How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Decline - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Saved posts from the old blog area.
#13128309
By Fasces

I, as many of the revolutionary right, have always concerned myself with population decline and what it means to a nation. To many, it represents stagnation, a decay of the worthiness of a population, and an evolutionary disgrace. I agreed with these sentiments, supporting measures such as banning contraceptives, increasing tax credits for the birth of children, and state-wide policies and propoganda campaigns in favor of parenthood. I no longer feel this way, and I felt it important to discuss why.

The United Nations currently predicts the world population will peak at ten billion human souls, and then decline. The reasons for it vary, from the usual doom and gloom scenarios we are fed each day, to the simple fact that the people simply do not desire to reproduce. The latter is seen in the First World, as citizens do not reproduce above replacement levels.

But what exactly does a population decline mean? In short, it means a shortage of labour. This is, by many, something to be feared. It means a limit on potential economic growth. It means a reduction in collection of income taxes, and thus a restriction on government income (and thus a limit on potential spending). It means a reduction in the value of land, as demand falls, leading to a reduction in prices, land speculation, and again, tax income derived from land. To put it shortly, population decline makes the current economic system unsustainable.

What is worse is that it is not acting alone. As the population begins to decline, fewer natural resources are needed. If current levels of natural resources are theoretically enough to sustain human life, in reduction in human demands for these resources would lead to an over-abundance of them. Even fuel, the most scarce and precious of resources, will become abundant, as investment in alternative fuel sources increase, and biofuels, nuclear power, and other electrical sources become more and more cost effective. In addition, the world is becoming mature enough to begin the process of expansion in outer space, and with this expansion, begin exploiting other worlds for their own resources. If a single asteroid is worth $300 trillion, a universe full of them will mean an end to resource scarcity. An end of scarcity, and a world of abundance, means radical revolutionary change is necessary. It makes capitalism, or communism or all ideologies with materialism and material well being as their central focus, simply unable to function. The market economy will be forced to create situations of artificial scarcity, as already occurs (as can be seen by US government policy of paying farmers to destroy crops or destroy milk, or the De Boer diamond vaults, used to restrict supply. Even digital DRM is an attempt to restrict supply, and thus increase price). In a system where excess product is inefficient, scarcity is necessary to function. If iron, or gold, become as common as air, there can be no market in these materials. The only way, in face of a declining population, and a growing pool of natural resources, to preserve this system is through the artificial restriction of the supply. This is tyranny, morally despicable, and should never be considered. If the system no longer works, a new one must be found. Market failure should be accepted as a fact of the future, and with it, a worldwide effort to adopt policies to function in a world beyond market failure must be encouraged.

This will require an end to liberalism. As the market collapses, liberal economics will be useless. Capitalism will be forced to impose inequality, or it will simply become a useless ideology of the past, like feudalism, like mercantalism, and like Marxism. Marxism, concerned with the material wellbeing of the proleteriat, will become useless through accomplishment - its goals will have been met, due to a labour shortage and an abundance of goods, that make accumulation of wealth an archaic term. However, to embrace the communist transition would be to prolong scarcity as well, as violent revolution and social upheaval will create it, as well as limit the technological developments being made in peace time that will make abundance possible within the next two hundred years.

What does this mean for the revolutionary right? There are two options - one would be to embrace scarcity and continue to endorse policies such increasing birthing rates, warmongering and limiting access to goods. The other would be to begin replacing corporatism with a new economy philosophy designed to transition into a post-scarcity world. It will require totalitarianism. It will require a strong central leadership capable of leading the nation in a single direction. It will require the mobilisation of society, and the adaption of society to a new way of life. It will require social fascism. It will lead to a society concerned with things beyond materialism and consumerism, and a spiritual and philosophical future for the human race. This, I believe, is the next stage in human evolution.
User avatar
By Siberian Fox
#13128399
There is already another group that is planning for a post scarce-resources world: Technocrats. However, such a world is still so far away and so different from the way we live that I'm not sure it would be worth modern political groups to plan for now. To be be relevant to people, modern political movements need to focus on the problems of the day, and that reality is a scare-resources world.
User avatar
By Fasces
#13128750
Technocracy is a good vision for a far off future, but what is missing from them is a plan for the process, a plan beginning today. Population decline is not the future - it is now. I would like the far-right to move beyond fascism as an end goal, and begin to see it simply as a transition to the Technate - and thus modify its economic principles to fit this new goal.

