Also in the News - Part 2

[Zear0]

Just now, Dunge said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66213245
 

I wonder whether the last decent MP in the Conservative Party will turn the lights off.

Rats fleeing a sinking ship.

[Dunge]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

Rats fleeing a sinking ship.

To me it’s more like the humans fleeing the sinking ship and leaving the rats to run it.

[Zear0]

5 minutes ago, Dunge said:

To me it’s more like the humans fleeing the sinking ship and leaving the rats to run it.

On reflection it was also too kind to describe the ship as sinking. Titanic is more afloat than this lot. 

[LanguedocFox]

3 hours ago, Sampson said:

Seems like another Southampton legend has fallen down the rabbit hole 

 

 

 

I wouldn’t mind, but no one told him how to pronounce “belligerent” when he was reading the teleprompter. FFS Rickie, even in Liverpool they don’t say it with a hard G.

[The Year Of The Fox]

4 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

There's a reason nurses, doctors, junior doctors, ambulance workers, railway workers, airport workers, bus drivers, freight workers, barristers, baristas, BT staff, teachers, lecturers, postal workers, firefighters, ****ing DAILY EXPRESS JOURNALISTS, refuse workers and now writers and actors in the USA have all been on striker or have considered action in the last couple of years and in the UK/USA. 

 

We (the "lower" classes) have taken for granted just how much we've advanced in the last 100-150 years or so. Giving us the vote, and y'know, RIGHTS, was a HUGE mistake from the perspective of the ruling class and we have a very poor grasp of just how important that is and how recent out rights and freedoms are.

 

We talk all the time about women getting the vote in 1918 and for good reason, because they were given equality.

 

Except they weren't given full equality in voting rights for another 10 years. The vote was only extended to women aged over 30 with specific property ownership conditions ascribed to them or their husbands. MEN on the other hand, had all such qualifications removed from their right to vote; every man over the age of 21 was finally allowed the vote. Millions of the soldiers in WW1 didn't have the right to vote.

 

Look at the workers rights we've won thanks to trade unions in the last 150 years. Fair working hours, safe working conditions. Parental leave. Compassionate leave. Sick pay. Retirement. Holidays. ****ING WEEKENDS.

 

For me there's no coincidence in the explosion of popular culture in the 50 years or so after the second world war. Better education and better access to it, more leisure time and the ability to earn more money. Disposable ****ing income. Giving us the time and freedom to consider such "low value" pursuits like the Arts. Or travel. Or the humanities. Without the baseline of basic workers rights and our freedoms, we wouldn't have your Lennon and McCartney's, Jagger and Richards, your Michael Caines or Elton Johns, your ****ing Gallagher brothers, Ridley and Tony Scott, Alan Bennet, JK Rowling, ****ing ADELE. All those people were working class and yes, they all ended up pretty much mega rich. But their work is supported by the working classes doing their jobs behind the scenes. 

 

Brexit wasn't a mistake. The Cost of Living crisis isn't an accident. The Tories are not idiots*.

 

This is what they want. A disenfranchised working class without the education to understand how badly they're getting ****ed and with just enough intelligence and skill to work the "machines".

 

They need obediant workers who will do the hard work while they take the profits at the top.

 

It's imperetive for us all that we get these uppity bastards out of power and for GOOD.

Is this the script for The Terminator?

[Jon the Hat]

13 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

There's a reason nurses, doctors, junior doctors, ambulance workers, railway workers, airport workers, bus drivers, freight workers, barristers, baristas, BT staff, teachers, lecturers, postal workers, firefighters, ****ing DAILY EXPRESS JOURNALISTS, refuse workers and now writers and actors in the USA have all been on striker or have considered action in the last couple of years and in the UK/USA. 

 

We (the "lower" classes) have taken for granted just how much we've advanced in the last 100-150 years or so. Giving us the vote, and y'know, RIGHTS, was a HUGE mistake from the perspective of the ruling class and we have a very poor grasp of just how important that is and how recent out rights and freedoms are.

 

We talk all the time about women getting the vote in 1918 and for good reason, because they were given equality.

 

Except they weren't given full equality in voting rights for another 10 years. The vote was only extended to women aged over 30 with specific property ownership conditions ascribed to them or their husbands. MEN on the other hand, had all such qualifications removed from their right to vote; every man over the age of 21 was finally allowed the vote. Millions of the soldiers in WW1 didn't have the right to vote.

