Why are some people antiglobalists? What's their point...

>lets everyone give up their sovereignty so it only takes a single tyrant to enslave the world

great idea

But on the plus side, you would have no more wars.
Isn't it a great thing?

Race mixing is the only way to destroy racism 2bh. And globalization helps s lot with that.

Because the wealthy part of the world -- maybe 10% or so of it, is absolutely dwarfed by the poor part. So we stand to gain nothing in globalism and lose everything. A labor pool that bloated and distorted can only absolutely fuck over our wages and standard of living and revert us to a post-globalist form of universal feudalism.

Nationalism yields finer-grained control over affairs, policy, and economy. We are the consumers and deserve to set the rules for producers in turn.

or you could eliminate all other races

>US provides citizens with a mediocre education in comparison to other western nations and gradually drives its population into poverty
>in a globalized world we are going to be toilet plunging manual laborers of non-islamic yurop and east asia if we don't quickly build wall and set everything outside of us on fire

Wed have no more wars if everyone were dead as well. Thats not an argument in itself. Its also not like wars are only ever between countries. In a system where there is only one global government people who disagree with it (and there would be plenty since no competition to the government would ensure the government would become corrupt sooner or later) have no alternative place to go. It would result in eternal rebellion

Don't imply that it somehow makes sense that forcing people to racemix until homogenization would somehow get rid of racism

If they can't argue black v. white then they'll argue about tone, or cheekbones, or eyelids, or fingers or toes or height or hair/eye color.

Humans generalize groups. It's natural.

We do it with morality, religion, sex, nationality, everything.

Removing that ingrained part of human nature is tantamount to removing a part of humanity's humanity.

not it's nothing like that
they argue about regionalism and politics, race just makes everything else worse

that part is not ingrained only enchanced

so it would be better if there was no federal governement in USA?
Less chances for all Americans beeing ruled by a tyrant and no more mixing between people from different states?

Nations and cultures that are thousands of years old are being slowly wiped out and you think resistance to globalization is about money?

globalism is about money
if you can't control immigration then you deserve to be wiped out

Do you know what Federalism is?
I'd assume so because Germany is technically a federal republic, but since you use a Parliamentary instead of Federal system of electing Executives and don't have turn limits I can see how you can elect tyrants.

And I'm not opposed to racemixing, but implying that it is an inevitability when in reality it is a very small part of populations around the globe is idiotic
Even more so to think that forced homogenization wouldn't make people even more upset than they already are about racemixing

Because rapid globalization results in a reduction in the quality of life for 1st worlders

Globalism is only desirable on certain terms. Specifically, the complete and total victory of western civilization over all others.

>so it would be better if there was no federal government in USA?

Built in to the founding of our country was the implicit idea that government is a necessary evil. This is why our constitution is full of nothing but restrictions to prevent the government from acting with out several layers of support, and why even today the states could call a constitutional assembly and bypass the federal government entierly, and have the military power to back themselves up in the form of the collective state national guards.

The US federal government does not have as much direct control over the US as people tend to think. They mainly have soft control due to controlling federal funding. States go along with stuff else risk funding cuts, but if many states are opposed to something it doesn't get done. We can see an example of this even this century when the national ID act was shot down by states just not wanting to do it. This is why you can legally smoke pot in colorado even though its a federal crime.

A global government modeled after the US might work, but the bigger you make something the more dangerous and unnecessary it becomes. The US banded togeather for protection, we are protected. Any other suitably large force is effectively safe from direct attack with out having to globalize. Globalization is one step up, and as such its one degree more dangerous. I dont see the benefit to justify that. And the globalist are certainly not wanting something based around the ideas of the US, they are wanting non democratic totalitarian oligarchy ruled by them.

Except that that system of restrictions was mostly lost when the states lost the power to elect Senators

You dumb little shit. It's not just Sweden being wiped out, it's most nations. If nothing changes, we will all be reduced to little more than generic cultureless and historyless melting pots like the USA where no one truly belongs.

no you fuck head is japan being wiped out? is korea wiped out? is singapore and saudi arabia wipe out

fuck you and eat shit you fucking ass wipe piece of shit

?
states still elect senators, they just do it via popular vote instead of being appointed by elected state officials.

