4 ms·

>"Mandel did warn about the forces of automation, globalization, and wage stagnation, and feared that they would tear at the social fabric by making workers mis

>"Mandel did warn about the forces of automation, globalization, and wage stagnation, and feared that they would tear at the social fabric by making workers miserable." Funny. Most people are living better lives today in the era of High Capitalism than they ever have in the past. As technology growth - spurred by the incentives capitalism generates - continues, and new products and services are created by the capitalist system, people's lives will continue to improve. What's beautiful about capitalism is that it, through automation, is eliminating drudgery and danger from people's work. Eventually when we reach very high levels of automation in society, we may be able to transition to an economy in which people don't have to work (much) but still get to own things through universal basic income or some other sort of scheme. So no revolution needed to get us to the promised land folks. Capitalism is taking us there.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
Capitalism is taking some there. Not all. Most. The averages look good. When you look outside a standard deviation or two there is intergenerational suffering with no end. So, you're right. As long as you can plug your nose and ignore the people at the very bottom, everything is pretty good!
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Under capitalism the people at the very bottom have it much better than they ever have had it, just like the rest of the population. And things continue to improve. In fact it's plausible that as automation picks up it's the people at the bottom who will stand to gain the most.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    I assume you're talking about bottom income bracket. I was not. I was talking about bottom in terms of power. Income is only one form of power. The people truly at the bottom are being held there by triangulated cultural practices. Capitalism is not seeking to lift them up because they serve a crucial purpose as a warning to those who might question the social order. I am thinking of people at the intersection of some combination of poverty, domestic violence, addiction, racism, gender politics, etc. One or two of these issues can be overcome, but when you pile several into one family you get a machine that can be permanently stuck in suffering.
    - zzzzzzzza 9y ago
      "I am thinking of people at the intersection of some combination of poverty, domestic violence, addiction, racism, gender politics, etc." Have you ever met any of these people? Domestic violence, addiction, poverty; anyone with that trifecta is probably not a very pleasant person to know, much less employ. Giving people with an addiction more resources is not going to help them unless you're talking about opening up a methadone clinic, which is plenty compatible with capitalism.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
accountyaccount 9y ago
Would we still be capitalists if we had universal basic income?

erikpukinskis 9y ago

Capitalism is taking some there. Not all. Most. The averages look good. When you look outside a standard deviation or two there is intergenerational suffering with no end. So, you're right. As long as you can plug your nose and ignore the people at the very bottom, everything is pretty good!

meri_dian 9y ago
Under capitalism the people at the very bottom have it much better than they ever have had it, just like the rest of the population. And things continue to improve. In fact it's plausible that as automation picks up it's the people at the bottom who will stand to gain the most.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  I assume you're talking about bottom income bracket. I was not. I was talking about bottom in terms of power. Income is only one form of power. The people truly at the bottom are being held there by triangulated cultural practices. Capitalism is not seeking to lift them up because they serve a crucial purpose as a warning to those who might question the social order. I am thinking of people at the intersection of some combination of poverty, domestic violence, addiction, racism, gender politics, etc. One or two of these issues can be overcome, but when you pile several into one family you get a machine that can be permanently stuck in suffering.
  - zzzzzzzza 9y ago
    "I am thinking of people at the intersection of some combination of poverty, domestic violence, addiction, racism, gender politics, etc." Have you ever met any of these people? Domestic violence, addiction, poverty; anyone with that trifecta is probably not a very pleasant person to know, much less employ. Giving people with an addiction more resources is not going to help them unless you're talking about opening up a methadone clinic, which is plenty compatible with capitalism.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

accountyaccount 9y ago

Would we still be capitalists if we had universal basic income?