Political Memes

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] gens@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If I understand what you said, then it is still a problem caused by capitalism. Because we have the knowledge and technology to live comfortably with a lot less manpower then 300 years ago. And yea we can go into details, but the difference between an ox and a tractor is huuuuge.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Because we have the knowledge and technology to live comfortably with a lot less manpower then 300 years ago

That's human nature, not capitalism. People get used to comforts. People don't like sharing what they see as theirs. This has nothing to do with private ownership of industrial equipment, and operating it for profit.

Sure, you can come up with a political / economic system where everything is divided up evenly. But, that goes against everything we know about human nature. People are selfish. They might be willing to share with their immediate family, or maybe even their clan / neighbourhood. But, people don't tend to sacrifice their comforts so that people on another continent who speak a different language can have a better life.

Look at pre-capitalist societies, were they full of egalitarianism and justice? You can't blame capitalism for human nature.

parent

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It's not caused by capitalism but exacerbated by it. The ratio of workers to retirees in 1960 was 5.1 to 1, it's now 2.1 to 1. Sure if capital wasn't extracting excess value maybe we could be fine at 2.1 to 1 but I doubt we would be at .5 to 1. At some point it becomes an issue

parent

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I've never heard of theoretical fixes either but proper Maxism-Leninism has a focus on central planning, doesn't it? They would certainly see it as a problem and surely consider potential solutions. At least one that acts in good faith of their main premise.

parent

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is deeply myopic. The problem is not low birth rates, but uneven demographics.

At this point i just need to point out that earlier centuries had a very uneven demographic as well. In 1850, people typically had 6 kids on average, which means you had a lot of people too young to work and therefore not part of the workforce. Yet society thrived.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] FellowHuman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

They did handle that by ... Forcing kids to work. (Harshest example would be chimney sweepers)

Not like we don't do that now, forcing some kid to make our clothes so we cam buy it cheaper then f****** food.

Point is, "too young" population is not the issue.

parent

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

people too young to work

I think it's possible that you might confused how young that meant in 1850.

parent

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today -4 points 1 year ago

Define "even"

parent

[+] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

How does Marxist leninism deal with this uniquely capitalist problem? I wonder how the factory owners under communism will make a profit under these conditions?

Silly

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

It's more a uniquely hierarchical problem than a uniquely capitalist problem. Any hierarchy is made more powerful by having more people at the lower levels, so any long-lived hierarchical social system is likely to run itself into a population cliff at some point. So, as some forms of communism embrace hierarchy, some forms of communism are susceptible to this issue too.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I can get behind that

parent

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You have missed the point in spectacular fashion.

The issue isn't who will work in the factories, it's who will support the elderly population if there are so few people working. In any society, the old are supported by the young.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

That issue is trivial to solve. We simply stop wasting so much labor. Labor has been cheap for a long time. That's resulted in companies using it very inefficiently. Think of all those office workers that lose half their day to pointless unproductive meetings that could have been an email. Companies can only exist with such comically inefficient practices because labor is cheap.

Higher labor costs will encourage them to use labor more efficiently. The total economic output need not decrease. There will still be plenty of resources available to take care of the elderly. We'll just stop wasting so much labor.

parent

[–] RedPostItNote@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Except we do have ai and robots now. This isn’t every other generation in history, we are dealing with gigantic changes. That said, we need better standards about when to end lives. Everyone shouldn’t be kept alive forever. It’s not healthy or natural. My grandparents all died in nursing homes at like 100. Their quality of life was shit. That’s not how to deal with the problem of aging.

parent

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you're missing some essential point of basic economics if you think this problem doesn't affect communist societies. I specifically mean the problem of demographic imbalance, not the problem of "infinite growth" which communism does at least try to solve, and free-market capitalism doesn't actually view as a problem really.