A Swedish study showed that battery production emits between 150 kg and 200 kg of CO2 for each KW of capacity. Production of a 100KW Tesla battery emits 17.5 tons of CO2.
"The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high CO2 emissions. For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory." https://www.thegwpf.com/new-st...
Basically, we're fucked as long as we want to drive big cars. A smaller VW Golf with a 2 litre engine emits 119g/km. So one must drive 147.000 kilometers to emit as much as the production of one 100KW battery. That's about 8 years of driving in Europe...
Just to add to the discussion: People used traps, snares, pits, and nets to catch their prey thousands of years ago. It's not like humans had to spend eight hours running after animals to get their meat.
I've seen natives in Africa make bird traps out of bushes and bark. Took'em less than five minutes without using any tools, and the bird supply was endless.
I'm with you all the way on this one, except that meat is high in calories. Wildlife typically has very little fat, and meat itself has about 1200 kcal/kg. Not much compared to e.g. nuts and seeds. (randomly chosen source: http://matvaretabellen.no/beef... )
Meat could also be preserved and stored, a valuable property. Animals provided much more than just meat. Tendons, fur, minerals (in bone), omega-3 fatty acids (the brain), to mention a few.
Of course humans are omnivores. Only idiots say otherwise.
"What the fuck are you talking about? Breivik sees himself as a christian chrusader for fucks sake, a member of knights templar. It is all in his bloody manifest."
Is that so?
Breivik stated in a letter he wrote in November 2015, that "he was not, and never had been christian. He found the christian message 'pathetic', and his only god was Odin(Wotan)."
While imprisoned, Breivik has identified himself as a fascist[29] and a national socialist,[30] saying he previously exploited counterjihadist rhetoric in order to protect ethno-nationalists.[31] In 2015, he said that he has never personally identified as a Christian, and called his religion Odinism
Don't drink the Kool-Aid, mate. Investigate a little before you post.
"Well, Breivik for one had one of the highest bodycounts for a terrorist attack in Europe."
Maybe, but he wasn't christian so yet another of your arguments is void.
Ref your claim that you remember your childhood well and that you were not brainwashed. Still you come up with all these weird claims . Maybe you're more brainwashed than you think?
Especialy in the Weimar republic the government allowed righ wing paramilitary organisations (Freikorps and later SA) extrajudicial killings of socialists.
Source, please?
I highly doubt that the German government allowed killings of socialists(SDP, SAP, and such). Participants in Operation Consul, which did a lot of these killings, were hunted by the authorities, not celebrated or silently accepted.
Maybe you confuse socialists with violent communists, and the hundreds of dead, on both sides, due to fighting between nazis and commies in e.g. Red Berlin?
Trivia: The commies in Berlin used to call the nazies for "steaks". Why, because the nazis, like steaks, were brown on the outside and red on the inside.
It looks as if you didn't get the point, so I repeat it: Dictators always eliminate rivals, regardless of political views. Nazis killed nazis (and others), just like communists killed communists (and others). Your argument, "The nazis weren't socialists since they imprisoned socialists", is void.
The three aspects of a crime are means, motive and opportunity. The motive is important, and that is what was different about killing off the SA compared to your examples. They were killed because they were socialists of some sort.
Nope, the motive is to secure power. They were killed because they were perceived as a threat. Their political view weren't important, and communists migrated en masse to the nazi party too.
BTW, in the beginning, many political opponents weren't even killed. They were arrested and imprisoned in Dachau, where HÃss was in charge. You remember him, right? Many of them were released from Dachau too, at least in the early phase of the terror regime.
How do you know you didn't?
Because I remember my childhood quite well.
Good for you, but the real test is if your current beliefs are true or not. Here are a couple of controversial, and hopefully interesting, issues "the ruling classes" don't talk much about and hence the average European doesn't know much about. Why did we have the Crusades? How many Europeans died as slaves between 1500 and 1800? None, you say? Why did Germany turn nazi in 1933? What were the goals of the nazis by going to war? How many Germans were killed, after 1945, when they were expelled from Eastern Europe after the war? Not part of the curriculum, you say? Does Islam mean "peace" and is Islam "a religion of peace"? Is immigration profitable for the receiving countries? What's the origin of the expression "Arbeit macht frei"? Was Hitler a drug addict? What's the logic behind Romano Prodi's and EU's Ring of Friends strategy and why do they want to "share everything but institutions" with the arab countries in North Africa? Was there ever an Islamic "Golden Age" and did the muslims preserve old Greek knowledge? Is the Welfare State sustainable? Who were the driving forces behind the Euro?
