-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Capitalism is a SCAM that's making us poor (Non-Compete)
- Thread starter lashman
- Start date
capitalism is dogshit but i'm not surprised a forum that whines so much about people developing technology that could potentially be used to rob gigantic companies of a few game sales is bending over backwards to defend it
Calling feudalism centralized because power is in the hands of the Nobility only makes sense if you acknowledge that Capitalism is centralized because power is in the hands of the Bourgeoisie.
There's not really such a thing as wrong words, and even if there was why do you as a German think you'd know the word used in the Anglo academy?
Uh sure. Besides the fact that real history classes don't really engage with Feudalism proper other than to deconstruct the ideal type concept no one would use feudal in the way you did. Equating it with centralized states but differentiating it from rule by class under Capitalism. If feudalism could be said to be centralized, it'd be through its ruling class, which is the exact same thing that happened under Capitalism other than that Capitalism has also produced rather centralized states in much of the world.
This isn't an apology at all. And "such a basic error?" What fucking nonsense. Again, you've done all this with dancing around the actual matter-of-fact claims I've made throughout the thread. You're being such a weasel.
I've asked you for specific recommendations twice. You can't tell someone to read more and then not have specific material. Frankly this seems to be fairly obviously you trying to weasel out of saying something concrete that I could take issue with. I mean you couldn't even just say Brenner or Wallerstein or something.
It was a low effort call out and it bit you in the ass. The mature thing to do would be to take your licks and back off on the subject, not to dig a deeper but still vaguer hole.
Also yet another not apology.
No you aren't apologizing, you're still casting doubt while dodging actually saying anything in particular. And again, it wasn't really a mistake. Historians don't normally walk around and tell each other word usage they disagree with disqualify them as historians. They also don't act like certain words are correct in the abstract. Those are both totally absurd positions.
I love how you're complaining about my reading comprehension, but then you didn't pick up on that being in response to someone else.
Some real hypocrisy on display here.
It's like people here fundamentally cannot believe that they could ever be wrong about anything.
Honestly it would be better if these type of capitalism vs socialism threads weren't allowed here or were heavily moderated. At the very least it would be more productive if it was a certain aspect of capitalism vs socialism that was being debated. Otherwise nothing good ever comes of them and they quickly devolve into shouting matches
Basically all economies in the world are mixed.
That's why to call it capitalistic is reductionist.
I also mentioned mixed economy as the best economic system, and it still leans more towards capitalism than communism.
Sorry but this is a horrible suggestion.
If communication is a problem, shutting it down completely helps how?
Also, shutting down criticism benefits status quo.
Finally... You're free to not enter a thread or discuss things on your own terms via pm...
It's almost like a hobby whose first thirty years were defined by brand loyalty above all creates a negative atmosphere to discuss larger social issues 🤔
I'm not asking to shut down communication or criticism. I'm saying that better moderation or framing would really help the discussion and wondering if others feel the same way.
Last edited:
I like you but as a historian you spend a great deal of time making affirmative points on flexible points of history. And I think you do yourself a disservice by looking at it through a mostly Marxist lens.
I don't think we can really expect too much from these threads, the community is ill equipped to really discuss this using anything other than laymen knowledge (which has been influenced for decades by mass media to be appreciative of capitalism). The first step is convincing people that capitalism might not be as good as they were raised to think.
Last edited:
Eh I'm a small m marxist, but so is every historian. On questions of political economy I trend closer to the Scots and Weber than Marx. Certainly I'd place myself only slightly left of average for the field, and radical as opposed to dogmatic epistemologically.
Generally I'm against Marxist with a capital M approaches to history because they are Wiggish. Certainly nothing I said there was egregiously Marxist, if anything that poster's assertion about Feudalism, a word that is actually a massive problem for any Marxist approach to history and one of my biggest critiques of it, is the Marxist bit.
Also what you're calling the flexible points of history is what history is really concerned with as a discipline. It's not positivist, and thank goodness for that. That said, there are good well thought out approaches which even if I disagree with are reasonable, that's the standard I'm looking for. (Or at least up to the historiography of the last half century)
I do think for some people not posting seeing well thought out and substantive critiques of Capitalism and Liberalism can be eye opening about alternatives existing.
