Elon Musk is a Nazi - Is this shitty future real wtf

  On 12/7/2019 at 7:51 PM, chenGOD said:

Oh yeah for sure I agree with that. 
even regular trucks now. People are dropping 60k on a truck to ride it around the city. Madness. 

Alberta (TM)

  On 12/7/2019 at 8:54 PM, StephenG said:

Alberta (TM)

I was definitely thinking of Calgary when I posted that

  On 12/7/2019 at 3:42 PM, chenGOD said:

You think Mercedes engineers aren’t paid well? 
Those cost around 200,000. What usefulness does that money have, assuming I pay a fair share of taxes and live in a country that tries to look after its citizens?

Living in the city though I’d actually almost rather get the Audi RS6 Avant. A wagon that does 0-60 in 3.7 seconds? Phenomenal. 

I'm sure Mercedes engineers are well paid, whether everyone in the supply chain is is a pretty clear no though

  On 12/8/2019 at 7:08 AM, Zeffolia said:

I'm sure Mercedes engineers are well paid, whether everyone in the supply chain is is a pretty clear no though

I guess it depends on where you define the start of the supply chain. If you take into account mining metals and stuff I agree with you. The computers that are built into the cars alone require mining of rare earths and all that stuff. Lots of materials are used that with our current economical structures can only be obtained in inhumane ways. But that goes for almost any product that for its production requires such materials and isn't restricted to premium cars. If you only look at what's happening in Western industrial countries in which Mercedeses are built, taking into account both the supply/components industry and the production itself, payment and working conditions are all in all decent, not only for the engineers with B.Sc. or M.Sc. but also for regular workers. They all have very secure contracts. At least in Europe, dunno about the US

  On 11/26/2019 at 7:55 AM, xox said:

Everything is an extension of the male phallus, not just a car.

What about the male phallus?

  On 12/8/2019 at 8:37 AM, darreichungsform said:

What about the male phallus?

Male phallus extends by itself and you have come full circle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghislaine_Maxwell

I always find it bizarre when people find it weird that rich people know/bump-into-at-parties other rich people.

I find it odd when people find it bizarre when other people find it weird that rich people know/bump-into-at-parties other rich people.

It always strikes me as particularly curious if people find it odd when other people find it bizarre when people find it weird that rich people know/bump-into-at-parties other rich people.

It always strikes me as particularly curious if people find it odd when other people find it bizarre when people find it weird that rich people know/bump-into-at-parties other rich people musk killed epstein

  On 12/8/2019 at 8:37 AM, darreichungsform said:

I guess it depends on where you define the start of the supply chain. If you take into account mining metals and stuff I agree with you. The computers that are built into the cars alone require mining of rare earths and all that stuff. Lots of materials are used that with our current economical structures can only be obtained in inhumane ways. But that goes for almost any product that for its production requires such materials and isn't restricted to premium cars. If you only look at what's happening in Western industrial countries in which Mercedeses are built, taking into account both the supply/components industry and the production itself, payment and working conditions are all in all decent, not only for the engineers with B.Sc. or M.Sc. but also for regular workers. They all have very secure contracts. At least in Europe, dunno about the US

 

What about the male phallus?

Expand  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure

Supply chains are all distributed throughout society in such deeply interwoven ways that you cannot separate segments of them and analyze their ethics individually.  The entirety of a capitalist supply chain decays into unethical exploitation due to the desire to make more profit, thus there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but since you can't attack an individual for needing food and shelter, it's luxurious goods which are particularly egregious ethically.  Luxury can only approach an ethical status under fully automated luxury communism

  On 12/9/2019 at 2:48 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure

Supply chains are all distributed throughout society in such deeply interwoven ways that you cannot separate segments of them and analyze their ethics individually.  The entirety of a capitalist supply chain decays into unethical exploitation due to the desire to make more profit, thus there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but since you can't attack an individual for needing food and shelter, it's luxurious goods which are particularly egregious ethically.  Luxury can only approach an ethical status under fully automated luxury communism

