Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Zoice]

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.

In my earlier post here;

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.

I mentioned that explicitly. Depending on the situation, the scientist, and what advances they made, yes, they could very well be "irrelevant" (scare quotes!) in that if they didn't make the discovery, someone else would have, just a bit later.

The point is not that Steve Jobs or Edison were irrelevant to the world of business, they were in a cosmic perspective, but they did have serious impact in the real world. They were irrelevant to the field of science in the same way that the server at my local Wendy's is ultimately pretty irrelevant. Yeah, he's the one that gave me my meal, but there are plenty of other people that could have done it.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

No, because genius scientists contributed altruistically to the world and society. Men like Edison and Jobs stepped on others to get to the top, stole what they wanted, and secured their places in history as pinnacles of humanity because they were good, greedy capitalists. They don't deserve it. I prefer not to idolize men of their ilk.

[Northern Davincia]

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.

No, because genius scientists contributed altruistically to the world and society. Men like Edison and Jobs stepped on others to get to the top, stole what they wanted, and secured their places in history as pinnacles of humanity because they were good, greedy capitalists. They don't deserve it. I prefer not to idolize men of their ilk.

Go ahead and find me a single scientist who did not steal or borrow most of their work from someone else.

[Zoo Trouble]

It's almost like saying you despise technology and want it's utter overthrow yet live in a house with electricity and running water.

It's almost like you believe that capitalism has always existed. Neither electricity or running water are a capitalist inventions, by the way. Prussia-Steinbach hasn't presented any anti-civ or primitivist sentiment that I've seen, so I have no idea how you conclude they "despise technology."

Honest question, do you know what capitalism even is?

[Lady Scylla]

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

Helps when you can get patents. Get your name on it and everything. Edison was a businessman, and a pariah on actual inventors' creations. As has been pointed out before, Edison was in the business of money, to quote an NJ article, "Edison wasn't a 'geek,' but rather a CEO interested in only the pursuit of money." He figured out how to sell the lightbulb. He did improve on prior inventions, or ideas to get them to work, and to sell them. However, contrary to popular belief, the lightbulb existed for around 50 years before Edison's patent in 1879.

Just like, as another misconception, Tesla did not invent AC current, but improved on it. George Westinghouse is the one who formulated the ideas for an AC current. Moving Camera, was developed by William Dickson, an employee of Edison, but Edison did not invent it himself, and really, Eadward Muybridge should be credited for coming up with the idea altogether.

The AC and DC feud between Tesla and Edison, and the idea that Edison invented the power station, is also wrong. He improved on designs involving existing generators and regulators to create the first commercially successful power station to bring affordable power.

He didn't invent the battery either, but did improve on earlier concepts and batteries to create a battery for practical use. The Record Player, or really the Phonograph was made by Edison, but was originally developed via the gramophone from Emile Berliner. Edison came up with the 'disk' phonograph to compete. These are just a few examples. Between Edison and Tesla, much of what they did were improvements on already existing inventions, however, Tesla was largely at an unfair advantage, lacking the financial and physical capital unlike Edison who operated his own company and could get grants more effectively.

[Zoice]

No, because genius scientists contributed altruistically to the world and society. Men like Edison and Jobs stepped on others to get to the top, stole what they wanted, and secured their places in history as pinnacles of humanity because they were good, greedy capitalists. They don't deserve it. I prefer not to idolize men of their ilk.

Go ahead and find me a single scientist who did not steal or borrow most of their work from someone else.

We're drifting pretty far from the point that Edison's business acumen wasn't all that important for science.

[Lady Scylla]

I have trouble buying things I know are made in sweat shops I feel particularly conflicted about my electronic equipment purchases although I make a point to not buy from apple I don't feel comfortable in my abbility to actually avoid using the proceeds of sweatshop labour on the other hand I'm very confident that boycotts don't actually work so even if I stopped buying things unless I was certain I knew they were sourced from workers paying minimum wage it wouldn't matter.

But whats more, really almost everything you use and the entertainment you enjoy can be attributed to the innovations brought on by a capitalist society.

It's almost like saying you despise technology and want it's utter overthrow yet live in a house with electricity and running water.

