this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
93 points (100.0% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

6258 readers
34 users here now

A One-Stop-Shop for Evidence of our Social, Moral and Ideological Rot.

(It is also the official version of r/LateStageCapitalism/ on the Fediverse)

This community is for:

News, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge the narratives which act as legitimations for the status quo of modern class society. Posts need not be about capitalism specifically, whether late-stage or otherwise; we simply aim to cater to a socialist audience.

We do allow links to threads and comments on Lemmy/Reddit, as long as they are relevant to the content guidelines and follow the rules. Use NP links, or your post will be deleted.

Philosophy:

This community has its roots in broad-based anti-capitalist thought, with an emphasis on Marxist concepts and analysis and a commitment to antiracism and inclusive feminism.

When it comes to proposed alternatives to Capitalism, it is the general consensus of this community that class-divisions and alienated labour must be abolished; production must be collectively organized by the laborers themselves for the direct benefit of all. We call this socialism.

Find out more here: The Principles of Communism

Rules:

1. Lemmygrad-wide rules apply. Behavior such as brigading and harassment won't be permitted. Neither will posts that can be interpreted as explicit threats of/calls for violence.

2. Any post that makes a claim should have a RELIABLE source or explanation in the comments by OP. All claims, news articles, tweets and so forth that are an example of LSC should be substantiated with a reliable, factual and verifiable source. Any posts that egregiously break this rule will have their poster temporarily banned. If the Automoderator deletes the comment with sources that's fine, the moderators can still see and restore it.

3. No trolling. "I was just trolling" won't be accepted as a defense for breaking rules, and we will ban for intentionally disruptive behavior or attacks on our community, users, or philosophy.

4. No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism. This community is intended for a socialist audience, and while good faith questions are allowed, pushing your own counter-narrative here is not. We do not allow support here for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it. We are not a liberal or (U.S.-/Social-) Democrat community; we are a socialist community.

5. No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or zionism. This includes not just ideologies to the right of liberalism but also right-wing fixations such as national/ethnic/cultural chauvinism and military/police worship regardless of the underlying ideology. We take no side in the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

6. No "lesser evil" rhetoric. Lesser-evil rhetoric in relation to elections or current policies is prohibited. Dismissing voting third party because they are “useless” or because you are “throwing your vote away” also violates this rule. It also encompasses saying Trump is “worse” for Gaza, as that place is already completely destroyed. Trump is merely carrying out what the American ruling class started under Biden. Resorts being built and mass relocation were already happening under Biden and Kamala would’ve continued it.

7. No bigotry. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or classism. The respect for readers who are subject to these forms of bigotry takes priority in this community over your right to speak freely.

8. Be nice to each other. Be respectful towards other socialists you disagree with, but also non-socialists who follow the rules and participate in good faith. Feel free to dunk on trolls, bigots and bootlickers to your heart’s content.

9. Bans are at moderator discretion. We reserve the right to eject users (as well as remove, lock, or otherwise moderate any content on the community) for reasons not listed if we consider it necessary to do so.

10. Don’t bother sending us personal promotion requests. We are not an advertising platform for your blog or YouTube channel.

11. Do not post content from Dan Price, any other CEO/business owner or ANY liberal politician/official.

This is regarding positive posts or posts agreeing with their statement. Negative posts are permitted but better suited to communities like /c/ShitReactionariesSay

Please note that Robert Reich or Bernie Sanders as liberals also fall under this rule.

12. Do not post NSFL content and flair NSFW posts accordingly. NSFL posts will be removed. Flair NSFW posts with the appropriate content warning flair, otherwise you will be banned temporarily.

13. This is not a debate community. Constructive questions and discussion are welcome, but our basic philosophy is non-negotiable and we aren’t interested in repeatedly having to explain or justify it. We also won’t debate about so-called “socialist” countries. There are plenty of political debate communities, so take your 'gotchas' there.

