The future

@ MFI

Yep, agreed. Denial is strong with the masses…

This theory is wrong, been field tested 3 times in Bosnia, Ukraine, Palestine. The have more than you do crowd takes everything.

Oddly, I agree quite strongly with both the original post and Mr. Murder’s point. Populations are supinely letting really quite terrible things happen all around them while seemingly calmly going about their day. One is tempted to go all Orwellian or “Brave New World”ian and point to highly advanced propaganda or something. But my reading of the history tells me this is pretty normal. Lots of people willing to buy almost any weird or wacky party line and megalomanicacs taking advantage.

The guillotines and pitchforks come out eventually. More often, competing thugs foment a self-promoting overthrow and perpetuate the old normal in new colors. Not sure who they’d be with “The Right” well enthralled to :”Wall Street.” The fundamentalists are having a field-day in the theme-park created for the acting out of their passion-plays in the Middle East and the Ukraine but it took a lot of finagling to push back even bad governance far enough to give them room.

Deep down, somewhere, I want the post to be right. I’m not seeing much evidence from here though that people are getting particularly close on the ground here.

I believe TPTB are totally ok with the increasing inequality that we’re seeing because unlike the periods preceding the New Deal in America and the rise of the welfare states in Europe after WWII, it has the benefit of a technologically and militarily advanced police state apparatus to snuff out any violent/non violent dissent to the present arrangements. It had its dress rehearsal dealing with Occupy in America and with oligarch opposition in the UK. So it’s ready and waiting for the next waves.

Not that I expect anything better to take their place, since their successors will also be members of the species Homo (not quite) sapiens (enough).

“Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss”

We all need to keep plugging at it. While history may be littered with self-destructive societies, people are not by nature callous and greedy. Societies have to be devised, with social and economic infrastructure, laws based on reasonable moral consensus, and cultural transmission of values. Beliefs don’t occur randomly throughout the society — there’s a reason that Quakers led the anti-slavery movement, and it derives from the beliefs that they actively supported. Powerful, greedy men have shaped the society we live in, to make greed the measure of all things, especially over the last 35 years.

Reason is a fairly weak motivator. “This path will lead to doom”? “Maybe,” is the response, and “Trying a different path makes me worse off,” is the clinching argument. We’re better off with the simple (and to me true) statement that “This path is wrong. Default to kindness.”

“Friedrich Engels once said: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” What does “regression into barbarism” mean to our lofty European civilization? Until now, we have all probably read and repeated these words thoughtlessly, without suspecting their fearsome seriousness. A look around us at this moment shows what the regression of bourgeois society into barbarism means. This world war is a regression into barbarism. The triumph of imperialism leads to the annihilation of civilization. At first, this happens sporadically for the duration of a modern war, but then when the period of unlimited wars begins it progresses toward its inevitable consequences. Today, we face the choice exactly as Friedrich Engels foresaw it a generation ago: either the triumph of imperialism and the collapse of all civilization as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration – a great cemetery. Or the victory of socialism, that means the conscious active struggle of the international proletariat against imperialism and its method of war. This is a dilemma of world history, an either/or; the scales are wavering before the decision of the class-conscious proletariat. The future of civilization and humanity depends on whether or not the proletariat resolves manfully to throw its revolutionary broadsword into the scales. In this war imperialism has won. Its bloody sword of genocide has brutally tilted the scale toward the abyss of misery. The only compensation for all the misery and all the shame would be if we learn from the war how the proletariat can seize mastery of its own destiny and escape the role of the lackey to the ruling classes.”

-Rosa Luxemburg

And if you are wise, understand that it is prophecy that those who created the social welfare states after WWII were trying to avert

As opposed to the Wall Street welfare that’s dominated policymaking over the last 30+ years. And when those choices culminated in a financial system meltdown in 2008 that brought the global economy to its knees (from which the masses have yet to recover), it occurred to exactly no one in policy making circles at the time that the solution was to PULL HARDER. Because bootstraps. And all that.