This is actually rather erroneous. Inventions are created for the need to improve something, regardless of whatever inherent ideological bubble you want to throw it in. Furthermore, since the rise of the industrial age, society has always been a mix of Socialist and Capitalist elements. Much of the safety regulations and workers rights that set wages and outlawed child-labour are because of Socialist influence. And these two ideologies have both helped formulate and contribute to society and its framework together, since going to either extreme doesn't yield very admirable results. To continue to think they're somehow inherently incompatible to some degree, and draw lines is really rather boring. The ideological battle over these concepts is all but dead now, and has become nothing more than a dead horse.

Socialism results in an environment of none to little competitiveness, which is necessary to stimulate an economy and ensure the flow of money and goods. Although the want for altruism and the "help eachother yadda yadda" utopian bullshit is admirable, it's not reality, and ignores the rather unsavoury part of human nature that we all retain. In short, Humans are monsters and do bad things. Pure socialism, or in reality, Communism has the notion of abolishing the state, without actually analysing why the state was formulated by humans to begin with. Its as much of an evolutionary structure and concept that was developed over several thousand years alongside our development into modern humans.

Capitalism results in an environment that breeds corruption, and sets society on a bubble that does inevitably pop and result in some unsavoury results. (Revolutions in particular) because people don't like being treated like crap by a bunch of pretentious twats. (Big surprise). While capitalism promotes competitiveness, it significantly reduces the rights of people in such a framework and delves into the aforementioned unsavoury side of human nature to run. It also has the rather nasty potential to undermine government or policy-decisions via lobbyism and under-the-desk handouts.

Together, however, the two can be used to regulate each other. Much of what you have as far as regulations and laws that protect workers are because of pushes made by those who were influenced by Socialist ideals, while still maintaining a lot of the framework of a 'capitalist' society to ensure competition and a working economy. In short, the idea that you must have either or, and be either a Capitalist or a Socialist/Communist is bullshit tripe that doesn't contribute anything to society, except force us to listen people's bitching.

[Jochistan]

Do Communists and Marxists in general ever have problems with buying a book that looks cool, getting a computer, going to see the new star wars, or buying things and enjoying the products they buy in general?

Contributing to a capitalist society while holding very strong views against it?

This is such an extremely overdone and baseless argument I'm embarrassed that you've used it. There's almost no way to escape capital and the State in a statist, capitalist society. The very idea of the proletariat is based on our position in capitalism.

Right. Fair enough. It's probably still frustrating to be part of what keeps a system running through being a consumer.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

This is such an extremely overdone and baseless argument I'm embarrassed that you've used it. There's almost no way to escape capital and the State in a statist, capitalist society. The very idea of the proletariat is based on our position in capitalism.

Right. Fair enough. It's probably still frustrating to be part of what keeps a system running through being a consumer.

I can agree with that.

[Olivaero]

I have trouble buying things I know are made in sweat shops I feel particularly conflicted about my electronic equipment purchases although I make a point to not buy from apple I don't feel comfortable in my abbility to actually avoid using the proceeds of sweatshop labour on the other hand I'm very confident that boycotts don't actually work so even if I stopped buying things unless I was certain I knew they were sourced from workers paying minimum wage it wouldn't matter.

But whats more, really almost everything you use and the entertainment you enjoy can be attributed to the innovations brought on by a capitalist society.

It's almost like saying you despise technology and want it's utter overthrow yet live in a house with electricity and running water.

Those innovations were made by people not capitalism, capitalism simply delivered them to me with inferior efficiency and lack of moral considerations.

[Northern Davincia]

But whats more, really almost everything you use and the entertainment you enjoy can be attributed to the innovations brought on by a capitalist society.

It's almost like saying you despise technology and want it's utter overthrow yet live in a house with electricity and running water.

Those innovations were made by people not capitalism, capitalism simply delivered them to me with inferior efficiency and lack of moral considerations.

With inferior efficiency? Oh, do please explain that one.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Those innovations were made by people not capitalism, capitalism simply delivered them to me with inferior efficiency and lack of moral considerations.

With inferior efficiency? Oh, do please explain that one.

Distributing to the highest bidder rather than equally amongst the people is less efficient in regards to making sure everyone has a decent life.

[Unnamed island state]

With inferior efficiency? Oh, do please explain that one.