14. No AI generated content. The community does not allow for AI generated content, even if it’s pro-socialist/communist.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml
ilir@lemmygrad.ml
Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net
KobaPetrov@lemmygrad.ml
StraightRazor666@lemmy.ml
93
Comment under a YouTube video on falling fertility rates. (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by Timely_Jellyfish_2077@programming.dev to c/latestagecapitalism@lemmygrad.ml
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When "there is no such thing as society," but "it takes a village" to raise children, it's obvious that many choose to simply not have children. There is also a correlation between improving material conditions and lower birth rates, but that only partially explains the current situation in the west.

I learned something interesting about the average gap between children in different mammal species recently. Great apes, I think it was orangutans specifically, have babies roughly eight years apart, as that's how long it takes for an orangutan to mature enough to not need constant care. This being while orangutan babies are more mature and capable at birth than human babies. Whereas in hunter-gatherer human communities the gap is more like four years, not because a four year old is mature enough for the mother to have time to care for another infant, but because child rearing is a communal responsiblity; she has help. In the US this gap has been reduced even further to just two years, even though the average mother in the US has essentially no help with domestic labour and likely has to participate in wage labour as well.

[–] lambalicious 2 points 1 year ago

I'm trying to find the button to upvote you twice but I can't find it. But I'm definitively starring this comment in the least.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was thinking about this comment and thread a bit earlier and I think while it def has a good point, some of it is even more straightforward than that; western capitalism/empire went to great lengths to isolate and individualize because that makes it harder for people to organize and see eye to eye, makes them easier to exploit, etc., including segmenting on gender. That means many of the connections that a person might make in a "normal" (cooperative) society just from knowing other people and working (or playing) with them closely in the day to day, are just... not there. Which of course is going to include romantic connections too. Online dating seems to have tried to answer this problem by giving you a wider search range to compensate for how splintered people are and it got captured by gamified profiteering, and on top of that, in a place like the US for example, the splintering seems to have gotten progressively worse over time, diminishing any gains from an expanded search range.

So there is the factor of whether people can afford to have kids, have the time to, have any desire to, but there's also the step of them even getting into a lasting relationship where that convo might come up, in the first place. The capitalists want to have their cake and eat it too; they want a populace that is so splintered it poses no threat to them, yet also somehow falls in love with each other and makes babies for the factory heaving, but the one is contradictory to the other.

[–] Halasham@dormi.zone 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh in the American Dystopia they've abandoned the 'love each other' part. They still pay lip-service to the notion of loving families but absolutely no maintenance is put into it.

Rather they attack all forms of birth control such that if one uses sex to cope with the dystopian conditions, at all, there's a likelihood you will be saddled with the economic burden of children. Doesn't matter if it was a one-night-stand or if neither party is rationally old enough to be effective parents... hell traumatized kids may be even less effective at forming effective resistance to their power.

Honestly, that's not enough for replacement, let alone population growth, and they know it. I'm certain they're going to resort to even more dystopian methods as they have demonstrated not just a lack of care for Human decency but active contempt for the concept.

[–] sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

There is also the residual school systems that secretly continues after 1997 and that are a series of slave camps, human experimentation camps, and death camps to waste so much taxpayer money on doctrine of child hatred to the level that that children and grandchildren of the fake school survivors do not understand the concept of family love. The European immigrants are now complaining about family violence of aboriginal people in North America because they magically 'forget' that they are responsible for the savage indoctrination in the fake schools and because they somehow cannot comprehend the fact that the European immigrants themselves are assassinating any Indigenous first nation people who tried to return the universal culture of child love.

[–] JoeDaRedTrooperYT@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

It's a cold one

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Damn, the comments here! So much fedora-tipping...

Maybe it's capitalism or maybe women just don't want to spend their best years constantly pregnant and breastfeeding, no way to know I guess if you don't talk to them

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure what this is in response to exactly. Comments on the youtube video? I'm sure some women don't want to go through pregnancy throughout all of human history and they should have the right not to, wherever possible. But plenty do want to have kids of their own now and historically (in spite of the fact pregnancy can be a difficult and at times dangerous thing to go through), and it's not as though all of them need to for a society to keep going anyway. And when it comes to the point that knfrmity raised about "takes a village", it's probably better to have some people who aren't raising children of their own, but are nevertheless helping raise other people's children as "part of the village."

