8-Bit Philosophy: Is Capitalism Bad For You?

mjharper

Can
Apr 28, 2013
172
0
0
Fabulous. Absolutely fabulous. More of this, please! I loved the narrator, who sounds like he's channelling the voice of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'.

EDIT: Subscribed on YouTube, too.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
I really want a lot more of videos like this. Great stuff even despite the huge flaw in the discussion expressed below:

Ugh... completely wrong on Calvinism. Their basic philosophy follows the acronym of TULIP in which Unconditional Election (that you are elected for salvation without any merits of your own) and Preseverance of the Saints (that God will preserve the salvation of the saints such that they cannot or will not fall from grace) are two central points. Perhaps you can understand why a belief system centered around people having no say for or against salvation would be ridiculous to be defined as something supporting working really hard to ensure salvation.

I'm not Calvinist but I specialized in soteriology for years including multiple works on the topic. Saying that Calvinists work extra hard to ensure their salvation is extremely ignorant of their core belief system.

In fact, regarding protestantism in general, one of the primary breaks from the Catholic Church was belief in salvation by faith alone and not by works. The Baptist churches frequently believe in things like Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS for shorthand in theological discussions) for example in which a person who has converted to Christianity is always saved and cannot lose that salvation.

So... you'd maybe need to drop back to Catholicism if you wanted to go the "works" route. It's unfortunate that Weber got it completely factually wrong.

The work ethic in the US can be much more easily attributed to social mobility or the notion that if we work really hard we can advance in society. It is also consumer based in that we need newer and better things non-stop.

But religion based? Not anywhere I've seen. In fact, Marxism is far more closely tied to predestination that capitalism is. The notion that your work and wage is predetermined is a dead ringer for that.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Fascinating series... I'm glad to see something new anyway.

The nature of what is being covered is a bit beyond me, but that's fine. (I don't have the historical background to comment directly on the topic presented)

I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
Not for the individual that takes it to heart, but rather, society as a whole.
What do you do when you define people's worth through their work, when the majority won't be able to find anything to do?
 

Captain Capra

New member
Jan 6, 2014
5
0
0
If you like this you maybe wanna check out the Wisecrack Youtube Channel. They do loads of intresting stuff, including this.
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
8-Bit Philosophy, on The Escapist? It's not even my birthday!
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
I've considered this quite a bit lately. The notion that automation should eventually put people out of work. Ideally, this would mean a future where people don't have to work but are free to direct their attention to whatever pursuits they desire. But there's a lot of things in-between that could wreck us.

I imagine that the government will eventually have to legislate a certain ratio of human works be maintained for companies. That could side step the issue of massive layoffs with fewer consumers to buy things (because, again, layoffs).

We'll have to see how that turns out. What's sad is that robots will inevitably out-pace us eventually. There will be a day when there's nothing we can do that they can't do better. Everything from innovation to humor.
 

She-Pudding

Grand Poo-Bah of Tittles
Apr 29, 2014
21
0
0
Interesting topic, and charming from its narrtor to its graphics. ^u^

I love a good e-series that teaches me something new, or has a novel voice to get me thinking... especially while lvl grinding or playing minecraft. I suppose this is just one more vid to keep an eye on!
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
Fascinating series... I'm glad to see something new anyway.

The nature of what is being covered is a bit beyond me, but that's fine. (I don't have the historical background to comment directly on the topic presented)

I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
Not for the individual that takes it to heart, but rather, society as a whole.
What do you do when you define people's worth through their work, when the majority won't be able to find anything to do?
She-Pudding said:
Interesting topic, and charming from its narrtor to its graphics. ^u^

I love a good e-series that teaches me something new, or has a novel voice to get me thinking... especially while lvl grinding or playing minecraft. I suppose this is just one more vid to keep an eye on!
If you're curious about the topic, you can do further (if less humorously-illustrated) reading here [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/04/the-politics-of-getting-a-life/] and here [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/the-right-to-be-playful/].
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Lightknight said:
CrystalShadow said:
I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
I've considered this quite a bit lately. The notion that automation should eventually put people out of work. Ideally, this would mean a future where people don't have to work but are free to direct their attention to whatever pursuits they desire. But there's a lot of things in-between that could wreck us.

I imagine that the government will eventually have to legislate a certain ratio of human works be maintained for companies. That could side step the issue of massive layoffs with fewer consumers to buy things (because, again, layoffs).

We'll have to see how that turns out. What's sad is that robots will inevitably out-pace us eventually. There will be a day when there's nothing we can do that they can't do better. Everything from innovation to humor.
I don't see this eventuality as sad though. Freeing up human time spent on labors of love rather than necessity would be rather grand. I do think we'd need some shift in core values to avoid the pitfalls of being hedonistic consumers and pleasure-seeking machines, but not having to work for basic necessities could drive an artistic revolution. I don't know that we can say robots would ever be better at art since such valuation would be, in whole or large part, subjective.

Even if robots may eventually innovate better robots than we can, or at a faster pace than we do, I still think there would be plenty of worthwhile human endeavors that would rival anything a robot, no matter how sophisticated, could produce. Art and sport spring to mind.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Lightknight said:
CrystalShadow said:
I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
I've considered this quite a bit lately. The notion that automation should eventually put people out of work. Ideally, this would mean a future where people don't have to work but are free to direct their attention to whatever pursuits they desire. But there's a lot of things in-between that could wreck us.

I imagine that the government will eventually have to legislate a certain ratio of human works be maintained for companies. That could side step the issue of massive layoffs with fewer consumers to buy things (because, again, layoffs).

We'll have to see how that turns out. What's sad is that robots will inevitably out-pace us eventually. There will be a day when there's nothing we can do that they can't do better. Everything from innovation to humor.
That's one solution. But an especially awkward one assuming the work would normally be done by machines for the sake of efficiency.

I would imagine a more viable solution longterm would be to remove all work related taxes, (primarily income tax), and try to ensure the remaining taxes can be distributed to the population.

Unfortunately, with current trends I rather fear the handful of people with enough wealth and power to control the automated manufacturing systems are more inclined to attempt mass irradication of the 'excess' population, either directly, or through starvation.

Pessimistic I suppose, but that's what I expect to see if we don't radically alter our value system before automation truly starts to take over everything...
 

Spankable

New member
Apr 8, 2009
18
0
0
an interesting if 1 sided argument.

as a socialist I'm not going to put to much of a counter argument, but...

what has 200 years of capitalism in the UK delivered :

3000% raise in income of a basic worker.
the wiping out of many dreaded diseases, hunger & mass poverty.
increase of average life span by 40 years.
Mass communication, internet & Entertainment
Game of Thrones
Porno

Anxiety has always been a issue. will we starve this winter without eating the children, will the cut on my finger kill me, will i live to be old (40). Capitalism brings progress & new anxiety.

P.S. I work for a LARGE well know internet retailer named after a south American river, but i can't say which. our productively targets have gone up by more than 50% in the last 3 months.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
Weber's work is fascinating, but simply not supported by reality. The rise of capitalism simply didn't start in Protestant areas, we can see that, so he's completely off the ball there.

Still, gotta love listening to this sort of thing with the soothing voice of Nathan Lowe. I welcome more of these kind of episodes, awesome to see philosophy/academic subjects being addressed here as an actual philosophy student. But in the future I'd like to here more than one side.

Spankable said:
It's a shame Weber never saw the rise of neo-liberalism from the late 70's and onwards, that's where capitalism showed its true problems. Regulated capitalism is indeed pretty good.
 

Zacharious-khan

New member
Mar 29, 2011
559
0
0
Not sure how i feel about this series. Watching it makes me feel as though i've jumped in half way through a lecture.

I feel like a statement of goals for the series and a road map at the beginning of the episodes would do nicely
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Sylocat said:
CrystalShadow said:
Fascinating series... I'm glad to see something new anyway.

The nature of what is being covered is a bit beyond me, but that's fine. (I don't have the historical background to comment directly on the topic presented)

I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
Not for the individual that takes it to heart, but rather, society as a whole.
What do you do when you define people's worth through their work, when the majority won't be able to find anything to do?
She-Pudding said:
Interesting topic, and charming from its narrtor to its graphics. ^u^

I love a good e-series that teaches me something new, or has a novel voice to get me thinking... especially while lvl grinding or playing minecraft. I suppose this is just one more vid to keep an eye on!
If you're curious about the topic, you can do further (if less humorously-illustrated) reading here [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/04/the-politics-of-getting-a-life/] and here [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/the-right-to-be-playful/].
That definitely made for some fascinating reading. You don't see stuff like that started clearly very often...
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
Lightknight said:
CrystalShadow said:
I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
I've considered this quite a bit lately. The notion that automation should eventually put people out of work. Ideally, this would mean a future where people don't have to work but are free to direct their attention to whatever pursuits they desire. But there's a lot of things in-between that could wreck us.

I imagine that the government will eventually have to legislate a certain ratio of human works be maintained for companies. That could side step the issue of massive layoffs with fewer consumers to buy things (because, again, layoffs).

We'll have to see how that turns out. What's sad is that robots will inevitably out-pace us eventually. There will be a day when there's nothing we can do that they can't do better. Everything from innovation to humor.
That's one solution. But an especially awkward one assuming the work would normally be done by machines for the sake of efficiency.

I would imagine a more viable solution longterm would be to remove all work related taxes, (primarily income tax), and try to ensure the remaining taxes can be distributed to the population.

Unfortunately, with current trends I rather fear the handful of people with enough wealth and power to control the automated manufacturing systems are more inclined to attempt mass irradication of the 'excess' population, either directly, or through starvation.

Pessimistic I suppose, but that's what I expect to see if we don't radically alter our value system before automation truly starts to take over everything...
Starving the population is a really good way for those in power to get their heads lopped off and stuck on poles. Also, I'd say that a population is really only excessive (within the scope of this conversation) if it is difficult to house or feed said population, something which automation should make easier to do. You'd have excess population in comparison to work that you needed done, but I imagine you'd see a shift to jobs created for arts, sports and customer service rather than a summary round-up and extermination of those who can't find jobs. Not impossible of course, as the tactics you suggest have been used before. I just don't think it's all that likely to happen, and surely not likely to succeed.
 

MASTACHIEFPWN

Will fight you and lose
Mar 27, 2010
2,279
0
0
That 20% bonus production/production efficiency the Netherlands gets in EU4 for being Calvinist is well worth the stupid quasi-religious work yourself to death mantra.
 

freaper

snuggere mongool
Apr 3, 2010
1,198
0
0
Wow, you guys nailed Wisecrack? Or just the philosophy branch? Either way, I'm really happy to see them here :D
 

LysanderNemoinis

Noble and oppressed Kekistani
Nov 8, 2010
468
0
0
Wow...and here I thought after certain members of the staff being let go, maybe The Escapist would have a little bit less political bullshit. Guess I was wrong. Though I'm really looking forward to the "Is Communism Bad For You?" episode, and hear how more people have been killed because of that oppressive system than have ever died or been negatively affected by capitalism. Wait, what am I talking about? This is The Escapist, the Pravda of gaming. Carry on, comrades.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Gorrath said:
CrystalShadow said:
Lightknight said:
CrystalShadow said:
I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
I've considered this quite a bit lately. The notion that automation should eventually put people out of work. Ideally, this would mean a future where people don't have to work but are free to direct their attention to whatever pursuits they desire. But there's a lot of things in-between that could wreck us.

I imagine that the government will eventually have to legislate a certain ratio of human works be maintained for companies. That could side step the issue of massive layoffs with fewer consumers to buy things (because, again, layoffs).

We'll have to see how that turns out. What's sad is that robots will inevitably out-pace us eventually. There will be a day when there's nothing we can do that they can't do better. Everything from innovation to humor.
That's one solution. But an especially awkward one assuming the work would normally be done by machines for the sake of efficiency.

I would imagine a more viable solution longterm would be to remove all work related taxes, (primarily income tax), and try to ensure the remaining taxes can be distributed to the population.

Unfortunately, with current trends I rather fear the handful of people with enough wealth and power to control the automated manufacturing systems are more inclined to attempt mass irradication of the 'excess' population, either directly, or through starvation.

Pessimistic I suppose, but that's what I expect to see if we don't radically alter our value system before automation truly starts to take over everything...
Starving the population is a really good way for those in power to get their heads lopped off and stuck on poles. Also, I'd say that a population is really only excessive (within the scope of this conversation) if it is difficult to house or feed said population, something which automation should make easier to do. You'd have excess population in comparison to work that you needed done, but I imagine you'd see a shift to jobs created for arts, sports and customer service rather than a summary round-up and extermination of those who can't find jobs. Not impossible of course, as the tactics you suggest have been used before. I just don't think it's all that likely to happen, and surely not likely to succeed.
It would depend on what kind of resources we have relative to the population, and what the minority might stand to gain from massive population reduction.

your implicatioon of shifting the work to other fields presumes those too don't end up subject to automation.
It seems a little naive to assume art and customer service jobs can't be automated, long-term. We're already seeing warning signs of retail staff being replaced with machines... Early days yet, but it's a bad sign on the whole.
As for sports, maybe. But only a handful of people hachave what it takes to be top athletes, and that being left in human hands would be mostly due to the incredibly arbitrary rules of 'fair' competition. Otherwise we wouldn't be checking for drugs. In other words, it's a field that isn't looking for the absolute best, but rather the best within a restricted set of criteria.

This kind of depends on how cynical you are, and how far you imagine automation to be able to get...
It's also possible to imagine a world where the machines themselves take over. What they do with us at that point would depend on what values we instill in them. Overly utilitarian reasoning (which seenems a reasonably probable resulyresult of our current values as a society), could easily lead the machines to question the purpose of the continued existence of humans...

In short, even being optimistic, what do you do with a huge number of people who cannot meaningfully contribute to society directly in the sense that we currently value what a person spends their time doing?
The options are pretty limited.
1. find 'busywork' that doesn't really serve any purpose, just to occupy these people's time...
2. Get them to do the work anyway, regardless of how absurdly innefficient that may end up by comparison to the machines.
3. Sort out a means of supporting this population without requiring anything from them in return
4. Eliminate as much of this population as possible...

Got any other potential options? because that's about all I can think of as alternatives...
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Interesting video. Its not necessarily endorsing the ideas, but rather explaining where the idea is coming from. See, anxiety is a human trait, and we can have it no matter what. I work for myself, make my own hours and am happy with my job, very little anxiety there aside from the average customer being a pain in my ass.
However I've got other things that cause anxiety, and none of the examples I could think of immediately are not financially related.

Anxiety is a human trait, and we will experience it no matter what.
 

