For what I've heard japanese spend a lot of time working and their economy isn't that great. People mostly avoid having children under these conditions for good reasons.
It's not much better in the rest of the West too. Turns out that building a society where money and career determines your social status and doing unpaid work like taking care of a family and raising children is not valued at all and even very expensive makes people choose to have less or no children.
People of course do want children, but those that do very often will choose one or two children, below replacement rate.
this pigbrained subhuman cruelty betrays you as an american citizen, thank god your shithole is in decline lol you should all rot and die there for the good of the world
There are Americans that routinely get sent to jail protesting/fighting to change America for the better every day. There are those of us in this very thread that agree with you calling the other commentor a pigbrained subhuman. The strict adherence to an absolutely shit narrative given to them by Reich Wing Media disgusts a large portion of our population.
It's not entirely our fault that propaganda is so effective at keeping the absolute worst possible people in office and rotting the brains of our neighbors. The blame rests on the oligarchs and ultra wealthy assholes looking to divide and conquer, turning all of us against each other while they laugh all the way to their 3rd private island...
I agree, some of you are alright, it is the elite of america and the very notion of "america" as a nation itself which must ultimately face justice for this situation. I hope you have a good day.
America falling apart would be horrifyingly destructive for the rest of the world, for it will allow other corrupt capitalist powers that are, let's be honest, not as humane, take over the rest of the world.
Then again, the destabilization of the U.S. is well under way and our collapse is inevitable so I guess disputing it is a moot point.
America falling apart would be horrifyingly destructive for the rest of the world, for it will allow other corrupt capitalist powers that are, let's be honest, not as humane, take over the rest of the world.
Well technically the continuation of america is more destructive than its inevitable decline, since america has a very awful pattern of killing millions of people for the enrichment of its elite, via means such as invasions, installing genocidal puppet leaders, and corporate extraction. The worst part is that america often destroys countries just as their people are on the brink of greater liberation.
Notable examples include:
Installing the Taliban in Afghanistan to oppose a Socialist government then destroying it
Destroying Iraq for Oil
Helping quash the Protocommunist Taiping Rebellion in China
The current blockade of Cuba
The current blockade of North Korea
The murder of socialist president Salvador Allende in Chile and the installation of Pinochet, a neoliberal dictator
The Contras
Sending $3 billion a year to isntreal for the mass killing of Palestinians
The genocide of first nations peoples on the North American continent itself
Assassinating Fred Hampton and the political killings of the Black Panther Party
Meddling in the affairs of practically every single third world country on Earth
Fucking Monsanto and their land grabbing bullshit
It is also probably the most inhumane of the corrupt capitalist powers as revealed in the details of these genocidal ventures either by using its own weapons or by proxy.
As such, the death of america would enable the possibility of a flourishing of socialist nations without the threat of the worlds most powerful military brought to full bear against their people for daring to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war between Saudi Arabia & Iran, China & Japan/South Korea, Russia & the former Soviet states, and probably China & India eventually. The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today.
For example, see what happened as the Ottoman Empire & European colonial empires collapsed at the beginning of the 20th century. Then scale that up from a 2.3 billion global population to 8 billion.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn't mean for a second that the alternative is better. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war [...] The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today. [...]
See, the problem here is that all the potential apocalyptic conflicts between american allies and other nations are contingent on the existence of american foreign meddling in the first place. The global conditions of multipolarity between now and WW1 are different. The reason for animosity between america's allies and their neighbors is that the neocolonial western powers, headed by america, are using these allies as pawns, puppets to further their own interests within these regions against its enemies. It would instead be more accurate to say that if america's enemies were weaker militarily and economically, america would be able to swoop in and destroy their people via a combination of hard and soft power using its allies as forward operating bases. I am not saying that the enemies of america are perfect nations, however, in the absence of american meddling, they have been shown to pursue more peaceful and mutually beneficial international relations with neutral nations, as opposed to outright warfare and economic genocide, as america does.