Or you could let people self segregate peacefully as they have been doing for years rather than forcing them together to make you feel good

>be globalized
>abolish national government
>destroy borders
>destroy thousands of unique cultures, languages and values and replace with a global "culture".
>install world government
>heads will be the banking families
>they are so powerful they can now be able to kill all competion, and establishing an oligarchy between themselves
>third world shitholes like my cunt will be reduced to sweatshop factory complexes to keep up with global demand
>basic income enforced all over the world
>everyone literally works for a little cash, just enough to be able to eat once a day
>no more cash for personal spending.
>new era of slavery, bigger and more profitable than before.

if anyone would benefit from globalism, it would only be the huge bankers and businessmen. it would be better to keep orselves in our own groups, separated from each other, and let people freely decide on what to do by themselves.

>no one truly belongs.
Everyone belongs in the US. Anyone can be an american because being american is based on the ideals of america, nothing else.

Its also much MUCH different from european style multiculturalism, which is what most of your problems stem from. Melting pot requires assimilation, with out a fixed standard. People come and add to it, and become mostly the same, but a little different still.

>capitalism brings about globalism out of necessity
>but we don't like capitalism and love globalism
>so let's keep the one while disregarding the other

sometimes I just give up and observe what happens around me as the variables shift around and it appears that things are changing while the superficial arrangement that turns and twists adds some novelty to things our society has gone through 1000 of times

Globalization, like communism.
Is only good on paper.
Reminder of the human element that makes it flawed for the people.
Corporations lose money if people can get health care anywhere.
So that is stopped from globalizing
Corporations gain money from putting their money anywhere, so they keep that moving.
Ideologies that refuse to melt with the rest of the pot cause problems for everyone in the country.
And many other problems I am not writing 4 posts to make.
In practice it has not worked.

The Senators were originally elected by the state legislators because it gave the state governments the power to shape federal law to ensure we don't end up with fucked up situations like the federal government owning 90% of the land in Nevada. The State's priorities and the citizen's priorities aren't always the same and having state-elected legislators helped to maintain the federal balance of power.

There's no point in having two houses of Congress if they're both doing the same thing

France is being wiped out, Germany is being wiped out, every nation on your fucking continent has already been wiped out and every nation in Europe is at risk.

Where everyone belongs, no one belongs.

First of all, they knda contribute to world culture too. Everyone now drinks vodka or eats kebab despite their original culture. And yes, melting all cultures in one is the best way to remove hatred between nations.
>implying USA is bad example
Why? USA is the early example how humankind would be in future. I don't think it's anything bad to have cultural mix of all cultures. And I don't understand westerners complaining, because globalization passes along with westernization everywhere. Your western culture fucks our culture, fucks Chinese culture, fucks everything. As Rammstein singed "we are all living in America" and that's true. I could understand Russian complaining about Russian culture succumbed by the westernization through media, prowestern youth etc, but not a fuckin Swede who is a part of western culture and contributes to world westernization a lot with DICE games and Ikea.

again that's not just globalism that's just european politics

Yet globalism is working right now.
For example, Americans are selling german cars produced in Kaliningrad or Worst Korea and transfer money through the bank from Switzerland. This is globalism

>Anyone can be an american because being american is based on the ideals of america, nothing else
>muh civic nationalism
"American" is almost always used to refer to a "white" person, stop bullshitting

They're allowed to assimilate and become a part of the culture, they don't turn into an "American" unless they're white

>Americans are selling german cars produced in Kaliningrad
And I live worse off than half the starving soviets.
Just have more distractions.
I said common people.
Not the rich, bourgeoisie

For further clarification.
I can not continue my education, because my water has been off for 10 months, thank god it rained today.
I do not have toilet paper.
I eat once a day at most.
I need the internet to look for a job, which globalism makes me compete with the whole fucking world for.

