https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qkGrMbKCM
Varoufakis review of political economics.
In short ...
1. people fight over power, humanity is inherently political
2. power is the ability to control work, this varies from centralized to individualism, controlling your own work or that of others
3, work is necessary to eat (there is no free lunch) or to obtain any other resources
4. society can only tolerate a certain percentage of unproductive people (if you want to eat, you must work, or attach yourself to someone who does)
I'm unconvinced that capitalism is all that bad, just that unregulated capitalism is bad, and not necessarily an utopic system. I see capitalism as something that enables meritocracy.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 11, 2019, 10:01:57 AM
I'm unconvinced that capitalism is all that bad, just that unregulated capitalism is bad, and not necessarily an utopic system. I see capitalism as something that enables meritocracy.
One of the primary targets of socialism, is against meritocracy.
Unregulated capitalism is basically the market version of Machiavelli ... which isn't a bad comparison, since the Medici of Florence bare comparison to current capitalist moguls. Other than patronizing great art, the Medici were quite the bad boys in the market. Not so successful in building a republic.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 11, 2019, 10:01:57 AM
I'm unconvinced that capitalism is all that bad, just that unregulated capitalism is bad, and not necessarily an utopic system. I see capitalism as something that enables meritocracy.
But meritocracy needs a certain amount of social protection/insurance to be 'fair'. Imo.
Does having more or certain merits make you a better person? Entitled to more compensation? Do certain connections you are born into and people you are born from?
Because even in méritocratie societies by heart, how do you cut those things out?
And at the extreme but unfortunately far to frequent level: what if you are born with a severe handicap, a very low iq, a crippling disease?
That's why I am socialist by principle.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 17, 2019, 05:54:45 AM
But meritocracy needs a certain amount of social protection/insurance to be 'fair'. Imo.
Does having more or certain merits make you a better person? Entitled to more compensation? Do certain connections you are born into and people you are born from?
Because even in méritocratie societies by heart, how do you cut those things out?
And at the extreme but unfortunately far to frequent level: what if you are born with a severe handicap, a very low iq, a crippling disease?
That's why I am socialist by principle.
Yes, meritocracy does lean capitalist, if not aristocratic. Different societies have different arbitrary standards of merit. Usually we point out how athlete salaries are too high and teacher salaries are too low.
In any primitive society, if you are sufficiently dysfunctional, you are left behind to the wolves (hunter/gatherer society). But we know from archeology that slightly more advanced settled society provided for the dysfunctional (but not criminal) thru family/clan support. It was a matriarchy or patriarchy, that noblees oblige goes with the territory. That is distinct from children. Now that we have transcended family and clan, the kingdom or state takes on the partial responsibility for dealing with the indigent. This is on top of, that as a species, we take a crap load of time to reach adulthood, so that 1/3 of our population is non-productive. As said over here now, women and children are the engine of socialism, in that as the husband and father is destroyed by state policy, more and more of what a husband/father does, is taken over by government assistance.
I would ask, why destroy the nuclear family? Why not support and promote it? Demogoguery.
Quote from: Baruch on April 11, 2019, 07:23:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qkGrMbKCM
In short ...
1. people fight over power, humanity is inherently political
2. power is the ability to control work, this varies from centralized to individualism, controlling your own work or that of others
3, work is necessary to eat (there is no free lunch) or to obtain any other resources
4. society can only tolerate a certain percentage of unproductive people (if you want to eat, you must work, or attach yourself to someone who does)
#4 is where the argument falls apart. Its always the "therefore" and THEN the unstated "then"...
In robot Marx utopia, there is only one worker, George Jetson, and all he has to do is push the red button at start of shift, after that the automation is ... automatic.
All the rest of us are wards of a corporation, Spacely Sprockets. Enjoy your food pill.
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 10:58:54 AM
In robot Marx utopia, there is only one worker, George Jetson, and all he has to do is push the red button at start of shift, after that the automation is ... automatic.
All the rest of us are wards of a corporation, Spacely Sprockets. Enjoy your food pill.
There are, of course, all the underpaid robots who programmed his button rewarded with electo-jerts. And probably some humans who oil the robots for rice money...
I seriously doubt that robots will ever fully replace humans. We will always find something to do in advance of them. It's not like they can program themselves. Oh, wait. Hey, get away from me...
When robots take over the world, their God will be mechanized.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 18, 2019, 02:00:15 PM
When robots take over the world, their God will be mechanized.
'Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep'...
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 18, 2019, 02:00:15 PM
When robots take over the world, their God will be mechanized.
Optimus Prime lives!
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 02:47:13 PM
Optimus Prime lives!
Drink this motoroil, for it is my blood.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 19, 2019, 04:57:38 AM
Drink this motoroil, for it is my blood.
Herman Munster fainted at the sight of motor oil ... must have been French ;-)