In addition, the far right today does not exist, and perhaps never has existed, in the present. From the very beginning, it's intellectual movement was motivated by pride of past achievements, and the spiritual concept of national identity. While noble, it moved too far in this direction, as many fascist leaders appeared concerned primarily with emulating past glories, rather than creating new ones. Mussolini often evoked the images of Rome, Franco of Imperial Spain, and Hitler of the H.R.E. To become a party of today, I feel that the revolutionary right must move beyond idolizing the past, and begin preparing in the present for the future of their people.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13128764
Technocracy is a good vision for a far off future, but what is missing from them is a plan for the process, a plan beginning today. Population decline is not the future - it is now. I would like the far-right to move beyond fascism as an end goal, and begin to see it simply as a transition to the Technate - and thus modify its economic principles to fit this new goal.

That's an interesting perspective, Fasces. It seems to me that your vision of the end goal of fascism (an economy and society based on economic abundance rather than scarcity) is not essentially different from the vision of the end goal of Communism. We simply disagree as to the best means to reach that end goal. ;) However, I suspect that any attempt to persuade fascists to abandon fascism as their end goal and replace it with the Technate (fascism being relegated to merely a means rather than an end) is both naïve and doomed to failure. It ignores the reasons why many fascists become fascists. It's not because they want to improve society or create a Utopia of economic abundance, but because they hate darkies or Jews or queers and would quite like to use an absolutist state to keep them in their place (or even kill them, in the case of the neo-Nazis). In other words, their fascism is a psychological symptom rather than an actual, genuine belief system. As Nietzsche pointed out, most philosophical systems of the past have not been a seeking for truth but a seeking for power on the part of the philosopher; most philosophy is merely a list of psychological symptoms. You would be asking these people to give up their illnesses, something which they will probably be very reluctant to do. We have the same problem in Communism of course – many people become Communists not because they want to create a classless Utopia, but because they hate and resent the upper classes and want to destroy their power and privileges. They are unable to let go of their class hatred and envisage a post-capitalist society in which class struggle will no longer exist and class hatred will be unknown. In other words, their 'Communism' is merely a symptom of their psychological complexes, their 'illness' as Nietzsche put it, and they cannot let go of that illness. They therefore cannot think beyond the horizons of bourgeois society and will therefore never achieve a Communist society – and in fact, they unconsciously don't want to achieve a Communist society. In the same way, many fascists cannot let go of their hatreds and complexes and act for the good of society as a whole.
By Smilin' Dave
#13129156
1. In what way does fascism pave the way towards a post scarcity society? The socio-economics of fascism, particularly corporatism, puts a fair bit of power in the hands of industrialists, who have no incentive to do away with the current state of affairs. The destruction of older methods of production would also put the unions out of a job, another blow for the corporatist angle. That leaves the state, but the state operates to a large degree with the consent of those two bodies...
2. How on earth does the far right and fascism in particular, mesh with technocracy? Technocracy (at least in theory) is all about the science, a technocratic system isn't even supposed to have a true government, just a bunch of scientists to make production decisions. The far right on the other hand is traditionally anti-rational, anti-enlightenment. The traditional idolisation of strength and masculinity in fascism isn't exactly friendly to your average scientist.