It’s gov policy that largely determines who benefits from economic growth. And since we have two distinct policy regimes from which to compare — post-WWII era* vs ‘trickle-down’ era — pick one. Because what you don’t get to do? Is have both.

*Yes, I’m well aware of those who were excluded. But here again, it was gov policy that was specifically designed to result in that exclusion. And notice how well it worked.

(Always remember, ranters are people too.)

Riffing off Trixie’s comment:

My fellow non-elite European-Americans tend to moan and groan about the pennies a handful of poor chiselers manage to “game” out of what’s left of the social welfare system, while ignoring the megabucks rich chiselers “game” out of the government (our tax dollars) through their control of the political system.

My fellow peasants moan and groan about the mosquito bite, while ignoring the Dracula bite.

Peter,

I’ll see your “police state apparatus” and I’ll raise you 300,000,000 privately owned firearms.

Occupy was hippies with tents. And I salute them for their effort.

When the guns come out, the police best run.

My bank account wishes I was even half as “privileged” as Subgenius thinks I am. 😆

Of course you are privileged… That’s the bounty afforded by the continuing refusal of the population to actually demand accountability in any of the western nations.

Just wait, though, and soon enough ma nature will deliver an object lesson in the idiocy of running civilisation on a set of arbitrary rules designed by self-serving oligarch asshats, rather than say thermodynamics.

Regarding 300 million privately owned firearms, the reality is that firearms have never been an impediment to the creation of a police state. Saddam’s Iraq was very heavily armed — Iraq had more firearms per capita than the United States, even — but his police state was quite effective up until the point we kicked the props out from under it, because here’s a secret nobody ever tells the patriots in their own imaginations: most people seem to *want* a police state. Most people *want* order. We are getting a police state here in the United States not because it’s being imposed at gunpoint by a hostile foreign regime. We’re getting it because we *voted* for it, because we want to feel “safe”.

If you do not believe me, go to an airport and stand in the security lines that snake out the doors on a holiday. Start griping about how it’s all a sham and a farce (which it is, not a single terrorist has ever been caught by one of those security lines). You will *immediately* have a dozen people turn to you and scream that you want terrorists to kill them. I’m not joking. I’ve seen it. The majority of people *want* those useless police state “your papers please” lines. It makes them feel safe.

I have seen the enemy and it are us.

The reality is that police states are very effective at dealing with well armed populaces, they do it the way Stalin did it to the UPA in 1947 — by infiltrating secret police operatives and informers into its ranks, then destroying its ability to organize. A single man with a gun is a criminal. Two men with guns are terrorists. A thousand men with guns are an organized resistance movement. Destroy the ability to organize, track and monitor people with computerized help (and we are swiftly coming to the day where ubiquitous security cameras can track people in real time as they move through the city based on face and gait), and it’s done.

Now on to Ian’s notion that police states invariably fall: Yes, they do. In the long run. And in the long run, we’re all dead. There were babies born in 1919 who were dead by the time the Soviet Union collapsed in 1993. Plus, our oligarchs are betting that technology changes things. They believe that we can be turned into passive consumers by technology, and passive consumers do not create revolutions, and furthermore that all-pervasive monitoring and surveillance of all communications and pretty much all public spaces thanks to new technologies will no longer be so expensive as to collapse the police state, as happened to East Germany in 1989. Are they right? Are they wrong? Regardless, I think this underscores the importance of not having a police state in the first place. This is not something we want to find out the hard way….

Now, on to Ian’s notion that economic dispossession and hardship will cause a revolution: Mexico. Enough said.

@ Subby: Apology accepted. Praise Bob!

Maybe the current oligarchs don’t feel the police state has to last forever. Maybe they just need it to last long enough for them to prepare their Galt’s Gulches and quietly retreat there when the time is right and let the police state societies and policed peoples collapse into whatever collapse state they expect us to collapse into.