As such, if there is no america, then there would be no threat of slaughter for its enemies through its allies, and therefore there would be no more reason for the sort of animosity that could spiral into a nuclear war. The enemies of america, due to their position, are generally intelligent geopolitically, and do not possess the historical legacy of being colonial empires. If america truly fell, then they won't start wars against a now nonexistent enemy for no good reason.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn't mean for a second that the alternative is better.
This is a common argument for a neoliberal status quo: "Well sure we know global regime X is shit and kills millions of people per year, but hey, all these strawman alternatives are bad so in the end, There Is No Alternative." It's been overused by conservative politicians to the point that its a slogan: TINA. However, we must realize that there are multiple alternatives, including the building of a better world.
Be careful what you wish for and all that.
Its going to collapse anyways over the next century or so, we do not need to wish for anything.
I can't say I particularly disagree, however I think you're overestimating the moral character of states in general. If US hegemony erodes over a "century or so" I think that is a manageable course of events rife with opportunities for building a better world, as you say. If, on the other hand, the US were to suddenly become incapable or unwilling to fill its role as global hegemon, the resulting power vacuum would undoubtedly effect chaos.
I hope for a graceful retreat from imperialism into some sort of international socialist utopia... but history isn't exactly reassuring.
Not really imo, a sudden collapse of america would create chaotic power vacuums but they mostly be internally localized to america and countries completely dominated by america. Countries on the periphery would not immediately jump to fill the power vacuum molded to a white-supremacist settler-colonial hegemon as they do not have the material basis to fill such a role.
Furthermore, such a framing takes for granted that the current world is run by an orderly, functional system made up of countries subservient to a hegemon when in fact, the current situation is quite chaotic, as we live in "interesting times". It is moreso a complex, multipolar situation made up of blocs with competing interests, and its just that one bloc mainly headed by one country is getting its way. Unfortunately, this country is america, with an agenda fundamentally inseparable with the extraction and genocide of other civilized nations. Other blocs do have their own interests, but it is unlikely they would be as bloodthirsty as america.
Moreover, even if things somehow do lead to war, historically, during the time of chaos highlighted earlier, one of the greatest socialist experiments, the USSR, was born. And for a time, there was hope for a better future in the world.
At the end of the day the preparedness and struggle of socialist movements worldwide will decide what will happen if such a situation occurs.
...Until Russia and China start doing literally the same things if not worse. Russia wouldn't hesitate to nuke countries that wouldn't play ball with it, for example.
China has a no first nuclear use policy, and the USSR/Russia used to but dropped it down to threats to territorial integrity.
The United States has refused to adopt a no first use policy and says that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict.
Both NATO and a number of its member states have repeatedly rejected calls for adopting a NFU policy, as during the lifetime of the Soviet Union a pre-emptive nuclear strike was commonly argued as a key option to afford NATO a credible nuclear deterrent, compensating for the overwhelming conventional weapon superiority enjoyed by the Soviet Army in Eurasia.
The US has also repeatedly planned for first strikes and escalated tensions: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/
Until Russia and China start doing literally the same things if not worse.
Probably not, China is on record, better than the United States in that it does not destabilize burgeoning socialist governments nor engage in one-sided business deals with third world nations to cripple them with debt like how the west does in Africa. Furthermore, they have no historical precedent of engaging in genocidal colonialist ventures in countries halfway around the world from them. If China were top dog they would just be free to expand mutually beneficial international relations at a greater rate then they are doing now without fear of america and its allies nuking them for stepping out of line.
Russia, on the other hand, is truly a failed state that is also in decline. They have a dogshit military that can't even take a small pissant nation headed by a film star right on its border. It is very unlikely that Russia, in its current form, will be able to reach the same level of economic and military domination that america currently possesses.
Fundamentally, one of the other reasons why China and Russia are unlikely to do the same things is because they are not settler-colonial nations born from genocide. The ideology of Manifest Destiny, invading a militarily inferior nation, slaughtering every single one of the people there, plundering its resources, and settling the land for the sake of "Personal Freedom" (the American Dream), is a unique historical pattern that the very idea of america as a nation is contingent on.
