Jump to content

Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?


Robin Of House Hill

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Trump was a rather unique case because he upset the basic tenets of even Republicans and there were still only, what, 7 faithless electors?

Technically, there were more, but their votes were invalidated by faithless election laws and replaced by faithful electors. Also the vast majority of both validated and invalidated faithless votes did not belong to Trump. Here's the breakdown of the validated:

  • Hawaii: 1x Clinton -> 1x Sanders
  • Texas: 2x Trump -> 1x Kasich + 1x Ron Paul
  • Washington: 4x Clinton -> 3x Colin Powell + 1x Faith Spotted Eagle

And here are the invalidated ones:

  • Maine: 1x Clinton -> 1x Sanders
  • Minnesota: 1x Clinton -> 1x Sanders
  • Colorado: 1x Clinton -> 1x Kasich

All of that said, the Electoral College is a red herring: it only makes a difference when the outcome of the election is extremely close and even if it could be removed or circumvented, this would not address the fundamental problems and in fact would quite likely exacerbate the ones which hit certain geographical areas much harder than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

All of that said, the Electoral College is a red herring: it only makes a difference when the outcome of the election is extremely close and even if it could be removed or circumvented, this would not address the fundamental problems and in fact would quite likely exacerbate the ones which hit certain geographical areas much harder than others.

Not exactly clear what you mean, but the proposed interstate pact cited above solves the problem of the popular vote winner not winning the electoral vote.  That's all it proposes to fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

If almost all jobs end up getting automated it will be possible to provide people with far more than just basic necessities. Total production of goods and services will be much higher than right now, just without much need for human input. 

It will be possible but why would the people in control bother to do that? Even now the people in control of most of the money tend to avoid paying taxes by any means necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Wolfgang I said:

It will be possible but why would the people in control bother to do that? Even now the people in control of most of the money tend to avoid paying taxes by any means necessary. 

hmmm... but how to deal with that... i feel like there is a question, its just on the tip of my tongue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wolfgang I said:

It will be possible but why would the people in control bother to do that? Even now the people in control of most of the money tend to avoid paying taxes by any means necessary. 

Well, it might be necessary to reinstate capital and financial controls, to prevent the owners of the robots (and what have you) just moving their production facilities to countries with lower tax rates. 

So the globalized economic system of today might need to go, in such a scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that we need revolution but concerning the US, I would be interested in seeing the country broken up. the cultural differences are so massive now that there really can't be any compromises from either side. CA right now is proposing to get succession on the ballot. now, I don't think this would happen but it'd be pretty damn nice if us blue states weren't being dragged down by anti-science, anti-intellectual, post-fact states. we pay vastly more into the fed than we receive and right now Republicans are quite literally dragging the entire world down. the Paris talks were tailored specifically to include the US. the entire world is on board with fighting climate change and now the Right is going to break an international agreement because of a crusty old cheeto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Well, it might be necessary to reinstate capital and financial controls, to prevent the owners of the robots (and what have you) just moving their production facilities to countries with lower tax rates. 

So the globalized economic system of today might need to go, in such a scenario. 

Even before the "robot revolution" we already have "enough on average". It is "only the distribution" that has been a problem for several decades. Two of the smartest people of the 20th century, Maynard Keynes and Bertrand Russell, were spectacularly wrong with their predictions, made in the 1920s or 30s, that in the late 20th century people would have a 20h workweek because of automation and enjoy both a living standard acceptable for an upper middle class Brit of the 1920s and many hours of leisure for doing arts and philosophy. So like others may ask for their hoverboards or flying cars, I want my bespoke suits and shoes affordable while working only 20h... ;) we were both disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Even before the "robot revolution" we already have "enough on average". It is "only the distribution" that has been a problem for several decades. Two of the smartest people of the 20th century, Maynard Keynes and Bertrand Russell, were spectacularly wrong with their predictions, made in the 1920s or 30s, that in the late 20th century people would have a 20h workweek because of automation and enjoy both a living standard acceptable for an upper middle class Brit of the 1920s and many hours of leisure for doing arts and philosophy. So like others may ask for their hoverboards or flying cars, I want my bespoke suits and shoes affordable while working only 20h... ;) we were both disappointed.

