Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Talk as the ratio of two integers.

Topic: Reds in America: a discussion (Read 1116 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Talkfreethought about...

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #100
Has nobody here ever read Ursula Le Guin's 'The Dispossessed' ?
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #101
Quote from: Ursula Le Guin
"It is our suffering that brings us together. It is not love. Love does not obey the mind, and turns to hate when forced. The bond that binds us is beyond choice. We are brothers. We are brothers in what we share. In pain, which each of us must suffer alone, in hunger, in poverty, in hope, we know our brotherhood. We know it, because we have had to learn it. We know that there is no help for us but from one another, that no hand will save us if we do not reach out our hand. And the hand that you reach out is empty, as mine is. You have nothing. You possess nothing. You own nothing. You are free. All you have is what you are, and what you give."
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Bilirubin
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #103
here's a more succinct way of putting it:

Owning the means of production does not equate to contributing the labor necessary to produce goods and services. Once you reach the level of automation that the "owner" is not actually contributing labor equivalent to the wealth they accrue from production, it makes sense to question whether market-style thinking is the appropriate way of determining how to distribute both goods and compensation. This is especially the case when you're talking about established inherited wealth being used to leverage laborers into giving you a chunk of their labor in exchange for the "right" to work.

However, like 99.999% of the time, when people are complaining about capitalism, they are actually complaining about consumerism. The issue is that the rich want a shitton of discretionary income that they can spend on gold-plated toilet paper while the quality of life for everyone else gets flushed down the toilet. The profit motive is only an issue because profit enables consumption and/or accumulation that enhances appearance of social standing for a small class of capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. If society was built around some other measure of social status and accomplishment, profit motive would not be the same level of social ill.

do you suppose that values systems like this have any material basis?

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #104
Has nobody here ever read Ursula Le Guin's 'The Dispossessed' ?
yes, it owns.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #105
I have read it, but it's been a while. I love LeGuin's books, but confess to preferring the protagonist scattered agrarian tribal society of Always Coming Home.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #106
I think you mean it possesses.

...or does it?

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #107
here's a more succinct way of putting it:

Owning the means of production does not equate to contributing the labor necessary to produce goods and services. Once you reach the level of automation that the "owner" is not actually contributing labor equivalent to the wealth they accrue from production, it makes sense to question whether market-style thinking is the appropriate way of determining how to distribute both goods and compensation. This is especially the case when you're talking about established inherited wealth being used to leverage laborers into giving you a chunk of their labor in exchange for the "right" to work.

However, like 99.999% of the time, when people are complaining about capitalism, they are actually complaining about consumerism. The issue is that the rich want a shitton of discretionary income that they can spend on gold-plated toilet paper while the quality of life for everyone else gets flushed down the toilet. The profit motive is only an issue because profit enables consumption and/or accumulation that enhances appearance of social standing for a small class of capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. If society was built around some other measure of social status and accomplishment, profit motive would not be the same level of social ill.

do you suppose that values systems like this have any material basis?

material basis as in something intrinsic and biological?

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #108
here's a more succinct way of putting it:

Owning the means of production does not equate to contributing the labor necessary to produce goods and services. Once you reach the level of automation that the "owner" is not actually contributing labor equivalent to the wealth they accrue from production, it makes sense to question whether market-style thinking is the appropriate way of determining how to distribute both goods and compensation. This is especially the case when you're talking about established inherited wealth being used to leverage laborers into giving you a chunk of their labor in exchange for the "right" to work.

However, like 99.999% of the time, when people are complaining about capitalism, they are actually complaining about consumerism. The issue is that the rich want a shitton of discretionary income that they can spend on gold-plated toilet paper while the quality of life for everyone else gets flushed down the toilet. The profit motive is only an issue because profit enables consumption and/or accumulation that enhances appearance of social standing for a small class of capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. If society was built around some other measure of social status and accomplishment, profit motive would not be the same level of social ill.

do you suppose that values systems like this have any material basis?

material basis as in something intrinsic and biological?

not exactly. just, the valuing of shiny baubles as status symbols isn't necessarily a part of human nature, but it seems like there might be more to it than just an arbitrary cultural value. i mean in the first place, "well if our whole culture of status was different!" is kind of a big change to just wave at. but anyway, there might be a connection between the expense of shiny baubles, the difficulty of obtaining them, and the power of the people who can obtain them, that leads to them being considered valuable. i'm not convinced that changing the cultural values isn't putting the cart ahead of the horse here.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #109
rednose what do you think of DSA
remarkably epic OP

It seemed to me to be the organic root of the discussion. You can write an alternate OP and I'll figure out how to insert it if you like.

actually can you just replace the OP with this:


  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #110
Hahaha.

  • Bilirubin
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #111
Has nobody here ever read Ursula Le Guin's 'The Dispossessed' ?
yes, it owns.
Just read it again a couple of months ago in fact.

Thread is good, forcing me to some realizations in fact. More as they crystallize for me/I sober up

  • Bilirubin
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #112
rednose what do you think of DSA
remarkably epic OP

It seemed to me to be the organic root of the discussion. You can write an alternate OP and I'll figure out how to insert it if you like.

actually can you just replace the OP with this:


You fucking moron

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #113
rednose what do you think of DSA
remarkably epic OP

It seemed to me to be the organic root of the discussion. You can write an alternate OP and I'll figure out how to insert it if you like.

actually can you just replace the OP with this:


You fucking genius
fyp

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #114
Derridian autofellatio? I'm in.
"At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea." - Christopher Hitchens

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #115
here's a more succinct way of putting it:

Owning the means of production does not equate to contributing the labor necessary to produce goods and services. Once you reach the level of automation that the "owner" is not actually contributing labor equivalent to the wealth they accrue from production, it makes sense to question whether market-style thinking is the appropriate way of determining how to distribute both goods and compensation. This is especially the case when you're talking about established inherited wealth being used to leverage laborers into giving you a chunk of their labor in exchange for the "right" to work.

However, like 99.999% of the time, when people are complaining about capitalism, they are actually complaining about consumerism. The issue is that the rich want a shitton of discretionary income that they can spend on gold-plated toilet paper while the quality of life for everyone else gets flushed down the toilet. The profit motive is only an issue because profit enables consumption and/or accumulation that enhances appearance of social standing for a small class of capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. If society was built around some other measure of social status and accomplishment, profit motive would not be the same level of social ill.

do you suppose that values systems like this have any material basis?

material basis as in something intrinsic and biological?

not exactly. just, the valuing of shiny baubles as status symbols isn't necessarily a part of human nature, but it seems like there might be more to it than just an arbitrary cultural value. i mean in the first place, "well if our whole culture of status was different!" is kind of a big change to just wave at. but anyway, there might be a connection between the expense of shiny baubles, the difficulty of obtaining them, and the power of the people who can obtain them, that leads to them being considered valuable. i'm not convinced that changing the cultural values isn't putting the cart ahead of the horse here.

I'm sure there's a range of cultural and innate things that all play into this. Having some personal experience navigating several distinct cultures with their own separate social constructs of how you acquire and display shiny baubles, I do think it's largely cultural, and the particularly destructive form of it that has taken over the US in particular is entirely cultural. I'm sure the deeper need to show you've got more than someone else and that you have power to take away from someone else is a deeper shitty primate thing because primates are fucking terrible animals in general, but the way we implement and encourage this in western capitalist society is toxic.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #116
To some extent, I don't give a shit what humans did 100,000 years ago as hunter gatherers.  It is irrelevant, like the paleo diet.  On the other hand, humans are animals and it's pretty unrealistic to have this nth level vision of human development where we can expect to operate in a system in which we are not animals. 


  • Bilirubin
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #118
You didn't clap


Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #120

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #121
Wasn't sure where to put this, seemed most relevant here. An interesting look at DSA dynamics. ffuy, rednoise, thoughts?

https://medium.com/@dsarichmond/statement-on-the-dsa-funds-for-victims-of-terrorism-in-charlottesville-b9f05b6da98c

  • Faid
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #122
I have read it, but it's been a while. I love LeGuin's books, but confess to preferring the protagonist scattered agrarian tribal society of Always Coming Home.
I confess that I always enjoyed LeGuin's short stories more than her books. Especially in regard to making a political point.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #123
rednose join refoundation: https://dsarefoundation.org/

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #124
maybe I will join DSA one day