America falling apart would be horrifyingly destructive for the rest of the world, for it will allow other corrupt capitalist powers that are, let's be honest, not as humane, take over the rest of the world.
This is what every imperial power says about itself
Because the US is one of the best examples of your desire to see the children of poor and unemployed people starve?
"G-g-g-get a grip, I don't like my shitty views being challenged and I can't actually defend them"
Mate if you're going to post dumb shit you probably should have a better response than that.
I'm assuming you're not actually very dedicated to the idea of starving children, that's just something you've heard and parroted because your own economic status is precarious
So you pretty much called me dumb because I’m poor?
And also, that since you don’t agree with my economic views, Im just “brainwashed”? Seriously? That’s your argument? Seriously, go see the world, every country that actually applied your way of thinking ended up having a lot more children starving than the ones who apply my views.
State shouldn’t be taxing workers because some morons who decided to have children when they’re not supposed to don’t want to go work for 7$ a hour. Get a fucking grip and grow up “mate”
You're poor because you're one or two crippling events away from poverty, you're dumb because you're choosing to be.
I've been to the US and the level of poverty is horrific. Meanwhile China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
The idea of "brainwashing" came from returned American POWs who learned that they were getting a shitty deal from American capitalists who profiteered while the soldiers were firebombing Asia, so no, I don't think you're brainwashed. I think you're a classic middle-class westerner attacking the poor because you see yourself as part of the actual wealthy class even if you're not. You might have to examine why you're not on $7 an hour, or if you were born unlucky, $2 a day.
Finally we see the true emerge - eugenicist takes on how poor people shouldn't have children, and then how their children (who didn't actually consent to be born) should be punished for that
When you work 8 hours a day, have 1 hour lunch break, waste 2 hours commuting, to earn barely enough of what Adam Smith considers ideal (twice the cost of living), it's hard to sustain a second person, much less a third that requires near constant monitoring for over 7 years.
From a pure economic perspective, a child is a total money sink for at least 18 years. In many places (mostly urban), it's simply not viable to have one.
Short term, raise the minimum wage. Force walmart to fill the gaps between what they pay and what their workers need to live. Right now, it's the government is subsidizing that gap.
We kinda need lobbying and it would be very hard to effectively criminalize it. It would just move father into the back rooms. When I say we need it, groups like the EFF, NAACP, FFRF and ACLU all have lobbying arms.
A different idea proposed by Lawrence Lessig would be to remove elected officials from the legislative branch and replace it it something like the Jury Duty system from the court systems. While not perfect, it would be much harder to bribe a constantly rotating group of civilians and most people will vote in their interest even when it's against their party alignment on a case by case bases.
Lobbyists would become like courtroom lawyers either pushing for or against certain laws in a public settings.
The US government already subsidizes companies like Wal-Mart and Amazon because they force their lowest-paid employees to apply for food stamps even though they work.
It's crazy how much doesn't even get done. No one wants to leave before their boss, so they space out their work and give the appearance of being busy.
For what I've heard japanese spend a lot of time working
According to the OECD, the average Japanese worker works just about the same number of hours per year as the average EU worker. It's actually pretty surprising because the average Japanese worker seems to work less than workers in countries that most people do not think of as being overworked (e.g. Canada, Spain, Italy).
Of course, averages don't account for distribution, so there absolutely are workers who are chronically overworked. There's also more part-time workers in Japan, which kind of explains things. On the other hand, you then have to ask how/why it's financially feasible for so many people to sustain their livelihoods with only part time work.
For what I've heard japanese spend a lot of time working and their economy isn't that great. People mostly avoid having children under these conditions for good reasons.
It's not much better in the rest of the West too. Turns out that building a society where money and career determines your social status and doing unpaid work like taking care of a family and raising children is not valued at all and even very expensive makes people choose to have less or no children.
