Where do you think the world is headed?

[x-punk]

I came across an interesting quote by economist John Keynes which made me start thinking.

“For at least another hundred years we must pre*tend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.”



I think he made this statement in 1930. It seems to be interpreted to mean that until we can create a post scarcity society we must continue with the current economic system.


Im not wanting a debate on Keynes but the quote got me thinking about where things are currently headed.


There is no denying that technology is advancing at a fast rate allowing more to be produced with less human labour. Its also evident that power structures are becoming more centralised eg EU, NAFTA etc So it would certainly seem there is a decent argument to suggest we are heading to a world govt, or at least to suggest the current powermongers want to take us to a world govt perhaps. But then what? Would the controlling forces divvy up the resources according to their agenda ala Zeitgeist or do they let capitalism run rampant, or even do they put in the mechanisms to move towards communism?


Where do others see things going if there was no revolution and the current powermongers were allowed to keep going?



I personally think we would move towards a perpetual global dictatorship which controlled every aspect of our lives which is why i push for communism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thread moved to Opposing Ideologies

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What's really struck me over the past couple of years or so is how fucking incompetent the ruling classes have become in some areas. Look at the current government of the UK, it's full of posh knob-ends who've lived their whole lives in some Eton bubble, and hardly a week goes by without at least one of them saying or doing something that makes them look like a massive fuckwit.

I can't help but wonder how deep the rot goes. A few years ago I would have thought them too smart to simply blunder their way into a crisis which could end up being their downfall. Now I'm not so sure.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Where do others see things going if there was no revolution and the current powermongers were allowed to keep going?

This is all just speculation. I guess I could see an increase in the intensity and frequency in the boom and bust cycles. I could also see an increase in the suppression of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (in fact, laws like the NDAA, etc. are already doing this).

[Book O'Dead]

[...]

Where do others see things going if there was no revolution and the current powermongers were allowed to keep going?


Do you really want to know?

This is what will likely happen if the working classes of the world fail to meet and defeat the capitalist challenge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI&feature=colike

"Give us a truce with your 'reforms.' There is a sickening air of moral mediocrity in all such petty movements of petty, childish aspirations at times like these, when gigantic man-issues are thundering at every man's door demanding admission and solution." --Daniel De Leon.

[JPSartre12]

Brosa makes a good point about the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie becoming more pronounced with the NDAA and similar legislation. I think that, coupled with the rise of ultra-right reactionary and nationalist forces vis-à-vis the Tea Party, the country (and the world as a whole) is undergoing a general shift to the right.

Like Brosa said, this is just speculation ... but I think that we are far more likely to enter a phase of oppressive state-capitalism or Tea Party-led fascism than we are to enter socialism. I think that capitalism still has a few wily tricks left up its sleeve.

[Ostrinski]

Up the devil's rectum as far as I can see

[milkmiku]

I've said it before, Action must be taken soon or nothing will ever happen.

In the past 10 years we have grown babies, genetically modified babies, cloned goats with spider genes, created a jellyfish out of a rat, reversed the aging of mice, made leaps towards qutam computing on a large scale, PRINTED human bones and organs and many other amazing deeds.

Trans-humanism is over the horizon and I cannot see a way for the people to achieve class consciousness in such a society, especially if we refuse to modify the theroy of Marxism to such a state of humanity.

[bcbm]

the rich will get richer, most cities will become more gentrified and the poor will be increasingly forced into the suburbs and become low wage commuters servicing the enclaves of the rich which will probably eventually become quasi-independent city state units with heavy surveillance and police. most development will happen within these dystopian hells while the rest of the world will be left to its fate. large parts of the world formerly used for agriculture will probably be abandoned or at least see mass migration as possible farmland moves further north and south. some large cities like la, phoenix, las vegas will be abandoned as water runs out. the old economic powerhouses will go into a steady decline and be over taken by younger players like china and india. perhaps another world war, but constant intense proxy wars seem more likely. those outside of the 'gates' so to speak will largely be left to their own devices due to an inability or lack of desire to control large sections of territory by central governments, leading to a wide range of experimental living in the ever warming ruins. the freeing up of large parts of land and sea from cold will probably result in a 'gold rush' atmosphere in the northern and southern continental extremes.