Japan and Korea are obviously wiped out culturally, they are way more western than Russia now despite their geography. Saudis are fighting back outrageously but they have no hope to preserve their culture. Their youth is becoming increasingly western through media and internet. Talking about ultraconservative countries, we may look at Iran too which government despite being oppressive and conservative can do nothing about westernization, influx of liberal ideas, etc.
>>third world shitholes like my cunt will be reduced to sweatshop factory complexes to keep up with global demand
Not really. Yes, it's difficult to compete for us but personally with globalism we can move anywhere we want. Also being sweatshop or not is more dependant on your local government than globalization processes.
How can western countries be wiped out? You are those who wipe out other cultures all over the world.

>There's no point in having two houses of Congress if they're both doing the same thing

They arent both doing the same thing, since one is based on state population and the other is a fixed number per state and things have to pass both houses.

The senate ensures that a few high population states can not strongarm all the collective rest of the country, and the house of representatives ensure that a majority of citizens cant be strongarmed by a collective of low population flyovers.

Because preserving the integrity and sovereignty of each state is important (since they are willing participants in the system and not slaves to it), the senate ensures membership in the union is not signing away your voice.

Its purpose was never to allow the population of a state and that states government to be at odds with each other, as each state is a self contained self governed entity and its internal issues are up to itself to solve.

Just wait until EU, US, China, India and Russia would start to take over African markets. That would lead us to the new world war.

it's true it changes culture but it does not kill them
it merely makes them modernize in their own way
when you watch a korea or a japanese film there are culture things you are bound to not understand and in literature as well
the changing of culture is inevitable because of the passage of ideas but this is not what he is talking about, he is talking about foreigners changing the culture as migrants from another culture

Thats a meme created by the democrats to incite racial tension so they can leverage it to win elections. Just like they created the KKK to win the white vote back when it was the most important vote.

If you consider yourself an american you are an american. Its that simple.

The only people who dont belong are those who do not love america, they can fuck off. America isnt a place, its an idea.

>That would lead us to the new world war.
Which would be good for the economy like WW2.
For all the other countries that aren't already in a war economy like the US.

This flip is correct. Dutdut must DIE!

>America isnt a place, its an idea.
More like the absence of one. Living in the US is like living in a hotel instead of a home.

Kek. Do you imply blacks aren't American? You know, America is associated with Jimi Hendrix, hip hop culture, Martin Luther King, 2pac, etc.
Actually I think capitalism would create global world with unite humanity and no borders under the rule of corporations. Humanity would eliminate all the retarded national, religious etc struggles except the only real one: class struggle. Than with 1% of population owning 99% of planet property we would see global revolution, socialization of means of production, plan economy based on full automation and modern computers and real socialism installed. ¡Viva revolucion del mundo!

Maybe the war would be disastrous for the economy

My comrade

>Those cultures are about to extinct
Wtf are you talking about? There are 2billion + followers of Islam.

>Humanity would eliminate all the retarded national, religious etc struggles except the only real one: class struggle
Well play Vladimer.

>So we stand to gain nothing in globalism
The elite gain a lot.

>The senate ensures that a few high population states can not strongarm all the collective rest of the country
The basis of that was that the state governments could defend their interests against other states with higher populations. Now it's a state's people having the power to check another state's higher population which has removed the Senator's responsibility to his state's government. It's a protection against federalism.

If it was purely to protect flyover states, they wouldn't have been appointed by state legislatures in the first place

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>There were many advantages to the original method of electing senators. Prior to the Constitution, a federal body was one where states effectively formed nothing more than permanent treaties, with citizens retaining their loyalty to their original state. However, under the Constitution, the states were subordinated to a central government; the election of senators by the states reassured Anti-federalists that there would be some protection against the swallowing up of states and their powers by the federal government,[5] providing a check on the power of the federal government.[6]
That was the Founder's reasoning anyway

capitalism is a little more stranger than that
because it is more cost effective to have countries it will abuse the wage/currency inequality to the max such as the the hidden banking stuff

capitalism, just as marx said, is not an end goal or some interplanetary system, it is the system of maximum profit for minimum investment (wages taxes infrastructure), it is manipulation on a systemic basis and most importantly it does not have self-preservation that is even if it knows whatever short cuts will collapse the system it will take it just like the cause of all these financial crises, this is why economists are so weird about self-balance because they don't want to admit it is chaos itself

>Why are some people antiglobalists?

Very simple.

Power corrupts

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A global goverment is one of those ideas that are so stupid only intellectuals believe in them. Like marxism.

How can foreigner change anything? That's bullshit. People who come to the other country are inevitably succumbed by local cultures in a few generations, it has always been like that since Romans.
Not even mentioning all the countries are becoming gradually more and more westernized so the difference between peoples, especially educated ones, is becoming smaller and smaller.

The idea of america can be summed up in the encounter between the USS constitution and the HMS madistone.

We are bull headed irrational and stubborn and it keeps working and thats hilarious as fuck because it really pisses the old world off.

>americans cant banter
our existence is banter

Anyone who wants to be an annoying little shit with a grin on their face and some guns and troll europe is free to become an american. It has nothing to do with race or anything else really.

It can be controlled but he was arguing that you'd get wiped out if you embraced globalism and didn't even try to control it

Protip: tone it down a few notches and you might get some more replies mate

>having faith in humanity
It's like john lennons song, imagine, only true in our minds.
humans are differnt from one another some are noble, some are crooks, some just go with the flow, but one is sure most of them only serve their own interests because it's what our nature wills.

Its all still completely internal to the state. How does the state government, elected by its people, appointing senators differ from the state people electing senators along with their state government, in this matter? Its still ultimately the peoples authority that elected the senator.

I can see arguments for this system on an internal state level, saying that its better to keep the theme of representative republic and not straight democracy all the way down, but i just dont see how it really makes any difference on the national level in regards to federalists because it does not alter the way the state as a singular unit interacts with other states or the federal government.

globalism is not something you choose or something you subscribe to, it is the affect of free and the information age

as countries climb up the industrialization ladder competition is inevitable and labor begins to move ou

globalism is just this phenonmenon of exchange in the ability of distribute products labor and stuff and also the ability to buy whatever produce from which ever corner of the world

if you force close your economy and live like a hermit you cannot do much worse

He's not entirely wrong. Leaving aside some cultures are looking to abuse globalization as means to strenghten their own dominance and power at the expense of others (China/USA) local threats are becoming global (political Islam) while mass migration is shocking the system (not joust destinations for migration but source nations as well) as economic differences are being adjusted in an uncontrolled manner. Just look at the EU economy as a small model for globalization and the way Germany has enriched itself at the expense of many others.

Add widespread ecological colapse and we might be facing a fall of the Roman Empire type scenario within decades.

I'm not against globalism, I do believe it should be ordered and not be seen as an "end to history" within our lifetimes.

effect of the free trade

Lol, how does it matter? Even fuckin Saudia is becoming more westernized now and Iran, and I am not even talking about severely westernized Maghreb etc. Not even talking about european arabs who seem to be hip hop nu males mostly. Even fuckin isis drives toyotas, wears nike clothes and make movies by Hollywood standards. No one can stand against globalization and westernization brought by it, from Arabs to Indians and from Russians to Africans. Western culture is pushed down our throats through media, western movies and series, internet memes. I can see how in a 15 years internet has made Russian culture way more westernized. Our government now has went full conservatism and still I can clearly see westernization going on. Even fuckin bydlos here are copying English chavs now abandoning their old fashion.

Globalism can happen when we inhabit multiple planets.

Then mars can compete with earth and we are good to go. Weve avoided placing all eggs in a single basket, and can safely scale up to global governments.

You can control immigration which is what i was talking about. I should have put quotation marks around embrace globalism.

Only if you're a materialist

>Even fuckin Saudia is becoming more westernized now
Oh, so women can drive cars there now? That's news to me. The extent of Saudi Arabia's "westernisation" doesn't extend beyond the superficial and necessary economic entanglement due to oil. As soon as that dries up the West will pack up and move on to another whore, and they'll descend back into a stone-age tier caliphate of illiterate sheepherding peasants. All the rest of your examples are just nonsense, fuck off you retarded idiot.

That's some Solution you have there.

This. Although even then it's unlikely Earth will ever achieve a united one world government (at least for the forseeable future) in the same way that the EU was doomed to failed as a single government, but the USA federalised very quickly as it was primordially composed of colonies that shared the same language/culture/history etc. If they terraform Mars it will basically be USA 2.0 and dominate a divided warring Earth.

You destroy racism by not talking about it so damn much.

>2016
>be an idealist
Kek.
This. It's inevitable process. Antiglobalists are like monarchists from 19th century defending outdated concept. You may benefit from changes as Britain did or you may fight it as tsar Russia did and become retarded shithole with inevitable revolution in the end. Capitalism would die out in a few decades, socioeconomic formation is changing, economical basis of society is shocked by IT technologies and full automation.

youtube.com/watch?v=N0p_pQ7PTYU

>How does the state government, elected by its people, appointing senators differ from the state people electing senators along with their state government, in this matter?
It makes the Senate less populist and frees them up to listen to the state legislature's decisions. While the people tend to care about things like job availability and would willingly elect a retard who does nothing to protect the state so long as he says that he'll lead the people to the promised land, the state government tends to care about things like unlawful federal encroachment and will appoint someone willing and able to protect the state from the feds. Yes, it's still the people who ultimately elect the Senator, but the Senator isn't actually directly accountable to the people, he's only directly accountable to the legislature

>I don't see how it makes any difference on the national level in regards to federalism because it does not alter the state as a single unit
That's because it doesn't alter the state as a single unit, it alters the interaction between the two houses of Congress. While those job promising populists in the House want to pass a job bill that increases the level of federal oversight because it will get them re elected, the Senators are supposed to see it for the federal encroachment it is and vote it down. It serves as a check against a massively bloated federal government

With a popularly elected Senate, both houses of Congress are motivated by the popular decision instead of the prudent one. Both houses will vote for the jobs bill and will keep voting for federal encroachment because it gets them re elected

capitalism is protected by laws regulations and unions (yes it protects the system)
full automation will erode the freedom to happiness (to make money) so it is unconstitutional

the economy will adapt by exploding the service industry (to 99%) by selling more useless crap, it's all prophesied

But wouldn't that just shift it so that the elected state officials are pressured to appoint a senator who would vote for the jobs bill?

>happiness (to make money)

Happiness is being able to pursue your interests with out anyone telling you what to do.

That would assume that the average voter is smart enough to make that connection and that the voters keep up with the state legislature's voting patterns. State legislatures are given a huge amount of autonomy from the populace compared to the feds.

It also depends on the party dynamic in the state legislature, super-majority legislatures can pretty much do whatever they want and even without the super majority the legislature is incentivized to elect an anti-federalization Senator

if there was massive automation the government can say something like right to life or right to work and make more companies do more service jobs since they are harder to automate and they are cheap af to hire, people will always work like dogs in a capitalist system, not because rich people are greedy because it is the most efficent way to use capital, adam smith and ford did not forsee the opening of international markets, but marx did

>Happiness is being able to pursue your interests with out anyone telling you what to do.

HOL UP
*downs a bunch of genderbending hormones*
U BE SAYIN
*gets 50 pozz loads in a San Fran bathhouse*
U BE SAYIN
*OD's on heroin*
WE BE
*dies of an obesity-induced heart attack*
FREE AN' SHEEIT

>harder to automate
everything can be automated. computers already diagnose people more accurately than doctors. Its not just labor that can be automated.

honestly the idea of money is deprecated. everyone owns 1 7 billionth of the earths total resources, and robots should do all our work for us.

>*dies of an obesity-induced heart attack*
Watch it, that's 240 years of American culture you're sharting on there m8

of course they can be, you don't actually need to hire anyone for check out since you can just make everyone do self service that's not what i mean

they won't automake serivce industry because they need to make people work or else very bad things will happen

>All the rest of your examples are just nonsense
Lol.
>women can't drive
They have big support of such a changes in the society. They suck Yemeni dicks because they have no religious motivation to fight because they are pretty irreligious. They browse absolutely haram sites with vpns massively, date girls with special iPhone applications, they even have pretty cool black metal bands.
What about federalised Earth with sheer size of options for local government but unified criminal code, unified world technical standards etc?

>Mars will dominate Earth
No rivers = expensive transport of goods = shitty economy

Mars is a shithole, screenshot this for posterity

Are you willing to live under Sharia? Because I don't think Muslims will ever accept secularism/laicité in countries in which they're strong majorities.

>But exceptions
Either autocratic regimes or countries like Malaysia which are slowly buying into Saudi propaganda.

>capitalism is protected
Feudalism was also protected. Human made laws can't protect existing society from a whirlpool of History. They would inevitably change due to changes in economy. As soon as capitalism becomes ineffective it would be replaced by socialism.

tech companies will flee to mars due to no unions to fight automation and will introduce an energy currency to replace money and establish a true moneyless economy with no banks interests or taxes

socialism is capitalism but worse
t. marx

>You destroy racism by not talking about it so damn much.

Also and more importantly, by not living up to the stereotypes.
Racism is never going away regardless because anti-racism has become a multi-billion dollar industry and a powerful political tool. It doesn't really matter how equal things actually are or become anymore as long as there is money to be made.
That's why they are down to shit like "inequality in the computer industry".
Thomas Sowell points out the obvious, that you can't measure the equality of opportunity by the end result.
With perfectly equal opportunity or even increased incentives, the bottom line is if less blacks and women decide to go to school for things like programming and engineering, you are going to have less blacks and women in the computer field.
What they are screaming for now is special treatment and payouts, so you see tech companies hiring thousands of people they don't really need and creating bullshit "creative" and "social awareness" departments so they can hire otherwise unqualified people just to keep the race-baiters and feminists off their backs.

Simple. Because our culture is superior to others.

>moneyless economy
COMMIES OUT REEEEEEEEEE

What's the advantage of going to Mars in that case, just go to one of the automation havens here on Earth(probably Switzerland and some meme countries that are already tax havens)

T. Pedojew

>As soon as capitalism becomes ineffective it would be replaced by socialism.
For today's capitalistic global economy to be replaced we would probably have to reach Star Trek levels of abundance in which case that's not really socialism because no one's working. It's more "automism"

Yeah but that's racism
>even though it has nothing to do with race.

It's actually a hot topic in our parliament.

There needs to be a distinction between 'work' and 'job'. Work is simply effort put towards a goal. People, if left to their own devises, always work. People just inherently want to spend time accomplishing something. This is why NEETs are grinding away constantly in mmos. Its not like they are immediately fun, but the sense of accomplishment is something humans inherently need.

The problem is there is a disparity between efforts spent in different ways. Some kinds of effort count as a job and you get paid for it, other kinds of effort dont and you dont.

There was an article i read the other day saying how in the US its the most wealthy who work the most, and the unemployed that have the most free time. The article was examining this asking 'shouldnt it be the other way around'. It used examples showing that most rich people who work all the time, report happiness, and a large number of people who are unemployed and just play video games all day, also report happiness. They found this very odd and suggested some explanations, but missed the obvious. The truth is both groups were working and being fulfilled in their need for work. They were both investing all their time into doing the things that they enjoyed doing. There was no need for those wealthy people to spend that much time working unless, as the article surmised, they enjoyed it. They liked the accumulation of money the same way a NEET likes the accumulation of exp points. At the end of the day both people were putting essentially all their time and effort into working towards goals. If we are to understand that all jobs can be automated, then there really is no more justification for paying the person working a job over the person working a non-job. Both are spending effort and the effort of both is purely due to self fulfillment, not necessity, since as already established that job could be automated and only hasn't been because the position is grandfathered in from before that was possible.

because people need jobs?
why do you think all this talk about job is so pressing?

going to mars you don't have to give people jobs, joblessness is literally pointless consideration on mars

the most important aspect of capitalism is not value or interest or money but to use up labor, that is if must have someone working at something, anything, it doesn't have to be making stuff or transporting stuff, as now majority is trying to sell stuff from commercials to waiters to account managers to insurance agents they are all trying to sell stuff, why because they cannot not sell stuff

mars doesn't need to have this problem because it is almost a closed system it doesn't have to keep people employed for fear of rebellion because necesities are given out anyway

Religion doesn't matter at all here. Secularism is just economically effective so everyone sooner or later assumes it. We have secular Muslim countries like Azerbaijan, Turkey (and even though turks have conservative Islamists running the country they aren't descending back to religious society, as well as conservative government of Russia promoting religion too doesnt make people more religious here) Algeria. Those are mostly more poor countries like Pakistan where people are really religious. In a rich countries like Saudia or just a pretty developed like Iran people are not really religious and religion is just supported by oppressive government.

also the sharing of necessities then if it's all automated how would the jobless get paid

>Turkey
>Secular
>2016
kys

lots of hot opinions ITT

seriously they are good.

>Also and more importantly, by not living up to the stereotypes.

Then that's forcing the person to pretty much do a dance to not prove their stereotypes. Imagine if you had to show off to every female that you aren't a a threat to them t every opportunity.

Even if you proved that you are safe to that woman you have to do the song and dance for every woman after her. ON top of that all your efforts can suddenly go to null for all your previous women you've proven yourself safe if you fuck up later on.

Having to deal with the mental burden of "I can't be stereotypical", "I can must not do a stereotypical" action", "people are watching" can get to a person overtime and its tiring.

That's just avoiding the topic/issue at hand.

a mars terraforming mission is far beyond the reach of science fiction. The core doesn't have enough metals and isn't nearly active enough to create a magnetic field that can easily shrug off solar storms. And subsequently cannot protect an atmosphere that can support life.

nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-speed-of-solar-wind-stripping-martian-atmosphere

my comrade

Stick with me on this now...
Money traditionally is a stand-in for two things. The first is resources. The money represents resources and instead of having to barter resources people can just use money to make it easier to get the trades they want.

This has already been abolished due to fiat currency.

The second is as a stand-in for work. If a hedge trimmer needs his shoes fixed, he does not have to find a cobbler who needs his hedges trimmed, he can trim anyones hedges for money, then pay the cobbler for fix his shoes.

If both hedge trimming and cobbling are automated however, there is no more need for that. The hedge trimmer goes to the local cobbler-bot and gets his shoes cobbled for free.

Automation removes the requirement for money. Money is itself not a thing, its a system that lets us simplify interactions based on limited resources. When those resources become less limited the need for money in turn vanishes because the problem it was solving is no longer a problem. The only people this would affect negatively are people who treated money as its own specific thing and hoarded it.

In many ways it was the overthrowing of monarchies that kind of screwed us, because the new global elite are not in that position due to claims of divine right, but simply due to their money. So if money is removed they are usurped whereas a king would be free to simply move his people into the next social paradigm secure in his power.

You may point out that even though we have fiat currency, we still kind of use money to manage resources. This is true. So how are resources to be managed? Whats to stop some random person ordering a mulching bot from just mulching the entirety of the worlds trees because hes gone crazy and wants a gigantic mound of wood chips? Well that certainly could be a problem.

As i said earlier the sensible way is simply to attribute an equal 1/xth of the global resources (or all resources humanity controls) to each individual. (cont)

>Kek. Do you imply blacks aren't American?

They aren't the typical American. That may or may not be Jorge. Just like you can say Oromo are Ethiopians but when people say Ethiopia they mean Amharic, Tigrinyan folk and their culture.

>capitalism breaking national borders
When thats did communism - all was be angry. Why?

(cont)
There are many benefits to this. The first of which being that it turns every person on the planet into a sort of investor. Large projects like a moon base or something would require pooled resources from many individuals. Using something akin to kick starter people could easily simply contribute a fraction of their resources to a project, and let the automated resource allocating bots handle the specific logistics of it.

You would be correct in pointing out that this would be a whole lot easier if there were some abstract value to a 'unit of resource' people could work with when figuring out these transactions. And indeed, it looks like money, or something similar to it, is still a valid concept.

At the end of the day the difference, the fundamental one, comes down to who owns what. You could very easily summarize my system saying that people, upon birth, simply all start out with an equal share of humanitys resources, to manage as they see fit through their lives. In the end it simply places the starting position of control of these resources into peoples hands rather than countries hands.

because it is an effect no the purpose
capitalists sell stuff and make stuff, to make it more efficient borders are dissolved, materialism

when commies do it they want to change the free the proletariat by eroding the class base, it is struggle

people don't want struggle they want money and stuff, pretty simple

I just wanted to insert a joke about tanks. Sometimes I think to conquer Europe and the United States, for the sake of looting - not such a bad idea. The main problem is the channel and the Atlantic. Best the destruction of national borders - when you support a tank army,not the capital.

a transformation still needs to take place to place resources, ie sum of earth, into the hands of people
and that somehow there will be no one between this divided resources and the people that's suppose to own it and some how one part of the resources is not going to change value with another due to whatever it is invested in

i think i like the energy currency better since energy is what extracts the resources either through labor or machine

later marxist theorists suggest that capitalism is so ingrained into the society that the absolution of resource-value to this degree, into the hands of the "proletariat" would be beyond the capabilities for our culture to handle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

As much as I like the idea of fully automated luxury space communism how do we as a collective wean ourselves off of the trappings of """fetishistic consumerism?""" What of hierarchical systems in general?

>inb4 human nature

>Automation removes the requirement for money. Money is itself not a thing, its a system that lets us simplify interactions based on limited resources. When those resources become less limited the need for money in turn vanishes because the problem it was solving is no longer a problem.
Then comes the inevitable culling of the herd of now useless human worker drones who have outlived their usefulness to the ruling class. The future will be hell for all but a select few.

we don't because psychoanalysis sexual liberation and mass consumption has tricked our brain into permanently exposing us to the unconsciousness, we are broken from within

the only way to do it is to hope capitalists give up ownership themselves ala shared ownership or have them provide necessities beyond living wage such as housing or education
eventually it will come to that point due to resource and labor pressure

secularism has been there for a long time and is there to stay. Just because the people don't want a military coup every 20 years doesn't mean they'll instantly adopt sharia law for Turkey or some other crazy stuff you paranoïd retards always rant about.

You destroy racism by accepting that we are not the same and equal.
Let everyone have equality of opportunity, help out the smallest to stand on their own but if they fail to do anything with that, too fucking bad - see most of Sub-Saharan countries that have had billions and billions put into them and barely any progress has been made.

Cultures are not equal, Papua New Guineans natives have no right to continue their ritual cannibalism if they move to western countries.
Jews and muslims have no right to continue child genital mutilation in a country where it is forbidden.
Just as we westerners have no right to go stuff out culture to /asea/ or something.
>when in Rome do as the Romans
If you dont like it and dont want to assimilate then go fucking back where you came from.
Hell, you probably know Ville Haapasalo, Finnish actor who has played part in many russian movies in 90s. He was a total non-Russki when he went to then known Soviet Union. What did he do? He learned your damn language got accustomed to your customs and now he is well known man there, fucking hell he even can get local pension there if I dont remember wrong.
He is probably one of the most russian non-russians there is.
That is how you fucking do it.

Because I live in the good bit of the world

>we don't because psychoanalysis sexual liberation and mass consumption has tricked our brain into permanently exposing us to the unconsciousness, we are broken from within

Eugh, fuck liquid modernity. There's probably some valid criticism of this but I'm not in any sort of higher-education; It just makes me feel bad ya know? Any recommended reading?

Yeah, it's not like things such as civil wars happen or anything

zizek talk about this all the time if you don't mind the memes but he is still a socialist demagogue

post-structuralists and continentals philosophers all know revolution is not possible

so they just hold out on capitalist break point which might never come
the reason why the greens and the anti-imf are so successful and getting multnationals to back down is because global warming brings the inevitable to capitalism and that rampant accumulation of resources can have destructive powers that even effect the richest even they have to drink the same water we do after all, naomi klein spells this out in her book too