I sometimes ask myself . . . if the Global Overclass wanted to kill 6 billion people over the next 100 years and make it look like an accident, how might they do it? Might unrestrained global warming help them achieve that goal? Might that be why they are so invested in global warming and so determined to prevent any global de-warming or global re-cooling action?

I sometimes ask myself . . . if the Global Overclass wanted to kill 6 billion people over the next 100 years and make it look like an accident, how might they do it? Might unrestrained global warming help them achieve that goal? Might that be why they are so invested in global warming and so determined to prevent any global de-warming or global re-cooling action?

Funny you should say this, because I just saw the Wachowski’s Jupiter Ascending in the theater — it’s not the greatest thing ever, but it’s much better than the critics would have you think (22% on Rotten Tomatoes). However, the above is clearly a part of its premise, if you swap out the “Global Overclass” for the “Galactic Overclass”. Basically (and this is part of the premise, not a plot spoiler), the Galactic Overclass waits for the native inhabitants of planets to reach a point where their world can’t sustain the population. Since everyone is going to die anyway, they swoop in, kill everyone, and process their bodies into Magic Glowing Youth Elixir, with reduced guilt because they were all dead ducks anyway. Earth is close enough to “fruition” that the refineries on Jupiter are already up and ready to slice and dice.

The rest of the plot either doesn’t make any sense or is totally predictable, but the scenery is beautiful, so just ignore the plot and enjoy the rest.

The Wachowskis are very rich and surely hobnob with the real life overclass. I wonder if they’re trying to tell us something…

We are getting a police state here in the United States not because it’s being imposed at gunpoint by a hostile foreign regime. We’re getting it because we *voted* for it, because we want to feel “safe”.

If I voted for Democrats, did I vote for the police state? If I voted for Republicans, did I vote for the police state? If I voted for third parties, did I vote for the police state? If I didn’t vote, did I vote for the police state?

If the answer to all of these questions is “yes” then your assertion is meaningless.
Quit blaming the victim.

@anon y mouse,

You may be looking at it with an incomplete framing –

If you vote for a party because you are engaged by the policy, and that includes the above, then yes, you are complicit.

Even if you do otherwise you may be complicit in a technical term (you are guilty even if you don’t know the law…)

I am amazed by the complete railroading of what are supposed to be constitutional protections, and consider that the many upper level players cannot possibly all be too stupid to realize what is happening. In such a case, surely, complicity is rife and is shown by the regular failure of ‘due process’ in almost every case – it seems it is a big deal when something occurs that the majority of the general population agree with…

It is pretty obvious that all of the drum beating and scare stories are just that, stories we are told in order to control us, in the same way that the ‘constant technological progress’ stories and ‘growing economy’ stories are there to keep us playing; this is made even more plain by the almost complete silence on the true understanding of current inequality, climate disruption, and the age of limits (Seneca cliff, ugo bardi – or Malthus), all of which are clearly seen by multiple strategic groups worldwide as primary threats.

Looking at the constitution it appears more that there should be no adventurism and a focus should be on developing a more local/regional inward development than the current permanent domination outwards. No standing military. A well-integrated population capable of working together in forceful terms should the need arise. A system of ALL the people for ALL the people.

What resources that do remain should surely be directed toward a resilient diverse humane and equitable (to life as a whole) solution working within true renewable sources.

I say this as an outsider, looking at the situation here in the US, but I see a similar fear-and-control pattern in most other places, though far less developed.

There is no equitable humane way for any group selected purely on a basis of power to fairly represent an underclass. They simply have no valid perspective on the reality of the power-deprived.

(Side note.. Power, wealth-same thing, basically:

P=cw²

[power]=[connections]x[wealth squared]

Sub’s law, after Einstein

Also..see the other insights, which explain the bought nature of the public faces:

Wealth is the square root of power multiplied by connections – wish I was prez, rather than broke and unemployed… )

No a/c? Then don’t be a dumbshit and build a huge structure of cardboard concrete and glass in direct sun in a hot climate…reality doesn’t do what you desire…but I digress…

Non-complicity requires non-compliance. The level to which we are compliant with the existing system determines our complicity, NOT how we voted – which (think about it…) obviously indicates nothing but complicity with the system. But that is a taught response – so are you guilty even if due to ignorance).

