• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Pedrito

Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,369
Exactly! its why the "but communism doesn't work" arguments are so mind numbing, it assumes the criticism of our implementation of capitalism means we should go full communism when very few people are suggesting that.

As mind numbing as the comic that has been posted again and again.

Again, the problem in these threads is that everyone is arguing with different definitions in mind. I'll personally defend (regulated) capitalism if someone is suggesting "seizing the means of production" or adopting communism. On the other, I fully agree with having universal healthcare, social security and even free education. I don't consider those things "socialism", just social programs in an otherwise capitalist society.

I bet that 95% of the posters ITT mostly agree, except on the definiations, so you end up with half the posts being hot takes like "better than communism" and "look at all those corporate bootlickers".
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,428
As mind numbing as the comic that has been posted again and again.

Again, the problem in these threads is that everyone is arguing with different definitions in mind. I'll personally defend (regulated) capitalism if someone is suggesting "seizing the means of production" or adopting communism. On the other, I fully agree with having universal healthcare, social security and even free education. I don't consider those things "socialism", just social programs in an otherwise capitalist society.

I bet that 95% of the posters ITT mostly agree, except on the definiations, so you end up with half the posts being hot takes like "better than communism" and "look at all those corporate bootlickers".

The video is advocating for actual socialism though (seizing the means of production, nationalizing industries etc.). People flashing "social democracy" at the people defending the capitalistic system are basically derailing the thread.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Collective ownership is good because workers deserve the bulk of the profits produced from their labor, and the people who run a firm should be the ones aware of the day to day operation of it.
 

Sqrt

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,880
The video is advocating for actual socialism though (seizing the means of production, nationalizing industries etc.). People flashing "social democracy" at the people defending the capitalistic system are basically derailing the thread.
The video isn't advocating for socialism. The channel is actually anarchist, which is worse BTW.
 

Deleted member 15440

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,191
Harshly regulated capitalism can work but certain parts of society have to be completely separated from market influence.

Public policy, Environment, Health and Safety have to be in the hands of people ans government and capitalists need to step the fuck back

Im pessimistic that we can ever fully box market forces where they belong and separate them from humanitarian interests

Rough times ahrad for the world are in store if we continue to put markets ahead of human interests
harshly regulated capitalism still depends on perpetual growth in the midst of an ecological collapse and exploitation of the third world. it's inherent to the system, you're not going to legislate that stuff away.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
The ranking of most-hierarchal to least-hierarchal is socialism -> communism -> anarchism (it's debatable whether communism in its purest idealized form is distinguishable from anarchism). They are not synonyms, but the same evolutionary line of political thought. See Sphagnum's post below.

Frankly as someone who's probably now full on seize the means socialist, I am not inherently against anything that moves towards social democracy. I just think that should be a short term goal rather than a long term one. Sweden, Norway et al might not be grossly capitalistic like the US and China but they benefit from being part of the global economy where the US and China exist. That's one of the criticisms of social democracy, that while they may take care of their own (and this is good) they are still benefiting from exploitation of developing countries and their environs (which is bad). It remains to be seen whether the Scandinavian countries would fair so well if everyone was as well regulated as they were.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
I think most people reefer to socialism as state socialism.

Yeah, Anarchism not being socialism isn't a hill I intend to die on, but historically with the use of the latter being state socialism they're often opposed to each others' goals. One of the main reasons they do get lumped in together is a shared goal of eliminating Nazi ideology
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I always viewed socialism as state socialism, I'm unfamiliar with the model where communism and anarchism and state socialism are all within the taxon of socialism but I trust sphagnum's stance on this matter.
 

hibikase

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,820
Capitalism isn't a scam.

The real problem is publicly traded corporations.
 

Hycran

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
1,494
Speak for yourself. Capitalism has taken my family from poor fishermen to the top 10% in two generations.

Like every system, the only real problem with it is that humans are operating it. Crony capitalism, corruption, greed, and not giving a shit about your fellow man are endemic to all systems, but they seems particularly bad in capitalism where they can clearly be overcome. We are already starting to see "ethical capitalism" and I'm sure things will only get better.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Capitalism has taken my family from poor fishermen to the top 10% in two generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

I'm glad for your family and it was much the same way for my family and there was another poster here who had the same experience but yeah. Survivorship bias. It's true the system enables some incredible rates of social climbing but one has to remember that the climbing is necessary in the first place because of polarization across the globe.
 