Expand  

I agree. Though you got to admit that there lies beauty in perfect engineering. I definitely understand when people desire well-built things and pay more for them than for less well-built things. It becomes problematic when luxury transitions to decadence and when unnecessary consumption causes people elsewhere to be less free and less healthy because they work under exploitative conditions. Still, these structural issues unfortunately can't be solved in the private sphere. There are globally valid rules and structures for this already (human rights, WTO, etc.) but these rules can't be applied because there is no global executive power to enforce the rules (the existence of such a power would bring other problems, too). What I'm trying to get at is that deep-rooted global structures won't be broken by private people being a bit more responsible and consumption aware. It can only be fixed by a good legislature, judiciary and consequently a competent executive branch that all act globally, and agreements that make this possible can be achieved if we have responsible and non-reactionary leaders on national levels. We seem farther away from this situation than a couple of years ago, though. That's why it's important to mobilise non-voters to vote for left candidates and parties so that we can finally make a start. But maybe I'm too optimistic because virtually all Western democracies in different measures are infiltrated and strongly manipulated by corporate power.

  On 12/9/2019 at 2:48 AM, Zeffolia said:

fully automated luxury communism

I want it in my mouth

yessir 

  On 12/9/2019 at 2:48 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure

Supply chains are all distributed throughout society in such deeply interwoven ways that you cannot separate segments of them and analyze their ethics individually.  The entirety of a capitalist supply chain decays into unethical exploitation due to the desire to make more profit, thus there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but since you can't attack an individual for needing food and shelter, it's luxurious goods which are particularly egregious ethically.  Luxury can only approach an ethical status under fully automated luxury communism

Expand  

You do understand that supply chains still exist under communism right? It's just you have shittier products and less choice.

At least with this model people have the option to buy handmade goods (which the G-wagen is).

Also, I'm glad you're taking on some Marx, he is an important part of economic critical thinking. However, as good an analysis of capitalism as he produced, Marx failed to take into account the adaptability of capitalism, and thus his ultimate conclusion will likely be unrealized (I think he also failed to take into account how dumb large crowds of people are, but that's a different topic).

  On 12/9/2019 at 9:25 AM, chenGOD said:

You do understand that supply chains still exist under communism right? It's just you have shittier products and less choice.

At least with this model people have the option to buy handmade goods (which the G-wagen is).

Also, I'm glad you're taking on some Marx, he is an important part of economic critical thinking. However, as good an analysis of capitalism as he produced, Marx failed to take into account the adaptability of capitalism, and thus his ultimate conclusion will likely be unrealized (I think he also failed to take into account how dumb large crowds of people are, but that's a different topic).

Expand  

Under communism supply chains are not optimized for maximum profit and there is no exploitation of workers.  If that isn't how it is, it's not communism yet

Historically the shittier choices are because of war, pre-existing economic conditions, and trade blockades.  There's nothing inherent under communism that results in shittier products.  As for less choice, the choice between a round shaped button on my toaster and a square one isn't important.  I want a toaster, I don't care if it's the same toaster everyone else in the world has as long as that toaster works for a long time, is repairable, and is made ethically.  Consumer choices under capitalism are pseudo-choices anyway between shitty-planned-obsolescence product #56445 and #85642348, each extracting variable amounts of profit from you and the workers or slaves who made it.  And now that we're entering the information economy, not only are laborers the product but so are consumers, for data-harvesting companies, and these companies therefore intentionally reduce consumer choice to herd them into data collection pens

  On 12/10/2019 at 5:10 AM, Zeffolia said:

There's nothing inherent under communism that results in shittier products.

Competition is a central part of evolution theory. If you stop competition in a society, you'll end up with shittier products, compared to a society with competition. Simple as that.

Ummm you need supply chains to manufacture, be that in capitalist or communist economies. And some supply chains need to be optimized for efficiency. Workers are exploited in all economies.

If you read about the Soviet economy, you will find that there was widespread accounting fraud in the factories, which was a major factor in the shit level of their products. The other major contributor was the system of quasi-autarky of only trading with other communist-bloc countries. You really only have to look at the difference in development between East and West Germany to see how terrible that model really was.

As for the idea that under capitalism it's only pseudo-choice because of planned obsolescence, yes there are examples of planned obsolescence. But there are also real advantages to newer technology, and many products are only made possible to produce as a result of technological advancement. The iPhone is an example of both sides of the argument (as well as the Galaxy phones and others): their built-in batteries are a trade-off between design and useful lifespan; their incredible cameras and other technology was only made possible through advancements in miniaturization and other tech. If you want to see how well communism didn't advance technology - the Lada is a good example.