Thus, to be fair, occupy was pretty good in their stance. But I was only comfortable as an occasional visitor to our local demonstration, and thus obviously I myself am mostly complicit, i.e. complicit – its an either/or western kinda concept.

I hope understanding of the big picture grows, and that minds clearer than mine can and do develop a strategy that we, as a whole, can execute and that results in some degree of success. Because otherwise its all pretty moot.

How exactly will peeing in a square toilet help make the world a better place? I confess to being intrigued.

mfi

Anony Mouse,

The answer to the first two questions is Definitely Yes, the answer to the third is Maybe, it depends on which alternative party. The answer to the fourth is that not voting in itself is just a negation and doesn’t give an indication of what one supports.

So you left out the fifth question – What DID one do besides refusing to participate in fraudulent elections* which are really more like old-style fascist plebiscites? Did one at least try to oppose system lies to whatever extent one can and, with whatever so-far meager means are available to us, propagate the truth?

*Local elections may involve real differences among the candidates, and ballot questions often present a stark choice. I’m talking about the central presidency etc.

‘constant technological progress’ stories

I’m going to vomit the next time I see a “3-D printing will change everything!” story. VR got the same kind of ludicrous hype in the early 1990s (including an entire prime-time TV series) though it was still far, far from being ready. To add insult to injury, now that VR actually is technically feasible the corporate world seemingly can’t torpedo it fast enough (the coverage of the Oculus buyout was positively gleeful.)

I’ll further note that telepresence was being mooted as the next big thing around 15 years ago, and has barely gone anywhere apart from its all too well-known lethal applications. Why not let construction vehicle operators, high-rise window washers, heavy machine operators etc. telecommute?

There’s a moment in the documentary Men At Lunch (about the “lunch atop a skyscraper” photo) when an interviewer gets just a little too enthusiastic while asking a modern construction worker to detail the extreme dangers faced by ironworkers in the ’30s. He hastens to point out that no-one would expected to work under such conditions nowadays (while his expression suggests he’s starting to wonder just what sort of ghoul he’s talking to.) Perhaps there are those who feel that certain kinds of progress spoil the fun.

I have to say I find it surreal that the bulk of the automation discussions that are so ubiquitous these days could have been taken almost verbatim from The Road to Wigan Pier, which was written in 1937.

Would anyone reading Wigan back then have seriously believed that automation would still be “just around the corner” nearly 80 years later?

I haven’t read that book, but I’m not surprised at how long the discussion has been going on. Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto held that work was a male conspiracy to make the world boring and tedious, and the female revolution would abolish it forthwith.

A lot of things people used to do by hand *have* been automated, but we came up with other forms of work. The question is, can we indefinitely come up with new forms of work for which an automated alternative does not exist that are in some manner or another drudgery we force on each other? It seems harder and harder to do.

Sometimes the future takes longer than people expect.

I remember a 1976 college class (COBOL programming of all things, thank God I never used it real life), teacher was telling us in a side note about this amazing invention she read that IBM was working on. IBM was the biggest, most respected computer manufacturer at the time, and had plenty of money to throw at various research projects. The invention was about using lasers to print computer output, and their gadget that did this was the size of a small garage. It was expected that only the biggest companies would be able to afford one, as the price tag would be well into the 5 or 6 digits.

About ten years later, in the 1980s, I saw ads in manufacturing trade journals for gadgets that could build up prototypes, layer by layer, out of raw plastic. These exotic machines, early 3-D printers, had similar price tags going well into the 5 or 6 digits, and of course would only appeal to companies doing a lot of R+D and who could justify such an expensive machine for the sole purpose of realizing prototypes.

It only took about 10-15 years for laser printing to become an ordinary fixture in most businesses or homes, and 30 or so years for 3-D printing to gain general mindshare, and to spread beyond creating prototypes.