 

Look at the workers rights we've won thanks to trade unions in the last 150 years. Fair working hours, safe working conditions. Parental leave. Compassionate leave. Sick pay. Retirement. Holidays. ****ING WEEKENDS.

 

For me there's no coincidence in the explosion of popular culture in the 50 years or so after the second world war. Better education and better access to it, more leisure time and the ability to earn more money. Disposable ****ing income. Giving us the time and freedom to consider such "low value" pursuits like the Arts. Or travel. Or the humanities. Without the baseline of basic workers rights and our freedoms, we wouldn't have your Lennon and McCartney's, Jagger and Richards, your Michael Caines or Elton Johns, your ****ing Gallagher brothers, Ridley and Tony Scott, Alan Bennet, JK Rowling, ****ing ADELE. All those people were working class and yes, they all ended up pretty much mega rich. But their work is supported by the working classes doing their jobs behind the scenes. 

 

Brexit wasn't a mistake. The Cost of Living crisis isn't an accident. The Tories are not idiots*.

 

This is what they want. A disenfranchised working class without the education to understand how badly they're getting ****ed and with just enough intelligence and skill to work the "machines".

 

They need obediant workers who will do the hard work while they take the profits at the top.

 

It's imperetive for us all that we get these uppity bastards out of power and for GOOD.

If the working classes don't have any money and hence the ability to live like the middle classes, don't you think the ruling elite would lose out financially?  A wealthy middle class tends to make for a much larger economy, and more money for the mega rich.  A huge market but delivering low profit per consumer or user has got all of our present super rich where they are.  So while I see your point, and agree that to start with every right was fought for, and the popular culture explosion came about at a result of those, I do think the idea that some elite wants to take those rights away and move the lower classes into poverty because they think it will make them richer is a little far fetched.  More likely we have got ourselves into a difficult to stop cycle of consumerism, rising house process, inflation and the idea that growth is the be all and end all.  Unfortunately we also have a lot of the population buying into what they are told by a corrupt media, so we think we pay too much tax, that foreigns are taking the jobs and houses, and that there is no alternative.

[ozleicester]

On 14/07/2023 at 19:50, leicsmac said:

A change of government and drastic policy changes in almost every area cannot come soon enough.

Sadly, as with the Australian "Labor" government elected last year... they have drifted so far to the right, their policies offer next to nothing for the true working class and poor.

This labor government did away with a tax offset for the poorest and are introducing a tax cut for the most wealthy.

The  anti Corbyn scare campaign that was put together by Murdoch and believed by the the masses has meant you too will get a Labour government that is further right than a Cons gvt of 20 years ago.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2018/jul/decline-working-class-politicians-shifted-labour-towards-right-wing-policy

[The Year Of The Fox]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If the working classes don't have any money and hence the ability to live like the middle classes, don't you think the ruling elite would lose out financially?  A wealthy middle class tends to make for a much larger economy, and more money for the mega rich.  A huge market but delivering low profit per consumer or user has got all of our present super rich where they are.  So while I see your point, and agree that to start with every right was fought for, and the popular culture explosion came about at a result of those, I do think the idea that some elite wants to take those rights away and move the lower classes into poverty because they think it will make them richer is a little far fetched.  More likely we have got ourselves into a difficult to stop cycle of consumerism, rising house process, inflation and the idea that growth is the be all and end all.  Unfortunately we also have a lot of the population buying into what they are told by a corrupt media, so we think we pay too much tax, that foreigns are taking the jobs and houses, and that there is no alternative.

A much more realistic analysis rather than the hyperbolic paranoia in posts above 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

A much more realistic analysis rather than the hyperbolic paranoia in posts above 

I think being wary of sadistic powermongers looking to abuse that power isn't really paranoia, given the numerous historical examples of it.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66169914

 

"A growing number of Capitol rioters have gone back on their guilty pleas and apologies - including one of the most recognisable faces from 6 January.

 

....Derrick Evans, a former member of the West Virginia state legislature, resigned his post after being arrested. He pleaded guilty, apologised in court, and served three months in prison.

Now he is running for a seat in the US House of Representatives, and he refers to himself and other defendants as "political prisoners".

