Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Northern Davincia]

So are you denying that, without Thomas Edison, Einstein and Hawking still would have been able to make their discoveries?

Yes?

He was just a good businessman, it's not as if he discovered anything. If anything he held back advancement with his anti-AC campaign.

Give me a break. Einstein's contributions to the Manhattan Project and Hawking's own wheelchair that he uses to communicate would not exist if Edison did not make electricity a profitable luxury.

[Zoice]

Yes?

He was just a good businessman, it's not as if he discovered anything. If anything he held back advancement with his anti-AC campaign.

Give me a break. Einstein's contributions to the Manhattan Project and Hawking's own wheelchair that he uses to communicate would not exist if Edison did not make electricity a profitable luxury.

. . . If Edison weren't around then a different businessman would have done it. Like how without Darwin, another scientist would have discovered what he discovered (there were a few that were only a bit behind him actually), without Einstein we would have discover relativity just a bit later. Edison is EVEN MORE irrelevant because he was just a businessman, he made NO innovations or discoveries.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

But that research money tho

We're talking about organization and social principles, not funding sources. As Prussia-Steinbach said, there is no way to escape the state or capital.

It's humorous to acknowledge that the discoveries of Einstein and Hawking would likely never come to light without the achievements of a capitalist (Thomas Edison).

You mean the inventions he stole from Tesla, the vegetarian humanist egalitarian?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's humorous to acknowledge that the discoveries of Einstein and Hawking would likely never come to light without the achievements of a capitalist (Thomas Edison).

Edison was a prick who stole inventions from people like Tesla.

[Northern Davincia]

Give me a break. Einstein's contributions to the Manhattan Project and Hawking's own wheelchair that he uses to communicate would not exist if Edison did not make electricity a profitable luxury.

. . . If Edison weren't around then a different businessman would have done it. Like how without Darwin, another scientist would have discovered what he discovered (there were a few that were only a bit behind him actually), without Einstein we would have discover relativity just a bit later. Edison is EVEN MORE irrelevant because he was just a businessman, he made NO innovations or discoveries.

Edison is not irrelevant if you own a house with light-bulbs. Edison is not irrelevant if you have ever watched a movie filmed by a camera in your entire life. Edison is not irrelevant if you know what a phonograph is.

Businessmen often make plenty of innovations that, apparently, you refuse to recognize altogether.
Edison is important because he was a businessman. What he invented was used to turn a profit, and for that his inventions were made widely available and sold more cheaply for consumers.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So you go along to get along...
I don't know if I'm left-wing anymore. Half of me says I do it to be edgy, the other half is still waiting for confirmation that there's an economic system that won't fall prey to corruption and inequality, and the third half is staring at papers written by Catholics wondering if social liberalism can coexist with non-capitalism.

I was being extremely sarcastic.

And you might think that socialism and its variants may fall prey to corruption and inequality, but does that acknowledgement mean we should simply embrace a system that doesn't merely fall prey, but prizes and encourages them?

[Zoice]

. . . If Edison weren't around then a different businessman would have done it. Like how without Darwin, another scientist would have discovered what he discovered (there were a few that were only a bit behind him actually), without Einstein we would have discover relativity just a bit later. Edison is EVEN MORE irrelevant because he was just a businessman, he made NO innovations or discoveries.

Edison is not irrelevant if you own a house with light-bulbs. Edison is not irrelevant if you have ever watched a movie filmed by a camera in your entire life. Edison is not irrelevant if you know what a phonograph is.

Businessmen often make plenty of innovations that, apparently, you refuse to recognize altogether.
Edison is important because he was a businessman. What he invented was used to turn a profit, and for that his inventions were made widely available and sold more cheaply for consumers.

I dispute that 1) Edison made the innovations that made electricity so popular, and 2) Edison's position was anywhere close to being as important to the development of science as the engineers he exploited.

[Northern Davincia]

Edison is not irrelevant if you own a house with light-bulbs. Edison is not irrelevant if you have ever watched a movie filmed by a camera in your entire life. Edison is not irrelevant if you know what a phonograph is.