LostCrusader

Lurker in the shadows
Feb 3, 2011
498
0
0
This has me wondering how much of the wisecrack channel might be joining the escapist. I have only checked out some of 8-bit philosophy stuff but I like the channel for thug notes.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
It would depend on what kind of resources we have relative to the population, and what the minority might stand to gain from massive population reduction.
No doubt, but mass genocide of populations don't tend to be effective when a minority (especially a rich one) is trying to kill of a majority. That majority tends to get pissed and start a revolution that ends up with that rich majority either fleeing or dead. Mileage here varies depending on how well armed said majority is.

your implicatioon of shifting the work to other fields presumes those too don't end up subject to automation.
It seems a little naive to assume art and customer service jobs can't be automated, long-term. We're already seeing warning signs of retail staff being replaced with machines... Early days yet, but it's a bad sign on the whole.
As for sports, maybe. But only a handful of people hachave what it takes to be top athletes, and that being left in human hands would be mostly due to the incredibly arbitrary rules of 'fair' competition. Otherwise we wouldn't be checking for drugs. In other words, it's a field that isn't looking for the absolute best, but rather the best within a restricted set of criteria.
It's not that you can't automate art or customer service; you certainly can. It's that people don't tend to particularly like art or customer service that's automated. It depends on what sort of customer service we're talking here, too but in broad terms people like to talk to people more than machines and that customer demand does have an effect. As for sports, if most people are unemployed because they simply don't need to work, they will be looking for diversions. With this growing demand, I think it's reasonable to assume more sports leagues at more levels would rise in demand. Same goes for art. All that leisure time needs to be filled with something and art/sports are two of human kind's favorite diversions.


This kind of depends on how cynical you are, and how far you imagine automation to be able to get...
It's also possible to imagine a world where the machines themselves take over. What they do with us at that point would depend on what values we instill in them. Overly utilitarian reasoning (which seenems a reasonably probable resulyresult of our current values as a society), could easily lead the machines to question the purpose of the continued existence of humans...
Eh, a machine takeover is a plausible flight of fancy. I don't think it warrants serious consideration until we at least have a working cognizant computer. I'm more concerned with what we'll do if 90% of human "work" becomes automated; it seems the more immediate issue. But, if we did come up with cognizant robots, we'd need to, as you said, instill values in them and hope those values stick. Otherwise, things could get messy.


In short, even being optimistic, what do you do with a huge number of people who cannot meaningfully contribute to society directly in the sense that we currently value what a person spends their time doing?
The options are pretty limited.
1. find 'busywork' that doesn't really serve any purpose, just to occupy these people's time...
2. Get them to do the work anyway, regardless of how absurdly innefficient that may end up by comparison to the machines.
3. Sort out a means of supporting this population without requiring anything from them in return
4. Eliminate as much of this population as possible...

Got any other potential options? because that's about all I can think of as alternatives...
1. This seems possible. A fair-few professions already engage in massive amounts of busywork. Hell, how much youtube gets watched at peak business hours I wonder. I know I contribute to that figure!

2. This seems less likely, unless efficiency isn't the most valuable part of the work. See: Art, sports, customer service. Any field you can think of where efficiency is less important than the human element, I think the automation problem isn't so much a problem.

3. Depending on the efficiency of the production of basic goods/services, this may become a reality. If you can produce all basic goods in mass quantities for a pittance, you don't really need the population to put anything back in. But we'll still want someone to act/draw/throw a football/have a chat with us, so that's where people will shift their focus I think.

4. And that's the rub. If automation becomes really good, there isn't really a need to reduce the population. Plus, threatening the lives of billions of people isn't likely to end up with them dead, it's likely to end up with you dead. You'd need a method for eradication and a reason (assuming our hypothetical rich minority aren't psychopaths.) In a world of automated plenty, you might get #1, but you'll be hard-pressed to get #2 I think.

I can't think of any others either, except perhaps space colonization. Still, I think 2-3 are probably enough to prevent 4 from being necessary or even desirable. It's the optimist in me.
 

8-Bit Philosophy

New member
Feb 9, 2015
88
0
0
My main problem with american capitalism is that it's less capitalism and just people taking advantage of the system, it's like comparing Stalin's russia to socialism.

Also, americans like to point fingers and whoever they think is responsible at their state, which is anyone but them. Even the entertaiment industry lives on it, the big evil guy is the rich white american tycoon, not the branch manager who lays off workers to make the end year look more positive and gives the guy's salary to himself.
 

Jake Martinez

New member
Apr 2, 2010
590
0
0
Lightknight said:
CrystalShadow said:
I do fear a 'work ethic' Is slowly becoming a liability though. Because of automation and it's long term implications, having that as a core social value is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
I've considered this quite a bit lately. The notion that automation should eventually put people out of work. Ideally, this would mean a future where people don't have to work but are free to direct their attention to whatever pursuits they desire. But there's a lot of things in-between that could wreck us.

I imagine that the government will eventually have to legislate a certain ratio of human works be maintained for companies. That could side step the issue of massive layoffs with fewer consumers to buy things (because, again, layoffs).

We'll have to see how that turns out. What's sad is that robots will inevitably out-pace us eventually. There will be a day when there's nothing we can do that they can't do better. Everything from innovation to humor.
If this ever comes to pass then eventually no goods or services will have any value, so economy will be a moot point. Just go and take whatever it is you want. You've basically shot straight past capitalism, through socialism and into a complete utopian world.
 

TomWest

New member
Sep 16, 2007
41
0
0
LysanderNemoinis said:
Wow...and here I thought after certain members of the staff being let go, maybe The Escapist would have a little bit less political bullshit. Guess I was wrong. Though I'm really looking forward to the "Is Communism Bad For You?" episode, and hear how more people have been killed because of that oppressive system than have ever died or been negatively affected by capitalism. Wait, what am I talking about? This is The Escapist, the Pravda of gaming. Carry on, comrades.
You think you are better off *not* knowing the history and possible weaknesses of the systems you support?

I suspect that any *successful* capitalist revels in learning about the systems he uses far more than adding another kick at a moribund system. But certainly your attitude will go far if you're interested in working for the government rather than capitalism as a whole.
 

BrownGaijin

New member
Jan 31, 2009
895
0
0
Wouldn't the fear of being fired have to do more with having a fixed mindset or the absence of a growth mindset?
 

LysanderNemoinis

Noble and oppressed Kekistani
Nov 8, 2010
468
0
0
TomWest said:
LysanderNemoinis said:
Wow...and here I thought after certain members of the staff being let go, maybe The Escapist would have a little bit less political bullshit. Guess I was wrong. Though I'm really looking forward to the "Is Communism Bad For You?" episode, and hear how more people have been killed because of that oppressive system than have ever died or been negatively affected by capitalism. Wait, what am I talking about? This is The Escapist, the Pravda of gaming. Carry on, comrades.
You think you are better off *not* knowing the history and possible weaknesses of the systems you support?

I suspect that any *successful* capitalist revels in learning about the systems he uses far more than adding another kick at a moribund system. But certainly your attitude will go far if you're interested in working for the government rather than capitalism as a whole.
Oh, I certainly know my history. It's why I hate communism. And while capitalism is not a perfect system, not by a long shot, it's also the best system mankind has come up with. Whatever it's roots, whatever it's failing and abuses in the past (and sometimes in the present), it's also the thing that allowed most of us to be living the lives we are with the creature comforts and technology we have.


Hell, America wouldn't even exist without people who were determined to be able to live as they wanted, to work for themselves, and not have a government tell them what to do, how to work, and what to think. After all, for every person that abuses the system or takes advantage of their workers, there's hundreds if not thousands of business owners who do right by their employees and enable themselves and those that work for them to provide good lives for their families.

My main problem is that once again, The Escapist is putting up a completely one-sided argument without even mentioning the possibility that there's another side or that communism is far worse. Plus, it's also lazy as hell. I mean, exactly how many comments appeared that weren't just a bunch of head-bobbing and tut-tuting about this modern day boogieman? Aside from me and a couple others, I doubt there were many people who clicked on the video who don't already think capitalism is the tool of the devil (here represented by a straight white male) even without this video's 'evidence.'
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
LysanderNemoinis said:
Wow...and here I thought after certain members of the staff being let go, maybe The Escapist would have a little bit less political bullshit. Guess I was wrong. Though I'm really looking forward to the "Is Communism Bad For You?" episode, and hear how more people have been killed because of that oppressive system than have ever died or been negatively affected by capitalism. Wait, what am I talking about? This is The Escapist, the Pravda of gaming. Carry on, comrades.
That's impossible. The number of deaths that can easily be attributed to manipulative capitalist imperialism in Africa, India, South America, Central America, and China far out number the deaths that can be attributed to Communism in Russia, China, and Eastern Europe. Just looking at the size of the population groups under these ideologies should make it clear enough, capitalism had a much larger reach. Ultimately, Communism can be blamed for some 70 million deaths at the high end. Capitalism can be blamed for almost half of that through WWI alone, let alone the opium wars, the race to colonize Africa, the loss of life, economic productivity, and food in British India, and the abuses in South America carried out by the west. This is still all ignoring that the capitalist imperialism of the 19th century can be blamed for much of the current situation in the middle east, Africa, and south east Asia. Regardless of whether or not Capitalism is truly better or worse than Communism, the sheer breadth of Capitalism's effects on humanity should easily put it above Communism's body count.

Also, at what point did this video promote communism, and in what way is calling out the abuses of capitalism, the flaws, tantamount to supporting communism? One does not need to be a communist to read Weber, especially considering that Weber was not a communist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
 

Zato-1

New member
Mar 27, 2009
58
0
0
What is this drivel? Video should be titled "Max Weber's take on Capitalism", there's no real discussion about whether Capitalism is good or bad for you.
 

Armadox

Mandatory Madness!
Aug 31, 2010
1,120
0
0
Zato-1 said:
What is this drivel? Video should be titled "Max Weber's take on Capitalism", there's no real discussion about whether Capitalism is good or bad for you.
It's not designed as a discussion, but as a crash course, you have to bring your own discussion on how you feel about the information provided.(I agree with the title change, but the last sentence in the video leaves an open ended thought on the subject for you to infer your own conclusions....)

That being said, it's no worse for you then any economic system, as you have an ability, no matter how slim to score riches for your efforts as long as those efforts pay you back the time spent. Where as other systems can grant everyone the base living safety net, but your labor will not give you any means more then that...

All and all, I'm rather happy to see Wisecrack expanding to other websites. I prefer Thug Notes myself, and if you've not had the pleasure of watching it, I recommend it. 8-Bit Philosophy covers a broad spectrum of subjects, it just so happened this one was economical/political.
 

Jodan

New member
Mar 18, 2009
379
0
0
Do that again I loved it. Do more of this. Its nice to see some intellegent content for a chnage.
 

Lizmichi

Detective Prince
Jul 2, 2009
4,809
0
0
inu-kun said:
My main problem with american capitalism is that it's less capitalism and just people taking advantage of the system, it's like comparing Stalin's russia to socialism.
In Marxist thought that is what they say capitalism is. It is the antithesis of the the owners of the means of production with is depended on how desperately the workers need their jobs.

Also, Stalin's Russia was... weird. It wasn't fully blown communism or socialism. I could go on and on about this but I don't want to bog things down.

Edit: Fuck yea philosophy on the Escapist. I am in love.
 

CaptainBill22

New member
Nov 18, 2009
35
0
0
This guy knows nothing of capitalism or how it even works. What he describes is bad working conditions which has nothing to do with Capitalism or Socialism. At least in a Capitalist society you can move up and get better jobs, you can go from dishwasher to chef if you have the skills and ambition. With Socialism the state tells you what to do, if the state tells you to be a factory worker you will be a factory worker. With Capitalism you are rewarded for hard work, and if you don't like the conditions where you work you can seek out a new job or start a business. In Socialism you can work 60-70 hours a week at one job and be better at it than anyone else, you won't get rewarded for your hard work and if you don't like it too bad.

Tell me which is worse now?
 

TomWest

New member
Sep 16, 2007
41
0
0
LysanderNemoinis said:
My main problem is that once again, The Escapist is putting up a completely one-sided argument without even mentioning the possibility that there's another side or that communism is far worse.
Um, the video wasn't an argument at all, let alone a one-sided one. It didn't contrast capitalism with socialism, just gave a brief (if possibly inaccurate) history of the religious origins of capitalism. As such, I don't find it a take-down of capitalism any more than studying the origins of Communism is a take-down of communism. It's just history.

The fact that a few people use it to take pot shots means nothing meaningful. It's like condemning the United States because of the slavery of the founders. What is important is not the history, it's how the history informs the present.

The fact that you feel defensive about capitalism is odd. After all, there's pretty much nowhere on the planet that gives serious consideration to deviating from a market based system. (If you're talking pure capitalism, that's different. But nobody has tried it.)
 

zumbledum

New member
Nov 13, 2011
673
0
0
CaptainBill22 said:
This guy knows nothing of capitalism or how it even works. What he describes is bad working conditions which has nothing to do with Capitalism or Socialism. At least in a Capitalist society you can move up and get better jobs, you can go from dishwasher to chef if you have the skills and ambition. With Socialism the state tells you what to do, if the state tells you to be a factory worker you will be a factory worker. With Capitalism you are rewarded for hard work, and if you don't like the conditions where you work you can seek out a new job or start a business. In Socialism you can work 60-70 hours a week at one job and be better at it than anyone else, you won't get rewarded for your hard work and if you don't like it too bad.

Tell me which is worse now?

well its a bit unfair , capitalism is better than the level of communism or socialism humans are capable of, if only we were not such flawed creatures those models would be better. its a pretty sad state really.

Capitalism and so does democracy , both were good step ups from what went before but they are hardly ideal.

would love to see democracy scrapped for a model closer to the scientific method and our economy abandon money and wealth for a sustainable resource allocation based economy
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Less politics, more geek culture related content. The existing commentators here already bring more than enough left wing spin to the site just in trying to do their job. Anti-capitalist rants being presented as features are the last thing this site needs. Especially when this was a poorly researched piece to begin with, the guy writing it seems to have no practical idea of what a Calvinist is (as someone already pointed out in detail).

That said, at the end of the day someone has to dig the ditches, and society needs far more people at the bottom holding it up than on the top. The man who is at the bottom is always going to want a change in the status quo in feeling it will benefit him. In a capitalist society, the guy at the bottom looks at those on the top and demands different distribution of wealth because that benefits him. After all from his perspective it's not his fault that he isn't as smart, talented, or gifted, or descended from someone who was. In a socialist system the man at the bottom thinks that if he could compete more freely he would be better off. At the end of the day in a capitalist system the most gifted and ruthless rule alongside the merchants and traders. In a socialist society the government that is responsible for distributing everything "fairly" occupies the same position. Either way on the bottom your either envying the businessmen and independently wealthy, or those in high powered government positions who will inevitably use their status to benefit themselves and lead lavish lifestyles that benefit both them and their favored. No system or social philosophy will ever be utopian, even a perfect system on paper will not survive contact with human nature.

For the most part I'm content with the American balance on Capitalism and the limitations and safeguards it puts into force. Things could be better and like everyone there are changes I'd make (some in directions of socialism as I'm a big believer in worker's rights) but I think right now we've got a pretty decent balance.

