NationStates

CoraSpia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Thinking about a made up future world is fun.

Not that made up future world it's kind of depressing.

If it makes you feel better, you can imagine the socialist revolution being crushed under the Iron Heel.

Ifreann wrote:

Keira wrote:"I've injected myself with pessimism and now I don't know what to do with myself, so I'll just vent about how capitalism = bad". That's how I read it, at least.

I don't see how socialism would make anything better in any way.

Under socialism, definitionally, the workers control the means of production. So we could just decide to shut down the most polluting industries, without having to deal with any billionaire owners who want to carry on polluting because it's still profitable. You say yourself in a later post that every sane person knows that climate change is real and a problem. So we would expect that the workers at the 100 companies responsible for 70% of all carbon emissions would quickly down tools upon taking control of those companies.

Just because one acknowledges climate change doesn't mean one would be willing to shut down one's place of work. A lot of the working class isn't educated enough to know about the dangers of pollution and climate change. Just look at how angry the north still is about mine closures. The polluting mines would've needed to be closed eventually anyway (that's not why they were closed at the time, I know), but they probably wouldn't have been if it was completely up to the workers.

CoraSpia wrote:For the time being, let's think about what can be done in reality rather than in a made up future world.

Aye!

Ifreann wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:Not that made up future world it's kind of depressing.

If it makes you feel better, you can imagine the socialist revolution being crushed under the Iron Heel.

How about being crushed by one of the three arrows of social democracy instead?

Keira wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If it makes you feel better, you can imagine the socialist revolution being crushed under the Iron Heel.

How about being crushed by one of the three arrows of social democracy instead?

Or the power of the free market...

CoraSpia wrote:

Keira wrote:How about being crushed by one of the three arrows of social democracy instead?

Or the power of the free market...

I don't trust that Free Market guy... I say we put him on a leash.

Keira wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:Or the power of the free market...

I don't trust that Free Market guy... I say we put him on a leash.

The free market only wants to offer you the best products at the low low prices you're sure to love.

Keira wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Under socialism, definitionally, the workers control the means of production. So we could just decide to shut down the most polluting industries, without having to deal with any billionaire owners who want to carry on polluting because it's still profitable. You say yourself in a later post that every sane person knows that climate change is real and a problem. So we would expect that the workers at the 100 companies responsible for 70% of all carbon emissions would quickly down tools upon taking control of those companies.

Just because one acknowledges climate change doesn't mean one would be willing to shut down one's place of work. A lot of the working class isn't educated enough to know about the dangers of pollution and climate change.

It cannot be true both that every sane person knows that climate change is real and a problem and also that the working class isn't educated enough to know about the dangers of pollution and climate change. If people know that climate change is real and a problem then obviously they are educated enough to know about the dangers of climate change.

Just look at how angry the north still is about mine closures. The polluting mines would've needed to be closed eventually anyway (that's not why they were closed at the time, I know), but they probably wouldn't have been if it was completely up to the workers.

I'm sure that there is a cohort of people who are sentimentally attached to being miners, perfectly reasonable for people to take pride in dedicating themselves to a difficult and dangerous job. But rare indeed is the person who would want to carry on mining, purely for the sake of mining, despite knowing that doing so is poisoning the whole world. And as you say, everyone these days knows that that's what's happening.

---

Keira wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If it makes you feel better, you can imagine the socialist revolution being crushed under the Iron Heel.

How about being crushed by one of the three arrows of social democracy instead?

Arrows tend to be more piercing than crushing.

Philjia wrote:Westminster City Council spent £2 million on an ugly looking temporary artificial hill at Marble Arch that costs £8 to go up what the fuck

Eight quid? What a bargain!

Philjia wrote:Westminster City Council spent £2 million on an ugly looking temporary artificial hill at Marble Arch that costs £8 to go up what the fuck

You only need 250,000 people to go up the stupid fake hill and it pays for itself. That's just *googling* everyone in the City of Westminster.