Yes products extract profit from me - but I also profit from the products. Only now, instead of me milking a cow, and trading some poor schmuck milk of questionable quality (standardization of supply chains and economies of scale mean improved quality control) I'm able to specialize my labour and apply my skills (as meager as they are) to maximize my own profit.

  On 12/10/2019 at 6:49 AM, goDel said:

Competition is a central part of evolution theory. If you stop competition in a society, you'll end up with shittier products, compared to a society with competition. Simple as that.

Thanks, that is much clearer than all the nonsense I just typed.

  On 12/10/2019 at 6:49 AM, goDel said:

Competition is a central part of evolution theory. If you stop competition in a society, you'll end up with shittier products, compared to a society with competition. Simple as that.

I agree that competition is important and necessary, but there are different types of competition.  Cooperative competition can be better than non-cooperative competition.  Competition where the intellectual fruits of a corporation's labor are only used to benefit that corporation is not competition which is mutually beneficial for the whole of society.  Rather, a global society in which all knowledge is free and which people can compete with a mindset of giving, like in the free open source software movement, seems much more effective, given that information can be copied arbitrarily many times then given to anyone who wants it, free to use, modify, and share again

Freedom is key indeed. I'd argue that communism robs society of the necessary freedom to come to some kind of optimal solution. And worse, it pretends to tell it is the optimal solution without society giving it its freedom to find that optimum for it self.

Also note that there isnt a single optimum and time in itself is also a factor. Yesterdays optimum wont be tomorrows optimum. A society needs a healthy amount of Darwin to excel. I'd argue Communism inherently opposes that notion. 

  On 12/10/2019 at 7:05 AM, chenGOD said:

Ummm you need supply chains to manufacture, be that in capitalist or communist economies. And some supply chains need to be optimized for efficiency. Workers are exploited in all economies.

If you read about the Soviet economy, you will find that there was widespread accounting fraud in the factories, which was a major factor in the shit level of their products. The other major contributor was the system of quasi-autarky of only trading with other communist-bloc countries. You really only have to look at the difference in development between East and West Germany to see how terrible that model really was.

As for the idea that under capitalism it's only pseudo-choice because of planned obsolescence, yes there are examples of planned obsolescence. But there are also real advantages to newer technology, and many products are only made possible to produce as a result of technological advancement. The iPhone is an example of both sides of the argument (as well as the Galaxy phones and others): their built-in batteries are a trade-off between design and useful lifespan; their incredible cameras and other technology was only made possible through advancements in miniaturization and other tech. If you want to see how well communism didn't advance technology - the Lada is a good example.

Yes products extract profit from me - but I also profit from the products. Only now, instead of me milking a cow, and trading some poor schmuck milk of questionable quality (standardization of supply chains and economies of scale mean improved quality control) I'm able to specialize my labour and apply my skills (as meager as they are) to maximize my own profit.

Thanks, that is much clearer than all the nonsense I just typed.

Expand  

Supply chains do indeed need to be optimized to avoid production bottlenecks in each layer, and humans do play a role in that process and can sometimes act as bottlenecks, thus they become overworked and exploited if the primary goal is optimization of the supply chain for profit for capitalists

I'm making no pro-Soviet claims right now and won't dispute anything you said on that topic

As for your claim that the iPhone is a great technology, and indeed it is - it's a pinnacle of human achievement and a testament to man's genius, as are many other technologies - it's also an exploitative proprietary piece of hardware and software designed specifically to give profit and power to one company.  It would be better if Apple's intellectual assets were plundered and distributed globally, but this cannot happen under capitalism because capitalism requires property rights which this would violate.  But it would be a net gain for humanity, if everyone has this knowledge and anyone could compete with Apple, and in fact even under a capitalist paradigm this would increase the market competition you so praised earlier which Apple must engage in.  But it will never happen and in fact distribution of trade secrets is highly illegal under capitalism.  This contradiction leads to only one conclusion in a world where renewable energy will soon give us unlimited energy and where information can be freely copied between computers - that once post-scarcity is achieved it can only be just and optimal if it's communistic and no private property rights of this sort exist, because they are in themselves bottlenecks of production.  If we look at supply chains and their optimization from the standpoint of optimization for their private owners, this results in their private property rights over that supply chain acting as a bottleneck just as legitimate and literal as the bottleneck posed by human workers at times which you used to justify, or hopefully just explain, under capitalism.  So which exploitation is more just, that of workers or that of abstract legal entities?  To me it's very clearly the latter

