NATION

PASSWORD

LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Which Form of Leftism is The Best?

Left-Libertarianism
96
56%
Yes
48
28%
Left-Authoritarianism
26
15%
 
Total votes : 170

User avatar
Western Vale Confederacy
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6244
Founded: Nov 09, 2014
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Western Vale Confederacy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:59 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Aellex wrote:And confirming the axiom that left-libs will always side with pedophiles truly makes that a glorious victory and leave you standing on the moral high-ground once you're done vilipending those dirty right-libs for daring to be disgusted by kiddie diddling.
Or maybe that's a bigoted and age-ophobic term too? We gotta call it "ephebophilia" rather to make sure people who defend prostituting kids don't feel shocked?

Despite all our clashing, I quite like you Liri so know that I'm not saying that at you in particular however Nap really didn't deserve what he got and he indeed did nothing wrong.

Right-libs are making progress with driving out pedophiles from our ranks, but it's a recent advancement.


Let me guess, the clergy?

Those are often the right's own skeletons when it comes to the issue of pedophilia.

User avatar
Valrifell
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16386
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Valrifell » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:00 pm

Aellex wrote:
Liriena wrote:
I've been catching up on it all. Nap deserved what he got, and Mardla was unequivocally a bigot.

That being said, thanks for confirming the axiom that right-libs will always side with fashies and reactionaries.


And confirming the axiom that left-libs will always side with pedophiles truly makes that a glorious victory and leave you standing on the moral high-ground once you're done vilipending those dirty right-libs for daring to be disgusted by kiddie diddling.
Or maybe that's a bigoted and age-ophobic term too? We gotta call it "ephebophilia" rather to make sure people who defend prostituting kids don't feel shocked?

Despite all our clashing, I quite like you Liri so know that I'm not saying that at you in particular however Nap really didn't deserve what he got and he indeed did nothing wrong.


Calling out players in fields where they can not respond (customizable fields/sigs) has always been against the rules.
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you

User avatar
Valrifell
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16386
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Valrifell » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:01 pm

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Right-libs are making progress with driving out pedophiles from our ranks, but it's a recent advancement.


Let me guess, the clergy?


No, 4Chan

*shudders*
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10779
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:02 pm

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Right-libs are making progress with driving out pedophiles from our ranks, but it's a recent advancement.


Let me guess, the clergy?

Those are often the right's own skeletons when it comes to the issue of pedophilia.

Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist, Catholic

Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52245
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:03 pm

Aellex wrote:
Liriena wrote:
I've been catching up on it all. Nap deserved what he got, and Mardla was unequivocally a bigot.

That being said, thanks for confirming the axiom that right-libs will always side with fashies and reactionaries.


And confirming the axiom that left-libs will always side with pedophiles truly makes that a glorious victory and leave you standing on the moral high-ground once you're done vilipending those dirty right-libs for daring to be disgusted by kiddie diddling.
Or maybe that's a bigoted and age-ophobic term too? We gotta call it "ephebophilia" rather to make sure people who defend prostituting kids don't feel shocked?

Despite all our clashing, I quite like you Liri so know that I'm not saying that at you in particular however Nap really didn't deserve what he got and he indeed did nothing wrong.

...okay, that's some fantastic shitposting. o7
The Fabulous Pope of NS


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52245
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:04 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Let me guess, the clergy?

Those are often the right's own skeletons when it comes to the issue of pedophilia.

Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.

On the one hand, purging Rothbardites from your ranks is good. But on the other hand... conservative libertarians. :/
The Fabulous Pope of NS


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Western Vale Confederacy
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6244
Founded: Nov 09, 2014
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Western Vale Confederacy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:07 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Let me guess, the clergy?

Those are often the right's own skeletons when it comes to the issue of pedophilia.

Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.


Anything that dabs on the pedophiles (ephebophilia is a VERY grey zone, though) constantly trying to insert themselves into various movements is good!

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10779
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:11 pm

Liriena wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.

On the one hand, purging Rothbardites from your ranks is good. But on the other hand... conservative libertarians. :/

Alas, poor Rothbard, I doubt he knew he'd attract that kind of following.
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.