Businessmen often make plenty of innovations that, apparently, you refuse to recognize altogether.
Edison is important because he was a businessman. What he invented was used to turn a profit, and for that his inventions were made widely available and sold more cheaply for consumers.

I dispute that 1) Edison made the innovations that made electricity so popular, and 2) Edison's position was anywhere close to being as important to the development of science as the engineers he exploited.

1. I need actual facts and sources from you on this one.
2. Exploited? No. Again, facts and sources may help your claim.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Give me a break. Einstein's contributions to the Manhattan Project and Hawking's own wheelchair that he uses to communicate would not exist if Edison did not make electricity a profitable luxury.

. . . If Edison weren't around then a different businessman would have done it. Like how without Darwin, another scientist would have discovered what he discovered (there were a few that were only a bit behind him actually), without Einstein we would have discover relativity just a bit later. Edison is EVEN MORE irrelevant because he was just a businessman, he made NO innovations or discoveries.

Exactly.

Not to mention investment and capital wouldn't be necessary for inventions in a socialist society - only furthering that prick's irrelevance.

[Benxboro]

So you go along to get along...
I don't know if I'm left-wing anymore. Half of me says I do it to be edgy, the other half is still waiting for confirmation that there's an economic system that won't fall prey to corruption and inequality, and the third half is staring at papers written by Catholics wondering if social liberalism can coexist with non-capitalism.

I was being extremely sarcastic.

And you might think that socialism and its variants may fall prey to corruption and inequality, but does that acknowledgement mean we should simply embrace a system that doesn't merely fall prey, but prizes and encourages them?

Well, no...I suppose that the better system is the one that does the least evil. If that's socialism, I will back it.

[Northern Davincia]

. . . If Edison weren't around then a different businessman would have done it. Like how without Darwin, another scientist would have discovered what he discovered (there were a few that were only a bit behind him actually), without Einstein we would have discover relativity just a bit later. Edison is EVEN MORE irrelevant because he was just a businessman, he made NO innovations or discoveries.

Exactly.

Not to mention investment and capital wouldn't be necessary for inventions in a socialist society - only furthering that prick's irrelevance.

Edison is not irrelevant if you own a house with light-bulbs. Edison is not irrelevant if you have ever watched a movie filmed by a camera in your entire life. Edison is not irrelevant if you know what a phonograph is.

Businessmen often make plenty of innovations that, apparently, you refuse to recognize altogether.
Edison is important because he was a businessman. What he invented was used to turn a profit, and for that his inventions were made widely available and sold more cheaply for consumers.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Exactly.

Not to mention investment and capital wouldn't be necessary for inventions in a socialist society - only furthering that prick's irrelevance.

Edison is not irrelevant if you own a house with light-bulbs. Edison is not irrelevant if you have ever watched a movie filmed by a camera in your entire life. Edison is not irrelevant if you know what a phonograph is.

Businessmen often make plenty of innovations that, apparently, you refuse to recognize altogether.
Edison is important because he was a businessman. What he invented was used to turn a profit, and for that his inventions were made widely available and sold more cheaply for consumers.

None of which would've been necessary outside capitalism. Edison was a greedy prick who stole most of what he "invented." He was unnecessary.

[Zoo Trouble]

Edison is not irrelevant if you own a house with light-bulbs. Edison is not irrelevant if you have ever watched a movie filmed by a camera in your entire life. Edison is not irrelevant if you know what a phonograph is.

lol Edison did not invent any of those things

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I was being extremely sarcastic.

And you might think that socialism and its variants may fall prey to corruption and inequality, but does that acknowledgement mean we should simply embrace a system that doesn't merely fall prey, but prizes and encourages them?

Well, no...I suppose that the better system is the one that does the least evil. If that's socialism, I will back it.

My point here is mainly that capitalism is the system that rewards selfishness, greed, corruption, and exploitation. Whatever you hold to, reject that.