The scarcity in the economy isn't a result of a deliberate conspiracy. Rather the abundant society proposed by various utopians cannot actually exist within the current system, the material requirements don't exist and the socio-political impact would be disasterous. If I can be a bit reactionary for a moment ;) , most people have no idea what they would do in a world where they didn't have to work and I don't necessarily trust that their new pastimes would be healthy in the broader sense.
User avatar
By Fasces
#13130704
In reference to your first question, I have already stated that the corporatist system will need drastic changes, in order to make it compatible with a transition into a Technate. I have only done minor thought on how this would occur, but the industrial congress proposed by thinkers such as Soros or Gentile can easily be modified into a technical congress composed of scientists and others. At the same time, technocratic theory also needs to be modified - I have no doubt that scientists are experts in many issues, but not all, and ground level experience and anecdotes are vital components of any true scientific elaboration on the issue. On the issue of unions, I do not see a conflict - since fascism would be a transition period, it would not be a true Technate. The goal of unions is to increase the livings standards of the working class, broadly, and even if employment decreases, in a society of abundance it simply would not matter because there would be more than enough resources available to simply give anyone what they needed, and in time, what they wanted.

As to how the fascist system meshes with technocracy, I have already discussed in part why. In general, many see communism as the precursor to a Technate, due to its advocacy of the abolition of the price system. However, the very act of waging class warfare and other acts of revolution create a situation of scarcity artificially. Hence, going with the communist system would delay the process. Meanwhile, fascist thinkers prized national harmony and unity in going forward, as well as collective totalitarianism, and have been very adept at mobilizing their populations. All these will be necessary to move society forward in an organized and orderly way. The current democratic institutions are not workable due to the vote - people are simply unable to think in the long-term, something a strong central state not responsible to the masses or lobbyist groups but rather the whole of society can do. This is perhaps a utopian vision - I can see the source of that criticism, because it does require good will from the part of the central government and the desire of this government to move into a post-scarcity world. However, most systems have elements of utopianism, and I as I continue to think on the matter, a solution to this problem may be found.

Finally, as to your latter concerns, I did not attempt to say that all scarcity is the result of conspiracy. However, it is undeniable that in certain situations, artificial scarcity is created, usually to protect the market economy from failing. I furthermore do not think all work will be removed within a Technate. Even the original technocrats envisioned some work still remaining, though it would be greatly reduced. I do believe that a reorganization of society's priorities into more spiritual, creative, or philosophical pursuits would be beneficial, and given proper time and education, possible.

Potemkin, you do bring up an interesting point. I have no response, but merely wanted to acknowledge that it did provoke thought. :)
By Smilin' Dave
#13131280
I have no doubt that scientists are experts in many issues

This raises an interesting question actually. Scientists tend to be highly specialised in their area of expertise. Presumably the more scientists in a ‘council’ the better, but there has to be a limit... so who gets to determine which areas of study are most important? Bit of a rehash of the question of which industries is actually represented in a corporatist council (and to what extent).

On a related note, is political work the best utilisation of the scientist’s time? Alternately, doesn’t their time spent in study tend to divert them from political works?

On the issue of unions, I do not see a conflict - since fascism would be a transition period, it would not be a true Technate.

Right, so the Bolsheviks were just minding the shop until full Communism rolled around? In reality the system became self perpetuating and didn't pave the way to ideological progress at all. Those same unions involved in the fascist system will use their position to prevent their existence from being threatened. Even if they are not involved in the political system, workers groups are likely to oppose any transition.

The goal of unions is to increase the livings standards of the working class, broadly, and even if employment decreases, in a society of abundance it simply would not matter because there would be more than enough resources available to simply give anyone what they needed, and in time, what they wanted.

This isn’t what unions do at all, and I’m surprised at your description because it is in fascistic systems that you can most clearly see this. Unions (theoretically) are a way for the working class to represent their interests, be that in terms of standards of living or in the type of work that they do. It is not unusual for a politicised worker-base to use unions for things other than pay rises etc. for example under Peron. Unions can be an alternate means of political and economic mobilisation. Much the same goes for Soviet-style unions.

Meanwhile, fascist thinkers prized national harmony and unity in going forward, as well as collective totalitarianism, and have been very adept at mobilizing their populations.

Collectivism under fascism is about facilitating leaders, which feeds into the romanticisation of the heroic individual etc. This in turn is not really logical/scientific and hence not well suited to a technate’s development. Communism, with its notional emphasis on science and logic and collective progress towards collective advantage, better suits the mould.