Though I definitely have wasted too much time the last few weeks here. I'll admit to getting baited in this thread.
This forum is already overmoderated. What in particular do you want the mods to be doing? The best thing they could do is pin a few common responses to meme arguments to get those out of the way, but I don't think they'd do that.
Last edited:
Threads of the genre "socialism vs capitalism" would've been unthinkable with this community 5 years ago so I consider it a positive rather than a negative trend even if these threads get heated really fast and rapidly devolve into screaming. The aggregate trends are encouraging.
Your participation is valuable and appreciated Cocaloch.
Your participation is valuable and appreciated Cocaloch.
I don't see how it's any more reductionist than calling capitalism bad and using specific economies as an example. Would you prefer I call it "cuddly capitalism?"
The bottom line is citizens of countries using the Nordic model are the happiest in the world, with the lowest levels of inequality, so that should be what other countries attempt to replicate.
The cut-throat, de-regulated capitalism that the US practices is indeed bad. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
Goddamn this.
There's this dude I work with who's a staunch "Seize The Means" socialist but recently got an Audi and is willing to spend 15k on a pair of hi-fi speakers. Some head-spinning hypocrisy right there.
It's not hypocrisy to live in a system that you critique, but to play with the rules you're given. I mean what else are you supposed to do? Be a hermit? That doesn't help anything.
And obviously most people that hold pretty much any position haven't thought about it critically, but that doesn't say anything about the position.
Power in Feudalism was centralized to those that held fiefs. Yes, it was a process of decentralization (hence why I take issue with your use of "non-centralized" to describe feudalism). You don't need to acknowledge anything about capitalism for this to be true. So I disagree with your premise.
Ok, things are clearer for me.
My apology was sincere. My moment of shock at when I saw non-centralized associated with feudalism got the better of me. It's not my intention to dance around. Is your main claim the one above about feudalism?
I said you should read extant literature before you said you were a history student. I really thought that based on what you were writing you were confused about basic concepts. Why would I make suggestions to someone who has a library + journals + other resources at their fingertips? This is your entire life.
I don't know what you mean by biting me in the ass? Back off from what?
I understand now. A misunderstanding on my part.
You're so right.
Two extremes. I'd rather have a mixed economy (it's regarded as capitalistic) than straight up communism.
Wanton consumerism is better than the alternative of investing in capital then sitting on it for however many decades instead of letting the money move through the system.
If you think socialists should just kill themselves or live off the grid forever rather than participate in the market your stance is inherently conservative. No society moves if its movers must give up their social power to meet nonsense metrics of ideological purity.
If you think socialists should just kill themselves or live off the grid forever rather than participate in the market your stance is inherently conservative. No society moves if its movers must give up their social power to meet nonsense metrics of ideological purity.
Meh. Video games would also probably be easier and cheaper to produce with a wider set of open-source tools and other such resources. Most of the interesting stuff being done is in the lower-budget spaces anyway.
There is some level of hypocrisy required. Living in a capitalist society doesn't mandate you buy lavish things. There's no rule saying I have to buy a $50k Audi instead of a used Honda Civic.
People who continually tout the harms of eating meat don't continue to eat meat. They become vegetarians.
Seriously. You have to live within the system you have. Being a capitalist while preaching socialism does not make you a hypocrite, it just means you are surviving. It's like that comic
This is an educational thread, lol.
When everyone condenses centuries of economics and politics on a nation level to a single word (communism/capitalism), hence taking out any and all nuance from the discussion, it's no surprise that people end up blindly circlejerking to own the [other side].
When everyone condenses centuries of economics and politics on a nation level to a single word (communism/capitalism), hence taking out any and all nuance from the discussion, it's no surprise that people end up blindly circlejerking to own the [other side].
Capitalism is fine if it's well-regulated and managed so everybody gets a chance, there's a safety net to mobilize you, education and healthcare are guaranteed, and those at the top don't hoard it all for themselves. American capitalism is a bad example of this, obviously. Our middle class is almost gone.