Ifreann wrote:

Philjia wrote:Westminster City Council spent £2 million on an ugly looking temporary artificial hill at Marble Arch that costs £8 to go up what the fuck

You only need 250,000 people to go up the stupid fake hill and it pays for itself. That's just *googling* everyone in the City of Westminster.

I'm sure people will flock from other areas of London to ascend the pretend slag heap.

Philjia wrote:Westminster City Council spent £2 million on an ugly looking temporary artificial hill at Marble Arch that costs £8 to go up what the fuck

>cant provide funding for the armed forces or the NHS
>dumps £2 million in a literal fucking pile of sand and mud.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Philjia wrote:Westminster City Council spent £2 million on an ugly looking temporary artificial hill at Marble Arch that costs £8 to go up what the fuck

>cant provide funding for the armed forces or the NHS
>dumps £2 million in a literal fucking pile of sand and mud.

This has money laundering written all over it

Ifreann wrote:

Keira wrote:Just because one acknowledges climate change doesn't mean one would be willing to shut down one's place of work. A lot of the working class isn't educated enough to know about the dangers of pollution and climate change.

It cannot be true both that every sane person knows that climate change is real and a problem and also that the working class isn't educated enough to know about the dangers of pollution and climate change. If people know that climate change is real and a problem then obviously they are educated enough to know about the dangers of climate change.

Just look at how angry the north still is about mine closures. The polluting mines would've needed to be closed eventually anyway (that's not why they were closed at the time, I know), but they probably wouldn't have been if it was completely up to the workers.

I'm sure that there is a cohort of people who are sentimentally attached to being miners, perfectly reasonable for people to take pride in dedicating themselves to a difficult and dangerous job. But rare indeed is the person who would want to carry on mining, purely for the sake of mining, despite knowing that doing so is poisoning the whole world. And as you say, everyone these days knows that that's what's happening.

---

Keira wrote:How about being crushed by one of the three arrows of social democracy instead?

Arrows tend to be more piercing than crushing.

What is happening in Cumbria suggests that wouldn't be the case. There is a lot of local support there for the proposed mine, this isn't even an existing mine with the threat of losing existing jobs. So an existing mine would I suspect have even more support for it to stay open. Turkeys don't usually vote for Christmas and nor will miners vote to stop giving naughty children coal.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Philjia wrote:Westminster City Council spent £2 million on an ugly looking temporary artificial hill at Marble Arch that costs £8 to go up what the fuck

>cant provide funding for the armed forces or the NHS
>dumps £2 million in a literal fucking pile of sand and mud.

This is a local council, and (from what I can find) one of the better ones. Still a bad use of money though.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Philjia wrote:Westminster City Council spent £2 million on an ugly looking temporary artificial hill at Marble Arch that costs £8 to go up what the fuck

>cant provide funding for the armed forces or the NHS
>dumps £2 million in a literal fucking pile of sand and mud.

This is incorrect, it's made of scaffolding not mud.

Also it's directly next to Hyde park where you can experience the actual outdoors for free.

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It cannot be true both that every sane person knows that climate change is real and a problem and also that the working class isn't educated enough to know about the dangers of pollution and climate change. If people know that climate change is real and a problem then obviously they are educated enough to know about the dangers of climate change.


I'm sure that there is a cohort of people who are sentimentally attached to being miners, perfectly reasonable for people to take pride in dedicating themselves to a difficult and dangerous job. But rare indeed is the person who would want to carry on mining, purely for the sake of mining, despite knowing that doing so is poisoning the whole world. And as you say, everyone these days knows that that's what's happening.

---

Arrows tend to be more piercing than crushing.

What is happening in Cumbria suggests that wouldn't be the case. There is a lot of local support there for the proposed mine, this isn't even an existing mine with the threat of losing existing jobs. So an existing mine would I suspect have even more support for it to stay open. Turkeys don't usually vote for Christmas and nor will miners vote to stop giving naughty children coal.

Of course there's support for a proposed mine when we're still in a situation where people need a job to have a decent life.