[Commiekirby]

When I look at the world as it is and imagine that revolutionaries don't do anything or don't play their cards right then we are certain to be doomed to a future ridden with both Oceania-esque Fascist States that oppose the idea of Corporatocracy in favor of extremist Nationalism and Old Imperialism and then the Corporatocracies that might as well be the same exact thing but just use Reaganomics greed for expansion.

Oh yeah and let's not forget the whole globe will be running out of resources and dying at a ridiculously accelerated rate that will lead to any of your generic disaster based movie like scenarios. So to sum it up, humanity's age of powerful civilization will eventually die I'd say before the 22nd Century.

[Commiekirby]

I've said it before, Action must be taken soon or nothing will ever happen.

In the past 10 years we have grown babies, genetically modified babies, cloned goats with spider genes, created a jellyfish out of a rat, reversed the aging of mice, made leaps towards qutam computing on a large scale, PRINTED human bones and organs and many other amazing deeds.

Trans-humanism is over the horizon and I cannot see a way for the people to achieve class consciousness in such a society, especially if we refuse to modify the theroy of Marxism to such a state of humanity.

I always thought modifying the human condition to shun greed and hedonism in preference to the idea of egalitarian thought and well, the simple idea that everyone being taken care of is the better route. Trans-Humanism can apply to a mixture of both physical, mental, emotional, and social evolution to a stage where today's present issues are null and void.

Though as a Trans-Humanist myself I can't really say that it's commonly attached to Far Left schools of thought.

[milkmiku]

let's not forget the whole globe will be running out of resources

But that's wrong, also, we will mining the moon, asteroids and other things in the future.

We have enough resources to last a good long while, unless it is Rare earth type things. We have plenty of farm land, water, medicine ect, ect. It is distribution bottlenecks that creates the lack of. Because an artificial scarcity is good for making cash.

[Ocean Seal]

Towards stagnation, boredom, and proxy war between the imperialist powers and the rising imperialist powers. Nothing spectacular as of yet.

[bcbm]

We have plenty of farm land, water

not exactly

[Commiekirby]

But that's wrong, also, we will mining the moon, asteroids and other things in the future.

We have enough resources to last a good long while, unless it is Rare earth type things. We have plenty of farm land, water, medicine ect, ect. It is distribution bottlenecks that creates the lack of. Because an artificial scarcity is good for making cash.

Yeah but it doesn't help when science is stagnated by many wealthy men deciding it's just easier to keep their large cycle going and not think ahead to the future until it's too late and they need out.

We do have plenty for now but it doesn't mean we should keep to our current habits, our signs of environmental damage are highly apparent. I could care less about a lot of resources like fossil fuels but with a damaged ecosystem it becomes harder and harder to maintain those said farms and aquifers that we rely on.

[bcbm]

Yeah but it doesn't help when science is stagnated by many wealthy men deciding it's just easier to keep their large cycle going and not think ahead to the future until it's too late and they need out.

actually they are thinking ahead, they just don't make it very public. most companies are preparing for a 'post global warming world' among other things

[Ocean Seal]

But that's wrong, also, we will mining the moon, asteroids and other things in the future.

We have enough resources to last a good long while, unless it is Rare earth type things. We have plenty of farm land, water, medicine ect, ect. It is distribution bottlenecks that creates the lack of. Because an artificial scarcity is good for making cash.
We are running out of fuel though, and mining on the moon is going to be quite a hassle with capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

actually they are thinking ahead, they just don't make it very public. most companies are preparing for a 'post global warming world' among other things

Those companies typically do such things through consultants, which is basically the equivalent of the food stockpiling and emergency drills that apocalypse nutters love doing.

What will happen to them in the event of a disaster will be much the same too - they will get their shit ruined by those who have stockpiled nothing, but who brought along lots of hungry friends.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Communism.




Why? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capital-and-falling-t173729/index.html?t=173729) Statistics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/failure-capitalist-production-t172018/index.html?t=172018) and more evidence (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debt-growth-and-t171928/index.html?t=171928).

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

To hell in a hand bask...nah, I can't even finish that one.

Who the fuck knows? Without action on a global scale to curb the power and influence of the 'market' and those that influence and control it, it'll get even worse for many and even better for fewer and fewer.

[milkmiku]

not exactly
Yes, exactly. Over population is a myth, We have plenty of land and water. The problem is we do not utilize it correctly.