As I mentioned, I also had the pleasure of growing up in post war Europe, in a more or less socialistic country. We were served lots of lies and half-truths, and lots were omitted too. The situation wasn't too bad until late seventies, but we had one teacher fired for political agitation.
Today, the situation is much worse, especially regarding immigration and Islam. Our pupils are served blatant lies.
Weapon laws don't prove that a country is ruled by nazis.
The original point was that nazis were left wing because they have disarmed the population, which was a lie because they didn't.
I only stated that the laws served us quite well sine 1945.
Well, you certainly _implied_ that there was causality between post-WWII laws and some unstated benefit from having those laws. The relative peace enjoyed in Germany after the fall of Hitler is most likely *not* due to hate speech laws, since countries without those laws have enjoyed the same peace.
If there is a causality or not is up to you. If you want to prove there is none, it is up to you as well.
The way I see it, you either made a claim about causality, or your statement was without meaning. You tell us which's which. It's not my job to argue for you.
Sorry, throwing around latin in the time of the internet (and I actually had latin in school) to look bright is rather foolish.
Ad Hominem and argumentum ad verecundiam:) Who cares if you had Latin in school unless you were good at it. For all your readers know, you sucked at Latin.
Seriously, it's a good idea to use the Latin names. It reduces confusion and most names are easily googlable for those you want to read up. One could say that Latin is the Lingua Franca of fallacies (Yup, that was also a joke)
The original program was very anti-capitalist. Hitler made a distinction between jewish and non-jewish capitalists in 1928, in order to get the support of German capitalists.
The original program was before Hitler.
The original program was written by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler, and presented to the public February 24th, 1920. Source: http://hitler.org/writings/pro... (But you may not want to open that link if you're in Germany...)
We can talk all night about the Strasser brothers, Goebbels' early hang for socialism, Hitler's pragmatism, how NSDAP slowly left their socialist views behind, and whatever else you want to talk about. How about the Thule Society and its influence on early, German nazism?
Look what Hitler did to his own during Night of the Long Knives
The funny thing is that you yourself haven't read what you have linked. It says there clearly that Hitler didn't care about the "socialism" part, hence the purge.
It looks as if you didn't get the point, so I repeat it: Dictators always eliminate rivals, regardless of political views. Nazis killed nazis (and others), just like communists killed communists (and others). Your argument, "The nazis weren't socialists since they imprisoned socialists", is void.
All rulers to this, regardless of political color.
Care to explain why I didn't have a daily recitation of some stupid oath in my childhood - in an actual socialist country, no less?
How do you know you didn't?;) The Ruling Classes are much more subtle these days.
Nah, mate. Google Translate of the German law you linked to, says that Section 15: Arms purchase or warrants may only be issued to persons whose reliability is not a concern, and only if proof of a need exists. So if there's a need and if you're trustworthy, then you can get a gun.
Well, as a German I can tell you that Google translate is not that correct and you have deliberately misunderstood it anyway. The law clearly says (Â11 (1)) that handguns - and only handguns - need a purchase permit (Waffenerwerbsschein), and this is exactly what I have written. Long guns could be acquired without a permit - except for jews, gypsies, socialists and communists - this is what is meant by "unreliable persons". Exactly what I have written. Carrying, on the other hand, needs another permit (Waffenschein - Â14), which is also exactly what I have written.
First of all, stop being an ass accusing me for "deliberately misunderstanding" German gun laws from 1938. I don't read German. You posted a link to a long document written in German, without any references at all, on an English web site. WTF do you expect from your readers?
BTW, I grew up in a socialist country too, still anyone older than 16 could buy a shotgun, no questions asked, until 1985. In the UK, anyone could buy machine guns until 1934, IIRC. And in some parts of the US, shotguns are sold next to milk and bread.