People of course do want children, but those that do very often will choose one or two children, below replacement rate.
Removed by mod
Do children deserve to starve because their parents aren't employed?
Because they don't want to work. There's enough jobs.
this pigbrained subhuman cruelty betrays you as an american citizen, thank god your shithole is in decline lol you should all rot and die there for the good of the world
😠
Can you maybe not see entire groups as the same?
There are Americans that routinely get sent to jail protesting/fighting to change America for the better every day. There are those of us in this very thread that agree with you calling the other commentor a pigbrained subhuman. The strict adherence to an absolutely shit narrative given to them by Reich Wing Media disgusts a large portion of our population.
It's not entirely our fault that propaganda is so effective at keeping the absolute worst possible people in office and rotting the brains of our neighbors. The blame rests on the oligarchs and ultra wealthy assholes looking to divide and conquer, turning all of us against each other while they laugh all the way to their 3rd private island...
I agree, some of you are alright, it is the elite of america and the very notion of "america" as a nation itself which must ultimately face justice for this situation. I hope you have a good day.
🥰
deleted by creator
America falling apart would be horrifyingly destructive for the rest of the world, for it will allow other corrupt capitalist powers that are, let's be honest, not as humane, take over the rest of the world.
Then again, the destabilization of the U.S. is well under way and our collapse is inevitable so I guess disputing it is a moot point.
Well technically the continuation of america is more destructive than its inevitable decline, since america has a very awful pattern of killing millions of people for the enrichment of its elite, via means such as invasions, installing genocidal puppet leaders, and corporate extraction. The worst part is that america often destroys countries just as their people are on the brink of greater liberation.
Notable examples include:
It is also probably the most inhumane of the corrupt capitalist powers as revealed in the details of these genocidal ventures either by using its own weapons or by proxy.
As such, the death of america would enable the possibility of a flourishing of socialist nations without the threat of the worlds most powerful military brought to full bear against their people for daring to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war between Saudi Arabia & Iran, China & Japan/South Korea, Russia & the former Soviet states, and probably China & India eventually. The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today.
For example, see what happened as the Ottoman Empire & European colonial empires collapsed at the beginning of the 20th century. Then scale that up from a 2.3 billion global population to 8 billion.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn't mean for a second that the alternative is better. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
See, the problem here is that all the potential apocalyptic conflicts between american allies and other nations are contingent on the existence of american foreign meddling in the first place. The global conditions of multipolarity between now and WW1 are different. The reason for animosity between america's allies and their neighbors is that the neocolonial western powers, headed by america, are using these allies as pawns, puppets to further their own interests within these regions against its enemies. It would instead be more accurate to say that if america's enemies were weaker militarily and economically, america would be able to swoop in and destroy their people via a combination of hard and soft power using its allies as forward operating bases. I am not saying that the enemies of america are perfect nations, however, in the absence of american meddling, they have been shown to pursue more peaceful and mutually beneficial international relations with neutral nations, as opposed to outright warfare and economic genocide, as america does.
As such, if there is no america, then there would be no threat of slaughter for its enemies through its allies, and therefore there would be no more reason for the sort of animosity that could spiral into a nuclear war. The enemies of america, due to their position, are generally intelligent geopolitically, and do not possess the historical legacy of being colonial empires. If america truly fell, then they won't start wars against a now nonexistent enemy for no good reason.
This is a common argument for a neoliberal status quo: "Well sure we know global regime X is shit and kills millions of people per year, but hey, all these strawman alternatives are bad so in the end, There Is No Alternative." It's been overused by conservative politicians to the point that its a slogan: TINA. However, we must realize that there are multiple alternatives, including the building of a better world.
Its going to collapse anyways over the next century or so, we do not need to wish for anything.