Life is stress, to be honest I don't think social philosophy changes that. Those in communist regimes don't have any less stress. Indeed the grass is always greener on the other side of the pasture, and no matter what side your on, you at least envy some aspects of the other... it's human nature.

The world generally sucks, and honestly even if we develop limitless resources and transcend any need for us to do anything but pleasure ourselves, we'll still find reasons to be stressed... even if it's over whether we have the latest model of auto-masturbator, and if there will be enough produced fast enough to get the newest one when it first comes out. Stress is based on the environment, just because people's concerns are trivial compared to yours does not mean they are any less real or stressful. Sure worrying about an auto-masturbator seems petty compared to say clean drinking water, but if it's the only thing you are concerned with do to having everything else, people will stress about it. This is one of the reasons why I tend to be dismissive of people complaining about "First world problems" just because other people have bigger problems does not mean the other problems concern the people involved any less. You look at the guys in the US concerned about IP laws and the guy in Africa concerned about not having water, and all it shows is that no matter where you are on the scale something is always going to stress people, even when the concerns become increasingly petty.... and let's be honest, when people are involved conflict will likely always arise, even if all we have to do is pleasure ourselves, we'll still find reasons to fight each other over lube... and if millions die in the lube wars the reason doesn't effectively make it any different than World War II... all that matters is that enough people disagreed about things important enough from their perspective for massive violence to break out. When lube is a big part of your life, it becomes important.
 

IOwnTheSpire

New member
Jul 27, 2014
365
0
0
I personally hate it when people demonize or attack the other side, it's always a with us or against us mentality. If you're not for capitalism, you're a dirty socialist/commie. If you're not for socialism, you're a greedy capitalist pig.

Frankly, I think we need to look at both systems objectively, recognize their benefits and drawbacks, and settle on a system that'll make as many people happy and productive as possible.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
I saw this in the feed and though "oh great more "game theories rehash" but i saw it and i LOVED it. this is great. please continue.


Lightknight said:
I've considered this quite a bit lately. The notion that automation should eventually put people out of work. Ideally, this would mean a future where people don't have to work but are free to direct their attention to whatever pursuits they desire. But there's a lot of things in-between that could wreck us.

I imagine that the government will eventually have to legislate a certain ratio of human works be maintained for companies. That could side step the issue of massive layoffs with fewer consumers to buy things (because, again, layoffs).

We'll have to see how that turns out. What's sad is that robots will inevitably out-pace us eventually. There will be a day when there's nothing we can do that they can't do better. Everything from innovation to humor.
the main problem with automation is that capitalism is broken by design. it is heavily in favor to capital owners rather than equality based on effort, this means that automation, instead of allowing people to work less and still make same amount of added value results in income disparity getting larger. Now, government regulation coming in here usually helps, but in US government has long ago gave up on doing anything for its people.

Gorrath said:
Starving the population is a really good way for those in power to get their heads lopped off and stuck on poles. Also, I'd say that a population is really only excessive (within the scope of this conversation) if it is difficult to house or feed said population, something which automation should make easier to do. You'd have excess population in comparison to work that you needed done, but I imagine you'd see a shift to jobs created for arts, sports and customer service rather than a summary round-up and extermination of those who can't find jobs. Not impossible of course, as the tactics you suggest have been used before. I just don't think it's all that likely to happen, and surely not likely to succeed.
assembly line bashing during industrial revolution didnt work.
Nor did people protesting against millions starving in US right now.

As long as the general population is above certain treshold in items they own they wont dare a revolt in fear of loosing what they already have. just keep the population above that line and you got a willing slave.

LysanderNemoinis said:
Wow...and here I thought after certain members of the staff being let go, maybe The Escapist would have a little bit less political bullshit. Guess I was wrong. Though I'm really looking forward to the "Is Communism Bad For You?" episode, and hear how more people have been killed because of that oppressive system than have ever died or been negatively affected by capitalism. Wait, what am I talking about? This is The Escapist, the Pravda of gaming. Carry on, comrades.
there is a total of 0 people that died because of communism. this is because communism has never been attempted outside of small scale. What the world wrongly refers to communism sometimes is actually authoritorian planned economy capitalism.
 

8-Bit Philosophy

New member
Feb 9, 2015
88
0
0
This is a topic where I'm ignorant as it's just too far up there with large and widespread consequences...

My impression is that a lot of it is necessary evil, like planned obsolescence. Nobody likes having to buy a necessary item over and over again, but the upsides include competitive prices and increased jobs.
On the other hand you have stuff like the printer industry where you're charged obscene amounts of money for ink AND you have to replace your printer every couple of years...
For all I know it's actually fair, but my (admittedly) uninformed opinion says that it's pure bullshit.

In the car industry it's having a negative effect on people, as newer cars rely you on going to a workshop just to have a lightbulb changed due to complicated design. Such as having to strip a panel off as well as remove components before you get access to the housing.
It's complicated enough to deter people from doing it themselves, which in turn leaves them incapable of fixing their own things. This seems like a very bad development to me as we need confidence in our lives and that comes along with being able to handle ourselves in most situations, including fixing our car if needed.

-

Since this is about the actual workers, the point that I understand is that the "work hard - live when you're old" mentality is out of habit due to traditions (and smart business owners).
For those of us who don't go out and start our own companies, the lesson is to live your life while you can and not fall into the materialistic trap unless that's actually something you wish for (something that gamers usually are).

I have a sizeable inheritence coming up which will enable me to buy some great things, such as a new motorcycle (looking at a Suzuki M1800R/M109R for those who are curios), but having spent a few months thinking about all the things I could get or how to to be smart about that money I've realized that the best thing for me is to change my life as much as possible with it.
Move to another country, start a company, invest in an apartment and sell it off, take a trip on my motorcycle across the world and have an amazing experience...

There are lots of ways not to be stuck in a 9 to 5 life and not be stomped on by capitalism for the worker.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
3. Sort out a means of supporting this population without requiring anything from them in return

Got any other potential options? because that's about all I can think of as alternatives...
Dont need any more than this. Let machines do the work and support us and let us do with the time as we please. would solve most of workforce related problems just like that. and the level of automatisation rising may one day will very well be able to do it.

Of course, population is much too large nowadays, but thats the fault of capitalism that runs the best when there is a surplus of cheap slave labor.

inu-kun said:
My main problem with american capitalism is that it's less capitalism and just people taking advantage of the system, it's like comparing Stalin's russia to socialism.

Also, americans like to point fingers and whoever they think is responsible at their state, which is anyone but them. Even the entertaiment industry lives on it, the big evil guy is the rich white american tycoon, not the branch manager who lays off workers to make the end year look more positive and gives the guy's salary to himself.
American capitalism is one of the purest forms of capitalism. the capital controls everything, including the government. Its just that the system is flawed, and when not regulared by outside party you have, well, US.

As far as your example, you do understand that the branch manager has no choice because of the rich tycoon's demands, right?

LysanderNemoinis said:
Hell, America wouldn't even exist without people who were determined to be able to live as they wanted, to work for themselves, and not have a government tell them what to do, how to work, and what to think.
Ah, yes, a country that is built on stealing land, killing the natives and then backstabbing the country that allowed them to do this, then profiteering from two world wars (selling guns to both sides is fun isnt it) and profiteering from the destruction afterwards (its easy to be economic superpower when you are the only one with economy not destroyed by war) and whose every public sector is collapsing on itself now is such a great example of the "good" things personal freedom has lead to.



Zato-1 said:
What is this drivel? Video should be titled "Max Weber's take on Capitalism", there's no real discussion about whether Capitalism is good or bad for you.
This is 8-bit phylosophy. as you know, 8-bit format is extremely limited, which is why the world has moved on to 64 bits. As such, any product made with it is also extremely limited.

Armadox said:
That being said, it's no worse for you then any economic system, as you have an ability, no matter how slim to score riches for your efforts as long as those efforts pay you back the time spent. Where as other systems can grant everyone the base living safety net, but your labor will not give you any means more then that...
Ah, the american optimism at its worst. you have a lower chance to make it big than being hit by lightning, twice but that somehow excuses all the flaws of the system!
And that chance also exists only because those that already made it big lets you.

Smilomaniac said:
On the other hand you have stuff like the printer industry where you're charged obscene amounts of money for ink AND you have to replace your printer every couple of years...
For all I know it's actually fair, but my (admittedly) uninformed opinion says that it's pure bullshit.
your not paying for ink. you are paying for a microchip in the catridge whose manufacturing costs are only a few cents and only purpose is to not allow competing brand's cartridges to be used in that printer so they could price-gouge more. printer ink is the second most expensive liquid on earth as a result.

In the car industry it's having a negative effect on people, as newer cars rely you on going to a workshop just to have a lightbulb changed due to complicated design. Such as having to strip a panel off as well as remove components before you get access to the housing.
I have no such problems replacing lightbulbs in Kia Ceed from 2012. Might be different in other cars. i know some manufacturers are better at it than others.

But yes for the most part cars are too complicated for regular user nowadays. this is due to their attempt to increase efficiency and safety though and not so much for service gourging.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Strazdas said:
CrystalShadow said:
3. Sort out a means of supporting this population without requiring anything from them in return

Got any other potential options? because that's about all I can think of as alternatives...
Dont need any more than this. Let machines do the work and support us and let us do with the time as we please. would solve most of workforce related problems just like that. and the level of automatisation rising may one day will very well be able to do it.

Of course, population is much too large nowadays, but thats the fault of capitalism that runs the best when there is a surplus of cheap slave labor.
It is one of the best of the options I listed, but it also flies in the face of how our current culture functions.
Just look at the countries that have welfare states, and how much resentment and nastiness gets aimed at the parts of the population recieving 'handouts'.

Some places are even actively trying to demonise everyone that gets welfare payments.

Now consider what we'd have to do as a society to get from that attitude to one where it's considered normal, and acceptable for people to get stuff just because, without any expectation behind it...

It's a pretty big leap. And that was kind of my point. We need to encourage that shift in ideals, and preferably before automation renders massive chunks of the existing workforce completely redundant.

Yet look at mainstream accounts of automation and this is rarely if ever brought up. Concerns about job losses are brought up all the time, but the concept of it actually being OK not to do anything 'productive' is never even vaguely hinted at.

Things like universal basic income also routinely get panned as either unreasonable, unworkable, or just... 'wrong'...

We don't seem ready for option 3, even tough it seems to be the best choice in some ways, our culture seems quite intent on taking one of the other three choices I listed...
 

Jake Martinez

New member
Apr 2, 2010
590
0
0
IOwnTheSpire said:
I personally hate it when people demonize or attack the other side, it's always a with us or against us mentality. If you're not for capitalism, you're a dirty socialist/commie. If you're not for socialism, you're a greedy capitalist pig.

Frankly, I think we need to look at both systems objectively, recognize their benefits and drawbacks, and settle on a system that'll make as many people happy and productive as possible.
Meh. People are stupid. Pretty much every western nation has a mixed economy. This is called "Neo-Liberalism" by a lot of people and basically it means some aspects of free markets (Liberalism) with some various levels of state control and regulation. In some countries it's entirely possible to look at them as instead of having a capitalist economy with some socialism, that it's a socialist economy with some capitalism. The world is funny that way, it's just a change of perspective.

I pretty much fall in this boat as well. I like free markets, but I think some services really ought to be socialized. We do this in the united states already with things like police, fire, schools and libraries because it provides an obvious benefit for society. Inversely I hate over-regulation that makes it near impossible for people to start or run small businesses. Try starting a restaurant or some other food service business in the USA. Your will shit bricks once you realize all the money you have to pay due to government regulations - but again we justify that by taking care of the "public health". Too bad the cost is shifted onto the people trying to start the tiny business then huh?
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
It's a pretty big leap. And that was kind of my point. We need to encourage that shift in ideals, and preferably before automation renders massive chunks of the existing workforce completely redundant.

Yet look at mainstream accounts of automation and this is rarely if ever brought up. Concerns about job losses are brought up all the time, but the concept of it actually being OK not to do anything 'productive' is never even vaguely hinted at.

Things like universal basic income also routinely get panned as either unreasonable, unworkable, or just... 'wrong'...
...
people do shift eventually, most people wouldn't glady run off to war in the name of queen and country like they would 100 years ago nor would they abide by archaic notions of nationalism in regards to cowardice and fighting (well some people would for that)

people will have to (at some point) capitalism doesn't work when most of your population can't get jobs, before or after it blows up in their face

ideally you'd want to instill an attitude of motivation to do productive and rewarding things for the sake of it...rather than because society tells you. Some people are definitely more inclined to this than others.Given the fact that a lot of people merely tolerate their jobs and always have things they'd rather be doing its not totally out of the question

on the ohter...a population placetated on netflix/twitter/VR isn't out of the question eather

but youre right in that its going to take a rethinking of things we take as fundamental, even if you are in "yay utopia" camp we still to some extent pride ourselves on our ability do to things...make that ability arbitrairy..well there's some exestensial angst for you

LysanderNemoinis said:
Hell, America wouldn't even exist without people who were determined to be able to live as they wanted, to work for themselves, and not have a government tell them what to do, how to work, and what to think.
aand you know the exploitation of uh-...I mean OOOOOHHH SAY CAN YOU SEEEE....BY THE DAWNS EARLY LIIIIIIGHT!!! MURRRRICAAAAA

yes we all enjoy our nice things but lets not pretend they didn't come at a cost
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,412
1,009
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
LysanderNemoinis said:
Wow...and here I thought after certain members of the staff being let go, maybe The Escapist would have a little bit less political bullshit. Guess I was wrong. Though I'm really looking forward to the "Is Communism Bad For You?" episode, and hear how more people have been killed because of that oppressive system than have ever died or been negatively affected by capitalism. Wait, what am I talking about? This is The Escapist, the Pravda of gaming. Carry on, comrades.
Wait. Are you talking about the imaginary Marxist/ Leninist communist wanted or the what happened in reality under Stalin. Yes, Marx recognised that you might need to be Fascist to make a transition to communism, but nothing that happened could really be claimed as communist. To not meant to be the rich take from the poor because they think they need the resources. Even Lenin, the verbal manipulative person that completely unshakable from his beliefs recognised (after many years) that Stalin, even though his was useful for the guerrilla warfare against his own party (and sometime against the Tsars.)

Just like Capitalism is in no shape or form represented by what shows up today. A best we have crony capitalism, but more like corporate and institutional feudalism. Only a couple individual ideas are important, and everyone else is whitewashed. Our current "capitalism" has made us more like automatons, like the way we feared communism would do. And been more effective at it.

Adam Smith thought the "enlighten self-interest" would be the way forward to capitalism (and would use it more effectively than other beliefs). I think it broke it.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
That's one solution. But an especially awkward one assuming the work would normally be done by machines for the sake of efficiency.

I would imagine a more viable solution longterm would be to remove all work related taxes, (primarily income tax), and try to ensure the remaining taxes can be distributed to the population.
More and more people living on government assistance wouldn't be awkward?