Entryhazard

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,843
Speak for yourself. Capitalism has taken my family from poor fishermen to the top 10% in two generations.
"I got rich while everyone else starved to death so it's okay" the remaining 90% be damned
Like every system, the only real problem with it is that humans are operating it. Crony capitalism, corruption, greed, and not giving a shit about your fellow man are endemic to all systems
It's not endemic to all systems because "human nature" to this degree has been debunked a long time ago with actual evidence like existing communities where this does not happen, yet it's always brought up. Most humans are greedy because they are raised in a capitalist society
We are already starting to see "ethical capitalism" and I'm sure things will only get better.
"Ethical capitalism" cannot exist because capitalism in itself is about expolitation of workers and thrives off inequalities
 
Last edited:

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
I always viewed socialism as state socialism, I'm unfamiliar with the model where communism and anarchism and state socialism are all within the taxon of socialism but I trust sphagnum's stance on this matter.

They both have the same goal, which is worker control of the means of production. Both believe that the state is the guarantor of property and class distinctions, but they seek two different paths to its elimination. Marxists believe history moves through a dialectical process in which classes vie for power over production, and that the dialectic of the bourgeois/proletarian struggle will lead to the proletariat seizing state power to enforce their rule (the dictatorship of the proletariat). The socialist system will engender the creation of communism with the advancement of the productive forces, and the state will wither away as a result. Anarchists, on the other hand, think you have to get rid of the state as the starting point because otherwise you'll end up with a bureaucratic nomenklatura.

In other words, Marxists view it as a historical process of transformation while anarchists consider the process and end goal one and the same. Leftcoms, meanwhile, are Marxists who lean towards the latter interpretation but make some room for the transitional state.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,969
People talk about "crony capitalism" but never elaborate on how that's different from any other form of capitalism

They're kind of inseparable
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
They both have the same goal, which is worker control of the means of production. Both believe that the state is the guarantor of property and class distinctions, but they seek two different paths to its elimination. Marxists believe history moves through a dialectical process in which classes vie for power over production, and that the dialectic of the bourgeois/proletarian struggle will lead to the proletariat seizing state power to enforce their rule (the dictatorship of the proletariat). The socialist system will engender the creation of communism with the advancement of the productive forces, and the state will wither away as a result. Anarchists, on the other hand, think you have to get rid of the state as the starting point because otherwise you'll end up with a bureaucratic nomenklatura.

In other words, Marxists view it as a historical process of transformation while anarchists consider the process and end goal one and the same. Leftcoms, meanwhile, are Marxists who lean towards the latter interpretation but make some room for the transitional state.
I see, so worker owned MoP is the ultimate goal of socialism and all its branches just differ in the process towards that goal.
 

bottledfox

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
1,576
I think he'd be more persuasive if he acknowledged some of the positives of capitalism, like how it lifted countless people out of poverty, before explaining how automation and UBI will destroy social mobility. His argument is similar to to that of Paul Mason's book "PostCapitalism: A Guide to Our Future", which I highly recommend to anyone who wants to better understand present-day socialism.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
like how it lifted countless people out of poverty
I get to post this again, fun: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2014/08/29/exposing-the-great-poverty-reduction-lie/

Not necessarily aiming this at you but providing material for the thread in general since it's a good opportunity to do so.

The world's governments first pledged to end extreme poverty during the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996. They committed to reducing the number of undernourished people by half before 2015, which, given the population at the time, meant slashing the poverty headcount by 836 million. Many critics claimed that this goal was inadequate given that, with the right redistributive policies, extreme poverty could be ended much more quickly.

Yale professor and development watchdog Thomas Pogge points out that when the Millennium Declaration was signed, the goal was rewritten as "Millennium Developmental Goal 1" (MDG-1) and was altered to halve the proportion (as opposed to the absolute number) of the world's people living on less than a dollar a day. By shifting the focus to income levels and switching from absolute numbers to proportional ones, the target became much easier to achieve. Given the rate of population growth, the new goal was effectively reduced by 167 million. And that was just the beginning.