I can't say I particularly disagree, however I think you're overestimating the moral character of states in general. If US hegemony erodes over a "century or so" I think that is a manageable course of events rife with opportunities for building a better world, as you say. If, on the other hand, the US were to suddenly become incapable or unwilling to fill its role as global hegemon, the resulting power vacuum would undoubtedly effect chaos.
I hope for a graceful retreat from imperialism into some sort of international socialist utopia... but history isn't exactly reassuring.
Not really imo, a sudden collapse of america would create chaotic power vacuums but they mostly be internally localized to america and countries completely dominated by america. Countries on the periphery would not immediately jump to fill the power vacuum molded to a white-supremacist settler-colonial hegemon as they do not have the material basis to fill such a role.
Furthermore, such a framing takes for granted that the current world is run by an orderly, functional system made up of countries subservient to a hegemon when in fact, the current situation is quite chaotic, as we live in "interesting times". It is moreso a complex, multipolar situation made up of blocs with competing interests, and its just that one bloc mainly headed by one country is getting its way. Unfortunately, this country is america, with an agenda fundamentally inseparable with the extraction and genocide of other civilized nations. Other blocs do have their own interests, but it is unlikely they would be as bloodthirsty as america.
Moreover, even if things somehow do lead to war, historically, during the time of chaos highlighted earlier, one of the greatest socialist experiments, the USSR, was born. And for a time, there was hope for a better future in the world.
At the end of the day the preparedness and struggle of socialist movements worldwide will decide what will happen if such a situation occurs.
...Until Russia and China start doing literally the same things if not worse. Russia wouldn't hesitate to nuke countries that wouldn't play ball with it, for example.
That opinion has no basis in reality, there's one country that has used nuclear weapons aggressively and it's isn't russia
Americans and projection, name a better duo.
China has a no first nuclear use policy, and the USSR/Russia used to but dropped it down to threats to territorial integrity.
The US has also repeatedly planned for first strikes and escalated tensions: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/
Probably not, China is on record, better than the United States in that it does not destabilize burgeoning socialist governments nor engage in one-sided business deals with third world nations to cripple them with debt like how the west does in Africa. Furthermore, they have no historical precedent of engaging in genocidal colonialist ventures in countries halfway around the world from them. If China were top dog they would just be free to expand mutually beneficial international relations at a greater rate then they are doing now without fear of america and its allies nuking them for stepping out of line.
Russia, on the other hand, is truly a failed state that is also in decline. They have a dogshit military that can't even take a small pissant nation headed by a film star right on its border. It is very unlikely that Russia, in its current form, will be able to reach the same level of economic and military domination that america currently possesses.
Fundamentally, one of the other reasons why China and Russia are unlikely to do the same things is because they are not settler-colonial nations born from genocide. The ideology of Manifest Destiny, invading a militarily inferior nation, slaughtering every single one of the people there, plundering its resources, and settling the land for the sake of "Personal Freedom" (the American Dream), is a unique historical pattern that the very idea of america as a nation is contingent on.
It's really hard to find someone worst? Look at what they did to Libya or are doing to Ukraine
This is what every imperial power says about itself
It's not wrong though
It's easy to think the empire is good when you live in the imperial core
Also true
Care to elaborate?
China, Russia, India
Damn it's too bad we won't have the humane government that did the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and invented Eugenics
And the children of these people deserve to starve?
Children should starve because their parents don't want to be abused for $7 an hour, top post mate
Why the American flag. How do you know I’m speaking about US?
Get a grip.
Because the US is one of the best examples of your desire to see the children of poor and unemployed people starve?
"G-g-g-get a grip, I don't like my shitty views being challenged and I can't actually defend them"
Mate if you're going to post dumb shit you probably should have a better response than that.
I'm assuming you're not actually very dedicated to the idea of starving children, that's just something you've heard and parroted because your own economic status is precarious
So you pretty much called me dumb because I’m poor?
And also, that since you don’t agree with my economic views, Im just “brainwashed”? Seriously? That’s your argument? Seriously, go see the world, every country that actually applied your way of thinking ended up having a lot more children starving than the ones who apply my views.