Artificial employment levels are to help during the interim where human workers are still necessary compared to when technology can just take care of our needs as necessary. The real question is how our economy functions without the need for human interaction. Do we just become the moochers of a robot civilization that is at the same time subservient to our needs while also vastly superior to us and dragging us forward in technology along with them? Do we assimilate in pursuit of immortality? Is the future of mankind entirely robotic? With computers powerful enough to emulate even our DNA in real time?

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's even a bad thing.

Unfortunately, with current trends I rather fear the handful of people with enough wealth and power to control the automated manufacturing systems are more inclined to attempt mass irradication of the 'excess' population, either directly, or through starvation.

Pessimistic I suppose, but that's what I expect to see if we don't radically alter our value system before automation truly starts to take over everything...
Aside from ideological motivations there isn't much reason to eradicate populations. As technology increases so too will the means to support people. I've seen indoor hydroponics systems that produce many times as much food per square foot than regular soil does. Just using LEDs without the use of soil so it sustains water in a controllable fashion. From there it's really just an issue of housing and entertainment which wouldn't be that hard to produce with an automated work force.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Strazdas said:
the main problem with automation is that capitalism is broken by design. it is heavily in favor to capital owners rather than equality based on effort, this means that automation, instead of allowing people to work less and still make same amount of added value results in income disparity getting larger. Now, government regulation coming in here usually helps, but in US government has long ago gave up on doing anything for its people.
This will eventually be in everyone's best interest to regulate. Businesses and people alike. This is sort of like Hockey regulations making all players wear helmets. Everyone benefits if everyone wears a helmet while some players would be better without the helmets at the risk of serious injury. So too would it maintain equality to force this sort of thing across the board to maintain some kind of economy. The thing is, the workforce is the consumer market. Everyone loses if either of those groups disappears. So if you can't trust the government to do good for people, at least trust it to do good for its businesses (aka financial backers).
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Strazdas said:
assembly line bashing during industrial revolution didnt work.
Nor did people protesting against millions starving in US right now.

As long as the general population is above certain treshold in items they own they wont dare a revolt in fear of loosing what they already have. just keep the population above that line and you got a willing slave.
\

The abuse of the word "slave" in this context is preposterous. We may be forced by circumstance to do things we'd prefer not to but this does not make slaves of us. Of course people won't revolt if they have nice things because there isn't a need to revolt if you have nice things. Tearing down the system that supports your lifestyle makes no sense if your lifestyle is decent. And for most people living in the U.S., they live a decent lifestyle.

My comment was made in a specific context, that is that an attempt to starve the majority of people to death does not tend to work. The second part of your comment illustrates why the first part of your comment takes my point out of its context. Also the "millions starving in the U.S." requires its own context in that it's only true if you consider "food insecure" to be "starving." The two things are not as interchangeable as some would have people believe. Anyone who's food is subsidized by the government can be considered "food insecure" but to say that they are "starving" is ridiculous.

That is not so suggest that we don't have problems with poverty and hunger but characterizing those problems with hyperbole does nothing to solve them.


EDIT: I saw this part after and wanted to reply to it as well:

Strazdas said:
CrystalShadow said:
3. Sort out a means of supporting this population without requiring anything from them in return

Got any other potential options? because that's about all I can think of as alternatives...
Dont need any more than this. Let machines do the work and support us and let us do with the time as we please. would solve most of workforce related problems just like that. and the level of automatisation rising may one day will very well be able to do it.

Of course, population is much too large nowadays, but thats the fault of capitalism that runs the best when there is a surplus of cheap slave labor.
Please provide evidence for this claim. I can honestly say I've never heard anyone blame an economic system for the desire of humans to reproduce. It is fair to say that different economic systems create different environments in which humans may be more or less willing to try for reproduction but nothing about capitalism in the U.S. suggests what you say is true. Our native population is shrinking year over year, not growing. The only reason why our over-all population goes up is due to immigration.

Also, I take exception to your last sentence specifically. Capitalism runs best where there are a variety of workers at different skill-levels. This does include a need for low-skilled labor. But as above, your use of the word slave is nonsensical. A slave is a person who is owned as property, not someone who has to work to feed themselves.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
inu-kun said:
My main problem with american capitalism is that it's less capitalism and just people taking advantage of the system, it's like comparing Stalin's russia to socialism.

Also, americans like to point fingers and whoever they think is responsible at their state, which is anyone but them. Even the entertaiment industry lives on it, the big evil guy is the rich white american tycoon, not the branch manager who lays off workers to make the end year look more positive and gives the guy's salary to himself.
Oh? And how is your country's economy and average standard of living? I can only assume that if you're discontent with American capitalism that your country must be absolutely kicking ass and taking names where that average standard of living is concerned. From where I'm sitting, my wife and I have middle-income jobs (combined we do not breach six figures) and yet are able to own two homes and live very comfortably. That's coming from a low middle class family with a single income so that's certainly not having anything handed to me. Social mobility seems remarkably easy if you're willing to learn hard jobs or do difficult work. I haven't taken advantage of the system in any way. Just worked hard and capitalism paid off and is paying off. If you honestly believe that socialist and communist economies don't have people mooching off the system then you're entirely missing the point of those economies that are built to assist the moochers.

So it's quaint to think of American workers as having a high power distance with a ham fisted greedy dirtbag on top with minions at his feet but that simply isn't the case. Companies are pyramids in which people may climb if they devote the time and effort into it. We may never get to the top of the pyramid, but at some point we can always start our own.

Anyways, according to the HDI the US is number 5 in the world. Just behind Norway, Australia, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Which one of those four do you hail from? Please note that Switzerland, the US and the Netherlands are within .003 points from each other so I guess I should be asking if you live in Norway or Australia? If Norway then I certainly agree that your HDI is better than pretty much anywhere and you have reason to boast.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Lightknight said:
CrystalShadow said:
That's one solution. But an especially awkward one assuming the work would normally be done by machines for the sake of efficiency.

I would imagine a more viable solution longterm would be to remove all work related taxes, (primarily income tax), and try to ensure the remaining taxes can be distributed to the population.
More and more people living on government assistance wouldn't be awkward?

Artificial employment levels are to help during the interim where human workers are still necessary compared to when technology can just take care of our needs as necessary. The real question is how our economy functions without the need
for human interaction. Do we just become the moochers of a robot civilization that is at the same time subservient to our needs while also vastly superior to us and dragging us forward in technology along with them? Do we assimilate in pursuit of immortality? Is the future of mankind entirely robotic? With computers powerful enough to emulate even our DNA in real time?

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's even a bad thing.
I don't see how government assistance is any more awkward than any other means of keeping a 'useless' population going.

The problem with current welfare systems isn't that they are government run, it's a mismatch between the source of government income (largely taxes related directly to people being paid for doing work), and needing to provide for people. (Benefits are a double blow to government finances because of the work=taxes thing being the primary source of government income).
Other issues with it are vast bureaucratic requirements, though many of those have to do with assessing if people have the right to benefits, whether they are meeting their end of the (conditional) agreements, such as spending enough time looking for work or whatever else they may be obligated to do in order to get a handout in the first place.
Finally, there's the resentment factor, again related to taxes (why should I work hard and pay my taxes so others can sit around doing nothing.)

So we have one problem related to how taxation is done, and two related to cultural issues and attitudes towards the very idea of giving people handouts.

But I have to ask, as a counter-point, why giving people 'useless' jobs is going to help? Who do you imagine is going to deliberately choose to pay wages to someone who they know isn't doing anything directly helpful to your business?
Who but a government could really arrange a system like that anyway?

And if I had to choose between a government administered work scheme (especially knowing the work done isn't even useful), and a government administered benefits system... Eh.

(I don't know about anyone else, but I find the idea of work for the sake of itself, knowing it to serve no purpose, to be beyond soul-crushing. It is absolutely abhorrent to me to think that people might imply that a 'useless' job is better than no job at all. - And I don't mean useless as in you're doing poor quality artwork, or writing bad stories, but useless as in moving stuff from one shelf to another and back again just because. Literal busywork, that creates nothing, is in no way interesting to do, and serves no purpose, and if it weren't done nobody would even realise the difference)

Unfortunately, with current trends I rather fear the handful of people with enough wealth and power to control the automated manufacturing systems are more inclined to attempt mass irradication of the 'excess' population, either directly, or through starvation.

Pessimistic I suppose, but that's what I expect to see if we don't radically alter our value system before automation truly starts to take over everything...
Aside from ideological motivations there isn't much reason to eradicate populations. As technology increases so too will the means to support people. I've seen indoor hydroponics systems that produce many times as much food per square foot than regular soil does. Just using LEDs without the use of soil so it sustains water in a controllable fashion. From there it's really just an issue of housing and entertainment which wouldn't be that hard to produce with an automated work force.
Keep in mind, if the differences in power are large enough 'eradicating the population' could amount to as little as not giving anyone any means of getting food...
It doesn't actually require active attempts to get rid of people.

And the ability to grow food and provide other resources in this context still requires the will to distribute those items essentially without any real conditions imposed on it.
 

jerubbaal07

New member
Aug 10, 2014
2
0
0
As a Calvinist seminarian, I just want to point out one thing with the whole "work for salvation" thing: Calvinism (as stated by someone else in this thread) is actually positioned as a direct rebuttal to the idea that you work to achieve salvation. Nor is the way "predestination" is presented terribly true. The point in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination is that, ultimately, it's God who chooses who will be saved and who won't, not that few will be saved so you better work as hard as you can to be one of them.

All this being said, the point on "anxiety" is fair to a degree (not that I agree, but for the sake of argument), more as a function of "assurance" of salvation instead of actual achievement of salvation. The traditional difficulty w/ Calvinism is that, if it is ultimately God who chooses those who will be saved, how can I, as an individual, know that I indeed have been chosen? There has been a strain that runs through historical Calvinism which says basically what Weber's saying here - if you're really a true believer, you can know that because God gives you material blessing (through your hard work).

The point I'd like to make is that this "social gospel," or in its current form, the "prosperity gospel" (see Joel Osteen), is a distortion of genuine Calvinism, not its true heart. I'm not sure Weber draws that distinction, and the video certainly does not. The video is clearly positioned to place religion, specifically Calvinism, as the root of all evil in society, which, for obvious reasons, I might disagree with :)
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
It is one of the best of the options I listed, but it also flies in the face of how our current culture functions.
Just look at the countries that have welfare states, and how much resentment and nastiness gets aimed at the parts of the population recieving 'handouts'.

Some places are even actively trying to demonise everyone that gets welfare payments.

Now consider what we'd have to do as a society to get from that attitude to one where it's considered normal, and acceptable for people to get stuff just because, without any expectation behind it...

It's a pretty big leap. And that was kind of my point. We need to encourage that shift in ideals, and preferably before automation renders massive chunks of the existing workforce completely redundant.

Yet look at mainstream accounts of automation and this is rarely if ever brought up. Concerns about job losses are brought up all the time, but the concept of it actually being OK not to do anything 'productive' is never even vaguely hinted at.

Things like universal basic income also routinely get panned as either unreasonable, unworkable, or just... 'wrong'...

We don't seem ready for option 3, even tough it seems to be the best choice in some ways, our culture seems quite intent on taking one of the other three choices I listed...
The reason resentment of welfare happens is because only particular group of people are getting it. if EVERYONE would get the object and as much of it as they want, there would be no resentment for people getting it because everyone would be getting it.

Yes, current automation is not concerned about human wellbeing but about profit of capitalists, hence why it takes a lot of change to go from capitalism to something thats beneficial to society in automated world.

the only people that are against minimum wage are people who want to profit from slave labor.

Humanity isnt ready for any big change that happens, we adapt and learn, lets try to do it in best way we can then. the change is coming whether you like it or not.

Lightknight said:
This will eventually be in everyone's best interest to regulate. Businesses and people alike. This is sort of like Hockey regulations making all players wear helmets. Everyone benefits if everyone wears a helmet while some players would be better without the helmets at the risk of serious injury. So too would it maintain equality to force this sort of thing across the board to maintain some kind of economy. The thing is, the workforce is the consumer market. Everyone loses if either of those groups disappears. So if you can't trust the government to do good for people, at least trust it to do good for its businesses (aka financial backers).
One would think that, but just look at what happens with, well, pretty much every public US sector. to use your hockey analogy you are now only allowed to use a helmet made 40 years ago by a company that went bacnrupt and no longer can fox the lack of features in the helmet that are required by same regulations..

The pressure to upgrade is going to increase the closer to collapse the current system goes, however how violent the solution will be is uncertain. Personally ive seen too much stupidity around to be an optimist here.


The thing is though that financial backers are no longer investors. instead of investing into it they want quick profit and burn the future prospects. the focus on short term does not allow them to see that the consumer group is disappearing.



Lightknight said:
Anyways, according to the HDI the US is number 5 in the world. Just behind Norway, Australia, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Which one of those four do you hail from? Please note that Switzerland, the US and the Netherlands are within .003 points from each other so I guess I should be asking if you live in Norway or Australia? If Norway then I certainly agree that your HDI is better than pretty much anywhere and you have reason to boast.
HDI is highly flawed for your comparison for multiple of reasons. its hardly representative of peoples incomme process or theri ability to move between social brackets. also it puts a massive imporatance to access to clean water which is good comparing to africa but is useless comparing the top countries. HDI is good "General idea" but that hardly means that US is 5th or even 10th country in what you are trying to compare.
 

JustMakingAComment

New member
Jun 25, 2014
29
0
0
I would have to view more of this video series to see if it addresses the gaps left open here. Like, "What is capitalism?"

People get into these "Capitalism vs Communism/Socialism" arguments, without actually saying what they mean by any of the words. As if "capitalism" means "You know, that thing _we_ all have!", whoever "we" are. And "communism/socialism" is "That other thing, which for some reason there are two words for!"

It's pointless to have those arguments. And it's foolish to just assume everyone agrees on what the words mean. They mean a lot of different things in different contexts.

This video is cute. But it's also propaganda. Right up front, it fails to explain why, even for the sake of the argument, the guy has to pick "more turnips". More than who? More than he did the day before? More than ten turnips? What's the alternative here? That a guy should just pick one turnip and retire for life? That turnips should just sit there and not be picked? That he should get someone else to do it? If he didn't want to pick all those turnips, why did he plant them?

This isn't a metaphor that explains or illustrates a point -- it's just an attention-grabbing idea that is used to trick the viewer into saying, "Hey, that one guy is being forced to pick a lot of turnips! And it looks like hard work!" If this was an image of Sonic picking up rings, we'd say, "Damn! That looks like fun! He sure loves those rings, and it looks easy!"

This isn't really philosophy and it's not educational. Maybe more context would help, but this video is just "telling the viewer what they're supposed to think". It's propaganda, targeted to its audience effectively.

For an entertaining and modern approach to this material that isn't so terse and slanted, I'd recommend reading Slavoj Zizek's books about economic ideology (or see his recent movie).
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
I don't see how government assistance is any more awkward than any other means of keeping a 'useless' population going.
The alternative is to not have a consumer base which is bad for everyone in a time of transition. In this event, the 'useless' population would just be a basic wage distribution system in which the goods and services they buy keep the economy going until such a time where they don't have to work to have an agreeably high quality of living.

