I am asking you to prove that testable greed is a valid request by comparing it to how you could test other concepts. Testable greed isn't a real thing, so asking someone to do so isn't a valid argument.
-
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.
Disco Elysium Developers Shout Out Marx And Engels In Game Awards Victory Speech
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
You said Marx's ideas directly contributed to the political philosophy of Finland.
Marx's ideas are a type Marxism. You can have different forms of Marxism of course and some of which diverage from Marx's intial points but the ideas of Marx are a form of Marxism. Marx's own ideas and philosophy depending on his age even dictate separate forms of Marxism with "Young Marx" and "Mature Marx". Not sure what type of semantical discussion you thought that was going to illicit but it doesn't even work on the basic premise you were pedantically trying to make.
But these statements seem ironic if you think about a very ancient society before capitalism or anything else was ever a thing. People were doing the same over and over again. They would have to repeat hunting, planting crops, repairing dwellings, tending to children, preparing defenses, etc because they lacked any modern infrastructure.
Lucky you, you get to be comfy on an office, with chairs and AC and shit.
And I don't mean this in a bad way. You are REALLY lucky, or blessed or however you wanna call it.
There are people, lots of them in fact, that they don't get even the chair part.
how are you repeating the same thing if you're alternating a large variety of different tasks?
You don't think there's any difference between the society we augment for our children then the one we ask them to partake in as adults? Society is merely a social construct created in the present day by our naive understanding of material reality a few hundred years ago.
We teach our children to share, work together, love their neighbours/people around them, that their needs will be provided for but they should control their wants, be kind to everyone they meet, animals should be petted and stroked, hurting people is bad. Then we push them into a society, off our own creating, that's opposite and wonder how they become alienated. The way we talk to children about the environment and how it should be protected, yet we rape and exploit it as if it's an infinite resource given to us by a supernatural being ... as if the way we use it today in our economy is a byproduct for the way it was viewed when religious leaders had more prominence..
It's a society of our own making, a society whose only basis is how we view our material conditions, and we vilify the people who try to explain this to us.
Because you haven't defined what type or what definition of Marxism you are using. You could be talking about any definition when the only one that Marx really used was the critical thinking of economics and politics etc, which yes a lot of country pretty much use. So if we used that definition then saying a country uses Marxism is pretty likely.
So we just assume people are not greedy bc it helps us rationalize a world that won't happen? Cool, you do you.
Because I never said that 1 person was doing all these tasks. Some people in an ancient society would have been tasked with hunting, others with tending to children, others to planting crops, ect. But they are still going through the same motions each day.
Or you can make a different argument besides a science one. I never gave my opinion of communism I this thread(and I don't think it would work)
To be perfectly clear. I want those in need to also live the lives they deserve to live. I don't think the topic at hand is the way to help those in need due to its viability with the world as it is and the scale at which humanity has grown.
Just so you know, there is a book set in universe, titled "Sacred and Terrible Air", written by the writer for ZA/UM collective coming out in the coming year. It has already released but the English translated version isn't finished yet.
I don't need to make a different argument, I'm not the one believing people are inherently without greed or selfishness. I see this reality daily, and without data of some kind I won't be swayed.
But that doesn't prove anything lol
FWIW I agree with you but when arguing about societal impact this is a weird argument.
not so. the distinction between work and play with hunter gatherer societies is not so fixed. there would be a certain amount of work, carried out by groups which co-operated and worked together on certain tasks and mixed that "labor" with leisure, recreation, and amusement, not a fixed assignment of work in the way you describe, but much more flexible and communal one. the fixed designation of work roles you're talking about is mostly a product of the agricultural and later feudal ages. they worked less and their work was closer to play. they also worked and lived communally, not in the socially isolated, individualist manner invented by the capitalist mode of production.
I'm simply looking for any support (science or otherwise) to back up the claim this part of the convo is based on. I see plenty of data to argue against the claim and would like to see other data. Testing unbiased people somehow in a vacuum away from current society is one such method, hence why I mentioned it because in theory you could test such a thing (I feel like Vault Tec with this suggestion).
What does it matter if people are with or without greed/selfishness to enact a fairer society?
You're arguing that people are without compassion and empathy.
Being willing to maintain a system of exploitation is stating that people inherently don't care that people are exploited. And people do care and it is historically shown by society's inventing reasons for why people are exploited to placate them (myths, religions, monarchs, human nature...)
you're really operating off an old anthropological model. the more research has been done, the more it's been demonstrated that humans are inherently communal, cooperative creatures. and it makes sense. the complex of socioeconomic structures that exist today could only have been created through close human cooperation. the reality is complex: that humans have both some cooperative and selfish traits, but the cooperative ones are incredibly powerful. but capitalist society breeds selfishness and individualism.
I'm not saying a person would only do one task and one task only. But I'm trying to draw a comparison to your office job example. Clearly in your example a person would be doing other things as well, they might be helping with kids, doing exercise, going to a movie, working in their yard. But my point is that their day to day routine would be largely the same. In other words, they would be doing a similar set of tasks each day. And I was trying to make a comparison to older societies, where again the daily routine would be pretty much the same each day as well, regardless of what the individual tasks are.
Because the ones with greed and selfishness will throw off the balance of said fairer society? This is what we have now.
