Replies

Basically, both couples usually work, we work more hours, and salaries are stagnant. Don't worry though, we are more productive now than ever before!

I think you've hit on the key reason why I believe we are hurtling towards Socialism. As more and more people become aware of this stat they are starting to ask themselves "Well, Damn! Where's MY piece of that increased productivity I've been creating? Guess I need a Big, Strong Government to go and take it away from those Grrrrrreeeeedy Eeeeeeeeeeevil Rich People and give it back to me!"

It's economic sophistry, but it is politically quite powerful.

I don't know about the ‘socialism’ thing, Because, we already have a pretty big part of it here. I suspect the siren song of populism to return.

Pat Buchanan was probably the last populist that was in the politics, he was utterly repudiated, but his outcry against Free trade and illegal immigration still resonates today. Throw in bailouts, bulging pensions, selective law enforcement, police state, world policing, etc. the anger will grow.

It's economic sophistry, but it is politically quite powerful.

It's economic reality. People are getting paid less for producing more. We were sold a bill of goods saying that if the "job creators" just had more then it would trickle down to us in the form of more and higher paying jobs. Well, the "job producers" have more now than have ever had and corporate profits are through the roof but the rest of us are stuck with stagnating wages, longer hours and high unemployment.

People are becoming more and more aware of this so when the government starts stepping in the wealthy will have no one to blame but themselves.

Murray Bookchin wrote an interestign book around 1970 entitled "Post-Scarcity Anarchism".

Yes, Bookchin was an anarchist, but he was strongly opposed to Marxism. He wanted people to have real freedom and real control of their lives. He probably wasn't as strong on "property rights" as I would like, but he wasn't violent, was not a crypto-big government guy, and really did respect freedom.

He looked at technology and came to the conclusion that soon we will have plenty of "stuff" and not much need for labor. His conclusion that this could open an era in which coercive control faded away, the political elites lost power, and people re-discovered the joys of local communities.

I think it could be that way. If folks are afraid of the term "anarchism" than they might consider "libertarianism" (I generally do not like the Libertarian Party) or some new term signifying small local communities.

It doesn't seem like a bad political goal to me, and if we don't go in that direction, then I see a real possibility that we will all end up wearing Mao suits and spend our days shoveling each other into ovens. If the Government stays big and powerful, and if most humans are "useless eaters", than it won't be a good thing.

Post-Sarcity Anarchism. It may sound ugly, but it's a lot closer to what this country had in 1800 than what we have now.