Ifreann wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
What is happening in Cumbria suggests that wouldn't be the case. There is a lot of local support there for the proposed mine, this isn't even an existing mine with the threat of losing existing jobs. So an existing mine would I suspect have even more support for it to stay open. Turkeys don't usually vote for Christmas and nor will miners vote to stop giving naughty children coal.

Of course there's support for a proposed mine when we're still in a situation where people need a job to have a decent life.

the government doing something that creates jobs? what madness is this?

Ifreann wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
What is happening in Cumbria suggests that wouldn't be the case. There is a lot of local support there for the proposed mine, this isn't even an existing mine with the threat of losing existing jobs. So an existing mine would I suspect have even more support for it to stay open. Turkeys don't usually vote for Christmas and nor will miners vote to stop giving naughty children coal.

Of course there's support for a proposed mine when we're still in a situation where people need a job to have a decent life.

We will always, no matter what system we live in, be in a situation where people need a job to have a decent life, for the simple fact that a huge amount of work is necessary to give everyone that decent life, and we need lots of people doing that work. If workers in an entire sector will, according to you, down tools and leave at the drop of a hat, why would that be limited to environmentally suboptimal sectors? Any job that's not particularly pleasant or enjoyable would likely suffer the same problem. Sewage and drain work, rubbish collection, boring warehouse and factory jobs, hell even the green energy sector would likely struggle from poor maintenance and lack of logistical support. And before you know it the drains are backed up, the bins are overflowing, nothing's getting made, stored, or distributed, and the power's off. And then people start dying at a rate vastly outstripping what even the very worst effects of climate change could achieve.

Kragholm Free States wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Of course there's support for a proposed mine when we're still in a situation where people need a job to have a decent life.

We will always, no matter what system we live in, be in a situation where people need a job to have a decent life, for the simple fact that a huge amount of work is necessary to give everyone that decent life, and we need lots of people doing that work.

That's really not true, and obviously becomes less true as time goes on and we develop new and better technologies. Do you think that a mine today, for example, needs the same number of people to operate as the same mine back when the most advanced technology was a pickaxe? Of course not.

If workers in an entire sector will, according to you, down tools and leave at the drop of a hat, why would that be limited to environmentally suboptimal sectors? Any job that's not particularly pleasant or enjoyable would likely suffer the same problem. Sewage and drain work, rubbish collection, boring warehouse and factory jobs, hell even the green energy sector would likely struggle from poor maintenance and lack of logistical support. And before you know it the drains are backed up, the bins are overflowing, nothing's getting made, stored, or distributed, and the power's off. And then people start dying at a rate vastly outstripping what even the very worst effects of climate change could achieve.

I think enough people would be perfectly willing to volunteer for these jobs to keep society running. And if we do need to somehow incentivise people to shovel shit or whatever, maybe we should come up with something better than essentially threatening everyone with death or destitution unless they get a job. Because when we make everyone get a job, we end up with a lot of people doing jobs that don't really need doing.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

(Image)

it's as if being driven by xenophobia and blind nationalism leads to stupid consequences

Hurdergaryp wrote:

(Image)

I mean, there are still lots of Eastern Europeans in UK (myself included). My town has never been more Eastern European (and brown) than it is right now. Although a good chunk of EU citizens have left, I'm guessing Covid has a lot to do with this as well.

The fruit processing factory where my mum works is also lacking workers, I'm told.

But yeah, sucks to suck, nationalists.

...Like, Brexit didn't even make sense even if you were a nationalists afraid of browner people than yourself. Why would you want to disconnect yourself from the whitest trade block in the world? And then become closer with and ease travel for citizens of countries like Albania, Colombia, Cameroon, Jamaica and Egypt??? (Just in case I'm misunderstood - I don't endorse these ideas, just kind of trying to think like a white British racist)

Hurdergaryp wrote:

(Image)

I'm not sure if it's just my interpretation of the English translations, but the Romanian articles about the negative consequences of Brexit always seem smugly satisfied.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

(Image)

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.