The problem with current welfare systems isn't that they are government run, it's a mismatch between the source of government income (largely taxes related directly to people being paid for doing work), and needing to provide for people. (Benefits are a double blow to government finances because of the work=taxes thing being the primary source of government income).
Other issues with it are vast bureaucratic requirements, though many of those have to do with assessing if people have the right to benefits, whether they are meeting their end of the (conditional) agreements, such as spending enough time looking for work or whatever else they may be obligated to do in order to get a handout in the first place.
Finally, there's the resentment factor, again related to taxes (why should I work hard and pay my taxes so others can sit around doing nothing.)
I would generally boil it down to efficiency. Agencies are specifically rewarded for spending as close to their budget as possible. They pay inflated fees to contractors and have no mindset to save money and come in under budget because that would mean a smaller budget the following year. Incentivize the decision makers to save on costs without reducing quality or quantity of goods/services produced and a lot of the other issues go away. Companies are far better at this because they want a profit which means low costs. Government agencies only care about the next pay check and getting larger. If I were to ever run for office it would be a mainstay of my campaign to improve efficiency of spending to make what tax dollars we get go further.

But I have to ask, as a counter-point, why giving people 'useless' jobs is going to help? Who do you imagine is going to deliberately choose to pay wages to someone who they know isn't doing anything directly helpful to your business?
Employees are customers. People who make money from other companies buy your product and people from your company buy products from those other companies.

Having an established labor market is having an established consumer base. As long as this is something implemented across the board then everyone benefits from maintaining the consumer base. Additionally, having a huge discontent and unemployed mass of people is basically storing a black powder keg near the fire place.

Who but a government could really arrange a system like that anyway?
Because it has to be regulated across industries and enforced it would have to be the government.

The alternative is a mass of unemployed people who have no hope of mobility and no income to sustain their quality of life beyond what the government distributes. This is a problem.

Keep in mind, if the differences in power are large enough 'eradicating the population' could amount to as little as not giving anyone any means of getting food...
It doesn't actually require active attempts to get rid of people.

And the ability to grow food and provide other resources in this context still requires the will to distribute those items essentially without any real conditions imposed on it.
And the motivation to not do so is...?
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
jerubbaal07 said:
As a Calvinist seminarian, I just want to point out one thing with the whole "work for salvation" thing: Calvinism (as stated by someone else in this thread) is actually positioned as a direct rebuttal to the idea that you work to achieve salvation. Nor is the way "predestination" is presented terribly true. The point in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination is that, ultimately, it's God who chooses who will be saved and who won't, not that few will be saved so you better work as hard as you can to be one of them.

All this being said, the point on "anxiety" is fair to a degree (not that I agree, but for the sake of argument), more as a function of "assurance" of salvation instead of actual achievement of salvation. The traditional difficulty w/ Calvinism is that, if it is ultimately God who chooses those who will be saved, how can I, as an individual, know that I indeed have been chosen? There has been a strain that runs through historical Calvinism which says basically what Weber's saying here - if you're really a true believer, you can know that because God gives you material blessing (through your hard work).

The point I'd like to make is that this "social gospel," or in its current form, the "prosperity gospel" (see Joel Osteen), is a distortion of genuine Calvinism, not its true heart. I'm not sure Weber draws that distinction, and the video certainly does not. The video is clearly positioned to place religion, specifically Calvinism, as the root of all evil in society, which, for obvious reasons, I might disagree with :)
Good, I was concerned that my criticisms would go unknown.

Calvinism's focus on salvation by God's mercy alone is in direct opposition to salvation by works. Protestantism in general was in opposition to works based faiths so they'd have to go to Roman Catholicism at best if they wanted to blame Christianity or faith. But remember, this is an article depicting the propaganda of a communist philosopher. The writer's ignorance of the area is surprisingly vast considering how authoritative the writer is being. I'm not sure if whoever made this video was intending to critique or support the philosophy or what.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Strazdas said:
Lightknight said:
This will eventually be in everyone's best interest to regulate. Businesses and people alike. This is sort of like Hockey regulations making all players wear helmets. Everyone benefits if everyone wears a helmet while some players would be better without the helmets at the risk of serious injury. So too would it maintain equality to force this sort of thing across the board to maintain some kind of economy. The thing is, the workforce is the consumer market. Everyone loses if either of those groups disappears. So if you can't trust the government to do good for people, at least trust it to do good for its businesses (aka financial backers).
One would think that, but just look at what happens with, well, pretty much every public US sector. to use your hockey analogy you are now only allowed to use a helmet made 40 years ago by a company that went bacnrupt and no longer can fox the lack of features in the helmet that are required by same regulations..

The pressure to upgrade is going to increase the closer to collapse the current system goes, however how violent the solution will be is uncertain. Personally ive seen too much stupidity around to be an optimist here.
Sure, there are certainly some very negative possibilities. The failure of the government to do anything to stop its own demise would be one of them.

The thing is though that financial backers are no longer investors. instead of investing into it they want quick profit and burn the future prospects. the focus on short term does not allow them to see that the consumer group is disappearing.
The unemployment is viewed very closely. I think we'd know it pretty damn fast if something was wrong and what was causing it.

As long as the regulation is there across the board then it being in place won't harm competition. The alternative is to tax the companies the same amount and then the government would be in charge of distribution which would be terrible as you already noted.

Lightknight said:
Anyways, according to the HDI the US is number 5 in the world. Just behind Norway, Australia, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Which one of those four do you hail from? Please note that Switzerland, the US and the Netherlands are within .003 points from each other so I guess I should be asking if you live in Norway or Australia? If Norway then I certainly agree that your HDI is better than pretty much anywhere and you have reason to boast.
HDI is highly flawed for your comparison for multiple of reasons. its hardly representative of peoples incomme process or theri ability to move between social brackets. also it puts a massive imporatance to access to clean water which is good comparing to africa but is useless comparing the top countries. HDI is good "General idea" but that hardly means that US is 5th or even 10th country in what you are trying to compare.
It's one of many such numbers. But the vast majority of measures puts America in the top ten in the world. Our system is flawed but it so is everything else and our is just one of the least flawed. Now, we are loud. We do complain about problems the loudest so it seems like things are worse. But our disposable income is the highest of any nation and our housing conditions are some of the best including personal safety: http://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-on-oecd-better-life-index-2013-5#6-united-states-10

I'd say our biggest problem in the US is moreso healthcare than anything else. It's no less vital to human life than military or water and yet there aren't any good regulations to prevent price gouging like there is for other things in similar circumstances. Healthcare is generally the thing that knocks us down a few pegs on the studies. Not our capitalism like those other countries typically also have.

But seriously, if you or anyone things the quality of life here in the US is worse than a significant number of other nations then that's very very wrong. Even our homeless have it better than the poor in a non-trivial number of other nations.
 

Spyre2k

New member
Apr 9, 2013
52
0
0
I'm surprised they choose this video as their first on the escapist as it seems very bias. I checked their youtube channel and the other 8-Bit episodes seem to present two differing philosopher's points of view on a given topic and then ask which you thought was right.

As for the topic at hand it's amusing to hear all the misconceptions on what capitalism is and the misuse of the term to point out it's supposed flaws or wrong doings. Imperialism is NOT capitalism, the mere act of seeking personal gain is NOT capitalism. Whenever war, conquest, or other means of force are used it is NOT capitalism.

Capitalism is a system where people are allowed to freely choose which transactions involving their own private property will best satisfy their own Utility. Utility is an Economics term which represents how much of a person's wants and needs are met. The common mistake that people make is in thinking that because money allows you to purchase much of what a person might want or need that Utility=Money and since a person is working to maximize their utility they are thus working to maximize their money or profits. While it's true that most businesses work to maximize profits it doesn't encompass the whole of a capitalistic system as every transaction made by every person is part of that economic system.

Another common mistake that is made when discussing economic theory is the assumption that a person will act in their best interest. Which is another flaw as again this is a common misinterpretation as what maximizes a person's utility may not be in their best interest. Utility is also refereed to as happiness in economics, as what makes someone happy in the short term could be detrimental to their long term interest. But that person values the present more than some imagined future and it is their choice to make.

Many people like to point to the early poor conditions in factories during the start of the industrial revolution as examples of the potential evils of unregulated capitalism but much of these were a product of times and not capitalism itself. There was a huge influx of workers which meant labor was cheap and thus no need to compete by raising wages, second many early attempts at collective bargaining (aka unions) were met with intimidation and violence, again something not permitted in a capitalistic system or any civilized society as all transaction must be voluntary without the threat of violence.


Monetary and Governmental systems also have an effect on economic systems which can appear to be flaws in system when in reality they are not. Property tax is an example of this, if you lived in a house that was completely green so you had no outside utility and enough land to grow your own food you would still need to make money because if you can't pay your property tax the government will come and take your home. So regardless of how free and stable you try to make your life there will always be that lingering pressure that if you don't earn you can't live.

Regulations also prohibit competition, as is very evident in the broadband market these days where cable company lobbist have actually gotten laws to pass in various areas outlawing fiber companies, such as google, from laying their fiber cables because it would completely out class them and they would lose tons of business. This again is not capitalism but many view it as such because someone was basically "paid" to make a law. Other regulations create so much red tape in fees that smaller companies can't even get started which further reduces competition or in one case the CEO of a major company said it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more to open a factory in the US than over seas because of regulations, it was not a wage issue that caused him to make the move as if often claimed to be the case in similar cases.

There are many other governmental examples but let's switch to monetary policy. The Federal Reserve routinely changes the interest rates which has an effect on how much capital is available for loans to allow businesses to start-up or grow and expand. This has a very real impact on the economy and this along with other policy set forth are pointed to as issues caused by capitalism when in fact they are caused by the monetary system. Things like always needing to earn more to keep up with inflation, where the reason we have inflation is because they keep printing more money and thus is really a hidden tax.


As someone who started as an Accounting Major and then switched to Economics it always amazes me at how many mistakes people make when talking about economic systems, such as Capitalism vs Communism. As many of the issues they see as problems with the system are caused by other factors as we have never really had a pure system of either. There has always been some governmental body manipulating things. But government is sadly often needed because of human fallibility. In the case of Capitalism it's often need to protect the people from violence against those who want to forcible take what is yours. Where as in Communism it's needed to ensure greedy people don't take more than want they truly need.


These misconceptions of where the true issues arise from reminds me of the "Survival of the Fittest" comment which people often use to justify things. The quote most people think came from Darwin but in reality it did not, it was made by Herbert Spencer who clearly failed to understand Darwin's book. As no where in the book does Darwin say that and in fact he actually undermines that by saying "It's not the strongest or fittest that survive but rather those most responsive to change." Another words those that are able to adapt to changing environment survive and those who specialize, while very efficient in their area, don't survive in the long run.
 

Aerotrain

New member
Sep 7, 2014
67
0
0
Let's take heed of the Escapist name and escape the world we know to enjoy entirely new universes, he said.
Let's eschew the curmudgeon mentality, he said.
Let's focus on finding the good in the geekspace rather than focusing on the bad, he said.
Let's talk more about the things we love and less about the things we hate, he said.

And yet not even a month later: "Is Capitalism bad for you?".

Goddammit, Vanderwall. God freaking dammit.
 

Spyre2k

New member
Apr 9, 2013
52
0
0
On the topic of Automation making it so no one has to work, I think this is highly unlikely. What instead you see is a shift to more technical jobs as they need people to run those machines. The mass unemployment however comes from lots of unskilled labor jobs being replaced with skilled labor jobs. The unskilled people can't get jobs because they lack the skills for the new jobs and often have issues obtaining those skills as often they lack the fundamental education for those jobs.

After all it's hard to bring people who can barely read and have only basic math skills up to speed in a relatively short time. Even some of the decently fast courses which expect people to have many of the fundamental high school level skills could take several months or more, and they often take money. Plus once they get their certificate their is no guarantee they will get a job. Plus most certification programs cost money, and for someone just looking to make ends meet that's not really an option. Though still lots of people are doing it as you often hear how many people are going back to school these days.

Unless we develop a truly independent AI that can learn and self improve than some form of human work will be required. It's just there is a large reduction in manual labor jobs so people are free to pursue other things. The rise of youtubers, blogs, and other alternative media personalities who make a living off these new forms of entertainment are just one example. After all you don't have to make it big to be a success and earn enough to live on. Someone could easily have a decent size following and make $30-50K a year, they don't need to be the next major star and earn millions. So instead of having several dozen major celebrities earning millions it will be more likely to have several hundreds of thousands of minor celebrities making a live able wage. Same goes for lots of other areas in the media and arts.

Odds are in a society where everything is automated by a super intelligent AI so that human work is no longer required at all, because the system can self maintain, an entertainment driven society would practically be expected. Because people have needs beyond the biological. They have a need to socialize, a need for a sense of accomplishment, and a need for fun. Often people tie their sense of accomplishment to their jobs, but sometimes they tie it to a hobby instead such as learning to play a musical instrument. So in some sense most people would spend much of their time improving themselves. Kind of like what the Federation in Star Trek claimed was Humanities motivating factor even though it was a militaristic state with basically everyone else on one side and then those in Star Fleet work in a typical military organization on the other.

I think the closest thing I've seen to everything being almost fully automated in a Scifi series was on Andromeda, because on Star Trek it's made clear several times the ship needs it's crew for regular maintenance even though they have things like replicators. The ship's AI on Andromeda, named Rommie, was able to harvest raw materials from asteroids then use it's manufacturing bays to create what it needed. Though the process is never shown in full it is mentioned a few times by Rommie on how "happy" she is to have the resources or how when they have a shortage she would like to "resupply" in an asteroid belt. Most of the crew end up dealing with politics, issues off ship, training, side projects, or engaged in combat. The engineer often spends time tinkering just for fun to either create something new or try to improve Rommies system, though often with mixed outcomes. The times you see the crew helping with repairs are when the ship is heavily damaged and it's often to speed things along more than actually being required since the ship has humanoid robots for maintenance.


The transition to automation it seems lots of people fear because fewer jobs to go around but odds are there will be fewer people as well. In nearly every developed nation the population growth rate has become negative. The only countries where it hasn't, like the US, is due in large part to immigration. People are having fewer children or waiting much later in life to have them. The result is the number of old people to young people has been increasing. In order to sustain that the younger generations need to be even more efficient than the previous generation to pay for the upkeep of social programs that support the elderly. So automation is the perfect solution to this as fewer people can produce more goods.

The other thing is we don't know what kind of jobs will be created in the future. It's one of the problems the education system faces as how do you prepare the youth of a nation for a job you know nothing about? Thanks to the advances in technology many of the jobs today didn't exist 20 years ago and even trying to describe them would of sounded unbelievable.