The term is commonly used across a broad section of the right and far-right of American politics to cast rioters as heroic and patriotic.

"I think as time continues to go on, I'm going to be proven to be on the correct side of history," he told the BBC recently."

 

The darkly funny thing that Mr Evans and those that think like him don't seem to get is that if the way they believe about society does become the prevailing one and so they turn out to be on the "correct side of history", it won't matter because rather soon there will be no one with the capability or inclination to record or analyse such history anyway.

[WigstonWanderer]

8 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Sadly, as with the Australian "Labor" government elected last year... they have drifted so far to the right, their policies offer next to nothing for the true working class and poor.

This labor government did away with a tax offset for the poorest and are introducing a tax cut for the most wealthy.

The  anti Corbyn scare campaign that was put together by Murdoch and believed by the the masses has meant you too will get a Labour government that is further right than a Cons gvt of 20 years ago.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2018/jul/decline-working-class-politicians-shifted-labour-towards-right-wing-policy

Yes, whilst a huge upgrade on the previous bunch of utter cvnts, the Albanese government is disappointingly timid. They have boxed themselves into a corner on tax cuts for the better off, and seem to be entirely captured by fossil fuel interests.

Edited 16 July 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[WigstonWanderer]

9 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If the working classes don't have any money and hence the ability to live like the middle classes, don't you think the ruling elite would lose out financially?  A wealthy middle class tends to make for a much larger economy, and more money for the mega rich.  A huge market but delivering low profit per consumer or user has got all of our present super rich where they are.  So while I see your point, and agree that to start with every right was fought for, and the popular culture explosion came about at a result of those, I do think the idea that some elite wants to take those rights away and move the lower classes into poverty because they think it will make them richer is a little far fetched.  More likely we have got ourselves into a difficult to stop cycle of consumerism, rising house process, inflation and the idea that growth is the be all and end all.  Unfortunately we also have a lot of the population buying into what they are told by a corrupt media, so we think we pay too much tax, that foreigns are taking the jobs and houses, and that there is no alternative.

Good post.

 

As an additional thought, I’m not sure how capitalism in its current form works in the face of AI. If it replaces workers earning wages, who will buy the goods?

Edited 16 July 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[Heathrow fox]

10 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If the working classes don't have any money and hence the ability to live like the middle classes, don't you think the ruling elite would lose out financially?  A wealthy middle class tends to make for a much larger economy, and more money for the mega rich.  A huge market but delivering low profit per consumer or user has got all of our present super rich where they are.  So while I see your point, and agree that to start with every right was fought for, and the popular culture explosion came about at a result of those, I do think the idea that some elite wants to take those rights away and move the lower classes into poverty because they think it will make them richer is a little far fetched.  More likely we have got ourselves into a difficult to stop cycle of consumerism, rising house process, inflation and the idea that growth is the be all and end all.  Unfortunately we also have a lot of the population buying into what they are told by a corrupt media, so we think we pay too much tax, that foreigns are taking the jobs and houses, and that there is no alternative.

The end goal is to make as much of the work force self employed as possible.That is where we are heading and if anyone hasn’t noticed then you haven’t been paying attention.

That way the bosses win both ways.You can still keep wages relatively high but also cut back on tax.Services will be paid for via insurances.It also has the added bonus of keeping the workforce divided.

 

 

[Heathrow fox]

9 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Sadly, as with the Australian "Labor" government elected last year... they have drifted so far to the right, their policies offer next to nothing for the true working class and poor.

This labor government did away with a tax offset for the poorest and are introducing a tax cut for the most wealthy.

The  anti Corbyn scare campaign that was put together by Murdoch and believed by the the masses has meant you too will get a Labour government that is further right than a Cons gvt of 20 years ago.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2018/jul/decline-working-class-politicians-shifted-labour-towards-right-wing-policy

Mate we don’t even need a Murdoch scare campaign.We have Sir Keir Starner as the leader of the opposition ffs

[leicsmac]

58 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Good post.

 

As an additional thought, I’m not sure how capitalism in its current form works in the face of AI. If it replaces workers earning wages, who will buy the goods?

That is one good reason the present system cannot sustain. There are others, too.