Weapon laws don't prove that a country is ruled by nazis.
Care to explain how vilifying the rich resulted in Hitler being funded by big business?
The original program was very anti-capitalist. Hitler made a distinction between jewish and non-jewish capitalists in 1928, in order to get the support of German capitalists.
Or maybe you can explain how NSDAP, being socialist, sent all socialists and communists to concentration camps immediately after seizing power?
Dictators always imprison or kill potential rivals, regardless of political views. Look what Hitler did to his own during Night of the Long Knives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives )
The schools were taken over so the children could be raised in a patriotic way, starting very much like your very own pledge of allegiance.
All rulers to this, regardless of political color.
Oh by the way, what idiot told you that nazis disarmed the general population? That never happened. Only jews, gypsies and socialists were disarmed, everyone else could buy any amount of long guns or munition they wanted without any paperwork.
Nah, mate. Google Translate of the German law you linked to, says that Section 15: Arms purchase or warrants may only be issued to persons whose reliability is not a concern, and only if proof of a need exists. So if there's a need and if you're trustworthy, then you can get a gun. There were exceptions for members of the state machinery, like SS. Quite the opposite of what you wrote, isn't it?
The problem with arguments like this one, is that the left/right labels are meaningless. They don't describe anything well.
Nazists were socialists, but not internationally oriented socialists. They didn't subscribe to Marx & Engels' notion of international solidarity of the working class. Instead, they put Germans first, and were more or less willing to kill everyone else (See Holocaust and The Hunger Plan for an example).
Having said that, the soviets were willing to kill almost anyone too, but not because of race/etnicity, but for being traitors, enemies of the state, contra revolutionaries, or whatever perceived threat to their dictatorship.
The lefties call nazis for right-wing extremists because the nazis were extreme nationalists. In reality, anyone wanting collectivism and a strong state instead of individualism and human rights, are like nazis.
Some may object that nazis did Holocaust. That's true, but our human history is full of more or less similar atrocities, except for the gas chambers. Soviet's Holodomor, China's Great Leap, Cambodia's Killing Fields, Belgium's mass murder in Congo, France and England's starvation of Germany right after WWI, Turkey's annihilation of the Armenians, to mention some.
You keep comparing apples and oranges. Genpop includes lots of non-working people which I assume calls ambulances a lot, e.g. senior citizens. I'm just guessing here, but OD junkies and crime victims may also be major sources of ambulance dispatches. Isn't it more correct to compare Tesla workers with similar groups of people, not genpop?
Marx may have been (his goals of the withering state would indicate such), Lenin definitely not. You still got it wrong. Just like people who see humans as property, it is antiquated and wrong. Leftism and authoritarianism are direct polar opposites. Leftism ~ anarchism.
You're a funny guy. If you mean anarchism, say anarchism. Don't go around calling non-anarchist communists and socialists for non-authoritanian 'leftists' just becaust anarchists claim to be. It's called Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle, and is invalid arguing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You're letting mass media define your words for you. And your faith in them does not mean you are correct by any means, nor does your majority status.
Troll alert, or brain-washed Berkeley student detected. Seriously, that last statement of yours is just beyond sense and logic. Normally, one has to go to chuch to hear something that far out. I'm guessing riseup/antifa material here.
Says it all right there, dictatorship. It's not 'left' by any means. It's a dictatorship. It doesn't matter by whom. Sorry, but you are wrong. It doesn't matter who does it. It only matters what is being done. A leftist cannot be an authoritarian.
You are making the same mistake as all the others by trying to distinguish the source (kind of a 'kill the messenger' thing). As if some authoritarians are good.
So Marx and Lenin, they weren't leftists? The inventor of Communism as an ideology, Karl Marx, he was not a communist? That sounds silly, doesn't it? Or maybe communism isn't leftism? Maybe Bakunin was the only true leftist?
The thing is, left or right, it's all about power. It's about control. Communism is all about collective control over the individual (yes, anarchism is a pipe dream), just like nazism (or religions, but that's another discussion). It's all about power.