They were partly right.  For most people, the working week is shorter than it was in the 1920's.  But, people want more than what was considered a good standard of living in the 1920's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Again, should people incapable of understanding the issues they are voting on be able to impact the results?  Should sociopaths and tinfoil hat wearers?  If it is wrong to allow a person with severe psychiatric issues a gun, because that person could kill dozens, why allow them to vote, and destroy a country of 320+ million people?

And while the Democrats do not qualify as noble elves, the Republicans, in their incessant quest to ensure that only rich white men have rights, are abominable orcs.

Bear in mind that not so long ago, homosexuality or Down's syndrome might make the list of "severe psychiatric issues" so people "suffering" from those might have also been denied voting rights. There are so many things about human psyche we don't know that any list of "severe psychiatric issues" compiled at this moment is as likely to cause . Anyway, "sociopaths and tinfoil hat wearers" would most probably pass all the test you throw their way anyway, so you wouldn't achieve much.  Which brings us to the most important question of all - what makes you think that you are the one to draw that line in the sand and say: "everyone on this side of the line gets to vote and everyone else can bugger off"? What is it that makes you think you have intellectual and ethical capacity to determine that, and moral authority to enforce it?

As for your views on the Republicans, you are speaking as a spoiled child might when being denied their favourite toy. Elections were held, "the team" you don't like won fairly (within rules of the system in place, as flawed as it might be) and you basically need to man up and accept that, as much as you may disagree. If you are that strongly opposed to Republican party and its voters, you need to get involved in fighting them via democratic means instead of bitching online how they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I don't live in US, but we have the same problems with our government here in Serbia - almost half of registered voters don't vote, and the rest who for 5 years now, in 2 presidential and 3 parliamentary elections, have been voting with overwhelming majority for assholes who drove us into wars during the '90s and have been ruining our country once again during those 5 years. I don't like it one bit, and would like to see that changed, but not at the cost of limiting their voters' voting rights.

Also, there is this perception that their voters are a bunch of illiterate, toothless morons which is as much the case as Republican voters being sociopaths and tinfoil hat wearers who are ruining your country by taking away rights from anyone but rich white men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Keynes and Russell were not completely wrong in their extrapolation of the effects of automation. But they still were quite wrong/lopsided (this is one reason for my skepticism wrt similar predictions today by people usually not half as smart as Keynes).

The working week for workers is shorter than in the 1920s. (It is probably as long or longer for many white collar professionals, though - remember that Einstein and Kafka worked (admittedly lowly/mid-level) white collar jobs that apparently did not prevent them from doing their "real work"). But the work week did not get any shorter in the last ca. 30 years since the 1980s. Which coincidentally are also the 30 years when wages almost stagnated, while income from investment and for some highly paid professionals (including a lot of "nonproductive" redistribution sectors like FIRE, law, administration) continued to rise. The point besides skepticism about predictions was that it has since many decades (I'd say since the 60s or so for the "West" and since the 80s or 90s globally) been mainly a question of distribution not of "not enough goods/work for everyone".

The other, probably "deeper" problem is that there is a long tradition of tying dignity, status and livelihood to paid work. While in e.g. the middle ages a very high dignity and status were attributed to the monk and the knight who were not paid for productive work the current ideas have been ingrained for hundreds of years. They might be even more important for what is traditionally considered politically "left" than "right" (after all the traditional right has no problem with a leisure class of idle rich like Bertie Wooster or Paris Hilton). Therefore it seems extremely difficult to break up or relax these connections. But if we are not able to do so, something like a basic income without having to work will hardly help at all. People will still feel superfluous, have low status, probably become depressed etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Of course Keynes and Russell were not completely wrong in their extrapolation of the effects of automation. But they still were quite wrong/lopsided (this is one reason for my skepticism wrt similar predictions today by people usually not half as smart as Keynes).

The working week for workers is shorter than in the 1920s. (It is probably as long or longer for many white collar professionals, though - remember that Einstein and Kafka worked (admittedly lowly/mid-level) white collar jobs that apparently did not prevent them from doing their "real work"). But the work week did not get any shorter in the last ca. 30 years since the 1980s. Which coincidentally are also the 30 years when wages almost stagnated, while income from investment and for some highly paid professionals (including a lot of "nonproductive" redistribution sectors like FIRE, law, administration) continued to rise. The point besides skepticism about predictions was that it has since many decades (I'd say since the 60s or so for the "West" and since the 80s or 90s globally) been mainly a question of distribution not of "not enough goods/work for everyone".