Heck go back to the 1980s and tell an economics professor that you want to get together with a bunch of people and make a product then give it away for free. They would of thought you crazy and yet that's what open source projects do. Linux is one of the leading OS for servers and yet it's made and distributed for free. And while the software is free the hardware is not so people still make money off it by using it on their servers.
 

Kardsymalone

New member
Oct 6, 2014
15
0
0
This was disappointingly poorly researched shallow and poorly implemented/presented I hope the show isn't going to continue to be this obtuse while feigning the educational capabilities of its videos.
The concept of Anxiety isn't even given a basic definition the statement of Clavinism was incorrect as repeatedly explained in this thread.
Though what really gets me is the terrible presentation if you come in completely oblivious to the concepts being talked about you will be completely lost and misinterpret the message of the video

Many here see it as some sort of damnation of capitalism while promoting communism when its actually a presentation of the possible mental health drawback of the capitalist system presented through the ideas of Weber whose ideas may be a little outdated for modern applications.

Spyre2k said:
Yeah I know man its pretty painful to listen to someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts of economics to speak about it
 

SNCommand

New member
Aug 29, 2011
283
0
0
I'm fairly sure capitalism isn't alone in trying to produce tireless and focused workers, in fact Weber, while not busy misrepresenting Calvinism spent his time theorizing about the perfect hard working state bureaucracy

What capitalism has a lot more of than other economic systems though is social mobility, capitalism has beaten the competition severely in regards to social mobility, it also out competed every other economic system that tries to oppose it, in Venezuela shit has hit the fan last time I checked
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,307
0
0
I'm not familiar with Weber's work but I'm somewhat unsure about the parallel struck between modern capitalism and Calvinism. Maybe I'll write a reply essay when I've finished the copies of Thus Spake Zarathustra and The Road To Serfdom I got today.
 

8-Bit Philosophy

New member
Feb 9, 2015
88
0
0
Lightknight said:
But seriously, if you or anyone things the quality of life here in the US is worse than a significant number of other nations then that's very very wrong. Even our homeless have it better than the poor in a non-trivial number of other nations.
Certainly not the 700 homeless who die from the cold each year. [http://nationalhomeless.org/WordPress/2010/08/response-to-homelessness-hot-or-cold/]
Lightknight said:
If you honestly believe that socialist and communist economies don't have people mooching off the system then you're entirely missing the point of those economies that are built to assist the moochers.
What communist economies?

Lightknight said:
Anyways, according to the HDI the US is number 5 in the world. Just behind Norway, Australia, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Which one of those four do you hail from? Please note that Switzerland, the US and the Netherlands are within .003 points from each other so I guess I should be asking if you live in Norway or Australia? If Norway then I certainly agree that your HDI is better than pretty much anywhere and you have reason to boast.
Since you like statistic that much, have a look at this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index] If you can't find USA, keep scrolling down.
 

yukarin

New member
Feb 3, 2014
2
0
0
um, exactly what version of calvanism is this guy talking about!? (this is sarcasm, there's only one)
What happened to "sola fide" and "sola gratia"?? faith alone and grace alone...?
 

8-Bit Philosophy

New member
Feb 9, 2015
88
0
0
SNCommand said:
What capitalism has a lot more of than other economic systems though is social mobility, capitalism has beaten the competition severely in regards to social mobility, it also out competed every other economic system that tries to oppose it, in Venezuela shit has hit the fan last time I checked
A capitalist country is doing better than another capitalist country, what a surprise!

Also if you want fair comparisons you should compare economies of the same periphery and culture, that means Venezuela with other South American countries. Also the same country with its own past, that's way more logical than comparing Venezuela with the USA that have had little in common during their history.
 

SNCommand

New member
Aug 29, 2011
283
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
SNCommand said:
What capitalism has a lot more of than other economic systems though is social mobility, capitalism has beaten the competition severely in regards to social mobility, it also out competed every other economic system that tries to oppose it, in Venezuela shit has hit the fan last time I checked
A capitalist country is doing better than another capitalist country, what a surprise!

Also if you want fair comparisons you should compare economies of the same periphery and culture, that means Venezuela with other South American countries. Also the same country with its own past, that's way more logical than comparing Venezuela with the USA that have had little in common during their history.
Fairly sure Venezuela has a planned economy, in fact I just checked and both wikipedia and Venezuela's own webpage both confirm they practice planned economy instead of free market, which isn't communism, but it isn't capitalism either, a country that nationalized an entire industry with government mandate would never be called capitalist

Also if you compare Venezuela with other Latin American countries they still fall short, best at the moment would probably be Chile, enjoying a standard of living comparable to western nations, and not surprisingly also scores higher than their neighbors on competitiveness and ease of doing business

Seems like betting on Pinochet was smarter than Chavez
 

8-Bit Philosophy

New member
Feb 9, 2015
88
0
0
SNCommand said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
SNCommand said:
What capitalism has a lot more of than other economic systems though is social mobility, capitalism has beaten the competition severely in regards to social mobility, it also out competed every other economic system that tries to oppose it, in Venezuela shit has hit the fan last time I checked
A capitalist country is doing better than another capitalist country, what a surprise!

Also if you want fair comparisons you should compare economies of the same periphery and culture, that means Venezuela with other South American countries. Also the same country with its own past, that's way more logical than comparing Venezuela with the USA that have had little in common during their history.
Fairly sure Venezuela has a planned economy, in fact I just checked and both wikipedia and Venezuela's own webpage both confirm they practice planned economy instead of free market, which isn't communism, but it isn't capitalism either, a country that nationalized an entire industry with government mandate would never be called capitalist

Also if you compare Venezuela with other Latin American countries they still fall short, best at the moment would probably be Chile, enjoying a standard of living comparable to western nations, and not surprisingly also scores higher than their neighbors on competitiveness and ease of doing business

Seems like betting on Pinochet was smarter than Chavez
The degree of competition, role of intervention and regulation, and scope of state ownership varies across different models of capitalism.[5] Economists, political economists, and historians have taken different perspectives in their analysis of capitalism and recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire capitalism, welfare capitalism, crony capitalism and state capitalism; each highlighting varying degrees of dependency on markets, public ownership, and inclusion of social policies. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy. Many states have what are termed capitalist mixed economies, referring to a mix between planned and market-driven elements.
Still capitalist, maybe not the one you like the most.

Is eating vomit smarter than eating shit? I'd really prefer something else.
 

SNCommand

New member
Aug 29, 2011
283
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
SNCommand said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
SNCommand said:
What capitalism has a lot more of than other economic systems though is social mobility, capitalism has beaten the competition severely in regards to social mobility, it also out competed every other economic system that tries to oppose it, in Venezuela shit has hit the fan last time I checked
A capitalist country is doing better than another capitalist country, what a surprise!

Also if you want fair comparisons you should compare economies of the same periphery and culture, that means Venezuela with other South American countries. Also the same country with its own past, that's way more logical than comparing Venezuela with the USA that have had little in common during their history.
Fairly sure Venezuela has a planned economy, in fact I just checked and both wikipedia and Venezuela's own webpage both confirm they practice planned economy instead of free market, which isn't communism, but it isn't capitalism either, a country that nationalized an entire industry with government mandate would never be called capitalist

Also if you compare Venezuela with other Latin American countries they still fall short, best at the moment would probably be Chile, enjoying a standard of living comparable to western nations, and not surprisingly also scores higher than their neighbors on competitiveness and ease of doing business

Seems like betting on Pinochet was smarter than Chavez
The degree of competition, role of intervention and regulation, and scope of state ownership varies across different models of capitalism.[5] Economists, political economists, and historians have taken different perspectives in their analysis of capitalism and recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire capitalism, welfare capitalism, crony capitalism and state capitalism; each highlighting varying degrees of dependency on markets, public ownership, and inclusion of social policies. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy. Many states have what are termed capitalist mixed economies, referring to a mix between planned and market-driven elements.
Still capitalist, maybe not the one you like the most.

Is eating vomit smarter than eating shit? I'd really prefer something else.
Well the communists and socialists do love to decide what constitutes public control over means of production, and it seems people disagree on capitalism as well "Economists, political economists, and historians have taken different perspectives in their analysis of capitalism and recognized various forms of it in practice."

So just as communists often tell me North Korea isn't communist I'll say Venezuela isn't capitalist, you're not capitalist if you advocate nationalization of private property, which is why I thought it was a stupid idea to bailout the banks and the automotive industry back in 2008, no capitalist should have condoned it

And my definition fits better with the dictionary definition than any bozo who claims planned economies can be capitalist

"a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism]

Venezuela running the oil industry in their country makes them non capitalists in my eye
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Lightknight said:
The unemployment is viewed very closely. I think we'd know it pretty damn fast if something was wrong and what was causing it.

As long as the regulation is there across the board then it being in place won't harm competition. The alternative is to tax the companies the same amount and then the government would be in charge of distribution which would be terrible as you already noted.
Is it. does not feel like it. Government seems to be blind to things like people having to work 3 jobs to keep same purchasing power or those slave workers in food industry that are allowed to be paid as little as 0 because "tips will make up for it" leading to perpetuation of broken tip culture.

US are full of workaholics which means the unemployment does not look bad on paper but there are a lot of issues with unemployment that will come to a breaking point if left unchecked.

I'd say our biggest problem in the US is moreso healthcare than anything else. It's no less vital to human life than military or water and yet there aren't any good regulations to prevent price gouging like there is for other things in similar circumstances. Healthcare is generally the thing that knocks us down a few pegs on the studies. Not our capitalism like those other countries typically also have.

But seriously, if you or anyone things the quality of life here in the US is worse than a significant number of other nations then that's very very wrong. Even our homeless have it better than the poor in a non-trivial number of other nations.
Personal income nor oversized houses do not make peoples lives automatically better than everyone else. What most people forget when counting income is purchasing power. I can live entire month on the money you pay for two weeks of rent in US.

There are a lot of failing sectors in US, though healthcare is certainly one of the most visible lately. it is hardly the only one though. your public transport is a failure, your private transport is failing (road and railroad infrastructure is currently rated as in danger of complete failure and requires significant overhaul, yet noone cares), your school system is clearly not working (common core alone causes enough ruckus) and your law enforcement also seems to be going that road. And thats just a few examples of the top of my head.

Im not saying that other nations are all golden either, merely that US is hardly the top of the world like some people believe. and that im amazed it hasnt collapsed on itself knowing its problems. it seems that each time i reaserach a different sector in US i end up thinking "how the hell hasnt this fell apart yet".

Spyre2k said:
I'm surprised they choose this video as their first on the escapist as it seems very bias. I checked their youtube channel and the other 8-Bit episodes seem to present two differing philosopher's points of view on a given topic and then ask which you thought was right.
It has 3 pages of comments, which is more than even old content creators gets majority of the time, so it obviuosly was a sucess start. Also unlike in Jimquisition the comments are almost unanomously hating on the author (and Kudos to Jim for learning from those comments and making the show better).

SNCommand said:
Fairly sure Venezuela has a planned economy, in fact I just checked and both wikipedia and Venezuela's own webpage both confirm they practice planned economy instead of free market, which isn't communism, but it isn't capitalism either, a country that nationalized an entire industry with government mandate would never be called capitalist
Planned economy is just a different type of Capitalism. it still has capital owners and employed people by them. It still has capital investment. Its just a form of capitalism that is heavily regulated by the state. Soviet Union was this type of capitalism as well.

SNCommand said:
you're not capitalist if you advocate nationalization of private property,

Venezuela running the oil industry in their country makes them non capitalists in my eye
by that definition there is no, and never been, a capitalist country in the world. Maybe Anarchistic Somalia....
 

jerubbaal07

New member
Aug 10, 2014
2
0
0
Lightknight said:
jerubbaal07 said:
As a Calvinist seminarian, I just want to point out one thing with the whole "work for salvation" thing: Calvinism (as stated by someone else in this thread) is actually positioned as a direct rebuttal to the idea that you work to achieve salvation. Nor is the way "predestination" is presented terribly true. The point in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination is that, ultimately, it's God who chooses who will be saved and who won't, not that few will be saved so you better work as hard as you can to be one of them.

All this being said, the point on "anxiety" is fair to a degree (not that I agree, but for the sake of argument), more as a function of "assurance" of salvation instead of actual achievement of salvation. The traditional difficulty w/ Calvinism is that, if it is ultimately God who chooses those who will be saved, how can I, as an individual, know that I indeed have been chosen? There has been a strain that runs through historical Calvinism which says basically what Weber's saying here - if you're really a true believer, you can know that because God gives you material blessing (through your hard work).

The point I'd like to make is that this "social gospel," or in its current form, the "prosperity gospel" (see Joel Osteen), is a distortion of genuine Calvinism, not its true heart. I'm not sure Weber draws that distinction, and the video certainly does not. The video is clearly positioned to place religion, specifically Calvinism, as the root of all evil in society, which, for obvious reasons, I might disagree with :)
Good, I was concerned that my criticisms would go unknown.

Calvinism's focus on salvation by God's mercy alone is in direct opposition to salvation by works. Protestantism in general was in opposition to works based faiths so they'd have to go to Roman Catholicism at best if they wanted to blame Christianity or faith. But remember, this is an article depicting the propaganda of a communist philosopher. The writer's ignorance of the area is surprisingly vast considering how authoritative the writer is being. I'm not sure if whoever made this video was intending to critique or support the philosophy or what.
It seems difficult to say that the writer was attempting to do anything other than unambiguously support Weber's perspective, considering especially the parting comments.

Obviously, I disagree w/ Weber's assessment on the matter, but I was disheartened at how rigorously the video seemed to misunderstand the doctrines of Calvinism. I know things need to be simplified for videos like this, but he seems to be operating from an understanding of Calvinism that's even below a broad popular understanding. If you actually take the time to read some of the excerpts from Weber presented in the video, you get the impression that Weber "gets" Calvinism a bit more than the video itself clearly does, but that's the internet for you.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Lightknight said:
But seriously, if you or anyone things the quality of life here in the US is worse than a significant number of other nations then that's very very wrong. Even our homeless have it better than the poor in a non-trivial number of other nations.
Certainly not the 700 homeless who die from the cold each year. [http://nationalhomeless.org/WordPress/2010/08/response-to-homelessness-hot-or-cold/]
While sad, do you realize how small that number actually is? That's 700 out of more than half a million homeless individuals when 1,300 is around our average for the entire country in a year [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/winter-freeze-led-to-31000-extra-deaths-last-year--against-a-backdrop-of-soaring-energy-prices-8965427.html]. Again, this is comparing a 300 million person nation with a 63 million person nation with the smaller nation having 23.8 times our average in one year. Do you understand how extreme that disparity is? That a country with 1/5th the population of the US putting up 23.8 times the number of death by freezing? 10,000 of those actually owning homes and still dying?

