions because I do not have the personal experience necessary and I prefer not to comment on alot of stuff there. Some other good examples are Israel/Palestine , Muslims in general. But yeah back to my point some dude might work as a bartender and pay his way through school and form some opinions on the Welfare system or Student Loan forgiveness. That is obv a pro-right wing life experience but you get my point. I think I have lived enough of life to know enough / combined with a decent amount of information gathering of my own as well.

I don't think being the most informed person in the room is a prerequisite of being a quality human being either. I hope you don't think that as some sort of obligation. Also I dont really feel like subscribing to the idiot liberal model of "how smart ppl should write or what books I should cite or how I should argue or other some bs like that" which I think I was partly refering to with you but you can see above further on "rabbit holes"

Being "objective in your experiences" is a meaningless statement. Your experience, by definition, is one bound to subjectivity, and is critically flawed in assessing the cause of your experiences and facts about the world on its own for a number of objective, well-researched reasons.

Information that you gain through life experience >> information you gain by just reading shit

There is no opposition between first person knowledge and third person knowledge or hierarchy involved between them as you seem to be suggesting; they are in fact complementary. To utilize your life experiences well is to objectivize your experiences by engaging with others (and yourself) in a constant dialogue and by gathering and evaluating a wide range of information which you have learned to think about critically and complexly. That involves "reading shit". If you don't do this and prefer to close yourself from the world and believe in "your own mental origin" above all, and aren't concerned with how we know and learn things, you are going to be severely limited in what you understand, and in general all you are doing is interpreting what 'seems to be the case' and mistaking your biases and prejudices for reality. Your brain wasn't built to know the world objectively and understand the sources of its experiences, it was built to help you meet basic needs that would augment your chances of survival. It deals with dissonance not by pushing you to understand reality but by coming up with fancy narratives that are comfortable to believe in. The more complex subject matters appear to you as simple or self-evident, the more likely you are believing in false narratives because they are comfortable to believe in.

I have talked with a number of people who vastly overestimate their cognitive capacities and abilities to understand themselves and the world we live in, people with no real interest in the sciences and how their brains work, and they are trapped in a world of ignorance and arrogance that doesn't serve their well-being at all as social animals. They have severe issues having meaningful relationships as a result. See people with severe personality disorders (narcissists and paranoiacs especially) for the extreme end of that. That is the last kind of person anyone of us truly want to be.

On January 03 2020 08:57 Loco wrote: Being "objective in your experiences" is a meaningless statement. Your experience, by definition, is one bound to subjectivity, and is critically flawed in assessing the cause of your experiences and facts about the world on its own for a number of objective, well-researched reasons. Show nested quote + Information that you gain through life experience >> information you gain by just reading shit There is no opposition between first person knowledge and third person knowledge or hierarchy involved between them as you seem to be suggesting; they are in fact complementary. To utilize your life experiences well is to objectivize your experiences by engaging with others (and yourself) in a constant dialogue and by gathering and evaluating a wide range of information which you have learned to think about critically and complexly. That involves "reading shit". If you don't do this and prefer to close yourself from the world and believe in "your own mental origin" above all, and aren't concerned with how we know and learn things, you are going to be severely limited in what you understand, and in general all you are doing is interpreting what 'seems to be the case' and mistaking your biases for reality. Your brain wasn't built to know the world objectively and understand the sources of its experiences, it was built to help you meet basic needs that would augment your chances of survival. It deals with dissonance not by pushing you to understand reality but by coming up with fancy narratives that are comfortable to believe in. I have talked with a number of people who vastly overestimate their cognitive capacities and abilities to understand themselves and the world we live in, people with no real interest in the sciences and how their brains work, and they are trapped in a world of ignorance and arrogance that doesn't serve their well-being at all as social animals. They have severe issues having meaningful relationships as a result. See people with severe personality disorders (narcissists and paranoiacs especially) for the extreme end of that. That is the last kind of person anyone of us truly want to be.

YOU Do YOU Bro.

On December 30 2019 11:43 Stroggoz wrote: One major fix would be to simply implement socialism: democratric control over the workplace. Of course, this idea is ridiculed, always with weak arguments imo.

weak arguments

^that's one of the weak arguments im talking about, i advocate democratic control over work, you point to a society that had top down control, that's about the limit of your understanding.