After the UN General Assembly adopted MDG-1, the goal was diluted two more times. First, they changed it from halving the proportion of impoverished people in the world to halving the proportion of impoverished people in developing countries, thus taking advantage of an even faster-growing demographic denominator. Second, they moved the baseline of analysis from 2000 back to 1990, thus retroactively including all poverty reduction accomplished by China throughout the 1990s, due in no part whatsoever to the Millennium Campaign.

This new story was possible because the Bank shifted the IPL from the original $1.02 (at 1985 PPP) to $1.08 (at 1993 PPP), which, given inflation, was lower in real terms. With this tiny change – a flick of an economist's wrist – the world was magically getting better, and the Bank's PR problem was instantly averted. This new IPL is the one that the Millennium Campaign chose to adopt.

The IPL was changed a second time in 2008, to $1.25 (at 2005 PPP). And once again the story improved overnight. The $1.08 IPL made it seem as though the poverty headcount had been reduced by 316 million people between 1990 and 2005. But the new IPL – even lower than the last, in real terms – inflated the number to 437 million, creating the illusion that an additional 121 million souls had been "saved" from the jaws of debilitating poverty. Not surprisingly, the Millennium Campaign adopted the new IPL, which allowed it to claim yet further chimerical gains.

Yes, "poverty" is going down worldwide, but the international organizations who determine what qualifies as "poverty" routinely fudge the numbers to get positive results. "Capitalism lifted millions of people out of poverty" and "capitalism has lead to greater levels of poverty than ever before" are not two mutually exclusive statements, though most optimists don't mention or are unaware of the latter.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
I see, so worker owned MoP is the ultimate goal of socialism and all its branches just differ in the process towards that goal.

Basically, yep. Except some would argue that "ownership" isn't the right word since that would imply a state to enforce property and blah blah you get the idea.

Socialism is the mode of production in which the workers control the MoP for themselves and direct and distribute production and produced goods for their own benefit. You can be a socialist trying to "build socialism" without actually having achieved socialism (see: USSR). Marxists would say anarchists won't achieve socialism because destroying the state rather than seizing it will not produce the material conditions that permit its development, anarchists will say Marxists will just pervert the thing and create a new capitalist class, and so forth. But socialism itself remains the same thing at its core.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
To me it's either that or technofeudalism. If we ever achieve generalized AI labor (robots) the world is in for a restructuring and I hope the lower class ends up winning. Ultimately I think it's two kinds of optimisms.

Mine: The lower classes will come out ahead in the near future class war (I use 'war' figuratively here)
Capitalists: There will be 4 billion new jobs to replace the jobs that are automated away and everything will continue as usual
 

OniLinkPlus

Self-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
600
The idea that art flourishes under capitalism is mind boggling to me. There's literally a stereotype of the Starving Artist who can't make any money off their art because art is incompatible with capitalism. Whether it be the traditional perception of art as paintings, or novels, or other creative mediums such as video games. Right now, due to the profit motive, game companies churn out sequel after sequel, rehashing old concepts ad nauseum in order to keep making $$$ off of what they know works instead of trying new things.

Looking on the other end at the indie and hobby sphere of game dev, we get some amazingly creative ideas. Games like Cave Story, Fez, World of Goo, and Undertale exist because developers wanted to make something they thought was cool. Many indie games are made as passion projects while the developers work day jobs to put food on the table. The games weren't made for profit, they were made because the developer was passionate. In other words, they were made independently of the profit motive.

Sure, maybe a great many indie developers dream of hitting it big with their games, but almost always that's because they want to be able to dedicate all their time to the art they are passionate about, and they want their art to be shared with others and enjoyed.

If not for the fact that making money is an unfortunate necessity in a market-oriented society in order to put food on the table and have a place to live, we would see so many more passion projects resulting in amazing new experiences. Video games would thrive so much more in a moneyless society.

And as a preemptive: I know if I got more into arguing about this and arguing for a society where food and housing are freely available (edit: e.g. in a moneyless society), somebody would surely ask "well then who would grow the food for free and build the houses for free?" This is super anecdotal, but I already am growing my own garden, and I'm trying to expand it enough that I can begin giving out extras to people in need. If I had the opportunity to work on a big enough farm to provide food to everybody else, you can bet that I would jump on that opportunity. And with how many people are on the planet, it is statistically improbable that there aren't many others out there who would love to do the same. With a shift in cultural mindset, I bet many more people would be happy to contribute as well.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
The idea that art flourishes under capitalism is mind boggling to me. There's literally a stereotype of the Starving Artist who can't make any money off their art because art is incompatible with capitalism.
Capitalists: "Capitalism leads to great art"

Also capitalists: "Don't get a Liberal/Visual Arts degree unless you want to be a Starbucks Barista HURR"

Also also capitalists: "What do you mean you charge money for art, don't you want the exposure? Don't you draw for the love of it?"
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
Hot take: the best art ironically has historically been produced under monarchies, the one thing neoreactionaries are correct about.