Someone has lured you into a logic trap. Snap out of it. "Leftism" is a meaningless term anyway. Be more precise.
The 'authoritarian left' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Leftists are antiauthoritarian. Once you become an authoritarian you are no longer a 'leftist'. It is impossible. Leftists are anarchists. Authoritarianism, state and corporate (in reality a distinction without a difference), is extremely right wing, designed to acquire and conserve power. It can't be anything else.
Bah. Have you forgotten about the revolution and the necessary "period of terror" to rob the establishment of their powers and means of production? A.k.a. proletarian dictatorship. This so-called interrim period tends to last and last and last, until the system collapses or morphs into a neo-fascist state like China.
The left is all about power and control. Read up, kiddo.
These Fire tablets are silly and no good replacements for a proper Kindle. What the world needs, is an updated version of the 9.7" Kindle DX. Mine broke, and my two other Kindles are not suitable for reading technical documents or stuff with lots of tables. We need a big-screen Kindle and we need it now. #rantmode=off #sony-DPT-RP1_looks_really_good_at_700$
"In North America in the 1980's, the Japanese car disruption happened on a very short timescale and directly displaced 185,000 automotive jobs between June 1981 and November 1982 "
The kindergarten, valuable as it is, was just an example of possible knock-on effects. There's a social side to it, but also an economic. How to pay for a service when unemployed and with lots of free time and the skills to do it yourself.
In a world where no one works, and no one earns income - who is left to buy the output of the robots?
Capitalism driven production REQUIRES consumers with disposable income. The one cannot exist without the other. To save capitalism, you need to save the consumer.
Good point. Also, states need tax revenues, so they need someone or something to tax. Not much to tax if most people are out of work. AFAIK, there are no social modes suitable for the future we seem to be heading towards. This may get ugly.
The knock-on effect of automation will make more people stay at home, reducing the need for services like kindergartens. Same goes for other businesses when people return to their homes and do more stuff themselves: Looking after their children, cooking more at home, gardening, cleaning and such.
Just guessing here, but if I'm right, this may not be all bad. Back to the fifties?;)
Slashdot Mirror
A Swedish study showed that battery production emits between 150 kg and 200 kg of CO2 for each KW of capacity. Production of a 100KW Tesla battery emits 17.5 tons of CO2.
"The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high CO2 emissions. For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory."
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-st...
Basically, we're fucked as long as we want to drive big cars. A smaller VW Golf with a 2 litre engine emits 119g/km. So one must drive 147.000 kilometers to emit as much as the production of one 100KW battery. That's about 8 years of driving in Europe...
"Has anyone else done this successfully?"
Check out Qubes OS https://www.qubes-os.org/ . Qubes is picky on HW requirements, but works well if you have the HW.
Good comment.
Just to add to the discussion: People used traps, snares, pits, and nets to catch their prey thousands of years ago. It's not like humans had to spend eight hours running after animals to get their meat.
I've seen natives in Africa make bird traps out of bushes and bark. Took'em less than five minutes without using any tools, and the bird supply was endless.
I'm with you all the way on this one, except that meat is high in calories. Wildlife typically has very little fat, and meat itself has about 1200 kcal/kg. Not much compared to e.g. nuts and seeds.
(randomly chosen source: http://matvaretabellen.no/beef... )
Meat could also be preserved and stored, a valuable property. Animals provided much more than just meat. Tendons, fur, minerals (in bone), omega-3 fatty acids (the brain), to mention a few.
Of course humans are omnivores. Only idiots say otherwise.
"What the fuck are you talking about? Breivik sees himself as a christian chrusader for fucks sake, a member of knights templar. It is all in his bloody manifest."
Is that so?
Breivik stated in a letter he wrote in November 2015, that "he was not, and never had been christian. He found the christian message 'pathetic', and his only god was Odin(Wotan)."
Source(paywalled/Norwegian): http://www.dagen.no/Nyheter/he...
Even Wikipedia states this fact clearly:
While imprisoned, Breivik has identified himself as a fascist[29] and a national socialist,[30] saying he previously exploited counterjihadist rhetoric in order to protect ethno-nationalists.[31] In 2015, he said that he has never personally identified as a Christian, and called his religion Odinism
Don't drink the Kool-Aid, mate. Investigate a little before you post.