[RobHawk]

1 hour ago, Heathrow fox said:

Mate we don’t even need a Murdoch scare campaign.We have Sir Keir Starner as the leader of the opposition ffs

Out of interest, what's the problem with Starmer? 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

On 15/07/2023 at 16:31, urban.spaceman said:

There's a reason nurses, doctors, junior doctors, ambulance workers, railway workers, airport workers, bus drivers, freight workers, barristers, baristas, BT staff, teachers, lecturers, postal workers, firefighters, ****ing DAILY EXPRESS JOURNALISTS, refuse workers and now writers and actors in the USA have all been on striker or have considered action in the last couple of years and in the UK/USA. 

 

We (the "lower" classes) have taken for granted just how much we've advanced in the last 100-150 years or so. Giving us the vote, and y'know, RIGHTS, was a HUGE mistake from the perspective of the ruling class and we have a very poor grasp of just how important that is and how recent out rights and freedoms are.

 

We talk all the time about women getting the vote in 1918 and for good reason, because they were given equality.

 

Except they weren't given full equality in voting rights for another 10 years. The vote was only extended to women aged over 30 with specific property ownership conditions ascribed to them or their husbands. MEN on the other hand, had all such qualifications removed from their right to vote; every man over the age of 21 was finally allowed the vote. Millions of the soldiers in WW1 didn't have the right to vote.

 

Look at the workers rights we've won thanks to trade unions in the last 150 years. Fair working hours, safe working conditions. Parental leave. Compassionate leave. Sick pay. Retirement. Holidays. ****ING WEEKENDS.

 

For me there's no coincidence in the explosion of popular culture in the 50 years or so after the second world war. Better education and better access to it, more leisure time and the ability to earn more money. Disposable ****ing income. Giving us the time and freedom to consider such "low value" pursuits like the Arts. Or travel. Or the humanities. Without the baseline of basic workers rights and our freedoms, we wouldn't have your Lennon and McCartney's, Jagger and Richards, your Michael Caines or Elton Johns, your ****ing Gallagher brothers, Ridley and Tony Scott, Alan Bennet, JK Rowling, ****ing ADELE. All those people were working class and yes, they all ended up pretty much mega rich. But their work is supported by the working classes doing their jobs behind the scenes. 

 

Brexit wasn't a mistake. The Cost of Living crisis isn't an accident. The Tories are not idiots*.

 

This is what they want. A disenfranchised working class without the education to understand how badly they're getting ****ed and with just enough intelligence and skill to work the "machines".

 

They need obediant workers who will do the hard work while they take the profits at the top.

 

It's imperetive for us all that we get these uppity bastards out of power and for GOOD.

 

I agree with most of what you say here: your long-term historical perspective, the downward pressure on real incomes & living standards of working people, the preference for a disenfranchised working class - accompanied by clampdowns on opposition to power, often exercised mainly on behalf of wealth. I even agree that the Tories are not idiots - and certainly that it's important they are turfed out in 2024.

 

But I do wonder about the conspiracist tone implicit in saying "this is what they want". I see it more as a reaction to circumstances largely beyond their control - namely the trajectory of global capitalism, particularly that GDP growth in the West has shrunk to very low levels in the last 40 years, compared to the period from the industrial revolution until the 1970s. That reaction to circumstances is massively damaging for most of us, but I see it less as something "they want" and more as the opportunistic use of power (which largely belongs to the wealthy, directly or indirectly) to protect and promote the interests of wealth/capital. The pie is barely growing, so by political and economic means the wealthy are ensuring they still keep getting a bigger slice - that income growth for capital continues - by snaffling some of the slice previously claimed by labour. Rewards for capital and senior executives serving their interests continue to grow (profits, dividends, fat cat pay), while real incomes & social provision for most working people decline.

 

@ozleicester posted an excellent graph before showing this, which I wish he'd fish out again (I can't find it). It basically shows how, over recent decades the share of GDP going to labour (working people) has been falling and the share going to capital (the owners of wealth in multiple forms) has been rising. Sometimes, growth has meant that the income of working people has still risen slowly, but latterly (esp. last 15 years), real working incomes have mainly been stagnant or falling. Apart from during short-term crises like WW1, WW2 & economic crashes, this simply wasn't happening during the previous 150 years or so. In the West, at least, this is a new, different phase of global capitalism - different dynamics are at play in the developing world.