(Of course this is just my personal bias)
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
That's unfair, humans have existed under monarchies for longer than any other form of post-civilization government!
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,428
Capitalists: "Capitalism leads to great art"

Also capitalists: "Don't get a Liberal/Visual Arts degree unless you want to be a Starbucks Barista HURR"

Also also capitalists: "What do you mean you charge money for art, don't you want the exposure? Don't you draw for the love of it?"

Both things can be true. The vast majority of people won't make it in the arts, but the few people who make something beautiful can be rewarded handsomely. Someone who draws paintings or writes books and those who need to make multi-million dollar video games and movies have little in common in terms of sales/marketing too, a bit disingenuous to group them together in the context of this discussion.
 

AlsoZ

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,003
Hot take: the best art ironically has historically been produced under monarchies, the one thing neoreactionaries are correct about.

(Of course this is just my personal bias)
The beauty of recklessly spending money and worker lives on ego projects regardless of the will of the people
 

OniLinkPlus

Self-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
600
Under what economic system would you say that art flurishes?
Nice moving of the goal posts. That wasn't the purpose of my post at all. I was posting to point out the blatant hypocrisy of claiming that art flourishes under capitalism when that is blatantly untrue to the point of being a cliche.

And if you actually read the rest of my post, I talked a little bit about why art doesn't work with capitalism (granted in only a single sentence), which should give a pretty good idea of what my answer to that will be. I won't be entertaining this obvious bait any further, as you clearly did not read my entire post.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Under what economic system would you say that art flurishes?
Mercantalism under Theocratic/Monarchist cultures.
Both things can be true. The vast majority of people won't make it in the arts, but the few people who make something beautiful can be rewarded handsomely. Someone who draws paintings or writes books and those who need to make multi-million dollar video games and movies have little in common in terms of sales/marketing too, a bit disingenuous to group them together in the context of this discussion.
The idea of making artists vie among each other for status/economic power so that they can be the ones "to make it", thereby producing art (profitable art tends towards the lowest common denominator) is a very cruel approach towards creation. I understand people are very gun-ho about natural selection and whatnot but Darwinian competition is heartless. The fact that Toby Fox (Undertale) exists doesn't validate the crunch culture of the gaming industry, the financial desperation of indies who don't make it, etc. People uphold "great artists" as proof the system works but to me it could easily be framed as people succeeding despite the system trying to stamp them down.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
There was a time when rich people commissioned art just for the sake of beauty. We lost that particular facet of noblesse oblige somewhere along the way. Now rich people typically only fund art when it turns a profit and it has to be a substantial profit because otherwise they would just buy more houses in New York City.

It's getting worse as commodification of art increases. The fields that rely on generous donors, and don't turn much of a profit at all, such as orchestra, theatre, dance, are on the decline. Indigenous culture and art forms are also being crushed/stamped out by cultural imperialism.
 

Laser Man

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,683
Let's be real, there is no system that is fair. Every system has to deal with the natural evolved human trait of gaining an advantage over others, I hesitate to call it greed as I think it goes way deeper than greed and every high level human developed system will succumb to it in the end!

There is only one situation where that is not the case and it is in science fiction!
 

Gonzalez

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,679
There was a time when rich people commissioned art just for the sake of beauty. We lost that particular facet of noblesse oblige somewhere along the way. Now rich people typically only fund art when it turns a profit and it has to be a substantial profit because otherwise they would just buy more houses in New York City.
Come on, crap like that still exists. I've seen of that in Miami for one.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
natural evolved human trait of gaining an advantage over others
1) This is often repeated but rarely verified with actual anthropological studies, which puts it in the realm of folk apocrypha

2) Yes, we established hunter-gatherer tribes and horticultural proto-civilizations where all pitched in for the common good of the tribe because of *checks notes* "gaining an advantage over others"