"Well, Breivik for one had one of the highest bodycounts for a terrorist attack in Europe."
Maybe, but he wasn't christian so yet another of your arguments is void.
Ref your claim that you remember your childhood well and that you were not brainwashed. Still you come up with all these weird claims . Maybe you're more brainwashed than you think?
Source, please?
I highly doubt that the German government allowed killings of socialists(SDP, SAP, and such). Participants in Operation Consul, which did a lot of these killings, were hunted by the authorities, not celebrated or silently accepted.
Maybe you confuse socialists with violent communists, and the hundreds of dead, on both sides, due to fighting between nazis and commies in e.g. Red Berlin?
Trivia: The commies in Berlin used to call the nazies for "steaks". Why, because the nazis, like steaks, were brown on the outside and red on the inside.
The three aspects of a crime are means, motive and opportunity. The motive is important, and that is what was different about killing off the SA compared to your examples. They were killed because they were socialists of some sort.
Nope, the motive is to secure power. They were killed because they were perceived as a threat. Their political view weren't important, and communists migrated en masse to the nazi party too.
BTW, in the beginning, many political opponents weren't even killed. They were arrested and imprisoned in Dachau, where HÃss was in charge. You remember him, right? Many of them were released from Dachau too, at least in the early phase of the terror regime.
Because I remember my childhood quite well.
Good for you, but the real test is if your current beliefs are true or not. Here are a couple of controversial, and hopefully interesting, issues "the ruling classes" don't talk much about and hence the average European doesn't know much about. Why did we have the Crusades? How many Europeans died as slaves between 1500 and 1800? None, you say? Why did Germany turn nazi in 1933? What were the goals of the nazis by going to war? How many Germans were killed, after 1945, when they were expelled from Eastern Europe after the war? Not part of the curriculum, you say? Does Islam mean "peace" and is Islam "a religion of peace"? Is immigration profitable for the receiving countries? What's the origin of the expression "Arbeit macht frei"? Was Hitler a drug addict? What's the logic behind Romano Prodi's and EU's Ring of Friends strategy and why do they want to "share everything but institutions" with the arab countries in North Africa? Was there ever an Islamic "Golden Age" and did the muslims preserve old Greek knowledge? Is the Welfare State sustainable? Who were the driving forces behind the Euro?
As I mentioned, I also had the pleasure of growing up in post war Europe, in a more or less socialistic country. We were served lots of lies and half-truths, and lots were omitted too. The situation wasn't too bad until late seventies, but we had one teacher fired for political agitation.
Today, the situation is much worse, especially regarding immigration and Islam. Our pupils are served blatant lies.
The original point was that nazis were left wing because they have disarmed the population, which was a lie because they didn't.
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
Probably your: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
I only stated that the laws served us quite well sine 1945.
Well, you certainly _implied_ that there was causality between post-WWII laws and some unstated benefit from having those laws. The relative peace enjoyed in Germany after the fall of Hitler is most likely *not* due to hate speech laws, since countries without those laws have enjoyed the same peace.
If there is a causality or not is up to you. If you want to prove there is none, it is up to you as well.
The way I see it, you either made a claim about causality, or your statement was without meaning. You tell us which's which. It's not my job to argue for you.
Sorry, throwing around latin in the time of the internet (and I actually had latin in school) to look bright is rather foolish.
Ad Hominem and argumentum ad verecundiam :) Who cares if you had Latin in school unless you were good at it. For all your readers know, you sucked at Latin.
Seriously, it's a good idea to use the Latin names. It reduces confusion and most names are easily googlable for those you want to read up. One could say that Latin is the Lingua Franca of fallacies (Yup, that was also a joke)
The original program was before Hitler.
The original program was written by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler, and presented to the public February 24th, 1920. Source: http://hitler.org/writings/pro... (But you may not want to open that link if you're in Germany...)