Anything that dabs on the pedophiles (ephebophilia is a VERY grey zone, though) constantly trying to insert themselves into various movements is good!

Aye to that. If only we could direct our wrath at Hollywood...
Last edited by Northern Davincia on Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist, Catholic

Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Duvniask
Minister
 
Posts: 3200
Founded: Aug 30, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Duvniask » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:12 pm

Genivaria wrote:In an attempt to steer the thread away from gloating I ask this.


Do you think that the left can make capitalism work for the good of all and that some aspects are worth preserving? Or do you think that capitalism is inherently harmful and must be done away with entirely?

I don't think the left can make capitalism "work for the good of all", no. It certainly benefits a select few and awards them with greater power and influence than others, even in welfare states that try to ensure "opportunity" for all. Even then, it alienates man, both worker and capitalist by chaining everyone to the endless race of competition to outsell and outproduce one another, to cut costs and cut corners, and to accumulate as much as possible.

I'd support the former position and say that the tendency of capitalism to create quality products is admirable and worth preserving, the problem is that sometimes that quality product can be so expensive to produce that it becomes inaccessible to many.

This is an accurate description of the American healthcare system imo.

There are a lot of shitty products out there too, made solely for the purpose of bringing in money, not to mention practices such as planned obsolescence that leads to further waste under capitalism. Furthermore, scams, fraud and generally shady practices that seek to deprive people of their money; these rest upon the monetary incentive that is fundamental to capitalism - for example, selling subpar goods and marketing them as if they were high-quality, useful etc., or, on the other side of the same coin, brand goods that are needlessly more expensive despite being little different from their counterparts.
Economic Left/Right: -9.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

User avatar
Orostan
Minister
 
Posts: 3300
Founded: May 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Orostan » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:17 pm

Genivaria wrote:In an attempt to steer the thread away from gloating I ask this.


Do you think that the left can make capitalism work for the good of all and that some aspects are worth preserving? Or do you think that capitalism is inherently harmful and must be done away with entirely?

I'd support the former position and say that the tendency of capitalism to create quality products is admirable and worth preserving, the problem is that sometimes that quality product can be so expensive to produce that it becomes inaccessible to many.

This is an accurate description of the American healthcare system imo.

1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.
local neighborhood gommunist xxxddd

“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” -J. V. STALIN

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10779
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:20 pm

Orostan wrote:
Genivaria wrote:In an attempt to steer the thread away from gloating I ask this.


Do you think that the left can make capitalism work for the good of all and that some aspects are worth preserving? Or do you think that capitalism is inherently harmful and must be done away with entirely?

I'd support the former position and say that the tendency of capitalism to create quality products is admirable and worth preserving, the problem is that sometimes that quality product can be so expensive to produce that it becomes inaccessible to many.

This is an accurate description of the American healthcare system imo.

1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?
Last edited by Northern Davincia on Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist, Catholic

Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Valrifell
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16386
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Valrifell » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:22 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Orostan wrote:1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their benefits do not change?


Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.
Last edited by Valrifell on Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you

User avatar
The Greater Ohio Valley
Minister
 
Posts: 3206
Founded: Jan 19, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Greater Ohio Valley » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:22 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Aellex wrote:And confirming the axiom that left-libs will always side with pedophiles truly makes that a glorious victory and leave you standing on the moral high-ground once you're done vilipending those dirty right-libs for daring to be disgusted by kiddie diddling.
Or maybe that's a bigoted and age-ophobic term too? We gotta call it "ephebophilia" rather to make sure people who defend prostituting kids don't feel shocked?

Despite all our clashing, I quite like you Liri so know that I'm not saying that at you in particular however Nap really didn't deserve what he got and he indeed did nothing wrong.

Right-libs are making progress with driving out pedophiles from our ranks, but it's a recent advancement.

Good, and they should work on driving out the unironic totalitarian supporters too. Can’t be a libertarian or minarchist and have totalitarian sympathies. :^]
Them filthy rodents are still coming for your souls.