It's not even an argument, it's an evasion and an admission that he doesn't have the inner resources to imagine socialism in any other different way than the Red Scare way. It is much easier and much more comfortable to stand with the status quo and popular mythological economic beliefs like those of right-wing libertarians than it is to imagine an alternative. And somehow they miss that it is a blatant double standard to think that capitalism can be radically reformed while socialism is predeterministically doomed and evil.

The socialism of the past that failed was one that enabled ambitious men and their thirst for power. It allowed opportunists to recreate the same oppressive structures they claimed to be fighting against, but in the name of something new. It was rife with a nauseating machismo and claimed to be a scientific enterprise while it was not, and it disconnected revolutionary means from their ends, which is always a mistake, because a revolution is constantly in motion, and you can only reach specific ends with means that do not contradict your ends.

People with Baal's worldview and character do not see those events as something that human beings can learn from, they believe -- lazily -- that there is something encoded in our biology that makes all of us thirst for power inevitably and that "free markets" are the best way to deal with the problem. They have been duped into thinking that a global capitalist infestation that requires the dumbing down of the masses, extreme ecological destruction, constant war and the brutal exploitation of billions of people and trillions of beings without the ability to defend themselves is somehow not only significantly less violent and oppressive than previous state capitalist societies but necessary (if not desirable). It's remarkable that with all the information in the world at the tip of their fingers they fail to see how much suffering is being caused by such a system on a daily basis and how much it threatens all of life in the future.

While a part of it comes through manufacturing consent and having had a poor education, I suppose it also largely comes down to being fairly content with the current murderous capitalist form of organization as it personally advantages them. They enjoy benefiting from those who are more oppressed than them and at no point will they want to become active and receive less advantages, so there is no benefit for them in intellectually understanding that the system should be changed. And whatever our ideas to change it are, they are always going to be bad to them because from their perspective, we only want to change things because we, personally envy them, or want more power over them.

We aren't radical because we have learned about how we have been oppressed (and that's something else that they miss -- that oppression is always learned and not self-evident) and how the profit motive that drives capitalism is incompatible with an ecological society. We don't really want more freedom and a planet to live on that isn't on fire. Instead, it's all a ruse as we are somehow planning to cheat them out of their personal accomplishments for our short term gains, since the lens through which they view things is that everyone is pretty much always just trying to out-compete others and gain more for themselves. It is absolutely inconceivable to them that we may truly be interested in living without chains, and that we see social transformation as an absolute necessity for personal liberation. If they are honest and self-aware enough to rationalize and communicate their prejudices, they will admit to this, but that is seldom the case.

^imagine playing a video game where instead of pwning n00bs you just hugged everyone instead.

Stroggoz and Loco smacking people up in this thread. It's good to see. And there will be more hugs after capitalism.

Well, i'm not really interested in 'smacking people up' with arguments, unless you're trying to lose every argument you make, you're not being open minded. And i find people who use arguments to try and feel superior to others to be pretty immature and pathetic. TBH liquidpoker is just how i spend some of my down time in the day, since im still a poker player. Politics/economics is discussed with unbeleivable overconfidence and superficiality in our society in comparison with the sciences, and it hasn't seperated itself from power yet, while the sciences did that in the enlightenment, math did it about 2500 years ago after pythagoras died.

I mean hiems is basically posting 'I don't know enough about this shit to argue' followed by an attempt at an argument, baal is memeing like an idiot, while stroggoz and loco are posting actual coherent thoughts. Happy 2020 indeed.

I know your intentions were not to smack people up that is just what I thought about. Basically, what Drone said. I just felt like writing smacking people up but what I should have said is I appreciate the good posts.

Jesus. It really blows me away how stupid liberals can be in general. All of the confirmed liberals here come chiming in circle jerking each other in this thread. A+ guys.

Why in the fuck would I want to go in a back and forth post writing exchange with Loco. One of his retarded arguments was that my ability to try and be objective and understand the world is pointless and gives me some existential bs about how we can not be objective. Oh but of course, this only applies to ME. All of HIS opinions are of course valid. How about the people who write his bs liberal books that he relies on instead of life experiences. How are THEIR opinions valid // how do THEY remain objective? So we should just not move then? wtf?? Seriously all I said was life experience > book learning and the guy throws this fucking bullshit at me. The guy is an endless vaccuum of bs of hikkokomori lifestyle. I don't have time for Loco's bs rabbit holes because unlike him I am not a hikikomori/crazy person. If you guys dont believe that me not responding to Loco's useless paragraphs in this thread is some sort of zomg loco is too smart keep smoking that crack pipe idgaf.

