Nothing new here, that's basically what the luddites complained about: the machines that replaced them output worse quality garments and sent them all to the streets. It only benefitted the owners. Capital will always seek to rid itself of its dependence on labor, until it eventually succeeds...
And the buyers. As a ballpark estimate, it would take around 50 hours of human labor to produce a shirt by hand, fabric plus sewing, versus about an hour of human labor by industrial machines. That lowers the cost greatly, which most consumers demonstrably value over custom tailoring.
At the time, the quality of machine-made clothes was noticeably worse than human-made. It's debatable wether the "consumers" (the term certainly wasn't used at the time) won in the end. Terry Pratchett's "Boots theory" feels relevant here:
> Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
> But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
> It's debatable whether the "consumers" won in the end.
If "in the end" is now, it's pretty clear that automation has made clothing both better and cheaper. And paying $10 now for shoes of less than 1/5th value of $50 shoes much later, or not at all, can be entirely rational. Most of us make that kind of compromise frequently.
Is it really better if it's made by slaves in the Global South, from a mix of plastics and crops grown in an unsustainable way, then shipped across the globe, and made to last about seven washing cycles before being disposed? Debatable, as I said.
I just don't think that this is an accurate description of modern clothing. Cotton is not typically grown in unsustainable ways, and cheap 100% cotton clothing that will last for years is widely available at a variety of retailers.
But a lot of people don't want that. They want comfortable stretchy clothing, accepting or not realizing the inherent tradeoff with durability. Or they want thinner, lighter styles at the very edge of what a 50/50 polyester blend can hold together.
I just bought a new shirt on eBay for $22, including shipping. If that shirt had taken 50x as much labor to produce, what would it have cost? Is it unhinged capitalism to prefer the cheap shirt?
The only reason why the shirt is cheap is because we value your labor in the dollars an hour and the shirt maker's labor in the pennies.
Now what if you made that same $5 a week as the shirt maker. Is that $22 shirt still cheap? How many might you own? Now think of what shirt the $5 week shirt maker is wearing. It says Chicago Bulls on it and was given to them by a nonprofit. The nonprofit only had this shirt available because people like him make 1000 shirts a day to sell to westerners to wear for a few weeks collectively before they give it for free to goodwill.
Does this seem like a sustainable, scalable system of resource and labor distribution to you? Or is it based entirely on the fact that there exist some orphan crushing machine still in some corner of the world to make it seem cheap and frictionless for those of us in the global 1%?
No it wouldn’t. American Apparel used to (maybe it still does) make its shirts in a factory in Los Angeles, and its shirts were not noticeably more expensive than the likes of Abercrombie that made clothes overseas. AA couldn’t have competed in the lower end of the market, but their clothes were still not astronomically expensive because the factory was already heavily automated via machines.
The larger cost for a lot of manufacturing in the richest countries is permitting and regulation, plus the fact that the manufacturing knowledge cluster is concentrated in China now, making every part of setting up a factory there smoother.
I'd say it goes beyond nationalism. Even countries that haven't succumbed to the far right are forced to play by the new rules. I've heard some refer to it as "neomercantilism".
There's Freeciv [1] for IV, and Unciv [2] for V. I doesn't have many fans, VI is too recent, and VII, well... Let's not talk about VII.
> Civ fans tend to prefer [...]
I'd say, each entry in the series gets love. The saying goes: "Your favorite Civ game is the first one you ever played". In my experience, that's pretty true (Still stuck on V).
Interestingly enough, the Call to Power series was unaffiliated with Sid Meier's Civilization and was developed after Activision licensed the name from the board game Civilization was unauthorizedly based upon. There was a sequel called just "Call to Power II" in case you missed it, which had it's source code released in 2003 in case you're feeling nostalgic.
I think the first Civ I played WAS III (maybe II at a friend's house once before?) and it ain't my fav. It sits below IV and V and even VI and I don't really like VI all that much either...
Because democracy at least pretends to give power to the people. Except letting a few individuals wield enough wealth and power to buy media, politicians and judges is completely antagonistic to the basic ideals of democracy, and not many realize this (yet).
> I’m not aware of any system that [...]
Liberal democracy is better than feudalism, I see no reason why our systems of governance can't be improved further. And, at least to me, the obvious path forward is to keep any of those "deranged dark triad personalities" from gaining too much power, maybe by limiting the amount of wealth any single individual can hold unto.
> It took a disease killing a massive portion of the working population to weaken feudalism in Western Europe.
Erm... sure, but I don't see what that has to do with my comment? Transitions between political systems are rarely pleasant and are usually motivated by crisis.
> And don’t underestimate the portion of population that yearn to be peasants.
I don't buy that. People learn submission, it is not inherent to the human mind.
Billionaires should be taxed away from existence. This much wealth and power is hugely detrimental to society. It's not even good for themselves, with how miserable and wretched they look and behave.
Weak public servants mean strong private actors: that's what's currently eating the US republic from the inside. You have a few billionaires (Trump, Musk, Bezos, Thiel, Ellison, Zuckerberg...) able to buy their way into power and keeping the opposition down. Reducing taxation only makes these people even more powerful, and worsen the situation. You can't have democracy when some people are able to get this much richer and more powerful than the rest, it's as simple as that.
"all those not in favor of maximising immigration" is an hyperbole. Do you think the comparison between ICE and the Gestapo is completely unwarranted? Obviously the scales are very different (for now), but it feels justified enough to associate the two, if for no other reason than to remind people that we are on similar tracks that led to the worst times of our shared History.
Mussolini literally coined the word "fascist" to name his movement. Hitler never hid the fact he based his own movement on Mussolini's, so he'd probably describe his party as fascist too. Later, the word became extremely negative for obvious reasons, such that current fascists pretend not to be such, but it doesn't mean they aren't. Overall, I'd say it's used well enough.
reply