I am not arguing that people lack compassion or empathy. I'm saying some will value themselves over others more. "People" is not some singularity. Some will rally for the great good of others and some will not.
For a relative neophyte who has [very] little time on her hands, what *is* the correct implementation of Marxism? I've heard various levels from Era across various topics here. Points of varying levels of...involvement, such as:
-People wouldn't have to do work they didn't like
-Everyone has a single vote with which to make decision making
-All decisions are decided through votes
-Every single person makes as much money in a company
-Every single person handles as much responsibility in a company
-All companies are publicly and equally owned by the general population
-Companies don't exist
-Money doesn't exist
Now, some of these strike me as mutually exclusive, but which of these aspects form the operational basis at the core of a correct usage of Marxism?
-People wouldn't have to do work they didn't like
-Everyone has a single vote with which to make decision making
-All decisions are decided through votes
-Every single person makes as much money in a company
-Every single person handles as much responsibility in a company
-All companies are publicly and equally owned by the general population
-Companies don't exist
-Money doesn't exist
Now, some of these strike me as mutually exclusive, but which of these aspects form the operational basis at the core of a correct usage of Marxism?
I cannot know how greedy or selfish people feel in their hearts, but there are numerous anthropological accounts of hunter-gatherer societies past and present that show that the material and cultural conditions of people's lives have drastic effects on the organization of political power and the manner by which resources are distributed, in ways we might consider less "greedy" than contemporary industrial society. Whether we admire or attempt to replicate these specific social organizations or not, their existence I think proves that the atomization of human relationships in the modern day is contingent on factors which are subject to change and is therefore not necessarily an intrinsic quality of future human organizations existing within a different material and cultural context.
There is no correct definition.
The first definition is the idea of critically looking at economics/politics and people, the Marxist Theory, and that is the one most relevant to Karl Marx and his works.
and what i'm saying is that the work life balance you're using to draw the comparison didn't really exist at the time, work and life were constantly entertwined, the tasks that constituted "work" were much more diverse and utilized a much larger range of human potential than, for instance, a call center job or a manufacturing job where you are essentially doing the same task for eight hours a day with a few short breaks, they worked less, and their work was much more social and communal.
It's everywhere I look, and since I don't know of a society that doesn't act this way I take this data as default truth.
Hell even my daughter when she was a toddler had to be taught to not take from others (i.e. taught to share), by default her first reaction to others was to grab and take despite having her own toys. I believe this is more our default behavior.
why should people keep engaging with you when you've been provided a link to a piece from a science publication about this (and i'm happy to provide more, human beings natural instinct for cooperation is a well-established anthropological concept at this point) and ignored it in favor of more anecdotal evidence?
I think people want to opposite in a community. Strength and safety in numbers. Also naturally social creatures.
I think even without capitalism people will be selfish. I think capitalism is just the result of those wants, not the cause.
Why am I being asked to prove something that we see each day and people on this board complain about till they are blue in the face. However, the inverse is an assumed fact?
Reality is data.
So basically you're a Marxist.
You should read some. Even Penguin books publishes "Capital".
Cool. And not yeah were all communists I love communism! Cool.
I mean good on them for being true to themselves.
I gotta buy this game man
I mean good on them for being true to themselves.
I gotta buy this game man
Because you are making an argument from an assumed null hpyothesis, you can't provide data on inherent greed anymore then the other person can on non-inherent data.
So why make request it?
Neither is an assumed fact. You are making it an assumed fact just as much as the other person.
Communism isn't great folks. Animal Farm and all that. I prefer mix of capitalism with my socialism.
I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not, help me out.
here's a piece from the Financial Times. not exactly the bastion of Marxist thought. Marx is probably more well-regarded and relevant in 2019 than he ever has been. he laid the foundations for the modern understanding of capitalism.
one, those are two contradictory things. people want to cooperate and live in communities and they're naturally social creatures, but they're also selfish? by the way, the contradiction has an element of truth! there's no doubt that humans have the capacity and even the inclination for selfishness to a certain extent. but they also have the inclination to cooperate, to draw together, to be empathetic and to care for others and to be selfless. so saying all people are selfish is reductive. no one denies that selfishness is something that human beings are capable of. but so is empathy, cooperation, and compassion. why would you want to live in a system that encourages the human tendency to be greedy and selfish and discourages the human instinct to be cooperative and communal?
Last edited:
I don't really disagree with anything you are saying here. I suppose my point is that I don't consider 1 way of life to be vastly superior to the others, because there are huge positives and negatives for each.
Their first game was a success and won 4 awards, but they are fools
I'm ok with an assumed fact that I can see as opposed to an assumed fact that has no viability to be seen as its requirements are outlandishly difficult to pull off.
If you don't like this that is fine, I'm fine with these assumptions.
If people were naturally greedy and selfish, charities wouldn't exist, because why would greed allow people to give away their possessions? Doctors Without Borders wouldn't exist, because why should doctors give their time freely without pay and with the possibility of becoming infected with any number of diseases?
No. People are not naturally greedy and selfish, and there's plenty of examples why. To assume that being greedy and/or selfish is part of human nature is both foolhardy and *exactly what the capitalists want you to believe*.
Literally no one is praising Cuba or other similar regimes here