But it's still the only system so far that's more or less worked when it comes to raising the average quality of life for citizens.
You're comfortably posting on a forum online (a forum about VIDEO GAMES lol) because of it, maybe during an easy 9-5 job for a firm that can afford to let you do so, instead of working out in the fields or in a sweatshop at gunpoint in exchange for a daily ration of shitty food.
But it's still the only system so far that's more or less worked when it comes to raising the average quality of life for citizens.
You're comfortably posting on a forum online (a forum about VIDEO GAMES lol) because of it, maybe during an easy 9-5 job for a firm that can afford to let you do so, instead of working out in the fields or in a sweatshop at gunpoint in exchange for a daily ration of shitty food.
I disagree with Cocaloach on a lot, but the guy he's arguing with is literally describing the Marxist version of economic history.
Last edited:
Bingo.
We criticize foreign countries for their intense propaganda to shut down opposing ideologies when the exact same thing has happened here, just less obviously. Look at all the people in here completely unwilling to even entertain the concept of letting go of capitalism, because their whole lives they've been told it's the best system and that nothing else will ever come close. The indoctrination is powerful.
This thread was alright in the beginning now it's just crappy hot takes saying 'it's better than communism, you commie! USA #1'.
Saying healthcare shouldn't be for profit shouldn't be controversial.
Saying utilities like water, electricity, gas shouldn't be privatized shouldn't be controversial.
Saying selling water sources to companies that bottle water shouldn't be controversial.
Deadass, when did you rationalize this current form of capitalism was doing more than favoring those already better off than the majority?
Saying healthcare shouldn't be for profit shouldn't be controversial.
Saying utilities like water, electricity, gas shouldn't be privatized shouldn't be controversial.
Saying selling water sources to companies that bottle water shouldn't be controversial.
Deadass, when did you rationalize this current form of capitalism was doing more than favoring those already better off than the majority?
Cool! Tell that to people who are food insecure right this second. There are over a billion of them.
Since we're in the commie hot take phase let's bring up the old "human nature" rebuttal to communism.
Bear with me for a moment, if communism can't work because "human nature", how does "capitalism" work when it specifically empowers people proportional to their greed?
Checkmate, capitalists.
(This post was rhetorical.)
Bear with me for a moment, if communism can't work because "human nature", how does "capitalism" work when it specifically empowers people proportional to their greed?
Checkmate, capitalists.
(This post was rhetorical.)
I don't know if I'd call it Whiggish, but the point is they're both teleological approaches. Historicisms, maybe?
Edit: Going by Popper's definition of historicism.
Last edited:
Considering the main fan content gamers produce at this point is guys screaming about loot boxes and microotransactions on YouTube, I'm more shocked that gamers are still broadly reactionary
I would be very happy with fewer games created under much better working condtions.
There are plenty of pro-capitalists who do not agree with whatever the US is doing. Many non-US capitalist countries are doing just fine.
The US is very busted, but that has little to do with capitalism.
I disagree with you. Many members (e.g. Cocaloch) appear to be well versed on the subject. I actually think most members on this forum have taken the first step and started to seriously examine the pros and cons of our current political & socio-economic systems.
Personally, one eye opening book for me was Titan by Ron Chernow. After oil was discovered in 1859 and Standard became the first true national corporation (doing so deceptively since operating across state lines was a no-no) the power balance between the electorate and corporate interests was permanently and irrevocably upended. It wasn't even a contest. Politicians were bought with literal suitcases full of money.
I'm not saying corruption didn't exist before this but the size of Standard was unprecedented, controlling virtually all oil in the world at one point. John D represented 10% of GDP. Hyper scale. Political influence became an essential business process. Rails. Banks. Military. Politicians--the entire political system--became impotent. The legal system is still playing catch up to 1859 and the rise of trusts and corporations a few decades later. It will never catch up.
You sound exactly like the "wake up sheeple!" conspiracy theorists. Maybe some people just think that capitalism has some strengths and weaknesses, and that it doesn't have to be just one system or the other.