All these will be necessary to move society forward in an organized and orderly way.

Rigidity and restraint can be barriers to scientific progress. Who is to say that the techno-fascists won’t shy away from nanotechnology, fearing the resulting possibilities of decentralised production?

The current democratic institutions are not workable due to the vote - people are simply unable to think in the long-term, something a strong central state not responsible to the masses or lobbyist groups but rather the whole of society can do.

The situation you describe is cultural rather than systemic. Democracy doesn’t have to reward short term thinking, but the electorate has that tendency. Trying to force that electorate to go along with something they are instinctively against is probably going to end in failure. If it succeeds then it is because of a successful change in political culture, and who is to that can’t be better achieved in democracy?
User avatar
By Fasces
#13143896
This raises an interesting question actually. Scientists tend to be highly specialised in their area of expertise. Presumably the more scientists in a ‘council’ the better, but there has to be a limit... so who gets to determine which areas of study are most important? Bit of a rehash of the question of which industries is actually represented in a corporatist council (and to what extent).


I would determine the criteria based on the needs of the state at the time, as well as its goals or potential path into a Technate. However, I have no real answer for you, just as there is no universal answer for who would belong in a corporatist council. It depends greatly on the needs at the time. What I can say for certain is that removing or adding members should always be a possibility, and encouraged, as needs change.

On a related note, is political work the best utilisation of the scientist’s time? Alternately, doesn’t their time spent in study tend to divert them from political works?


Most science projects are communal efforts, involving a great deal of researchers. I suppose a field could be given a seat, and then experts within the field may determine their own representatives, through some internal method. This already happens to some degree in many fields today - there are usually governing bodies concerning ethics, or other organizations to streamline development, and these organizations usually have presidents and others who dedicate themselves to the administrative and political facets, rather than the science itself. One could even have a dedicated bureaucrat representing a certain field, meeting regularly with the experts.

Right, so the Bolsheviks were just minding the shop until full Communism rolled around? In reality the system became self perpetuating and didn't pave the way to ideological progress at all. Those same unions involved in the fascist system will use their position to prevent their existence from being threatened. Even if they are not involved in the political system, workers groups are likely to oppose any transition.


I do not contest that it is a utopian belief. Safeguards against this would have to be instituted, or the same would occur. Again, I have no idea what sort of safeguards would be necessary. I am thinking on a very broad and vague level at this time.

This isn’t what unions do at all, and I’m surprised at your description because it is in fascistic systems that you can most clearly see this. Unions (theoretically) are a way for the working class to represent their interests, be that in terms of standards of living or in the type of work that they do.


I disagree. The essence of the union is to increase the living and working standards of their members. This can be accomplished in many ways, and some unions expand beyond that into the political sphere, but at its core, it is always to protect the rights of the worker, prevent their exploitation, and through that, increase the standards of living of the worker.

Collectivism under fascism is about facilitating leaders, which feeds into the romanticisation of the heroic individual etc. This in turn is not really logical/scientific and hence not well suited to a technate’s development. Communism, with its notional emphasis on science and logic and collective progress towards collective advantage, better suits the mould.


Most of the great scientific advancements in the world come from a few great individuals. I do not see how facilitating scientific prowess and leadership (breeding Newtons, Einsteins, and others, to say it bluntly), would be counterintuitive to establishing a Technate, particularly when we have established that the system relies on the benevolence of those on top to stave away stagnation.

Rigidity and restraint can be barriers to scientific progress.


Or the process by which scientific progress can be standardized and controlled. Most modern scientists behave within certain constraints, ethical or otherwise, and are expected to follow protocol, are they not? This will greatly aid in the collectivization of knowledge gained.

If it succeeds then it is because of a successful change in political culture, and who is to that can’t be better achieved in democracy?


Perhaps it can - but I do not see the educational reforms necessary to create this culture occurring in today's democracy. The re-education would have to come first. Democracy can come later.

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]