So yeah, 700 homeless people die in the US from the cold each year. Sad but amazingly small. The nation overall has a .42 deaths per 100,000 due to hypothermia. Compare to say, Australia that has a 3.6/100,000 or Switzerland that has 3.3/100,000. I bring those up only because they're both considered as being in the top five countries to live in and yet still suffer this problem. Consider that both Alaska (−80 °F)and the contiguous United States (−70 °F) have posted colder temperatures than Switzerland (−43.2 °F) and Australia (−9.4 °F). In fact, only three other nations have posted colder temperatures than the US and that's Canada, Russia, and Greenland. At least Switzerland has the excuse of being really cold for a lot more of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records

What's weird is that even with the fact that the US has some really warm areas the average temperatures are still quite low: http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/countryall.php3

So please, evaluate your facts and explain what point you're trying to make.


Lightknight said:
If you honestly believe that socialist and communist economies don't have people mooching off the system then you're entirely missing the point of those economies that are built to assist the moochers.
What communist economies?
China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. I understand that the term communist is weakly attributed to these nations but we can have a semantics debate on this point if you'd like. I'll warn you that the popular definition is the one that wins out and right now those countries are defined as communist nations by the common majority.

In my mind, a communist nation is really just a socialist nation with marxist ideals. However, I understand that I did say communist economy. I'm just not sure how a distinction between the state and economy is all that viable when the state clearly informs the economy.

Lightknight said:
Anyways, according to the HDI the US is number 5 in the world. Just behind Norway, Australia, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Which one of those four do you hail from? Please note that Switzerland, the US and the Netherlands are within .003 points from each other so I guess I should be asking if you live in Norway or Australia? If Norway then I certainly agree that your HDI is better than pretty much anywhere and you have reason to boast.
Since you like statistic that much, have a look at this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index] If you can't find USA, keep scrolling down.
Oh? You mean the country that everyone else tells to get involved in wars where human rights are being violated ranks low on the peaceful scale? I'm shocked, simply shocked [/sarcasm]. Maybe if the index measured local "peace" then I'd actually matter to this discussion. That we're at war in Afghanistan and Iran (even if the wars are technically earmarked as over) has done next to nothing regarding my own personal quality of life aside from the loss of a few friends which happened over there, not here.

I assume you didn't realize that it included external conflicts (aka war or military excursions) or thought that was somehow relevant to what it's like to live here. You'd need to provide a resource that includes only internal conflicts that actually impact the quality of life of those living here. This would be like claiming that the main government district from the Hunger Games had shitty lives because all those external conflicts scored a lower ratio on the GPI. That's just nonsense.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
jerubbaal07 said:
Lightknight said:
jerubbaal07 said:
As a Calvinist seminarian, I just want to point out one thing with the whole "work for salvation" thing: Calvinism (as stated by someone else in this thread) is actually positioned as a direct rebuttal to the idea that you work to achieve salvation. Nor is the way "predestination" is presented terribly true. The point in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination is that, ultimately, it's God who chooses who will be saved and who won't, not that few will be saved so you better work as hard as you can to be one of them.

All this being said, the point on "anxiety" is fair to a degree (not that I agree, but for the sake of argument), more as a function of "assurance" of salvation instead of actual achievement of salvation. The traditional difficulty w/ Calvinism is that, if it is ultimately God who chooses those who will be saved, how can I, as an individual, know that I indeed have been chosen? There has been a strain that runs through historical Calvinism which says basically what Weber's saying here - if you're really a true believer, you can know that because God gives you material blessing (through your hard work).

The point I'd like to make is that this "social gospel," or in its current form, the "prosperity gospel" (see Joel Osteen), is a distortion of genuine Calvinism, not its true heart. I'm not sure Weber draws that distinction, and the video certainly does not. The video is clearly positioned to place religion, specifically Calvinism, as the root of all evil in society, which, for obvious reasons, I might disagree with :)
Good, I was concerned that my criticisms would go unknown.

Calvinism's focus on salvation by God's mercy alone is in direct opposition to salvation by works. Protestantism in general was in opposition to works based faiths so they'd have to go to Roman Catholicism at best if they wanted to blame Christianity or faith. But remember, this is an article depicting the propaganda of a communist philosopher. The writer's ignorance of the area is surprisingly vast considering how authoritative the writer is being. I'm not sure if whoever made this video was intending to critique or support the philosophy or what.
It seems difficult to say that the writer was attempting to do anything other than unambiguously support Weber's perspective, considering especially the parting comments.

Obviously, I disagree w/ Weber's assessment on the matter, but I was disheartened at how rigorously the video seemed to misunderstand the doctrines of Calvinism. I know things need to be simplified for videos like this, but he seems to be operating from an understanding of Calvinism that's even below a broad popular understanding. If you actually take the time to read some of the excerpts from Weber presented in the video, you get the impression that Weber "gets" Calvinism a bit more than the video itself clearly does, but that's the internet for you.
His assessment is not only something that can be disagreed with. It is factually incorrect. He's presenting a concept that is the absolute opposite of Calvinistic tenets. It would be like some knucklehead rambling on about how Trinitarians don't believe in the Trinity or that Universalists have the strictest policy on who can get into Heaven. Weber was apparently ridiculously ignorant of basic things he was talking about and assumed that no one in the Soviet Union would be able to verify his claims.
 

8-Bit Philosophy

New member
Feb 9, 2015
88
0
0
Lightknight said:
If you honestly believe that socialist and communist economies don't have people mooching off the system then you're entirely missing the point of those economies that are built to assist the moochers.
You're confusing with capitalism, that's an economy that assists the 'moochers', the owners of the means of production mooch of the value created by the workers.
Lightknight said:
China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. I understand that the term communist is weakly attributed to these nations but we can have a semantics debate on this point if you'd like. I'll warn you that the popular definition is the one that wins out and right now those countries are defined as communist nations by the common majority.

In my mind, a communist nation is really just a socialist nation with marxist ideals. However, I understand that I did say communist economy. I'm just not sure how a distinction between the state and economy is all that viable when the state clearly informs the economy.
That's bullshit and you know it. Communism is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are common ownership, I don't give a fuck about what the majority thinks. (altought without class consciousness we can't get to communism :S )

Lightknight said:
Oh? You mean the country that everyone else tells to get involved in wars where human rights are being violated ranks low on the peaceful scale? I'm shocked, simply shocked [/sarcasm]. Maybe if the index measured local "peace" then I'd actually matter to this discussion. That we're at war in Afghanistan and Iran (even if the wars are technically earmarked as over) has done next to nothing regarding my own personal quality of life aside from the loss of a few friends which happened over there, not here.

I assume you didn't realize that it included external conflicts (aka war or military excursions) or thought that was somehow relevant to what it's like to live here. You'd need to provide a resource that includes only internal conflicts that actually impact the quality of life of those living here. This would be like claiming that the main government district from the Hunger Games had shitty lives because all those external conflicts scored a lower ratio on the GPI. That's just nonsense.
Yes I noticed, but so what? ANd everyone tells to get involved? Do you only watch Fox News? There are millions of people protesting every year against those wars. But fine, take a look at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate] or this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality]
 

Olrod

New member
Feb 11, 2010
861
0
0
How exactly does this lecture talk about if capitalism is bad for you?

It seemed like nothing more than a crash course in Calvinism.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
That's bullshit and you know it. Communism is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are common ownership, I don't give a fuck about what the majority thinks. (altought without class consciousness we can't get to communism :S )
In assumption you're correct, but since humans are a status conscious species. Once you eliminate classes, people will just make up new ones to make others feel inferior. It's our competitive nature that actually makes what we do work generally. Capitalism is basically the state we understand. Socialism which is the closest thing to Communism we've ever made on a national scale. Socialism generally devolves in to the elites of society, specifically those loyal to party in power, being the ones who control everything. China, North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, and many others are all good examples of this. But it's basically the same autocratic nature that ruled most of human history, but in the past the catalyst was the Church, and still is in some shira law based nations. The catalyst can also be money to buy your social power, or being a convincing speaker to win it.

Socialism and Communism are both actually much older ideas than one might think, they're just newer flavors of the same first wave civilization (agricultural) thinking. Which relied on everyone knowing their exact place in society, and social/economical roles being rather stratified with little to no class movement. When the second wave (industrial civilization) hit people started to have more class mobility, especially as industry became more democratic and regulated. Now we're in this odd transition in to an information technology based civilization, which further spreads democratization of the classes. That being said the class structure is rather central to human identity, mobility with in the class structure actually drives invention and innovation. Due to people seeking ways to better their social and economical situations, along with improving their quality of life. Usually to improve one's own quality of life it's required to somehow also improve the quality of life of others.

Both Socialism and Communism have the issue of trying to demand that humanity back slide in to first wave civilization. This is partially because we're a competitive animal, and if we have the ability to vote with our wallets, then we'd need to back slide to make it work. This is the same reason a pure Democracy will never work. People are competitive and self interested, which means that such things will lead to people, specifically in large groups see these systems as ways to undermine others positions to better their own. That means that pure Socialist or Communist, or Democratic governments lead to the gathering of power/wealth/social standing through abuse of others. For that matter pure Capitalism also suffers from these issues, but only when those who run industry realize they can abuse the populace for their own gain.

This is why we've shifted towards representative Government, with regulated Capitalistic systems, and Socialistic welfare programs. The fusion helps lubricate class movement, allows people to state their grievances, and gives the populace some control over the larger more nebulous things. Things like industry and government specifically. We haven't perfected it yet. Governments still infringe on individual rights too much and the less fortunate tend to get buried by bureaucracy. Where industry still tries to cut corners, and sees the consuming masses as a well of money rather than as individuals with needs to fill. We haven't quite gotten to the point of balance anywhere. Either Governments or Industry have too much power leaving the individual under someone's thumb either way. Hopefully we'll eventually sort it out, but it'll probably require more ethical politicians and a matter replicator based economy.
 

Spyre2k

New member
Apr 9, 2013
52
0
0
I think this video covers quite nicely why capitalism is not Imperialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wy4Sigqd3A&
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Lightknight said:
If you honestly believe that socialist and communist economies don't have people mooching off the system then you're entirely missing the point of those economies that are built to assist the moochers.
You're confusing with capitalism, that's an economy that assists the 'moochers', the owners of the means of production mooch of the value created by the workers.
Wait, does this mean you agree with everything I said about the whole freezing to death numbers? Because it looks like you chopped that part off and instead replaced it with this quote of me from a previous post that you've already responded to for some reason.

Mooching means you take without contribution. Someone who owns a business and pays you an amount that you agree to take is not mooching off of your labor. The only way an employer could mooch off a laborer would be if the laborer was actually a slave. However, a layabout mooch can absolutely collect a paycheck in a communist country as part of the system.

That's not to say capitalism doesn't also have moochers. But that's far more relegated to the areas of our government in which we are more socialist than not as well as a failure to police who is abusing the system. Russians not working was a well known issue with Russia's failed attempt at communism. So you can try to turn it around, but the buck still ends with people getting paid whether or not they contribute anything.

And by the way, you do realize that in a communist setup that everyone but the most skilled laborers doing the most difficult jobs are mooching? A street cleaner is mooching off of the nuclear engineer, for example. All communism does is redistribute the excess to people who may or may not be deserving. At least people who run companies facilitate the environment where people may be employed. At least people who started a company took the risk at the start to do so and deserve the rewards of the undertaking they started that now employs so many individuals. But in communism, some asshole that sleeps on the job keeps getting a paycheck that includes money produced by the hard working individuals. It's a shame.

Lightknight said:
China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. I understand that the term communist is weakly attributed to these nations but we can have a semantics debate on this point if you'd like. I'll warn you that the popular definition is the one that wins out and right now those countries are defined as communist nations by the common majority.

In my mind, a communist nation is really just a socialist nation with marxist ideals. However, I understand that I did say communist economy. I'm just not sure how a distinction between the state and economy is all that viable when the state clearly informs the economy.
That's bullshit and you know it. Communism is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are common ownership, I don't give a fuck about what the majority thinks. (altought without class consciousness we can't get to communism :S )
Yep, communist state is an oxymoron. But no, what it means in your mind isn't relevant to how it's actually used. You and I know the common vernacular is bullshit, sure, and yet literally is currently being redefined to include the definition of "emphasis" or "hyperbole" rather than literally literal. So there we are.

Lightknight said:
Oh? You mean the country that everyone else tells to get involved in wars where human rights are being violated ranks low on the peaceful scale? I'm shocked, simply shocked [/sarcasm]. Maybe if the index measured local "peace" then I'd actually matter to this discussion. That we're at war in Afghanistan and Iran (even if the wars are technically earmarked as over) has done next to nothing regarding my own personal quality of life aside from the loss of a few friends which happened over there, not here.

I assume you didn't realize that it included external conflicts (aka war or military excursions) or thought that was somehow relevant to what it's like to live here. You'd need to provide a resource that includes only internal conflicts that actually impact the quality of life of those living here. This would be like claiming that the main government district from the Hunger Games had shitty lives because all those external conflicts scored a lower ratio on the GPI. That's just nonsense.
Yes I noticed, but so what? ANd everyone tells to get involved? Do you only watch Fox News? There are millions of people protesting every year against those wars. But fine, take a look at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate] or this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality]
How about I listen to the B.B.C and hear European callers call in and act all frustrated about why the US hasn't gotten involved in this or that. In several cases there is global support for US intervention as if we were the global police which seems to be a roll that we're actually filling for some odd reason.

However, there are certainly bullshit wars like Iraq where NO ONE was calling for us to do it and there is no foreseeable reason for it to happen and yet it did. But if you don't see external pressures on us to step into certain conflicts then you're just being blind to it.

Income equality doesn't show the relation of the average citizen in relation to other average citizens of other nations. It is only the inequality within that nation between the highest fee earners and the average fee earner. Yeah, we have Bill Gates and his like here but the average take home pay and purchasing power is generally much better than in other nations. It really doesn't mean shit if the upper class is making six figures and the average house is making $40k if the country that got a better score has the upper class making $2k and the average making $1.5k. Sure, the equality is better in the second country but what does that matter if they still can't make ends meet? There is no imperative to ensure wage equality. The man at the top is not inherently evil for being there as long as the people at the bottom are earning a fair wage and are able to enter and exit the job as desired.

In the US, we have the highest average disposable income and the 4th highest monthly salary in PPP (purchasing power parity) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage]. So pay equality be damned because the average American can purchase far more than inhabitants of the rest of the world despite us being the third most populated country. You can try to spin this in some negative way but at the end of the day we can afford our flat screens, we can go to the movies, and generally move up in the world. The truth is, owning a house is even cheaper than renting right now. One of my properties is $800/month to own which is a good $200-$600 cheaper than any apartment that would also have 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms with a yard, garage, and other amenities. I made enough for that house back when I was making $12/hour which is actually pretty low pay here. So I'm not seeing much of a complaint for people that have work. I'm seeing complaints from people that don't have jobs at all. It sucks that many of them decided that finishing highschool wasn't worth their time but I'd hardly consider that anyone's fault but theirs.