Distributing to the highest bidder rather than equally amongst the people is less efficient in regards to making sure everyone has a decent life.

Well fewer Cubans (by percentage) have cellphones than Americans or any other people of a developed capitalist nation. So that's contestable.

[Zoice]

Distributing to the highest bidder rather than equally amongst the people is less efficient in regards to making sure everyone has a decent life.

Well fewer Cubans (by percentage) have cellphones than Americans or any other people of a developed capitalist nation. So that's contestable.

Wasn't there that whole "embargo" thing that you're glossing over?

[Northern Davincia]

With inferior efficiency? Oh, do please explain that one.

Distributing to the highest bidder rather than equally amongst the people is less efficient in regards to making sure everyone has a decent life.

Distributing to the highest bidder is hardly an essential value of capitalism, otherwise businesses wouldn't push down prices when competition spurs up. Trying to make sure everyone has a decent life sounds like the least efficient goal conceivable, even with free education, healthcare, housing, and guaranteed employment, because none of those things can be delivered efficiently. All one need do is look to the Soviet Union and see how efficient it was.

[Conscentia]

Distributing to the highest bidder rather than equally amongst the people is less efficient in regards to making sure everyone has a decent life.

Well fewer Cubans (by percentage) have cellphones than Americans or any other people of a developed capitalist nation. So that's contestable.

Cuba doesn't distribute equally. It has differential wages, and distributes to whoever can pay. I'm not arguing in favour of equal distribute, just pointing out that Cuba is not an example of equal distribute.

It should also be noted that communism does not involve equality of outcome. The lower stage of communism is based on the principle of "to each according to their contribution", and the higher stage of communism (which is post-scarcity) is based on free access to articles of consumption.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Those innovations were made by people not capitalism, capitalism simply delivered them to me with inferior efficiency and lack of moral considerations.

With inferior efficiency? Oh, do please explain that one.

Competition is a negative-sum interaction. It's an inherently lossy means of determining resource allocation.

[Environmental Support]

Well fewer Cubans (by percentage) have cellphones than Americans or any other people of a developed capitalist nation. So that's contestable.

Wasn't there that whole "embargo" thing that you're glossing over?

I mean, the embargo wasn't from every country, Cuba did have foreign trade, they easily could have gotten cell phones from other nations but i can understand how that could play a small part of it. Just because they are a communist nation, that does not entail primitiveness, science and technology can still flourish in a low income environment.

[Environmental Support]

Wasn't there that whole "embargo" thing that you're glossing over?

I mean, the embargo wasn't from every country, Cuba did have foreign trade, they easily could have gotten cell phones from other nations but i can understand how that could play a small part of it. Just because they are a communist nation, that does not entail primitiveness, science and technology can still flourish in a low income environment.

And before I am "sourced".
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Cuba-FOREIGN-TRADE.html
and
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/cub/

[The New Dawn Commune]

I think the cause of leftism has remained hilariously unchallenged so far.

[Kilobugya]

I mean, the embargo wasn't from every country, Cuba did have foreign trade, they easily could have gotten cell phones from other nations

You greatly underestimate the scope of US blockade of Cuba. It's not a mere embargo, where US doesn't directly trade with Cuba, but all other countries can trade as they please. It's a far-reaching attempt to block anyone from trading with Cuba, with strong measures such as preventing any boat that docker in a Cuban harbor to dock in a US harbor for 6 months afterwards, or forbidding the sale to Cuba of anything that contains "made in US" (or "made by a factory owned by a US corporation", actually, it also applies to what, say, Intel and AMD produce in China) parts. So basically most of microprocessors, for example. Airbus (European company) isn't allowed to sell planes to Cuba, because some components in the Airbus planes are made by a US company. It's very similar for cell phones.

[Conscentia]

So... I found this picture today.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So... I found this picture today.

I remember reblogging the original Tumblr post that was stolen from, probably almost a year ago.

*puts on cool-dude hipster glasses and reclines in a luxuriant chair made entirely of self-satisfaction*

[Agritum]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/restoring-king/

Happy MLK day?

[Geilinor]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/restoring-king/

Happy MLK day?

I know that he was a socialist but the problem with articles like this is that they seem to suggest that you have to be a radical in order to truly celebrate him.