We are running out of fuel though, and mining on the moon is going to be quite a hassle with capitalism.
Peak oil? Remember oil may actually be largly Abiogenic , there is no argument that Abiogenic exist, it is whether or not it is the primary contribute to oil that is the argument. We can easily switched from being oil reliant, it is just not profitable to do so. Thing like CET, CT, ect ect are not about solving our oil problem, but about making hippies think people car and creating profit.



What will happen to them in the event of a disaster will be much the same too - they will get their shit ruined by those who have stockpiled nothing, but who brought along lots of hungry friends.

Those same companies would have the monopoly on food and thus many people would willingly defend them for that. Since the left here seems to be aginst guns and is likely untrained, those will be stomped by the PMC and police forces that flee to those compines for support.


Yeah but it doesn't help when science is stagnated
But that is clearly wrong. Do you pay attention to science related news at all?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Postulating such obvious wishful thinking as abiogenic oil is unnecessary, so long as we have the knowledge to build and maintain nuclear reactors.

And before the anti-nuke crowd start, which do you really think is responsible for the deaths of the most people, fossil fuels or fissionables? Be honest.

[maskerade]

Postulating such obvious wishful thinking as abiogenic oil is unnecessary, so long as we have the knowledge to build and maintain nuclear reactors.

And before the anti-nuke crowd start, which do you really think is responsible for the deaths of the most people, fossil fuels or fissionables? Be honest.

What's responsible for more deaths, snake bites or shark attacks? probably snake bites but I wouldn't want to experience either.

i'm not really knowledgeable enough about nuclear energy to have an informed opinion on the matter (my uninformed opinion being 'anti-nuke'), but that doesn't change the fact that you're using a bit of a strange argument.

As for the topic, bcbm pretty much seems to have the right idea, in my opinion.

[Comrade Samuel]

The world probably isn't going anywhere good in the foreseeable future, personally I'm banking on us blowing ourselves up with nuclear weapons before the world ever sees communism achieved.

Even if we could find a way to stop imperialists from causing a war so big it wipes us all out we've still got a very long road ahead.

[piet11111]

the rich will get richer, most cities will become more gentrified and the poor will be increasingly forced into the suburbs and become low wage commuters servicing the enclaves of the rich which will probably eventually become quasi-independent city state units with heavy surveillance and police. most development will happen within these dystopian hells while the rest of the world will be left to its fate. large parts of the world formerly used for agriculture will probably be abandoned or at least see mass migration as possible farmland moves further north and south. some large cities like la, phoenix, las vegas will be abandoned as water runs out. the old economic powerhouses will go into a steady decline and be over taken by younger players like china and india. perhaps another world war, but constant intense proxy wars seem more likely. those outside of the 'gates' so to speak will largely be left to their own devices due to an inability or lack of desire to control large sections of territory by central governments, leading to a wide range of experimental living in the ever warming ruins. the freeing up of large parts of land and sea from cold will probably result in a 'gold rush' atmosphere in the northern and southern continental extremes.

I immediately thought of judge dredd.

[x-punk]

Going back to the quote i originally posted, I think it contains a sentiment that is shared by many including myself. Basically, that this current economic system is circling the drain and something new is going to have to replace it. I think many commentators throughout history, including Keynes, have seen that this capitalist system with the debt based fiat currency requiring ever increasing growth only had a limited lifespan. Moreover, although i accept that the current crop of politicians just bungle along, i am not convinced that the ones who work behind the scenes, the think-tanks, the large capital holders and their entourage of experts are quite so naive and I do believe they must of thought about what to do when this system came to an end. As things get worse financially i could actually see a financial rebalancing of wealth across nations. I think this process is already happening with countries like Japan having its wings clipped and China's GDP falling now. Not that i see the people within these nations having a fair distribution of wealth. Its still going to be the usual small percentage owning the majority of the wealth. In fact, any sort of a financial crisis would provide the bourgeoisie an excellent opportunity to grab more wealth with the help of their bagmen in the govt. Moreover, as the financial problems worsen i think we will see a more centralised govt structure being put in place and again, this already looks like happening with all the larger economic zones being put in place. I kinda see the potential future looking a bit like the movie Equilibrium. This is all just wild speculation but i certainly dont see a rosy future ahead. Certainly as financial problems continue to worsen things will get more tumultuous across the world.