Our evil icons in movies aren't the wealthy. It's the asshole wealthy. The greedy people that have more than they could spend and yet still squeeze everything they can. We abhor that sort of person and praise the individual who take a cut commensurate to the value of their position or return on investment of starting the company without trying to squeeze every penny out of their workers. Just a little bit of generosity from them ends up absolving them in our eyes and we turn our gaze instead to the other ones that just can't be satiated.

As for the murder rate. This is where being such a large country sort of works against us. We have a few large cities that are absolutely tanking our numbers. New Orleans for example has a 52/100,000 murder rate. Countries with a lot of major cities seem to have a higher murder rate than countries with just one or two and we have a LOT of densely populated areas. So I'm not sure if other countries would fair any better with a similar distribution of population. Murders are notoriously under-reported in the only two countries with higher populations that we have and it's not like other countries all across the world don't also have a problem in their major cities [http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/30/new-york-crime-free-day-deadliest-cities-worldwide]. That's because large populations tend to pump out organized crime like gangs and something like 80% of gun related homicides in the US are actually gang related rather than just two random people on the street with the vast majority of homicide victims not being average citizens but instead having a criminal record. Even so, homicides in the US have declined by 49% since the 90's so we've fairly clearly put policies in place that are working now that our homicide rate is at the lowest it's been in four decades.

I'm also not sure how big of a difference every 1/100,000 is. People use terms like "double" and such but if 5/100,000 is low then double may not be all that meaningful. Seeing as the US still falls in the medium/low side of the link you sent me I'm not sure it's that big of a deal. Statistically significant? Sure. It is statistically higher than other first world countries. But we also directly border a country that is in the high homicide area and a lot of our highest crime-rated states hug the body of water we border with those countries.

But I digress. Let's treat homicide like a method of dying. Like a disease that is unique to a country. You could point to countries that suffer from malaria in much the same way without actually making a point about the overall safety of that country. The way to really deal with that is to look at the mortality rate by country and that's going to look very bad on your point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_mortality_rate

As of 2013, the US has a mortality rate of 8.39. As it turns out, that's lower than the other countries we've been touting. Germany is 11.7, Belgium is 10.7, Finland is 10.42, Sweden is 10.22, the UK is 9.33, Norway is 9.21, France is 8.96, and Switzerland is right along with us at 8.08.

Basically, the only thing new I've learned from all of this research is that Australia is pretty damn good in most charts. Is there some other nation you're trying to portray as hot stuff?
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Olrod said:
How exactly does this lecture talk about if capitalism is bad for you?

It seemed like nothing more than a crash course in Calvinism.
And yet, they got Calvinism entirely wrong. One of the most central components of Calvinism if not THE central component is that you have absolutely no merit in your salvation. They're (calvinists) very clear on that point. So this is a crash course on nothing.
 

SNCommand

New member
Aug 29, 2011
283
0
0
Strazdas said:
SNCommand said:
you're not capitalist if you advocate nationalization of private property,

Venezuela running the oil industry in their country makes them non capitalists in my eye
by that definition there is no, and never been, a capitalist country in the world. Maybe Anarchistic Somalia....
About as much as there's no communist country in the world

Problem is there are no absolutes, you got very few instances of everything being privately owned or owned by the public, instead one has to decide how far up or down the scale a system has to go before it goes from being capitalistic to socialistic, most common border would probably be when the majority of the means of production is either private or public, majority private being capitalistic and majority public being socialistic
 

8-Bit Philosophy

New member
Feb 9, 2015
88
0
0
Lightknight said:
yada yada yada
The escapist has some dumb rules, but as far as i know, i'm not forced to quote what you want, I'm still free to choose.

Collecting paycheck in communist society? You still don't know what communism is how can you discuss it?


You do agree that there are no jobs for everyone right? And what do you think the tendency is with the arrival of automatization? And despite that, everyone has needs and capitalism fails to satisfy those.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
That's bullshit and you know it. Communism is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are common ownership, I don't give a fuck about what the majority thinks. (altought without class consciousness we can't get to communism :S )
In assumption you're correct, but since humans are a status conscious species. Once you eliminate classes, people will just make up new ones to make others feel inferior. It's our competitive nature that actually makes what we do work generally. Capitalism is basically the state we understand. Socialism which is the closest thing to Communism we've ever made on a national scale. Socialism generally devolves in to the elites of society, specifically those loyal to party in power, being the ones who control everything. China, North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, and many others are all good examples of this. But it's basically the same autocratic nature that ruled most of human history, but in the past the catalyst was the Church, and still is in some shira law based nations. The catalyst can also be money to buy your social power, or being a convincing speaker to win it.
Marx didn't even differentiate between socialism and communism, some say socialism is the lower state of communism. But one thing is for sure, Nazi's, North Korea, Cuba etc has nothing to do with socialism.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Lightknight said:
yada yada yada
The escapist has some dumb rules, but as far as i know, i'm not forced to quote what you want, I'm still free to choose.
I was merely pointing out that you were objectively wrong and not only failed to acknowledge it but replaced it with a quote from another post. Just seemed kind of cheap to me in a debate if we're actually trying to obtain knowledge. But seeing as you identify with the ol' Bolshevik then I'm not entirely sure we are both in this to obtain such enlightenment.

Collecting paycheck in communist society? You still don't know what communism is how can you discuss it?
A provision or barter system is not intrinsically different than a system of currency. It's merely that currency is representative of a vague standard unit of trade. Would you have preferred I said that they collect the things that they need in a way that would be ambiguous to most readers?

You do agree that there are no jobs for everyone right? And what do you think the tendency is with the arrival of automatization? And despite that, everyone has needs and capitalism fails to satisfy those.
Oh? And communism does satisfy those needs? Capitalism provides a huge variety of goods and services for the poorest amongst us. There's a reason why even our homeless survive harsh winters and starvation when nations pretending at communism fail.

What kind of golden standard are you even able to hold up here? Where's your success story? You've been blatantly wrong or entirely off base in nearly every point you've brought up against the quality of life in America and yet you've given me no standard of your own to dissect.

Full Metal Bolshevik said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
That's bullshit and you know it. Communism is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are common ownership, I don't give a fuck about what the majority thinks. (altought without class consciousness we can't get to communism :S )
In assumption you're correct, but since humans are a status conscious species. Once you eliminate classes, people will just make up new ones to make others feel inferior. It's our competitive nature that actually makes what we do work generally. Capitalism is basically the state we understand. Socialism which is the closest thing to Communism we've ever made on a national scale. Socialism generally devolves in to the elites of society, specifically those loyal to party in power, being the ones who control everything. China, North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, and many others are all good examples of this. But it's basically the same autocratic nature that ruled most of human history, but in the past the catalyst was the Church, and still is in some shira law based nations. The catalyst can also be money to buy your social power, or being a convincing speaker to win it.
Marx didn't even differentiate between socialism and communism, some say socialism is the lower state of communism. But one thing is for sure, Nazi's, North Korea, Cuba etc has nothing to do with socialism.
Sure they do. They're just really two faced about it and the people at the top are taking way too much advantage of the system to the point where the welfare being offered sucks a big one. It's incredibly poorly achieved socialism.

I'm actually not entirely sure that Nazi Germany's government and economic policy can be thrown out on its own merit. Hitler won Time's person of the year for a reason before the war broke in full. They did a really good job on that before they went all world-conquering genocide on everyone. In fact, had they not gone the genocide route I'm not sure they'd even be thought of as a villain so much as a world changer.
 

Olrod

New member
Feb 11, 2010
861
0
0
Lightknight said:
Olrod said:
How exactly does this lecture talk about if capitalism is bad for you?

It seemed like nothing more than a crash course in Calvinism.
And yet, they got Calvinism entirely wrong. One of the most central components of Calvinism if not THE central component is that you have absolutely no merit in your salvation. They're (calvinists) very clear on that point. So this is a crash course on nothing.
I would have given this video a D-, but with that tidbit of information, this video gets an F.

Not even 8-bit graphics can redeem something that is not only boring, but wrong too.
 

8-Bit Philosophy

New member
Feb 9, 2015
88
0
0
Lightknight said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Lightknight said:
yada yada yada
The escapist has some dumb rules, but as far as i know, i'm not forced to quote what you want, I'm still free to choose.
I was merely pointing out that you were objectively wrong and not only failed to acknowledge it but replaced it with a quote from another post. Just seemed kind of cheap to me in a debate if we're actually trying to obtain knowledge. But seeing as you identify with the ol' Bolshevik then I'm not entirely sure we are both in this to obtain such enlightenment.
I wasn't wrong, I simply stated that wasn't true for the 700 who die every year. The conversation about comparison between countries was with another user, I just stated that fact.

No point arguing about the rest since you are still calling horses to donkeys.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Lightknight said:
we can have a semantics debate on this point if you'd like. I'll warn you that the popular definition is the one that wins out and right now those countries are defined as communist nations by the common majority.
Communism was defined by Karl Marx is his works. That is the definition of Communism. What the popular opinion (USSR being communist, hahahaha) or dictionaries say is completely irrelevant as Marx's definition is the correct one and it does not matter how many people repeat incorrect one it does not make it true, just like a colledge professor calling Desktop a "Hard drive" does not make it so.

yet literally is currently being redefined to include the definition of "emphasis" or "hyperbole" rather than literally literal. So there we are.
There is also an incorrect definition of miracle, but thats the problem with dictionary makers more than anything.

SNCommand said:
About as much as there's no communist country in the world

Problem is there are no absolutes, you got very few instances of everything being privately owned or owned by the public, instead one has to decide how far up or down the scale a system has to go before it goes from being capitalistic to socialistic, most common border would probably be when the majority of the means of production is either private or public, majority private being capitalistic and majority public being socialistic
You know, i agree. there is a mix of ideologies in almost every case. however its important to see which one is dominant in the market, and capitalism is currently dominant in any country. some of that capitalism is market capitalism, some of it is planned economy capitalism, but if you want a socialism/communism infusion you should search for Sweden, not North Korea. North korea is simply authoritorian capitalism and despotism.

Being nationalized (owned by the government) is not the same thing as belonging to the public, because that would imply public has absolute control of the government, and as is the case especially in those nations this is false.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Strazdas said:
Lightknight said:
we can have a semantics debate on this point if you'd like. I'll warn you that the popular definition is the one that wins out and right now those countries are defined as communist nations by the common majority.
Communism was defined by Karl Marx is his works. That is the definition of Communism. What the popular opinion (USSR being communist, hahahaha) or dictionaries say is completely irrelevant as Marx's definition is the correct one and it does not matter how many people repeat incorrect one it does not make it true, just like a colledge professor calling Desktop a "Hard drive" does not make it so.
That's not true. Linguistic drift happens all the time. For example, agnosticism was created as a point of indecision between atheism and theism in which John Huxley proclaimed that he doesn't know which is right so he needs not change. Yet this term has been assigned to things like Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Theism in direct contrast to the intention of the term.

yet literally is currently being redefined to include the definition of "emphasis" or "hyperbole" rather than literally literal. So there we are.
There is also an incorrect definition of miracle, but thats the problem with dictionary makers more than anything.
You have absolutely no say in what is the correct or incorrect definition of anything. I don't either. It's a social construct and as such is entirely vulnerable to the fancies and fluxuations of society. For better or worse, that is true regardless of yours or my opinions of what a word should be.

As for the definition of "miracle"? I assume you meant literal but I just wanted to bring up the fact that a herd of Unicorns is called a miracle. :p
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Lightknight said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Lightknight said:
yada yada yada
The escapist has some dumb rules, but as far as i know, i'm not forced to quote what you want, I'm still free to choose.
I was merely pointing out that you were objectively wrong and not only failed to acknowledge it but replaced it with a quote from another post. Just seemed kind of cheap to me in a debate if we're actually trying to obtain knowledge. But seeing as you identify with the ol' Bolshevik then I'm not entirely sure we are both in this to obtain such enlightenment.
I wasn't wrong, I simply stated that wasn't true for the 700 who die every year. The conversation about comparison between countries was with another user, I just stated that fact.
You cited the fact as though it meant something. I pointed out that this is far fewer deaths to cold than people who actually owned homes in other first world countries. It is a factually meaningful point to make. You said it like you were making a point and yet the point was shown to be incorrect by the mildest of delving into the facts of it. More than half a million homeless and only 700 die? That's astounding actually. Especially when 10,000 home owners in the UK still die and 31,000 total for some crazy reason.

Do you acknowledge that in the light of these facts that your point is actually a praise of the American quality of living? That even our homeless have better protection against the cold?

No point arguing about the rest since you are still calling horses to donkeys.
Then why don't you show me a country that is your golden standard of the clearly superior communist society? If it's so superior then I'm certain you'll have some fantastic examples for me. Ones that are long lasting with high quality of life that definitely haven't fallen prey to fundamental human flaws that make such a society nonviable.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Lightknight said:
That's not true. Linguistic drift happens all the time. For example, agnosticism was created as a point of indecision between atheism and theism in which John Huxley proclaimed that he doesn't know which is right so he needs not change. Yet this term has been assigned to things like Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Theism in direct contrast to the intention of the term.

You have absolutely no say in what is the correct or incorrect definition of anything. I don't either. It's a social construct and as such is entirely vulnerable to the fancies and fluxuations of society. For better or worse, that is true regardless of yours or my opinions of what a word should be.

As for the definition of "miracle"? I assume you meant literal but I just wanted to bring up the fact that a herd of Unicorns is called a miracle. :p
Linguist drift sadly happens due to not enough effort being put in correcting people who use words incorrectly.

As far as your example of Agnosticism, its a state of not knowing. This does not mean there can be no adgostic atheism or agnositc theism. you can Not know but thing there is no god or not know but think there is one. the two are not mutually exclusive.

So then definitions are meaningless because everyone can just make up whatever they want. no wonder insulting people is now considered "Feminism".
 

wfpdk

New member
May 8, 2008
397
0
0
wisecrack now on the escapist... run, dude. i like this show and i like this site, but the escapist is a web show meat grinder. although the comments are better here than on youtube, it's still not worth it.
 

android927

New member
Apr 5, 2010
8
0
0
Strazdas said:
Communism was defined by Karl Marx is his works. That is the definition of Communism. What the popular opinion (USSR being communist, hahahaha) or dictionaries say is completely irrelevant as Marx's definition is the correct one and it does not matter how many people repeat incorrect one it does not make it true, just like a colledge professor calling Desktop a "Hard drive" does not make it so.
Not necessarily. Although Marx popularized the term, the concept has been around for thousands of years. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Early_communism
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
android927 said:
Strazdas said:
Communism was defined by Karl Marx is his works. That is the definition of Communism. What the popular opinion (USSR being communist, hahahaha) or dictionaries say is completely irrelevant as Marx's definition is the correct one and it does not matter how many people repeat incorrect one it does not make it true, just like a colledge professor calling Desktop a "Hard drive" does not make it so.
Not necessarily. Although Marx popularized the term, the concept has been around for thousands of years. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Early_communism
we were talking about definition and what it defines and not the concept itself though. Yes, the concept been around for a long time just like many other concepts existed before we defined them. Not sure where you see a disagreement here.