[Northern Davincia]

None of which would've been necessary outside capitalism. Edison was a greedy prick who stole most of what he "invented." He was unnecessary.

By that logic Steve Jobs is unnecessary because he stole most of his work from Wozniak.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

None of which would've been necessary outside capitalism. Edison was a greedy prick who stole most of what he "invented." He was unnecessary.

By that logic Steve Jobs is unnecessary because he stole most of his work from Wozniak.

Yes?

...does anyone actually deny that Jobs was a pretty huge prick in a lot of ways?

[Zoice]

By that logic Steve Jobs is unnecessary because he stole most of his work from Wozniak.

Yes?

...does anyone actually deny that Jobs was a pretty huge prick in a lot of ways?

He might have been necessary for Apple to thrive and be so successful. He was NOT necessary for technology to advance the way it has.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yes?

...does anyone actually deny that Jobs was a pretty huge prick in a lot of ways?

He might have been necessary for Apple to thrive and be so successful. He was NOT necessary for technology to advance the way it has.

I agree. I don't think there's much of an argument that he was.

[Northern Davincia]

By that logic Steve Jobs is unnecessary because he stole most of his work from Wozniak.

Yes?

...does anyone actually deny that Jobs was a pretty huge prick in a lot of ways?

Jobs, as a human being, was terrible. That does not demote his impact on modern times, however.
Nearly all successful figures steal or borrow their work from others. It's a basic feature of humanity.
And if Jobs is irrelevant because he stole ideas, then Einstein is irrelevant because he took plenty of his work from Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz.

[Zoice]

Yes?

...does anyone actually deny that Jobs was a pretty huge prick in a lot of ways?

Jobs, as a human being, was terrible. That does not demote his impact on modern times, however.
Nearly all successful figures steal or borrow their work from others. It's a basic feature of humanity.
And if Jobs is irrelevant because he stole ideas, then Einstein is irrelevant because he took plenty of his work from Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz.

He's irrelevant because his focus was the business world, not science.

Same as Edison in that way.

[Northern Davincia]

Jobs, as a human being, was terrible. That does not demote his impact on modern times, however.
Nearly all successful figures steal or borrow their work from others. It's a basic feature of humanity.
And if Jobs is irrelevant because he stole ideas, then Einstein is irrelevant because he took plenty of his work from Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz.

He's irrelevant because his focus was the business world, not science.

Same as Edison in that way.

Both men applied major discoveries in science to make them available to the common people cheaply and efficiently.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Nearly all successful figures steal or borrow their work from others. It's a basic feature of humanity.

Which is part of the problem, really. Our society define success in a capitalist framework, which means that you have to be a bit of a prick in order to get ahead. It's circular.

[Zoice]

He's irrelevant because his focus was the business world, not science.

Same as Edison in that way.

Both men applied major discoveries in science to make them available to the common people cheaply and efficiently.

And if they didn't, one of the countless others would have. There are more businessmen than brilliant scientists, and the fact that the businessman in particular was Edison and not someone else is pretty much irrelevant.

[Northern Davincia]

Both men applied major discoveries in science to make them available to the common people cheaply and efficiently.

And if they didn't, one of the countless others would have. There are more businessmen than brilliant scientists, and the fact that the businessman in particular was Edison and not someone else is pretty much irrelevant.

I can apply the same rule to said brilliant scientists. According to you, they are irrelevant because what they discovered was inevitable or borrowed, and therefore we should ignore them.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yes?

...does anyone actually deny that Jobs was a pretty huge prick in a lot of ways?

Jobs, as a human being, was terrible. That does not demote his impact on modern times, however.
Nearly all successful figures steal or borrow their work from others. It's a basic feature of humanity.
And if Jobs is irrelevant because he stole ideas, then Einstein is irrelevant because he took plenty of his work from Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz.

Einstein actually developed plenty of theories, he contributed to thought and science. Edison and Jobs were just greedy capitalist pricks, who contributed to their wallets.