The other, probably "deeper" problem is that there is a long tradition of tying dignity, status and livelihood to paid work. While in e.g. the middle ages a very high dignity and status were attributed to the monk and the knight who were not paid for productive work the current ideas have been ingrained for hundreds of years. They might be even more important for what is traditionally considered politically "left" than "right" (after all the traditional right has no problem with a leisure class of idle rich like Bertie Wooster or Paris Hilton). Therefore it seems extremely difficult to break up or relax these connections. But if we are not able to do so, something like a basic income without having to work will hardly help at all. People will still feel superfluous, have low status, probably become depressed etc.

That is an interesting change.  Likewise, in the Ancient World, the elite considered it shameful to have to work for another person to make a living.  Though it would be unfair to view them (and their medieval counterparts) as idle rich.  Fighting and dying on behalf of the State was something the elite took seriously - eg about a quarter of the Roman Senate were killed at Cannae.  Could you imagine the modern US Senate taking such casualties?

These days, though, paid work certainly generates self-respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

These days, though, paid work certainly generates self-respect.

Only certain kinds if paid work generates self respect imo. I have known a lot of people who prefered staying unemployed to taking jobs they considered beneath them. Hell some people prefer unemployment with constant harassment by those parts of the government that deal with managing the unemployed to relatively well paid jobs.

These things are only possible in Eurocommieland I guess but it shows that even nowadays some people prefer the shitty versions of basic income avaliable in certain countries to meaningless paid work. I believe that a lot of people would love to live on decent basic income if there where no strings attached. I would.

But that's not really the question is it? It's basic income or nothing not basic income or a shitty job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

That is an interesting change.  Likewise, in the Ancient World, the elite considered it shameful to have to work for another person to make a living.  Though it would be unfair to view them (and their medieval counterparts) as idle rich.  Fighting and dying on behalf of the State was something the elite took seriously - eg about a quarter of the Roman Senate were killed at Cannae.  Could you imagine the modern US Senate taking such casualties?

These days, though, paid work certainly generates self-respect.

I think that even in the 1st world war (but I might be wrong and because of the huge conscript armies it had already changed then) the casualties among the (often upper class/nobility) officers were considerable. I did not mean to suggest that medieval nobility were idle rich, often they weren't even all that rich. But neither do I think it really feasible to get back to a position where the best life is that of a war hero or a contemplative sage or monk.

But it might not hurt to remind ourselves that for about two millenia those ideals dominated (at least in theory because of their aristocratic nature they could hardly be the life goals of the many) and if there is really going to be a fundamental change that makes paid work a rare commodity we not only have to find alternatives but also grant them dignity and not secretly think of those unable to find paid work as lazy freeloaders etc. And the alternative should probably not just be playing computer games and consuming fast food all day on the dole. Because this is the flip side: Of course people like Russell had plenty of ideas how one could fill the spare time "productively" without actually working a job or producing goods. But most of these pastimes presuppose education and also some self-discipline that is probably harder to develop and maintain if one is not forced to work/report/etc. regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, baxus said:

Bear in mind that not so long ago, homosexuality or Down's syndrome might make the list of "severe psychiatric issues" so people "suffering" from those might have also been denied voting rights. There are so many things about human psyche we don't know that any list of "severe psychiatric issues" compiled at this moment is as likely to cause . Anyway, "sociopaths and tinfoil hat wearers" would most probably pass all the test you throw their way anyway, so you wouldn't achieve much.  Which brings us to the most important question of all - what makes you think that you are the one to draw that line in the sand and say: "everyone on this side of the line gets to vote and everyone else can bugger off"? What is it that makes you think you have intellectual and ethical capacity to determine that, and moral authority to enforce it?

As for your views on the Republicans, you are speaking as a spoiled child might when being denied their favourite toy. Elections were held, "the team" you don't like won fairly (within rules of the system in place, as flawed as it might be) and you basically need to man up and accept that, as much as you may disagree. If you are that strongly opposed to Republican party and its voters, you need to get involved in fighting them via democratic means instead of bitching online how they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I don't live in US, but we have the same problems with our government here in Serbia - almost half of registered voters don't vote, and the rest who for 5 years now, in 2 presidential and 3 parliamentary elections, have been voting with overwhelming majority for assholes who drove us into wars during the '90s and have been ruining our country once again during those 5 years. I don't like it one bit, and would like to see that changed, but not at the cost of limiting their voters' voting rights.