[milkmiku]

Postulating such obvious wishful thinking as abiogenic oil is unnecessary, so long as we have the knowledge to build and maintain nuclear reactors.

And before the anti-nuke crowd start, which do you really think is responsible for the deaths of the most people, fossil fuels or fissionables? Be honest.

I agree 100%, Nuclear is the future, Especially pic related.
No idea why the majority of the left is so ignorant on modern nuclear technology. Hell most of the people I talk to about it have no idea about salt waters effect on radiation. That shit is unbelievable.

Motherfucking LFTR

http://imageshack.us/f/404/1328234551389.png/http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7193/1328234551389.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/404/1328234551389.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

[Liberty]

Freedom.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I kinda see the potential future looking a bit like the movie Equilibrium.

Haha I recently watched that movie. A really dumb film.

Probably the easiest film to act in of all time, though.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What will happen to them in the event of a disaster will be much the same too - they will get their shit ruined by those who have stockpiled nothing, but who brought along lots of hungry friends.

I don't know, most of those hoarders in the USA have enough guns and ammo to repel the Russian army.

[Commiekirby]

Postulating such obvious wishful thinking as abiogenic oil is unnecessary, so long as we have the knowledge to build and maintain nuclear reactors.

And before the anti-nuke crowd start, which do you really think is responsible for the deaths of the most people, fossil fuels or fissionables? Be honest.

Not to be the naysayer here, but the main issue I have with nuclear power is it's capacity to put off so much waste into the world. Now some of the newer ideas on nuclear power are better and don't irradiate materials as drastically which does thankfully fix the issue of pollution if the waste can be handled properly.

I'm more of a geothermal person, a basic global geothermal generation system can easily just power this whole globe today and then all that would have to be handled is smaller power consuming products like vehicles. Though, if we did discover fusion then I'd be all for it as it could be used in the future if man expanded out to space.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know, most of those hoarders in the USA have enough guns and ammo to repel the Russian army.

They'll get tired. Me and my friends can sleep in shifts. :sneaky:


Not to be the naysayer here, but the main issue I have with nuclear power is it's capacity to put off so much waste into the world. Now some of the newer ideas on nuclear power are better and don't irradiate materials as drastically which does thankfully fix the issue of pollution if the waste can be handled properly.

I think nuclear reprocessing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing) is absolutely essential to an energy infrastructure involving nuclear fission that's intended to be sustainable in the long term. Also, there are now reactor designs which can consume what would be waste in other designs, as well as subcritical reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor) designs which use external neutron sources (usually particle beams) to consume materials such as depleted uranium.


I'm more of a geothermal person, a basic global geothermal generation system can easily just power this whole globe today and then all that would have to be handled is smaller power consuming products like vehicles. Though, if we did discover fusion then I'd be all for it as it could be used in the future if man expanded out to space.

Geothermal is great if the local geography allows for it, but at the moment it seems to have limited potential. If it's ever discovered how to make really fucking deep holes in the ground more efficiently and without the damn things collapsing in on themselves, then I could definitely see geothermal having much wider application potential.

[Commiekirby]

I think nuclear reprocessing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing) is absolutely essential to an energy infrastructure involving nuclear fission that's intended to be sustainable in the long term. Also, there are now reactor designs which can consume what would be waste in other designs, as well as subcritical reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor) designs which use external neutron sources (usually particle beams) to consume materials such as depleted uranium.



Geothermal is great if the local geography allows for it, but at the moment it seems to have limited potential. If it's ever discovered how to make really fucking deep holes in the ground more efficiently and without the damn things collapsing in on themselves, then I could definitely see geothermal having much wider application potential.


Well I'm all for the power source if everything can be handled in the manner of not causing long lasting damage that can hurt us as humans or our ecosystem. It does run off a resource though, so it's great for short term but not long term energy problems and I'm no advocate for "We'll just steal it from another planet!" because that solves nothing forever.

With maybe a future that isn't so technologically regressive the idea of Geothermal Energy could be expanded upon so that problem isn't a major hindrance. The energy could be channeled from locations that produce the energy to locations that don't have nearly as much ability to sustain a geothermal plant. Might be awhile before we get an efficient geothermal system or entirely safe nuclear system however.

[MuscularTophFan]

Hopefully immortality is achieved sometime in our lifetimes. Since I don't believe in any kind of afterlife I see immorality achieved though human technology as my hope, because being dead kinda sucks.