In the post-scarcity economy we are approaching (whether or not it's in our lifetimes), it's not the case that humans need to be exploited and optimized for efficiency anymore, thus the remaining economic decision to make is the decision of who controls all of this vast capital and how these fruits are distributed.  The answer is according to the needs of each, not the whims.  And once a sufficient surplus is created, luxury can begin again without any ethical qualms being embedded in its existence from the very beginning of its supply chain

  On 12/10/2019 at 7:37 AM, goDel said:

Freedom is key indeed. I'd argue that communism robs society of the necessary freedom to come to some kind of optimal solution. And worse, it pretends to tell it is the optimal solution without society giving it its freedom to find that optimum for it self.

Also note that there isnt a single optimum and time in itself is also a factor. Yesterdays optimum wont be tomorrows optimum. A society needs a healthy amount of Darwin to excel. I'd argue Communism inherently opposes that notion. 

I think you're wrong and are underestimating the desire of most of us to do good work and exceed the capabilities and fruits of yesterday.  If people aren't obsessed with and in love with the idea of making toasters and this results in toaster stagnation, I promise other people will step in and help build generic mechanical and electronic object description and compilation languages i.e. 3D printers whose building blocks are not blobs of plastic but rotors, capacitors, and other higher level components like entire embedded systems, plus an evolutionary algorithm for the automatic generation and testing of toaster designs to maximize efficiency in each direction, along with aesthetics based on automated consumer surveys, thus Darwinism lives on in the form of statistical processes within the computers we use to control our means of production rather than in violent conflicts between humans fighting for their lives to survive, eat, and sleep soundly.  Opposition to such a goal is unjustifiable from what I can tell, and non-visionary and non-creative.

I have the impression that a lot of issues in modern societies a squarely put in the lap of "capitalism". And not rightly so. 

As an example, I saw a TED talk recently where the presenter made the, imo, useful distinction between Neoliberal policies ( and its impact on society) as opposed to capitalism. My take-away was that a lot of the big issues we currently face have been a consequence of neoliberal policies. And that capitalism on itself is actually a pretty neutral framework (in theory!) which, when managed differently, is in no way a limiting factor. 

In short, capitalism as far as I'm concerned, is not a form of politics. Neoliberalism is. If you want to solve todays issues, I'd start with those neoliberal policies instead of jumping into the communism rabbit hole. And yes, I'm sorry, I really do think it's a rabbit hole. 

  On 12/10/2019 at 7:45 AM, Zeffolia said:

I think you're wrong and are underestimating the desire of most of us to do good work and exceed the capabilities and fruits of yesterday.  If people aren't obsessed with and in love with the idea of making toasters and this results in toaster stagnation, I promise other people will step in and help build generic mechanical and electronic object description and compilation languages i.e. 3D printers whose building blocks are not blobs of plastic but rotors, capacitors, and other higher level components like entire embedded systems, plus an evolutionary algorithm for the automatic generation and testing of toaster designs to maximize efficiency in each direction, along with aesthetics based on automated consumer surveys, thus Darwinism lives on in the form of statistical processes within the computers we use to control our means of production rather than in violent conflicts between humans fighting for their lives to survive, eat, and sleep soundly.  Opposition to such a goal is unjustifiable from what I can tell, and non-visionary and non-creative.

Expand  

Youre making an awful lot assumptions about my thinking here. And I simply disagree completely with your attempt to push me in some box in the first place. And a completely wrong one as well. 

I also dont understand what the use is of this pseudo techno argument in this context. Were not talking about technology. Were talking about society. And how a society can come to some kind of stable optimum in which it can function in a way which is sustainable. 

People who dislike communism don't know what communism is. 

Just google (or ecosia) it, man, innit

Soviet socialism has not much to do with socialism in Marxist terms or in terms of the early pre-Marx socialists let alone with communism.

By da way Marx saw capitalism as the logical predecessor to socialism which he saw as the logical predecessor to communism. And he said that a functioning socialist society can only evolve in highly developed wealthy (capitalist) countries.

He wasn't so much a critic of capitalism as he was a capitalism analyst.

But why always talk Marx when we also can talk Weber

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber