R-right, /leftypol/? It's gonna go back to salvageable conditions, r-right??!?
Nah
>>836591However, it isn't because of some vague socioeconomic factor but rather, because demographics is destiny.
250 years marks its doom anyhow.
I will also say, while the Iran War was very important for America's downfall and general affordability, it is still a large although secondary issue compared to the others. This country was never meant to last if the founders and their descendants would lose control. It's really because the North had all these liberal ideals, that, in the long-term, would prove fatal. And in a way it kind of mimics what happened to Rome.
the US is still experiencing a k-wave downturn, so no.
This is where Marx is interesting: not the epic USSR and DPRK history, nor the inevitable fall of 1960s capitalism ("We will bury you!") and superiority of central planning, nor the Chinese and Vietnamese way of accommodating capitalism with a red flag while organizing things in a way that is highly-compatible with the world market, …
But this. This goes right to the essence of why Marx will stay relevant as long as capitalism exists today. Yes, as a prole, you will eat shit, work longer hours, the rent will be higher, and the gas too.
If only Marxists weren't retards but at this point I don't believe it anymore, too much lore to believe in, while the events unfold in front of their very eyes…
>>836615newbie, please my property, read more to satisfy my ego.
>Under the regime of the bourgeoisie, the workers always fall into the hands of the possessors, i.e., of those who have any bit of state property[126] (and everything that can be possessed is state property, belongs to the state, and is only a fief of the individual) at their disposal, especially money and land; therefore, into the hands of the capitalists. The worker can’t utilize his work according to the measure of the value it has for the one enjoying its result. “Work is badly paid!” The capitalist has the greatest profit from it. —Only the work of those who enhance the glory and the power[127] of the state, the work of high state servants, is well, and more than well, paid. The state pays well so that its “good bourgeois citizens,” the possessors, can pay badly without danger; through good pay, it secures for itself its servants, from which it forms a protecting power, a “police” (to the police belong soldiers, officials of all kinds, i.e., of justice, education, etc.—in short, the whole “machinery of state”) [128] for the “good bourgeois citizens,” and the “good bourgeois citizens” gladly pay high taxes to it in order to pay so much lower wages to their workers.
>But the class of workers, because they are unprotected in what they essentially are (since they don’t enjoy state protection as workers, but as subjects of the state they have a share in the enjoyment of the police, a so-called legal protection), remains a hostile power against this state, this state of possessors, this “bourgeois monarchy.” Its principle, work, is not recognized according to its value; it is exploited[129], a spoil of war[130] of the possessors, the enemy.
>The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of work as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there.
>The state is founded on the—slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the state is lost. >>836614Inventors will have to progress and move along with their technology to save the planet, really, as I don't see it moving forward without the necessary implements. The population's going to be bogged down for various reasons, and it might just eventually kill itself.
>>836614That is, if, we cannot force human survival with technology. I don't think it will last for much longer without it given the postmodern circumstances, especially the demographics.
>>836617What are you even talking about? LLM model, I feel like you are mixing three different assertions.
>Inventors will have to progress and move along Welcome to capitalism.
>to save the planetLMAO, no, abstract number is more important in the mind of the capitalist.
>as I don't see it moving forward without the necessary implementsSuch as?
>The population's going to be bogged down for various reasons, and it might just eventually kill itself.Nani? Who cares anyway? Do you really care about birth rates? Do you even have children yourself, my property?
>>836620I'm just saying, with increased population there becomes an ever present need to regulate all of them with technology, as this is in the interest of the State and private billionaires for not only their own survival but the species as a whole, this being done in their own way preferably.
>>836620I don't actually have a vested interest in humanity's existence or inexistence, I am very apathetic to it myself, but the controllers necessarily have an interest in our fate.
>>836623The tech is there, but your goal if you value freedom, is to escape the nooks and crannies of it. That's it. Care about your own survival before caring the survival of an hypothetical children population that is declining in all developed countries.
>>836626Time is running out for any sort of freedom, Stirner.
>>836616dont care, "proletarian" is an abstraction, just like ego and "property", shit's fake