[piet11111]

Hopefully immorality is achieved sometime in our lifetimes. Since I don't believe in any kind of afterlife I see immorality achieved though human technology as my hope, because being dead kinda sucks.

immortality you mean ?

Immorality is the lack of morals something the capitalists perfected many years ago.

[MuscularTophFan]

immortality you mean ?

Immorality is the lack of morals something the capitalists perfected many years ago.
Oh sorry typo.

[hatzel]

Not to be the naysayer here, but the main issue I have with nuclear power is it's capacity to put off so much waste into the world.

You know I'd probably much prefer you if your main issue was the very obvious fact that our nuclear energy technologies and infrastructures both result from and demand rigid, centralised and hierarchical power structures, and as such cannot be imagined to be compatible with the flexible, decentralised, non-hierarchical power structures we (surely?) seek. But let's not talk nuclear here, let's not do that! It's a tired old discussion that people keep having and eventually it's hardly even worth having it again...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You know I'd probably much prefer you if your main issue was the very obvious fact that our nuclear energy technologies and infrastructures both result from and demand rigid, centralised and hierarchical power structures, and as such cannot be imagined to be compatible with the flexible, decentralised, non-hierarchical power structures we (surely?) seek.

Problems:

1) What do you mean by "rigid" precisely? If it's what I think you mean, response to changing energy demands can be improved by designing better reactors and modernisation of electrical power grids.

2) What's wrong with centralisation? Surely you can't be saying we should all be making our own steel in our backyards.

3) What's to stop a nuclear power station from having a flatter hierarchy?

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, exactly. Over population is a myth, We have plenty of land and water. The problem is we do not utilize it correctly.

No we don't. There will be a shortage of arable land to produce enough food very soon if population growth continues as it does. This is well known. That's why we need vertical agriculture.




2) What's wrong with centralisation? Surely you can't be saying we should all be making our own steel in our backyards.


That's not centralisation, that's specialisation.

[Lynx]

Can nuclear power be operated safely under capitalism? The answer so far is no.

[Lynx]

Related article: Future of base load power (http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/445)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's not centralisation, that's specialisation.

Even in a communist society, we would still be using a hell of a lot of steel. Recycling it is also energy intensive due to processing large amounts of a metal with a thousand-degree or so melting point. It is non-perishable (when stored correctly) and often used in bulk quantities (construction, mass production etc).

The energy question is important. I imagine it to be currently the case that heavy industry generally draws its power from the grid unless it's something like an oil rig or a mine in the middle of nowhere (geology cares not for our political desires). I'm not sure if having heavy industry run off their own on-site power plant is a better alternative. Considering that the effectiveness of renewables has a geographical component, and how it seems to be a better idea to put living space closer to the renewable stuff (except downhill of a hydro-electric dam), would there not be a strong incentive for self-powered heavy industry to consider the nuclear option?

If on-site power is not on the cards, then areas with optimal renewable energy potential will have to be divided between habitation and the heavy shit. Personally I think it's better not to have to make that choice.


Can nuclear power be operated safely under capitalism? The answer so far is no.

Nothing can be operated safely under capitalism. But I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant that might pop its top in 60 years, as opposed to a fossil fuel plant directly poisoning me, polluting the atmosphere and fucking with the sea levels right now.


Related article: Future of base load power (http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/445)

Well, there would be no need for baseload power plants if stuff like heavy industry has on-site power as I suggested above.

[La Comédie Noire]

The optimists and the pessimists will be sorely disappointed, though they will both find things to say "I told you so!" about, though in a wounded, half disillusioned manner because the real world has failed to conform to their extreme predictions.

As always happens, they'll move on to the next miracle technology or the next big disaster and churn out self published books on how different the world will be in 50 years.

[milkmiku]

No we don't. There will be a shortage of arable land to produce enough food very soon if population growth continues as it does. This is well known. That's why we need vertical agriculture.


You just said what I said...

"The problem is we do not utilize it correctly."

So, yes, we have plenty of land and water, it is not used correctly.


The optimists and the pessimists will be sorely disappointed, though they will both find things to say "I told you so!" about, though in a wounded, half disillusioned manner because the real world has failed to conform to their extreme predictions.

But the future is indeed meeting those predictions. One step at a time. The maganutided of simply reversing the aging of mice or creating a jellyfish from a rat is lost on you.