> AI are much more energy-hungry than car manufacturing
This is not even remotely true[1]. Large auto plants use on the order of 200–250 megawatts of power, which is either on par with a data center or slightly more than a data center depending on the size and how cooling is handled.
I suspect uou've misread that document. It is a good document though. It's saying a large parts plant uses ~188,000 MWh, I think per year.
A modern AI data center uses 20-100MW+ of electricity. Those two things aren't the same. 20MW of continuous electricity use (which AI data centers do) translates to 175,000 MWh of electricity per year. That's about the same as a minimum and might be 5+ times more.
This document is only about energy usage so we have to guess what "large" means in terms of employment but 3000 to 7000 seems to the range. Compared to 20-30.
But AI data centers are worse because they actually produce what I call negative jobs. Their currently only value proposition is in laying off people and otherwise suppressing labor costs. All while the residents all pay more for their electricity with the money no longer have because they got laid off.
> A modern AI data center uses 20-100MW+ of electricity.
I understand the high end builds to have exceeded 100 kW per rack at this point, with the largest sites exceeding 1 GW (ie 10x your upper bound). So the smallest datacenters use as much as the largest auto plants, and the largest datacenters use 100x that.
Where are you getting the 200 megawatt number from?
The document you linked says that a large auto assembly plant consumes around 188,000 MWh annually (with regional variation). By my quick math that is less than 22 megawatts baseline load (24/7/365).
There is a mention that natural gas and other fuels being used on-site, are you converting those to MWh equivalent? I'm not as familiar with that conversion, but from a quick online calculator I found it would still be under 75 megawatt for electrical and fuel-equivalent combined.
Yeah, that's basically all of the original Neo-Conservatives. Many of them started out as Trotskyites, like Irving Kristol, James Burnham, Sidney Hook, and others. Arguably Bayard Rustin had a similar trajectory.
>If it had a generous built in HTTP cache, and instruction to maximise use of the cache, then it could avoid a lot of re-fetching of content, which would help reduce the harms.
While this is a great idea, the harms are somewhat overblown. The big scare number for water consumption includes water used in power generation which itself includes evaporation from hydroelectric power.
The fascism of Europe in in the 1930s was EXPLICITLY anti-capitalist. You can read tons of statements by various prominent fascists about how capitalism was the tool of the British empire and "globalists"(they often used a different word). They viewed it as separating the people from the land. Capitalists were not in any way fundamental to the rise of Nazism.
If you're on about Pinochet, he only embraced market reforms 3 years after coming to power and came to power directly by a military coup. Business leaders had basically nothing to do with it.
From a Historical perspective, my learning makes me disagree with your statement - that fascism is in essence anti-capitalist.
> At the moment that the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together
with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium – the turn of
the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat – all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.
> The social democracy hoped that the docile conduct of the workers would restore the "public opinion" of the bourgeoisie against the fascists.
“Fascism: what is it and how to fight it”, Leon Trotsky
Mussolini, after political defeat as a socialist and editor of “Avanti!”, pivoted, started calling himself a “libertarian”, and courted capitalists (industrialists, oligarchs) to fund his newspaper “Il popolo d’Italia” (1914).
Ultimately, in Fascism, the only thing that truly matters is the regime itself, as demonstrated by fascist regimes that don’t fit so cleanly in our definition of Capitalism (like Argentina’s 1950s union based, military Peronist movement). From this perspective, I concede that Fascism is anti-capitalist in the sense that it is anti-everything that is not the regime.
However looking at the historical European, and contemporary American evidence, capitalistic mechanics and actors (ie. the oligarchy), seem to be the preferred route to it.
Trump is also often anti capitalist, between tariffs and government shares in business. There is what fascists say and what they do, and industrialists were often very good Nazis.
Lot's of political movements are/were anti-capitalist.
> industrialists were often very good Nazis
This is sort of banal. Lots of X "were good nazis". Where you could substitute scientists, elementary school teachers, trade unions, priests, bus divers, authors, political scientists, or farmers for X. It was a totalitarian society, everyone who wasn't on board was coerced by threat of violence to at least put on the outward appearance of being in support.
This is not even remotely true[1]. Large auto plants use on the order of 200–250 megawatts of power, which is either on par with a data center or slightly more than a data center depending on the size and how cooling is handled.
[1] https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/tools/Industr...
reply