Also, there is this perception that their voters are a bunch of illiterate, toothless morons which is as much the case as Republican voters being sociopaths and tinfoil hat wearers who are ruining your country by taking away rights from anyone but rich white men.

FYI, the very framework of the US Constitution is based on rights for rich white men.  If you haven't noted the reference in it to "other persons," or how long it was before women could vote.  Use democratic principles when electoral districts have been heavily Gerrymandered to greatly favor Republicans?  Like that's going to work.  Voter turnout?  Fanatics are highly motivated.  Not so much, the others.  And the left has no fanatics at the moment.

The idea that we must constrain ourselves to working within a system that has created this problem, is like refusing treatment for cancer, because we want it to go into remission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

FYI, the very framework of the US Constitution is based on rights for rich white men.  If you haven't noted the reference in it to "other persons," or how long it was before women could vote.  Use democratic principles when electoral districts have been heavily Gerrymandered to greatly favor Republicans?  Like that's going to work.  Voter turnout?  Fanatics are highly motivated.  Not so much, the others.  And the left has no fanatics at the moment.

The idea that we must constrain ourselves to working within a system that has created this problem, is like refusing treatment for cancer, because we want it to go into remission.

Robin,

The irony for me is that you want to impose restrictions on the right to vote for virtually the same reasons offered for the original restrictions on the franchise.  "Only rich property owners know enough to be entrusted with the power to select those who should hold public office".  

The rationale for why people "know enough" is different but you want to restrict the franchise all the same.  

Now, my wife pointed out another very obvious problem with your plan to restrict the right to vote to "smart" people.  What happens to all those people who are now being told they are too stupid to be allowed the right to vote.  Do you think they are going to react by shrugging their shoulders and grumbling that they should have studied harder when they were in school, or, might their response to being stripped of the right to vote be somewhat less pleasant?  If the latter how do you propose to deal with that issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I think the biggest problem with this line of thinking is what happens after the revolution. Who gets to set the reset button? Who decides what the new system is going to entail? A successful revolution of any sort is going to result in a dictatorship for some period of time. Do you trust whoever steps into that power vacuum to hand over the reins in a reasonable period of time? How is this system going to represent any sort of democratic system, given the issues you had with the old system? In my estimation, the revolution is likely to cause as many problems as you think it might fix. And what we'd have at the other end would most likely be further away from a democracy than what we had prior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Robin,

The irony for me is that you want to impose restrictions on the right to vote for virtually the same reasons offered for the original restrictions on the franchise.  "Only rich property owners know enough to be entrusted with the power to select those who should hold public office".  

The rational for why people "know enough" is different but you want to restrict the franchise all the same.  

Now, my wife pointed out another very obvious problem with your plan to restrict the right to vote to "smart" people.  What happens to all those people who are now being told they are too stupid to be allowed the right to vote.  Do you think they are going to react by shrugging their shoulder's and grumbling that they should have studied harder when they were in school, or, might their response to being stripped of the right to vote be somewhat less pleasant?  If the latter how do you propose to deal with that issue?

Ser Scot,

There is no perfect solution to this, What is served by having people who are incapable of understanding the issues, vote on them, except adhering to an ideal?  And again, intelligence is not "know enough."  Intelligence =/= Knowledge. Studying does not make anyone smarter.  It makes them more knowledgeable.

What those who are below the requisite intelligence do if prevented from voting, is problematic.  What happens when the current authoritarian/reactionary crew stays in power, till the left becomes radicalized?  What happens when a general strike starts and Trump, with the backing of the Republican conspirators, declares martial law.  Where are those democratic principles which are supposed to save us, then?

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Isn't it deliciously ironic to call for restrictions on the right to vote in the name of liberalism, when this is exactly what liberalism stands against? Or am I missing something here?

I love it how you assume that people who can't pass an IQ test or psych evaluation are on the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin,

Again, you are assuming such a test can be created that is a truly "objective" measure of intelligence.  Additionally, a "test" that determines who may and may not vote, regardless of how objective it is, is going to piss people off.  If the people become radicalized in large numbers from any political point of view... bad things happen.  

Democracy is not a guarantor of anything.  It is simply the best of the worst in methods for selecting a government.  Government is a necessary evil.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...