We can talk all night about the Strasser brothers, Goebbels' early hang for socialism, Hitler's pragmatism, how NSDAP slowly left their socialist views behind, and whatever else you want to talk about. How about the Thule Society and its influence on early, German nazism?
The funny thing is that you yourself haven't read what you have linked. It says there clearly that Hitler didn't care about the "socialism" part, hence the purge.
It looks as if you didn't get the point, so I repeat it: Dictators always eliminate rivals, regardless of political views. Nazis killed nazis (and others), just like communists killed communists (and others). Your argument, "The nazis weren't socialists since they imprisoned socialists", is void.
Care to explain why I didn't have a daily recitation of some stupid oath in my childhood - in an actual socialist country, no less?
How do you know you didn't? ;) The Ruling Classes are much more subtle these days.
Well, as a German I can tell you that Google translate is not that correct and you have deliberately misunderstood it anyway. The law clearly says (Â11 (1)) that handguns - and only handguns - need a purchase permit (Waffenerwerbsschein), and this is exactly what I have written. Long guns could be acquired without a permit - except for jews, gypsies, socialists and communists - this is what is meant by "unreliable persons". Exactly what I have written.
Carrying, on the other hand, needs another permit (Waffenschein - Â14), which is also exactly what I have written.
First of all, stop being an ass accusing me for "deliberately misunderstanding" German gun laws from 1938. I don't read German. You posted a link to a long document written in German, without any references at all, on an English web site. WTF do you expect from your readers?
BTW, I grew up in a socialist country too, still anyone older than 16 could buy a shotgun, no questions asked, until 1985. In the UK, anyone could buy machine guns until 1934, IIRC. And in some parts of the US, shotguns are sold next to milk and bread.
Weapon laws don't prove that a country is ruled by nazis.
Since 1946 we have hate speech laws, it seems it served us over 75 years quite well.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Care to explain how vilifying the rich resulted in Hitler being funded by big business?
The original program was very anti-capitalist. Hitler made a distinction between jewish and non-jewish capitalists in 1928, in order to get the support of German capitalists.
Or maybe you can explain how NSDAP, being socialist, sent all socialists and communists to concentration camps immediately after seizing power?
Dictators always imprison or kill potential rivals, regardless of political views. Look what Hitler did to his own during Night of the Long Knives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives )
The schools were taken over so the children could be raised in a patriotic way, starting very much like your very own pledge of allegiance.
All rulers to this, regardless of political color.
Oh by the way, what idiot told you that nazis disarmed the general population? That never happened. Only jews, gypsies and socialists were disarmed, everyone else could buy any amount of long guns or munition they wanted without any paperwork.
Nah, mate. Google Translate of the German law you linked to, says that Section 15: Arms purchase or warrants may only be issued to persons whose reliability is not a concern, and only if proof of a need exists. So if there's a need and if you're trustworthy, then you can get a gun. There were exceptions for members of the state machinery, like SS. Quite the opposite of what you wrote, isn't it?
You're correct.
The problem with arguments like this one, is that the left/right labels are meaningless. They don't describe anything well.
Nazists were socialists, but not internationally oriented socialists. They didn't subscribe to Marx & Engels' notion of international solidarity of the working class. Instead, they put Germans first, and were more or less willing to kill everyone else (See Holocaust and The Hunger Plan for an example).
Having said that, the soviets were willing to kill almost anyone too, but not because of race/etnicity, but for being traitors, enemies of the state, contra revolutionaries, or whatever perceived threat to their dictatorship.
The lefties call nazis for right-wing extremists because the nazis were extreme nationalists. In reality, anyone wanting collectivism and a strong state instead of individualism and human rights, are like nazis.
Some may object that nazis did Holocaust. That's true, but our human history is full of more or less similar atrocities, except for the gas chambers. Soviet's Holodomor, China's Great Leap, Cambodia's Killing Fields, Belgium's mass murder in Congo, France and England's starvation of Germany right after WWI, Turkey's annihilation of the Armenians, to mention some.
Now that the domain names are blocked, here's the onion address
http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/
(Use the Tor browser to access the site)
You keep comparing apples and oranges. Genpop includes lots of non-working people which I assume calls ambulances a lot, e.g. senior citizens. I'm just guessing here, but OD junkies and crime victims may also be major sources of ambulance dispatches. Isn't it more correct to compare Tesla workers with similar groups of people, not genpop?