We have universal healthcare and nationalized utilities here and we're still in capitalist system. You don't have to go either "full capitalist" or "full communism". As far I can see, no one in this thread has preached for full capitalism.
Why does everything has to be so black and white?
Well, full capitalism would be anarcho-capitalist and most people are smart enough realise that giving companies full control over absolutely everything is a terrible idea.
Don't think scam is the right world when it has risen the standard of living globally and has promoted technological advancement and innovation. It definitely has its faults and shouldn't be left to run rampant, but I haven't seen a better system implemented yet.
Because capitalism totally wins the in the market place of ideas amiright? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 The real question is when has it not been running rampant? Sweden and Norway having good public services is not a valid counterpoint to reality that giving markets influence over states brings on endless cycles of boom and bust which fuel the long term extractive processes of capitalism.
Market democracy is the most successful ponzi scheme in history
Last edited:
If there's a system that's sooooo much better that's so much more feasible and would magically give so many people a better quality of life why doesn't someone else try it? The US couldn't stop Russia and China from trying their version of communism.
If someone else some genius idea that will work in actual practice and not just in a utopian idealized fantasy and scale up to meet the needs of hundreds of millions of people, without being co-opted and corrupted by what eventually becomes the same thing as a "ruling class" hey go try it.
Capitalism has many different versions that work to some reasonable degree, not just the US. Japan, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, UK, Germany all have capitalist systems that are different from the US. The US is in the minority in several things, that most other capitalist countries do have universal healthcare for example.
If a system needs everything to go just perfect for it to function even temporarily then it's not a feasible system.
If someone else some genius idea that will work in actual practice and not just in a utopian idealized fantasy and scale up to meet the needs of hundreds of millions of people, without being co-opted and corrupted by what eventually becomes the same thing as a "ruling class" hey go try it.
Capitalism has many different versions that work to some reasonable degree, not just the US. Japan, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, UK, Germany all have capitalist systems that are different from the US. The US is in the minority in several things, that most other capitalist countries do have universal healthcare for example.
If a system needs everything to go just perfect for it to function even temporarily then it's not a feasible system.
Last edited:
Comparing the rate of growth of individual income in Communist Eastern Europe versus Post-Communist Europe says otherwise, most are far better off than they were with access to far much more. Selecting the developing world or least developed countries obviously shows some of the severe faults of capitalism in a global economy. Capitalism as it is being practiced today (more so in the U.S. than others) is problematic, but the system in general weighed against other viable options is the least.
Yep. I don't know how many times this thread has popped up over the years and I've yet to see someone explain how this wonderful new system is supposed to work until we're in that post-scarcity utopia where everyone spends all day painting, writing poesy and creating video games out of love. "Use your imagination" doesn't count.
There are a few posters here who can legit talk about this from a position of authority but it's unfair to expect them to be the Socrates for every one of these threads. As it is, I think these threads should continue to be an opportunity for learning for people who don't have their fingers in their ears, but expecting a moderator to come in and lay down ground rules and turn it into a formal lecture is less than reasonable. People are here as a hobby, not to hold senior level poli-sci classes.
May I introduce you to democracy?
Ah here we go again with Chinese communism. I wish I could place a moratorium on this claim from anyone who has not actually lived or worked in China. China is state capitalist. The country is no more socialist than Sweden is but with much less human rights.
So our current corporatocracy/technoligarchy you mean?
All work very well to varying degrees and all are succumbing to waves of white nationalism (or in the specific case of Japan, Japanese nationalism). Except Norway I think.
It's ironic you bring up scale but don't consider that the Nordic model might not work at the scale of the US either by population, economy, or land area. Thinking everyone can just become Nordic overnight even though it's proven to work, while criticizing socialism/communism with the statement "why doesn't someone else just try it", shows me you're not really arguing in good faith. These things take time.
The first step to systemic change is convincing people change is possible, because we need their votes, and the US isn't even over that hurdle yet.
Last edited:
This might be the most ignorant post i've seen in a long time.
Maybe nobody wants to explains it to you, because you are arguing in bad faith from the beginning?
Last edited:
