|
thank you to whoever namedropped rorty a couple pages back, im watchin an hour long interview with him now. hes cool
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
unlimited free cloud computing
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:The People of the Abyss I read a bit of that and it owns pretty hard. And for those who like audiobooks in the background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAtJQvB38Qc
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
yeah it's a really powerful book, and if you just transplant the setting from London to Mumbai or a Brazilian Favela it's all still wholly applicable - but ten times worse and a hundred times bigger, and we're directly responsible lmao. but man i really like my cheap consumer electronics so i guess you gotta break a few eggs y'know....
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:yeah it's a really powerful book, and if you just transplant the setting from London to Mumbai or a Brazilian Favela it's all still wholly applicable - but ten times worse and a hundred times bigger, and we're directly responsible lmao. but cheap electronics arent made in india, africa, or brazil? actually thats why those countries are poor? cheap electronics have been made, successively, in japan, south korea/taiwan, and mainland china. noted poor, third world countries. meanwhile india was dicking around with socialist nationalization of everything and brazil essentially banned international trade because that's for capitalists. in 1960 south korea was twice as poor as brazil, today it's 5 or 6 times as rich? i guess that's because brazil was more capitalist than them? same goes double for india, in 1960 SK/Taiwan were a few times as rich at most, now they're literally 25 or 30 times as rich. africa you can blame on the british because they just hosed it up so badly, but the reason south america and india are poor today is because of bad economic policy in the last 70 years. that's pretty much it. you can't really lay poor people in india at the feet of capitalism because india has been packed with poor people for literally thousands of years. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:but cheap electronics arent made in india, africa, or brazil?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:yes im insinuating that cheap consumer electronics are to blame in themselves and not at all using them as a shorthand for a worldwide consumer capitalist culture of commodity fetishism which demands everything we desire be produced and sold at lowest possible cost gj forums user icantfindaname you destroyed my point no you don't seem to get it, india and brazil didn't actually participate in that system, because they both refused to back in the day. india and brazil both refused foreign capital and investment, and dabbled in central planning, and hey look 70 years later they're still dirt poor. these are related. they've opened up to capital (sort of, not entirely) in the last 20 years or so, but compare ~50 years of no capitalism to ~15 years of sort of capitalism and you can't really say the end result is capitalism's fault
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 13:47
|
|
icantfindaname posted:but cheap electronics arent made in india, africa, or brazil? actually thats why those countries are poor? cheap electronics have been made, successively, in japan, south korea/taiwan, and mainland china. noted poor, third world countries. meanwhile india was dicking around with socialist nationalization of everything and brazil essentially banned international trade because that's for capitalists. in 1960 south korea was twice as poor as brazil, today it's 5 or 6 times as rich? i guess that's because brazil was more capitalist than them? same goes double for india, in 1960 SK/Taiwan were a few times as rich at most, now they're literally 25 or 30 times as rich. south korea, japan, and taiwan refused to play the free-market game and pretty much none of their economic ministers knew anything about economics that weren't marxist, austrian, or the archaic stuff of friedrich list and his following. in fact, virtually all of the third world outperformed the growth levels of the first industrial revolution from 1945 to ~1975 and the adoption of free-market policies caused african economies to grow less than 5% over the last 40 years, south american economies to stagnate until they broke away, and the asian financial crisis of 1998.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:no you don't seem to get it, india and brazil didn't actually participate in that system, because they both refused to back in the day. india and brazil both refused foreign capital and investment, and dabbled in central planning, and hey look 70 years later they're still dirt poor. these are related. they've opened up to capital (sort of, not entirely) in the last 20 years or so, but compare ~50 years of no capitalism to ~15 years of sort of capitalism and you can't really say the end result is capitalism's fault are you actually saying that the massive slums which grew up in (to use india as an example) the late 19th century as a direct result of imperialist colonialism (which was itself motivated purely by the prospect of profit) are not attributable to capitalism? lmao. if the post-independence governments are to blame for anything it's not being able to clean up the mess left for them as a legacy from colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Eh, I wouldn't equate capitalism to the sort of realpolitik that went down prior to the 20th century. If you were a completely egalitarian society you'd probably just get your rear end kicked. China sure as poo poo doesn't care how zen tibet is
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Communism will save humanity. And that is why I love it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
ThisGuy posted:Eh, I wouldn't equate capitalism to the sort of realpolitik that went down prior to the 20th century. If you were a completely egalitarian society you'd probably just get your rear end kicked. China sure as poo poo doesn't care how zen tibet is
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:19th century international trade was definitely capitalism. All that's changed really is the ability to move poo poo around quickly and (in the case of foodstuffs) keep it fresh longer, so it can be moved greater distances. There were real international supply chains bringing poo poo to Europe and America for processing or manufacturing into new materials to be either sold locally or exported again. No doubt, but I'm just saying that capitalism is just the method in which exploitation and colonialism happened. If it wasn't capitalism, it would be something else. As technology advanced, populations grew, and competition for land and resources increased. Tensions increased and arms races were fed by the conquered land. Of course, this finally came to a climax with WW1, when the European powers finally ran out of land and Germany wanted to expand. I'm just saying that there's going to be conflict and exploitation once globalization happens. You can't really put the genie back in the bottle no matter your economic system. E: It was always basically the goal to conquer and exploit sense the invention of the Empire
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:are you actually saying that the massive slums which grew up in (to use india as an example) the late 19th century as a direct result of imperialist colonialism (which was itself motivated purely by the prospect of profit) are not attributable to capitalism? lmao. if the post-independence governments are to blame for anything it's not being able to clean up the mess left for them as a legacy from colonialism. but you do acknowledge that these places have not been 100% capitalist 100% of the time right? indias constitution literally says its a socialist state. like 90% of the countries industry and resources were nationalized and run by five year planning boards for decades. but when these countries remain poor over decades despite not being capitalist it's still capitalism's fault. correct? or are you going for the postmodernist definition where capitalism is literally everything and everything, and there is no conceivable way not to be capitalism so everything is it's fault? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
communism won't save humanity because it is dead and gay, but I love my dead, gay communism
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
in communism, would you be allowed to get silicon valley billionaire rich by making tools and providing services people use and enjoy no! only productive work will happen in communism, such as producing iron smelters, machine lubricants and thermonuclear weapons
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:but you do acknowledge that these places have not been 100% capitalist 100% of the time right? indias constitution literally says its a socialist state. but when these countries remain poor over decades despite not being capitalist it's still capitalism's fault. correct? A (still very pervasive) caste based social system, massive income inequality, and a capital city acting as a major global international banking centre do not paint a particularly socilaist image. quote:or are you going for the postmodernist definition where capitalism is literally everything and everything, and there is no conceivable way not to be capitalism so everything is it's fault?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
ok so you have no idea what you're talking about. cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:48
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:in communism, would you be allowed to get silicon valley billionaire rich by making tools and providing services people use and enjoy Actually, IT workers are a justification for re-education camps. I wish it weren't so, but we have to deal with reality here. icantfindaname posted:but you do acknowledge that these places have not been 100% capitalist 100% of the time right? indias constitution literally says its a socialist state. like 90% of the countries industry and resources were nationalized and run by five year planning boards for decades. but when these countries remain poor over decades despite not being capitalist it's still capitalism's fault. correct? India's GDP/capita is consistent with other developing countries, dude. They're not massively poorer despite being officially socialist.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Guys, a third-world nation enacting socialist policies would definitely be allowed to flourish and succeed with other third-world nations watching. That's surely allowed to happen on the global stage. America would certainly not firebomb a nation just to teach others a lesson.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
ProperCoochie posted:Guys, a third-world nation enacting socialist policies would definitely be allowed to flourish and succeed with other third-world nations watching. That's surely allowed to happen on the global stage. America would certainly not firebomb a nation just to teach others a lesson. Why firebomb when you can just pay for coups
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:no you don't seem to get it, india and brazil didn't actually participate in that system, because they both refused to back in the day. india and brazil both refused foreign capital and investment, and dabbled in central planning, and hey look 70 years later they're still dirt poor. these are related. they've opened up to capital (sort of, not entirely) in the last 20 years or so, but compare ~50 years of no capitalism to ~15 years of sort of capitalism and you can't really say the end result is capitalism's fault hm yeah india and brazil dont participate in global capitalism im a fuckiung tard baby
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
if you sincerely think india or brazil are socialist states and you cant blame capitalism for their poverty while upholding china as a triumph of capitalism you should admit youre a tard baby. china has by far a more centralized and regulated economy with much more extensive social welfare programs than both those countries
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
hmmm
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:no you don't seem to get it, india and brazil didn't actually participate in that system, because they both refused to back in the day. india and brazil both refused foreign capital and investment, and dabbled in central planning, and hey look 70 years later they're still dirt poor. these are related. they've opened up to capital (sort of, not entirely) in the last 20 years or so, but compare ~50 years of no capitalism to ~15 years of sort of capitalism and you can't really say the end result is capitalism's fault like seirously how can you say this, how can a person pretend they know things and say this. at what point was brazil or india no capitalism ever? at most nehru had mildly socialistic aspirations and vargas was social democratic and was in power a total of less than a decade but lol at "~50 years of no capitalism to ~15 years of sort of capitalism". you could actualyl say that about china but not brazil and india you loving dumbo
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
all these weak-willed limp-wristed commies are just aching to purge these stupid LUMPEN, but the revolution isn't scheduled until after band practice
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:11
|
|
Drink Cheerwine posted:all these weak-willed limp-wristed commies are just aching to purge these stupid LUMPEN, but the revolution isn't scheduled until after band practice You of course would have no problem stuffing a nightstick up some hippie's rear end if leftism started getting taken seriously again.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You of course would have no problem stuffing a nightstick up some hippie's rear end if leftism started getting taken seriously again. hi effectronica, good to see u. i would only do that if i had their explicit verbal consent at each step in the process title ix is no joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:40
|
|
Drink Cheerwine posted:hi effectronica, good to see u. i would only do that if i had their explicit verbal consent at each step in the process that's a good one, actually, and i loled in real life at it
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
every day i wake up and thank god for all of the great things that have come from the multitude of functioning communist superpowers like uhh
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
"it doesnt work but here's 15 pages of unironically posting about why its totally better than capitalism"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
curious lump posted:every day i wake up and thank god for all of the great things that have come from the multitude of functioning communist superpowers like uhh Tetris
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
curious lump posted:every day i wake up and thank god for all of the great things that have come from the multitude of functioning communist superpowers like uhh space
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:51
|
|
curious lump posted:"it doesnt work but here's 15 pages of unironically posting about why its totally better than capitalism" There are two kinds of people who whine about communism. One set doesn't know what capitalism is, and defends it. The other set knows what capitalism is, and doesn't try to defend it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
there are two kinds of people that defend communism - middle class white college kids who grew up in a capitalist country, and those who are in power due to it
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
since effectronica is the kind of person that would've been shot by the russian secret police, im gonna have to assume he's one of the first
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:52
|
|
curious lump posted:there are two kinds of people that defend communism - middle class white college kids who grew up in a capitalist country, and those who are in power due to it You know, I don't know why you'd go for this sort of thing when you've got Shining Path, FARC, and other murderers to point to, but I guess that's far too terrifying a prospect.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
all of these groups renowned for the brutality to peasants are surely the greatest representations of communism. actually, thats unironically 100% correct
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:55
|
|
curious lump posted:all of these groups renowned for the brutality to peasants are surely the greatest representations of communism. "Man, I'm gonna own the poo poo out of this guy by agreeing with things he says!" Well, I can tell you it's working.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
drat the owner has become the owned thanks capitalism e: and as a closing thought im not really sure how bringing up brutal paramilitary organizations is a pro-marxist argument???
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:57
|
|