If Ad Hominem and strawman arguments is all you've got, you ain't got much, my trolling friend.
Marx may have been (his goals of the withering state would indicate such), Lenin definitely not. You still got it wrong. Just like people who see humans as property, it is antiquated and wrong. Leftism and authoritarianism are direct polar opposites. Leftism ~ anarchism.
You're a funny guy. If you mean anarchism, say anarchism. Don't go around calling non-anarchist communists and socialists for non-authoritanian 'leftists' just becaust anarchists claim to be. It's called Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle, and is invalid arguing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You're letting mass media define your words for you. And your faith in them does not mean you are correct by any means, nor does your majority status.
Troll alert, or brain-washed Berkeley student detected. Seriously, that last statement of yours is just beyond sense and logic. Normally, one has to go to chuch to hear something that far out. I'm guessing riseup/antifa material here.
proletarian dictatorship
Says it all right there, dictatorship. It's not 'left' by any means. It's a dictatorship. It doesn't matter by whom. Sorry, but you are wrong. It doesn't matter who does it. It only matters what is being done. A leftist cannot be an authoritarian.
You are making the same mistake as all the others by trying to distinguish the source (kind of a 'kill the messenger' thing). As if some authoritarians are good.
So Marx and Lenin, they weren't leftists? The inventor of Communism as an ideology, Karl Marx, he was not a communist? That sounds silly, doesn't it? Or maybe communism isn't leftism? Maybe Bakunin was the only true leftist?
The thing is, left or right, it's all about power. It's about control. Communism is all about collective control over the individual (yes, anarchism is a pipe dream), just like nazism (or religions, but that's another discussion). It's all about power.
Someone has lured you into a logic trap. Snap out of it. "Leftism" is a meaningless term anyway. Be more precise.
The 'authoritarian left' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Leftists are antiauthoritarian. Once you become an authoritarian you are no longer a 'leftist'. It is impossible. Leftists are anarchists. Authoritarianism, state and corporate (in reality a distinction without a difference), is extremely right wing, designed to acquire and conserve power. It can't be anything else.
Bah. Have you forgotten about the revolution and the necessary "period of terror" to rob the establishment of their powers and means of production? A.k.a. proletarian dictatorship. This so-called interrim period tends to last and last and last, until the system collapses or morphs into a neo-fascist state like China.
The left is all about power and control. Read up, kiddo.
"...Tesla is mistreating them by keeping them 30x healthier at work than they are at home."
-1.
Bad math, since you don't include the numbers for Tesla employees calling 911 from home, or otherwise get hospitalized outside working hours..
These Fire tablets are silly and no good replacements for a proper Kindle. What the world needs, is an updated version of the 9.7" Kindle DX. Mine broke, and my two other Kindles are not suitable for reading technical documents or stuff with lots of tables. We need a big-screen Kindle and we need it now. #rantmode=off #sony-DPT-RP1_looks_really_good_at_700$
"In North America in the 1980's, the Japanese car disruption happened on a very short timescale and directly displaced 185,000 automotive jobs between June 1981 and November 1982 "
Source, please?
The kindergarten, valuable as it is, was just an example of possible knock-on effects. There's a social side to it, but also an economic. How to pay for a service when unemployed and with lots of free time and the skills to do it yourself.
In a world where no one works, and no one earns income - who is left to buy the output of the robots?
Capitalism driven production REQUIRES consumers with disposable income. The one cannot exist without the other. To save capitalism, you need to save the consumer.
Good point. Also, states need tax revenues, so they need someone or something to tax. Not much to tax if most people are out of work. AFAIK, there are no social modes suitable for the future we seem to be heading towards. This may get ugly.
The knock-on effect of automation will make more people stay at home, reducing the need for services like kindergartens. Same goes for other businesses when people return to their homes and do more stuff themselves: Looking after their children, cooking more at home, gardening, cleaning and such.
Just guessing here, but if I'm right, this may not be all bad. Back to the fifties? ;)