My argument was that objectivity involves a process of evaluation and verification that is intrinsically social. Meaning that knowledge/being informed isn't something that is just granted to you by your own common sense and your life experiences as an isolated individual: we only learn and grow through (and with) others, by challenging them and allowing them to challenge us in good faith. Whether that's in the written form or some other form isn't relevant (but clearly it matters a lot to you since you are prejudiced against reading especially).

It's not that you can't know anything, but that you are not the ultimate arbiter of whether or not you are correct or well informed, this is something that is ultimately socially debated and empirically explored. None of us are able to be unbiased in our experiences, it's not an attack against you personally, but it's true that the more you expose yourself to differing ideas and open yourself up to criticism, the more likely you are to be less biased and prejudiced in general. You seem often unwilling to do that, justifying your possible deficiencies through a disdain for intellectuals and their "pointless abstractions" and believing you are closer to the truth than people you seem desperate to feel superior to.

Your initial posts made claims and arguments that were on the whole quite flawed and self-congratulatory all the while claiming that you were not interested in arguments, and now that this was pointed out to you, you throw a hissy fit. Your initial post was also meant to be insulting towards Stroggoz and myself as it was demeaning of people who are particularly curious and interested in knowledge as if you were somehow superior to "those nerdy people who don't do anything other than read pointless things instead of living life". Neither of us had antagonized you, so don't blame this on us starting it, this is not about us wanting to own you or wanting to be seen as superior to you.

Now you are digging your hole further by pigeonholing all of us as "dumb liberals", despite the fact that none of the people who have posted are actually liberals. The irony is that you were initially complaining about false dichotomies and yet here you are: we're wrong because we're "liberals", first person "intuitive" knowledge is better than engaging with the world... how do you not see that these are false dichotomies?

I think the reason you're not only not interested in reading and discussing things with any kind of openness, discipline and rigor and that you completely shut off after a little while in a discussion is because you can't stand criticism at all. You have a very low tolerance for disagreements and don't like to challenge yourself. You read a counter-argument and tend to take it as personal attack instead of something entirely separate from you. That's why you erect a premature defense of "not being interested in arguments" to protect yourself from future narcissistic injuries.

I think the extent of your insecurity and false confidence can be seen in that you lash out with what you think is going to hurt us the most (e.g. rikd is an addict and in your self-congratulatory fantasy world I'm a hikkikomori who can't get laid). I know it's not cool to armchair psychoanalyze people on the net but it's a pretty transparent defense mechanism. I feel sorry that this is what you resort to in order to try to feel better about yourself for a short while.

Oh and just to prove my point that you aren't going to be objective by yourself (and that it's easy to fall into the trap of believing in a comfortable falsehood): I've just gotten back from Japan where I spent the last 7 weeks with my partner and I was socializing a bunch (my partner lives there and wanted to introduce me to all of her friends). It's a bit draining as a strong introvert but it's not something impossible for me as you seem to imagine it is. Hikikomoris don't do that. The people I've met all reported liking me (to her), even those "without an interest in politics". No sign of anyone thinking of me being a "crazy person". Now that you've engaged in some external information-gathering you can integrate it and be more objective.

It's tough to see a world where the lower costs in production and distribution due to automation go to the people and not the wealthy elites. It's another crisis on our hands. Would I love to see $1,000 coming in each month from a UBI? Hell yes and I doubt there are many if any people on this site that wouldn't also like $1,000 in their bank account each month (versus increased taxes). Stroggoz does bring up a good point that it is at the expense of a more refined system. A single mother with 3 kids does need a more in depth welfare than Into Infinity.

I really don't know how we go from what we have now to democratic control of companies or what that looks like.

What I took away from Peter Joseph's book:

Is that we should automate as fast as possible as long as that created capital goes to the people who need it.

We should move towards "access." Meaning we share more things. Community sharing. Ride sharing would be a big one. It feels like we are far away on this one. People like to have their own stuff.

Move everything local to lower distribution costs and make things more efficient. 40% of food is wasted. Automation will be cheaper than sweat shops so no reason to make clothes, phones, etc. in China or Indonesia.

Open source everything. The capitalists will love this one. Get rid of all intellectual property. Locally 3d print cars, phones, etc.

The last one is called the "Internet of things" and I don't even know if I understand it besides just the nature of the internet. If I wanted to find out how to 3d print a phone I probably could. If my library had a 3d printer I could use we would be in business.

If I don't have to own my own car and we don't have to use oil and I can 3d print my own phone from some community center that really kind of shakes up current political economy.