 

The Tories aren't stupid, you're right - at least, not stupid as regards promoting the interests of those they mainly represent (those with wealth in various forms). One thing they've been exceptionally good at for decades is to retain power by winning the votes of people who don't necessarily benefit from policies and economics being skewed in favour of wealth/capital. Promoting traditional, small-c conservative values was always a part of this, as many people on low incomes share those values. Latterly, through, diverting blame for people's crap living standards away from wealth/capital and onto scapegoats has become increasingly important. Blaming EU migrants and the EU, leading to Brexit, was one example of this. The recent focus on "small boats" is another such diversion. I'd say that the populist attack on "pointless degrees" is another opportunistic move - they know it will appeal to a lot of resentful, reactionary people, particularly grumpy old folk or those whose lives are a bit crap.

 

11 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If the working classes don't have any money and hence the ability to live like the middle classes, don't you think the ruling elite would lose out financially?  A wealthy middle class tends to make for a much larger economy, and more money for the mega rich.  A huge market but delivering low profit per consumer or user has got all of our present super rich where they are.  So while I see your point, and agree that to start with every right was fought for, and the popular culture explosion came about at a result of those, I do think the idea that some elite wants to take those rights away and move the lower classes into poverty because they think it will make them richer is a little far fetched.  More likely we have got ourselves into a difficult to stop cycle of consumerism, rising house process, inflation and the idea that growth is the be all and end all.  Unfortunately we also have a lot of the population buying into what they are told by a corrupt media, so we think we pay too much tax, that foreigns are taking the jobs and houses, and that there is no alternative.

 

This argument reminds me of a 1st-year uni essay that I wrote 30 years ago (I got an A-grade ): " 'What the bourgeoisie creates above all are its own gravediggers' - Marx. Discuss". Marx's theory, as I recall, was that competition and other factors (mechanisation?) would lead capitalists to force down the real incomes/conditions of workers, causing them to band together, have a revolution, establish socialism and then communism etc. What I argued - and your argument seems similar, Jon - was that Marx didn't anticipate the fruits of long-term economic growth (partly achieved through empire) or the willingness of capital to give some of those fruits to labour in the form of almost continuously rising living standards. Capital could do this, as continuous growth meant that their own income was also continuously rising - and rising living  standards for all created beneficial stability.

 

I think that used to be a valid argument - certainly at least until the 70s and I'll forgive myself for not noticing things had started to change by 1992, when I wrote my essay.  But I think things  have changed now. Whereas growth once meant that working people benefited from capitalism via improving living standards, that is no longer the case - due to slow growth and redistribution of income from working people to the owners of wealth/capital.

 

Whether that means that Marx might yet be right - that people might band together to overthrow a system that no longer benefits them, I'm not so sure....if we don't watch out, given social fragmentation & misuse of social media, it could mean increasing crime and anarchy and/or increasingly authoritarian governments working to benefit the interests of capital - increasingly using the stick and not the carrot to keep working people (or those displaced by AI) on board to make money for the moneyed classes. Russia and China already have versions of such authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes benefiting the wealthy. The USA under Trump creaked loudly and almost started down the same path. The creaks in the UK have been less loud so far, but have been increasingly evident since 2019, especially under Johnson. That's something that scares me, even if the Tories get booted out next year. Starmer seems determined to govern alone, not in alliance with the LDs and not to legislate for electoral reform (hope I'm wrong about that). Our economy is in such a bad way  and the structural factors (low growth, aging demographics etc.) are such that, even if Labour wins in 2024 AND does a great job, a big IF, the country will probably still be in a mess in 2029 and there's every chance that Labour gets blamed, booted out and replaced by....what?

 

 

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Good post.

 

As an additional thought, I’m not sure how capitalism in its current form works in the face of AI. If it replaces workers earning wages, who will buy the goods?

 

An exceptionally good question. Also, a strong argument for AI to be controlled by democratic politics at an international and/or global level, rather than being controlled by laissez-faire economics, I'd say. That way, we might be able to get the potential benefits of AI (including, perhaps, greater green economic growth) and the opportunity to plan appropriate policy changes, without the potential economic, social and personal disasters of millions out of work, even greater wealth inequality, crime, insecurity, poverty and social disorder. But when economics and finance operate globally and democracy and politics only operate nationally or regionally, I can't say that I'm optimistic about that happening - capital is more powerful than democracy....