State shouldn’t be taxing workers because some morons who decided to have children when they’re not supposed to don’t want to go work for 7$ a hour. Get a fucking grip and grow up “mate”
You're poor because you're one or two crippling events away from poverty, you're dumb because you're choosing to be.
I've been to the US and the level of poverty is horrific. Meanwhile China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
The idea of "brainwashing" came from returned American POWs who learned that they were getting a shitty deal from American capitalists who profiteered while the soldiers were firebombing Asia, so no, I don't think you're brainwashed. I think you're a classic middle-class westerner attacking the poor because you see yourself as part of the actual wealthy class even if you're not. You might have to examine why you're not on $7 an hour, or if you were born unlucky, $2 a day.
Finally we see the true
emerge - eugenicist takes on how poor people shouldn't have children, and then how their children (who didn't actually consent to be born) should be punished for that
Cool viewpoints child starver
Capitalism by its nature has an interest in keeping part of the working class unemployed. Look up "reserve army of labor".
Your wording alone demonstrates exactly what SloppyEngineer said about unpaid work not being valued at all.
When you work 8 hours a day, have 1 hour lunch break, waste 2 hours commuting, to earn barely enough of what Adam Smith considers ideal (twice the cost of living), it's hard to sustain a second person, much less a third that requires near constant monitoring for over 7 years.
From a pure economic perspective, a child is a total money sink for at least 18 years. In many places (mostly urban), it's simply not viable to have one.
So how you propose to raise wages?
Short term, raise the minimum wage. Force walmart to fill the gaps between what they pay and what their workers need to live. Right now, it's the government is subsidizing that gap.
Gigantic mothefucking emphasis on short term.
Our
piece of shit, bought and paid forpoliticians LOVE to pull the "we're fighting to raise the minimum wage from X to Y!" but only over such a long timeline that the value of Y equals what X was... God forbid the Job Creators™©® have to ever actually pay more.Agreed, but getting an increase in minimum wage would get the ball rolling on other worker right reforms.
Why the hell is the government subsidising what a huge mega corp pays?
Because rich assholes need to feel speshul, so they waste money on lobbying to ensure those below them never get anywhere
My guess is that, criminalising lobbies would go a long way in the US.
My guess is that, destroying the US would go a long way for world peace.
We kinda need lobbying and it would be very hard to effectively criminalize it. It would just move father into the back rooms. When I say we need it, groups like the EFF, NAACP, FFRF and ACLU all have lobbying arms.
A different idea proposed by Lawrence Lessig would be to remove elected officials from the legislative branch and replace it it something like the Jury Duty system from the court systems. While not perfect, it would be much harder to bribe a constantly rotating group of civilians and most people will vote in their interest even when it's against their party alignment on a case by case bases.
Lobbyists would become like courtroom lawyers either pushing for or against certain laws in a public settings.
Because the people who own the mega corps own the governments
Socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.
The rich can pay lobbyists to pay politicians.
Never understood why nobody ever does a BLM-like protest but against lobbyism.
The US government already subsidizes companies like Wal-Mart and Amazon because they force their lowest-paid employees to apply for food stamps even though they work.
It's crazy how much doesn't even get done. No one wants to leave before their boss, so they space out their work and give the appearance of being busy.
And that's unusual how?
Well for example, I leave before my boss all the time. Hell I work from home most days if I can.
If that's normal, then this defense is a fatal indictment of normal
I'm a very strong advocate for a 20 hour work week...
According to the OECD, the average Japanese worker works just about the same number of hours per year as the average EU worker. It's actually pretty surprising because the average Japanese worker seems to work less than workers in countries that most people do not think of as being overworked (e.g. Canada, Spain, Italy).
Of course, averages don't account for distribution, so there absolutely are workers who are chronically overworked. There's also more part-time workers in Japan, which kind of explains things. On the other hand, you then have to ask how/why it's financially feasible for so many people to sustain their livelihoods with only part time work.