Industrial society and its future.

[American_Aristocracy]

Book discussion thread about industrial society and its future .

-what are some important political themes in the book that you like?

-do you think that the author Is being complicit with the fact that conservatives don't really "conserve" anything in the advent of technological advancement?

-Do you think the author is right in saying that social movements do little to advance the underlying structure within political systems?

-do you think that the industrial advancements within society has possibly oppressed you?

-what are some paragraphs that resonate with you?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Discussing, in an unsolicited and perhaps enthusiastic manner, the works of a terrorist without first prefacing that you don’t support terrorism, seems like a bad idea.

[Dr. MB]

I don't support terrorism.

Uncle Ted makes some solid points:

There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee.

Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Uncle Ted makes some solid points:

There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee.

Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society.

Discussing, in an unsolicited and perhaps enthusiastic manner, the works of a terrorist without first prefacing that you don’t support terrorism, seems like a bad idea.

Discussing, in an unsolicited and perhaps enthusiastic manner, the works of a terrorist without first prefacing that you don’t support terrorism, seems like a bad idea.

[PSOL]

The future envisioned by the unabomber is both unlivable and impossible. Technology is here to stay and has done nothing but benefit society in a multitude of ways. What he should have been railing about was the thing that really keeps us chained, and that is the structural system of our society, purely emposed on us by the elite. Technology has been proven to keep humans free in the right hands, but only in the wrong will the negative externalities be present.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Uncle Ted makes some solid points:

There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee.

Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society.

Discussing, in an unsolicited and perhaps enthusiastic manner, the works of a terrorist without first prefacing that you don’t support terrorism, seems like a bad idea.

Discussing, in an unsolicited and perhaps enthusiastic manner, the works of a terrorist without first prefacing that you don’t support terrorism, seems like a bad idea.

Discussing, in an unsolicited and perhaps enthusiastic manner, the works of a terrorist without first prefacing that you don’t support terrorism, seems like a bad idea. Give up

[PSOL]

The idea that an ideology or theoretical work, no matter how much of a meme, should be not discussed due to “terrorism” is a cop out. The right response is condemning the work for being the insane drivel of an edgelord with no good ideas

Uncle Ted makes some solid points:

There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee.

Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society.

sh**tting in the woods away from people, and it should be noted that Ted was an incredible misanthrope with no social life like his fans, is not an ideal lifestyle for most people. Also the current way we treat depression is ages overdone and not an original idea.

Face it, you either get involved in change in society or have two things happen; the fellow neurosis of the individuals involved kills the project through a neurodivergent death spiral, or the dominant forces kill your commune or encroach on “the pristine” the disassociated individuals have at that moment. All the lessons you can read on the great takedowns of utopia seekers in The Holy Family by Marx and Engels or Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels. Because it is clear the Young Hegelian materialism adopted by the counterinsurgency section of academia isn’t working.

[PSOL]

Alright, I’m going to end this right now and disprove his “hypothesis” of technology leading to destructive uniform actions and the general harm it does on an individual level. Let’s look at people with gaming addictions. These individuals usually spend an incredible amount of time on these devices and get little out of anything else. However, one should ask is how did they get there and what were the material realities that led for them to get a better dopamine rush from gaming to prefer that over any other activity. Could it be that, given the expensiveness of these consoles and level of money required from a guardian to sustain such lifestyles, something went horrendously wrong in the socialization of these individuals? Gen X, not too long ago, lived and socialized without phones and had generally better lives than their parents with better music and good standards of life thanks to municipal action on infrastructure and for government regulations getting out lead from gasoline in the 80s or so—albeit with diminishing marginal returns as privatization was in full swing. Now, there were game addicts in the 2000s, but the whole culture of that being your life and the general exposure and abuse of such paypigs through micro-transactions as the norm did not occur until the 2010s or so—after the Great Recession.

Similar trajectories and demographic data can be said about the rise and participants of social media addiction, hikkimori culture in the United States, and the crypto chatroom experience—generally the Middle class’s and the upper crust of the working class’s children being unable to grow up. Generally this revolves in very wealthy nations; but in Latin America, Coastal urban China, and Asia this is seen with the elite, owing to the fact that the middle class is still not rich or stable as a hierarchy enough to sustain such wasteful activity.

So we see, again, the negative effects a hierarchical system does to people and the vices they engage in to deal with such alienating environment but which doesn’t solve their problems and indeed makes it worse by causing them to waste away. Again, the problem is capitalism and the alienation it does to people, and the fact that atomization of the self is a common byproduct of a system in crisis. Of course, as a misanthropic loser who got rejected by a girl, Ted is unwilling to see this due to his bigotry and unwillingness to display basic human empathy.

The rise in such a meme ideology, and any sort of defense of any of Ted’s “ideas” that are just repackaged angst of someone who could not be a fascist on account of her gender identity, is a pretty good indication that we are dealing with declassed suburban losers who most likely choose to engage in worthlessness and want to do a partial withdrawal of the world without serious analysis of the world, of course they never really withdraw as that interrupts their stagnant but stable middle class livelihood.