• Amicese@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    RIP. Childfree women need more support.

    Yeah so much for “precedent”; the court can make up rules at anytime.

      • Amicese@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 years ago

        I’m trying to utilize historical materialism to get am explanation for this event: The social capitalists want more human labor to extract money; automation has reduced the amount of capital that can be extracted.

        So the bourgeois can’t let women kill their fetuses.

        • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.mlOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          While its true that the growth of capital is dependent on a growing population, and that they usually use immigration and child-control policies to restrict / grow population based on the demand for labor, I think in this case its less long-term thinking, and more about control over women’s bodies.

          This might seem like a correct long-term decision for capitalists, IE they need a growing population if they want to out-produce and have armies ready to fight China, but they should know now that 1) production is not coming back, and the US will not re-industrialize, and 2) wars don’t really need that many footsoldiers, and 3) a draft isn’t politically feasible any more since Vietnam.

          This really just has biblical roots in the subjugation of women: By restricting / criminalizing abortions, they can lock women into indentured servitude / house slavery to men, the ultimate goal of the far right, and which these conservative judges are all having wet-dreams about.

          • Amicese@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 years ago

            “they should know now that 1) production is not coming back and the US will not re-industrialize”

            Why would this be the case tho?

            “and 2) wars don’t really need that many footsoldiers”

            Wait really? How many foot soldiers are actually needed then?

            1. a draft isn’t politically feasible any more since Vietnam.

            I forgot about the draft and I agree.

            • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.mlOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 years ago
              1. Wages in the imperial core are too high, which is why production has been and continues to be exported to the global south. Not until wages reach parity, which isn’t gonna happen until the US empire falls.

              2. Modern wars are mostly fought via the air and sea. Many of the US “soldiers” operating in afghanistan did so operating drones from military bases within the US.

              • Amicese@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                3 years ago

                Wages in the imperial core are too high, which is why production has been and continues to be exported to the global south. Not until wages reach parity, which isn’t gonna happen until the US empire falls.

                I see your view here and I agree. With the amount of automation increasing, wages are just going to be reduced.

                Modern wars are mostly fought via the air and sea. Many of the US “soldiers” operating in afghanistan did so operating drones from military bases within the US.

                I forgot about drones for some reason. Is there even a reason to use foot soldiers?