The question here is what has changed compared to certain numbers in the past. If capitalism is not a factor, what is the factor? Or are you saying the difference is made up?

I'm also just a little weirded out by this wording:

spend their best years

I would define a person's best years as the years they are the happiest about, not a range set from the outside. When you turn 30, or 40, or 50, you aren't in decline now and it's all downhill from there. That would be a nihilistic, overly biological, depressing view of life. And one that syncs up rather uncomfortably with an objectified view of women...

[–] Timely_Jellyfish_2077@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ

[–] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] some_guy 2 points 1 year ago

I’d have suggested affordable childcare, but this works too. Couch-fucker wants my only surviving parent to pitch in, but she lives in a different state with failing health. One of these seems more realistic than the other, for some reason. Why doesn’t the couch-fucker support affordable childcare? Because fear and hate is all they offer.

[–] Comprehensive49@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It will be a challenge of the century to see if socialism can fix this crisis where capitalism clearly hasn't.

I certainly hope that, as China improves living, working, and social conditions, that birth rates rise back up to replacement rates or higher. That would cement the superiority of socialism and prepare the world for the population required to expand into space across the solar system.

[–] AdlachGyfiawn@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Colonizing other planets is way, way, way beyond our current abilities. It would be easier to colonize the ocean first, because at least that has water and a biosphere, or even Antarctica, because at least that has breathable air. Counting on flight to another planet is a bad idea: it's infinitely harder than fixing things at home.

[–] Comprehensive49@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know where y'all get the idea that I want humans to escape from Earth. That would be incredibly stupid.

We need to go to space for resources to increase living standards at home and avoid further ecological destruction. For instance, the only good sources of helium-3 (an excellent fuel for fusion) is mining from the moon or gas collecting from gas giants. Nothing is alive in space, so there aren't downsides to mining there like there is on Earth. Socialism is also the only way to prevent space resources from only bulking Jeff Bezos' (or his childrens') pockets.

I, for one, do not think socialism means forever stalling at 2030s-era tech.

[–] AdlachGyfiawn@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's just a matter of priorities. In order to build a spaceship and get it out of the atmosphere, you have to do a colossal amount of ecological damage, which is the last thing we can afford right now. Space ships are made with lots of lithium and cobalt and fun stuff like that.

I'm not saying forever, I'm saying that we're in the ER for internal bleeding and you're talking about doing an operation to fix our scoliosis.

[–] bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Getting large numbers of people into space will be prohibitive for a long time. It's more important right now to focus on the problems of the here and now. Build international socialism and improve habitability of the world.

[–] bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

none of that stuff requires high birth rates btw.

[–] Comprehensive49@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh, it's a matter of investment into the technologies required for bulk space transport. Infrastructure like space railguns (basically a really long Hyperloop section that points towards the sky to shoot payloads into space) are feasible today (and China is researching them already: https://newatlas.com/space/china-railgun-spacecraft-orbit/ ), and more out-there ideas like space elevators are a matter of time. In order to reach full communism without strip mining the entire Earth, getting resources from lifeless space is essential. That will require lots of people in space.

The interesting thing to see at this time is if China can show another way to sustainable population management. Capitalist countries seem intent on shrinking their overworked populations into nothingness. South Korea's birth rates have only decreased further, even as their population keeps shrinking.

[–] bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Space elevators are likely not feasible. Off-planet mining would probably be a better fit for autonomous robots as long as weight is a factor in sending things to space. Plus, you won't get people to space with a railgun.

As for the question of population maintenance, it's not necessarily a crisis in itself. One thing is for sure, though: any policy viewing women as docile broodmares or encouraging more pregnancy without a comprehensive and clear analysis of the whole situation and the input of educated women will not succeed. If any country can successfully encourage more births it would probably be a socialist one. The GDR had relatively good policies for its time, for example.

[–] lambalicious 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Getting large numbers of people into space will be prohibitive for a long time.

I'm content with getting the billionaires into space. Preferably on a Sun-oriented path. Since getting them into submarines so far hasn't catched on...

[–] bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Much more environmentally friendly just to shoot them.