 

If we're not careful, AI could just be an accelerated phase in the proportional redistribution of wealth and power from labour to capital - perhaps with capital also suffering negative growth, but thriving through lower costs and higher profit margins, supplemented by authoritarian governments serving their interests?

 

That might all be bollocks, though.....  

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

The end goal is to make as much of the work force self employed as possible.That is where we are heading and if anyone hasn’t noticed then you haven’t been paying attention.

That way the bosses win both ways.You can still keep wages relatively high but also cut back on tax.Services will be paid for via insurances.It also has the added bonus of keeping the workforce divided.

 

 

Which was brilliant 30 years ago until the government worked out the amount of money they were losing out on. 2% ni on your net and still have the same benefits of someone paying 10% of your gross ain’t bad if you can get away with it.

[nnfox]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Good post.

 

As an additional thought, I’m not sure how capitalism in its current form works in the face of AI. If it replaces workers earning wages, who will buy the goods?

Who knows? It is a bit of a worry.  But there will be thousands of new jobs within the industry that haven't been thought of yet.  There will be opportunities galore.

 

People will need to maintain the code, and probably repair the robots, load the vehicles and we are many, many years away from fully automated vehicles being the exclusive form of transportation.

 

Also, there may well be a boost to leisure, tourism and hospitality if AI gets to the point where people have loads of free time.

[Heathrow fox]

1 hour ago, RobHawk said:

Out of interest, what's the problem with Starmer? 

 

 

My point is that we didn’t even need a Murdoch scare campaign to stop Corbyn.When we had the likes of Sir Kier Starmer bringing him down from within.

[Bordersfox]

58 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I agree with most of what you say here: your long-term historical perspective, the downward pressure on real incomes & living standards of working people, the preference for a disenfranchised working class - accompanied by clampdowns on opposition to power, often exercised mainly on behalf of wealth. I even agree that the Tories are not idiots - and certainly that it's important they are turfed out in 2024.

 

But I do wonder about the conspiracist tone implicit in saying "this is what they want". I see it more as a reaction to circumstances largely beyond their control - namely the trajectory of global capitalism, particularly that GDP growth in the West has shrunk to very low levels in the last 40 years, compared to the period from the industrial revolution until the 1970s. That reaction to circumstances is massively damaging for most of us, but I see it less as something "they want" and more as the opportunistic use of power (which largely belongs to the wealthy, directly or indirectly) to protect and promote the interests of wealth/capital. The pie is barely growing, so by political and economic means the wealthy are ensuring they still keep getting a bigger slice - that income growth for capital continues - by snaffling some of the slice previously claimed by labour. Rewards for capital and senior executives serving their interests continue to grow (profits, dividends, fat cat pay), while real incomes & social provision for most working people decline.

 

@ozleicester posted an excellent graph before showing this, which I wish he'd fish out again (I can't find it). It basically shows how, over recent decades the share of GDP going to labour (working people) has been falling and the share going to capital (the owners of wealth in multiple forms) has been rising. Sometimes, growth has meant that the income of working people has still risen slowly, but latterly (esp. last 15 years), real working incomes have mainly been stagnant or falling. Apart from during short-term crises like WW1, WW2 & economic crashes, this simply wasn't happening during the previous 150 years or so. In the West, at least, this is a new, different phase of global capitalism - different dynamics are at play in the developing world.

 

The Tories aren't stupid, you're right - at least, not stupid as regards promoting the interests of those they mainly represent (those with wealth in various forms). One thing they've been exceptionally good at for decades is to retain power by winning the votes of people who don't necessarily benefit from policies and economics being skewed in favour of wealth/capital. Promoting traditional, small-c conservative values was always a part of this, as many people on low incomes share those values. Latterly, through, diverting blame for people's crap living standards away from wealth/capital and onto scapegoats has become increasingly important. Blaming EU migrants and the EU, leading to Brexit, was one example of this. The recent focus on "small boats" is another such diversion. I'd say that the populist attack on "pointless degrees" is another opportunistic move - they know it will appeal to a lot of resentful, reactionary people, particularly grumpy old folk or those whose lives are a bit crap.

