[Politics]How long until we eat the rich?

[Drathnoxis]

im sorry, I dont live in US

Neither do I.

Edit: Nvm. I thought that was a general response to the OP since you didn't quote.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

im sorry, I dont live in US

What nation do you live in?

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

I don't think its going to happen. The socialist revolution isn't coming because, even if you could convince them that its in their interest to do so, there is simply no way for the proletariat to overthrow their masters now with modern surveillance and military technology. Those in power will know your intentions before you even begin, and they will quash any resistance before it gets off the ground.

Being the cynic I am, I tend to think that things will get worse rather than better. I suspect we are moving away from the grand democratic experiment and returning to a form of feudalism, where corporations are the feudal lords instead of landed nobles. Noble ideas like workers rights, holiday entitlements, retirement funds, and the like will be a thing of the past; you will compete with workers from all over the world just to have a job (assuming they can't automate your role), and if you can't or won't, you will be replaced by someone who will.

In my view, the future will be like the past; a small number of inconceivably wealthy and powerful individuals and families running everything, and a vast swathe of poor working themselves to death just to keep food on the table and make it through the winter. Economic systems and technologies may change, but human nature does not, and human nature is always driven by self interest and opportunism.

 

[Agema]

I don't think its going to happen. The socialist revolution isn't coming because, even if you could convince them that its in their interest to do so, there is simply no way for the proletariat to overthrow their masters now with modern surveillance and military technology. Those in power will know your intentions before you even begin, and they will quash any resistance before it gets off the ground.

Bear in mind that surveillance and military technology still requires people to run it. We all know that when push comes to shove, it can turn out that enough of the people running it support the proletariat.

Being the cynic I am, I tend to think that things will get worse rather than better. I suspect we are moving away from the grand democratic experiment and returning to a form of feudalism, where corporations are the feudal lords instead of landed nobles.

This is a possibility - particularly as automation decreases the need of people to make key products and services. There then becomes a big question about what new jobs can exist to replace it.

I might suggest that in the very long run that the world becomes more equal - i.e. the developing world develops to rough parity - at which point it's likely to be much harder to exploit workers by moving production to poorer places. Without this, it might shift some balance of power back to workers.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

I don't think its going to happen. The socialist revolution isn't coming because, even if you could convince them that its in their interest to do so, there is simply no way for the proletariat to overthrow their masters now with modern surveillance and military technology. Those in power will know your intentions before you even begin, and they will quash any resistance before it gets off the ground.

Bear in mind that surveillance and military technology still requires people to run it. We all know that when push comes to shove, it can turn out that enough of the people running it support the proletariat.

That's possible, but I tend to think that if the people who are running these technologies and performing the security roles are among the better paid and more securely employed, they will be likely to see their interests best served by continuing to serve their current masters. People are self-serving after all, so if the status quo is working for them, they aren't likely to join the revolution.

Being the cynic I am, I tend to think that things will get worse rather than better. I suspect we are moving away from the grand democratic experiment and returning to a form of feudalism, where corporations are the feudal lords instead of landed nobles.

This is a possibility - particularly as automation decreases the need of people to make key products and services. There then becomes a big question about what new jobs can exist to replace it.

I think its safe to assume that manufacturing, farming, and transportation will be fully automated, so the kinds of work that will still exist would logically be roles based in services, maintenance, and the like. I tend to think that some sort of universal basic income is going to be required in the future, because its hard to see where there are going to be enough jobs for everyone, though the darkest part of my mind wonders if those in power might not manufacture some wars to cull the surplus population.

I might suggest that in the very long run that the world becomes more equal - i.e. the developing world develops to rough parity - at which point it's likely to be much harder to exploit workers by moving production to poorer places. Without this, it might shift some balance of power back to workers.

I hope you're right, but I have a lot less faith in humanity than you do.

 

[Nielas]

Frankly I am suprised that in the US, CEOs of major corporations do not get shot dead by former employees on a regular basis.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

Frankly I am surprised that in the US, CEOs of major corporations do not get shot dead by former employees on a regular basis.

Dude people who sue companies for X, Y and Z can't even get hired. And if you commit a felony/crime in the US you can't even get unemployment benefits which means you basically starved to death or have to go back to doing crime like selling drugs, you're going to want to have a life sentence in prison, and American Prisons while not being as bad as Japanese ones are brutal.

However, the good news is that if you want to be a millionaire the best place to do it is in the US, the bad news is it only mostly works if you come from a high-performing school district/gated community like I did, and I am no millionaire.

In all seriousness, there is a myth in the US that anyone can be a millionaire, but here's what you would need

Connections
Parent's having Money
Good schools/neighborhood

(I am in all likelihood missing lots of this)

I had one of those(the third one), and I got invited to the University of Chicago the school for Washington Elites, and that was with a low 3.0-3.5 GPA.
Imagine how hard it would be for a person of color in an underperforming school district like the local urban school district where I was from.

Yeah, welcome to America.

I didn't accept it because I didn't want to be in debt as I came from a working-class family so I pulled an Elizabeth Warren and went to the local community college, and then the local public university.

 

[Avnger]

And let's not forget an obvious elephant in the room. As private media would no longer exist the state would own information and make its opinion the "mainstream" truth.

Depends what we mean by "private". We can have media companies that aren't run by the state or capitalist media barons: essentially, co-operatives. There can also be non-governmental state media agencies; arguably their independence may be nominal more than actual, but then if the state wants it can usually shackle private media as well anyway.

NPR is a good example of a government-funded media agency doing well. Hell if every major media company in the US was run with the same ethical and professional standards as NPR, I'd argue we'd actually be a lot better off as a country.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And let's not forget an obvious elephant in the room. As private media would no longer exist the state would own information and make its opinion the "mainstream" truth.

Depends what we mean by "private". We can have media companies that aren't run by the state or capitalist media barons: essentially, co-operatives. There can also be non-governmental state media agencies; arguably their independence may be nominal more than actual, but then if the state wants it can usually shackle private media as well anyway.

NPR is a good example of a government-funded media agency doing well. Hell if every major media company in the US was run with the same ethical and professional standards as NPR, I'd argue we'd actually be a lot better off as a country.

Too often NPR is centrist pro-war or pro-austerity garbage. But it's better than some radio stations.

 

[Agema]

NPR is a good example of a government-funded media agency doing well. Hell if every major media company in the US was run with the same ethical and professional standards as NPR, I'd argue we'd actually be a lot better off as a country.

Government funded/chartered media tends to be quite establishment; unless there's a very solid commitment from government to its editorial independence, it lives under constant threat of being scrapped / privatised.

The other problem it can have is how it pursues "neutrality". This can mean setting two opposing talking heads at each other with the journalist standing back from opinion. This has turned out to be fraught with problems, because it means one talking head can talk utter bollocks, and lacking a third party to step in and challenge can give the appearance of equal objective validity.

Another problem of course is that in these days of the internet, it's laughably easy for sides to selectively cut bits of the interview to portray their own in a completely unrealistic fashion as if they'd done far better, and the internet is where lots of people are viewing the material. But then, this is a wider problem that the internet has mostly given us ghettoised echo chambers.