There’s countless examples like this. I find it useful to think of our time as an “electrical age”, beginning in the late 1800s, and we simply haven’t seen the end of everything that is going to be created with this style of technology, for better or worse.

To point at earlier writings forecasting this or that kind of technological future, noting how they missed the mark, misses the larger trend. It’s redolent of how right wingers love to exhume earlier, missed predictions about global warming as a way of discounting the overwhelming evidence for global warming.

Agree subgenius. best mix is what we had in the 50s and early 60s. Electric trains, trams, electric trolley buses, small motorcycles and scooters.

Any realistic alternative depends on a magic breakthrough in battery tech, which is like fusion..decades away.

We can do good reliable, safe and cheap nuclear fission plants, good large and local scale solar (inc thermal), good wind usage. Tidal is in the pre-production phase. Iceland is totally powered by geo-thermal (might end up being the last place on the planet with electricity) and a fair numberof places in the woeld could use it too. Hydro is just about totally exploited in most of the world.

Though there is a lot of geographical luck in how much you can exploit the ‘renewables’. For example, if you are in Finland it is coal, gas or nuclear…not many other options.

But hard choices have to be made. Take Australia, my calculations is that we could easily do a 50% renewable (mostly wind/solar) mix, 70%+ if we exploited Tasmanian hydro properly. The rest by nuclear power for baseload and night power. However it would require significant investment, grid upgrades and a political will that hasn’t been seen since the Snowy scheme.

But sadly, there isn’t a political Green in the world that wouldn’t vote for coal over nuclear (or here in Australia coal over more Tasmanian Hydro).

So we are politally caught, the fossil lobbies want (duh) to keep ther monopoly on power generation, the greens hate coal but hate nuclear and hydro even more. Solar and wind are cursed by intermitancy and cyclic issues, fat lot of good generating huge amounts of power if no one wants to use at the time and you have no way of stroring it.

And here is the rub, if we want to significantly reduce our fossil fuel usage in transport and manufacturing we have to increase cheap electricity generation to a far greater extent. QED.

I seem to have been misconstrued. I wasn’t denying the validity of the technologies themselves, I was angry at the sheer disingenuousness of flogging technological progress in the media while simultaneously fighting it tooth and nail in reality.

VR got hyped back when it wasn’t possible, is possible now, but isn’t being deployed.

Telepresence has been possible for ten years, but isn’t being used for much besides telesurgery (and, of course, you-know-what.)

Gigabit home internet has been possible for five years, and is being fought tooth and nail by the existing players

Online music distribution was possible in 1999, existing players fought it for nearly a decade, and lost mostly on account of massive flouting of the existing copyright regime by the public, making it possible for Apple to move in and pick up the pieces.

As for the internet–the “information superhighway” hype of the early ’90s* was in actuality vapor as well, as the implication at that time was that the “information superhighway” would be a brand new system of high-bandwidth digital communication that would be created by the telecom giants. The hype went on for several years, with the telecoms never anything concrete to realize their promises.

The bombardment got the public to casting about trying to find this “information superhighway”, and people seized on the internet, which, while nothing at all like the promised “information superhighway”, sounded vaguely similar and so it was concluded that this must indeed be the “information superhighway” that everyone kept talking about.

Even though at the time it was still little more than the academic counterpart to the commercial X.25 packet networks that had been around since the early 1980s, it came with a killer app in the form of SMTP email, which provided a free alternative to the X.400 email system that the telecoms had rolled out a decade earlier and promptly price-gouged into irrelevance. (In their boundless greed they’d managed to discover a price point so high as to be less economical than giving the service away for free.)

Even by the late 1990s the internet was still, in its essentials, not much more than a colossal bubble-financed Minitel with GIFs. The originally promised “information superhighway” functionality didn’t really appear until the subsequent decade.

*and even earlier–though it would appear that NTT (the sponsor) really was making moves in this direction before it was privatized…