 

 

This argument reminds me of a 1st-year uni essay that I wrote 30 years ago (I got an A-grade ): " 'What the bourgeoisie creates above all are its own gravediggers' - Marx. Discuss". Marx's theory, as I recall, was that competition and other factors (mechanisation?) would lead capitalists to force down the real incomes/conditions of workers, causing them to band together, have a revolution, establish socialism and then communism etc. What I argued - and your argument seems similar, Jon - was that Marx didn't anticipate the fruits of long-term economic growth (partly achieved through empire) or the willingness of capital to give some of those fruits to labour in the form of almost continuously rising living standards. Capital could do this, as continuous growth meant that their own income was also continuously rising - and rising living  standards for all created beneficial stability.

 

I think that used to be a valid argument - certainly at least until the 70s and I'll forgive myself for not noticing things had started to change by 1992, when I wrote my essay.  But I think things  have changed now. Whereas growth once meant that working people benefited from capitalism via improving living standards, that is no longer the case - due to slow growth and redistribution of income from working people to the owners of wealth/capital.

 

Whether that means that Marx might yet be right - that people might band together to overthrow a system that no longer benefits them, I'm not so sure....if we don't watch out, given social fragmentation & misuse of social media, it could mean increasing crime and anarchy and/or increasingly authoritarian governments working to benefit the interests of capital - increasingly using the stick and not the carrot to keep working people (or those displaced by AI) on board to make money for the moneyed classes. Russia and China already have versions of such authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes benefiting the wealthy. The USA under Trump creaked loudly and almost started down the same path. The creaks in the UK have been less loud so far, but have been increasingly evident since 2019, especially under Johnson. That's something that scares me, even if the Tories get booted out next year. Starmer seems determined to govern alone, not in alliance with the LDs and not to legislate for electoral reform (hope I'm wrong about that). Our economy is in such a bad way  and the structural factors (low growth, aging demographics etc.) are such that, even if Labour wins in 2024 AND does a great job, a big IF, the country will probably still be in a mess in 2029 and there's every chance that Labour gets blamed, booted out and replaced by....what?

 

 

 

An exceptionally good question. Also, a strong argument for AI to be controlled by democratic politics at an international and/or global level, rather than being controlled by laissez-faire economics, I'd say. That way, we might be able to get the potential benefits of AI (including, perhaps, greater green economic growth) and the opportunity to plan appropriate policy changes, without the potential economic, social and personal disasters of millions out of work, even greater wealth inequality, crime, insecurity, poverty and social disorder. But when economics and finance operate globally and democracy and politics only operate nationally or regionally, I can't say that I'm optimistic about that happening - capital is more powerful than democracy....

 

If we're not careful, AI could just be an accelerated phase in the proportional redistribution of wealth and power from labour to capital - perhaps with capital also suffering negative growth, but thriving through lower costs and higher profit margins, supplemented by authoritarian governments serving their interests?

 

That might all be bollocks, though.....  

You, sir, are to the 'also in the news' thread what @StriderHiryu is to the tactics thread.  👏👏👏👏👏

 

However, Strider just shades it because you didn't include any diagrams or video footage to illustrate your points for the forum dunces such as myself.  A nice flow chart would have gone down a treat.  

 

Nonetheless, one of the great posts of our time. 

[StriderHiryu]

1 hour ago, Bordersfox said:

You, sir, are to the 'also in the news' thread what @StriderHiryu is to the tactics thread.  👏👏👏👏👏

 

However, Strider just shades it because you didn't include any diagrams or video footage to illustrate your points for the forum dunces such as myself.  A nice flow chart would have gone down a treat.  

 

Nonetheless, one of the great posts of our time. 

 

 

[Daggers]

3 hours ago, nnfox said:

...Also, there may well be a boost to leisure, tourism and hospitality if AI gets to the point where people have loads of free time.

 

I've been angry at Tomorrow's World and the like for my entire life that predictions like that never came true.

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

2 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

 

 

You wouldn't let it lie, would you?  

[Tuna]

I read about this case on Wikipedia years ago and remember when it was in the news years ago. Not seen a netflix doc on it (I believe there is one?).

 

Big break in the case though:

 

 

 

 

Edited 16 July 2023 by Tuna