8values
Political Compass
Will retake these every-so-often.
PRO:
- Free speech
- Gun rights
- LGBTQ rights
- Liberalism
- Choice
- Separation of church and state/secularism
- Gender/sexual equality
- Racial equality
- Due process
- Equal protection of the laws
- Cannabis legalization
- Social Democracy
- Universal Healthcare
ANTI:
- Fascism/Nazism
- Racial supremacy
- Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism
- Conservatism
- Racism
- Sexism
- Religious extremism
- Theocracy
- Jingoism
- Nationalism
- War on Drugs
- Anarchism
- Anti-Intellectualism
- Laissez-faire Capitalism

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52245
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:23 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Orostan wrote:1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

Innovation hasn't always been driven by competition for personal benefit. Historically, a lot of innovation came from people who didn't really have competition and profit as an incentive, but rather mere curiosity or altruism.
The Fabulous Pope of NS


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10779
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:25 pm

Valrifell wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their benefits do not change?


Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.
Last edited by Northern Davincia on Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist, Catholic

Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
New haven america
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28564
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby New haven america » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:26 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Orostan wrote:1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2020

That's all folks~

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10779
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:29 pm

New haven america wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.

Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist, Catholic

Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52245
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:29 pm

Valrifell wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their benefits do not change?


Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Tbh, you could seriously point to Hollywood as an example of this: competition between major studios drives a lot of them to pour obscene amounts of resources into "safe bets", chasing trends and sometimes directly meddling with their products to increase market appeal, often leading to mediocre or disastrous results. Countless passion projects end up in development hell, artists get fired for not accommodating to the financial aspirations of their bosses, and films get radically altered in post-production to emulate competitors' past successes.
The Fabulous Pope of NS


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Valrifell
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16386
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Valrifell » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:30 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.


Loads of the game changing inventions required capital to get done but they weren't conducted as get rich quick schemes.

That is to say, getting filthy stinking rich was a byproduct and not the goal of invention.
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you

User avatar
New haven america
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28564
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby New haven america » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:30 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
New haven america wrote:A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.

Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

I never said selfishness wasn't involved, I only said that competition isn't the sole driving factor behind innovation.

Try again. :)
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2020

That's all folks~

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10779
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:30 pm

Liriena wrote:
Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Tbh, you could seriously point to Hollywood as an example of this: competition between major studios drives a lot of them to pour obscene amounts of resources into "safe bets", chasing trends and sometimes directly meddling with their products to increase market appeal, often leading to mediocre or disastrous results. Countless passion projects end up in development hell, artists get fired for not accommodating to the financial aspirations of their bosses, and films get radically altered in post-production to emulate competitors' past successes.

Art seems to be a bad example considering how widely opinions vary on quality.
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist, Catholic

Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Orostan
Minister
 
Posts: 3300
Founded: May 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Orostan » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:31 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Orostan wrote:1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

Cooperatives would be set up as such. Let us say we have one product, a car. This car is produced in two different factories. These cooperatives compete to produce the car most efficiently, and they do so because being more efficient reduces their working hours. It personally benefits them to work less because they can do other things, even if work is pleasant.

Northern Davincia wrote:
Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.

The number of people who will just choose not to work in any sort of way and sit at home is an extremely small minority. The vast majority of people want to do something.


Northern Davincia wrote:
Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.

Capital is very good at improving existing technologies, but it often takes the government funding development to get long term research (new inventions) done. A socialist system will be at least as good as capital in the former, and much better in the latter.
local neighborhood gommunist xxxddd

“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” -J. V. STALIN

User avatar
Duvniask
Minister
 
Posts: 3200
Founded: Aug 30, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Duvniask » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:31 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
New haven america wrote:A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.

Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

Surely it is in one's own interest to improve the quality of life - shortening the work week, in other words increasing productivity, etc.? There's an incentive to innovate right there.
Economic Left/Right: -9.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10779
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:32 pm

New haven america wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

I never said selfishness wasn't involved, I only said that competition isn't the sole driving factor behind innovation.

Try again. :)

I would agree with you on it not being the sole driving factor, but in a modern context, I'd absolutely find it to be the main one.
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist, Catholic

Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Orostan
Minister
 
Posts: 3300
Founded: May 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Orostan » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:33 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
New haven america wrote:I never said selfishness wasn't involved, I only said that competition isn't the sole driving factor behind innovation.

Try again. :)

I would agree with you on it not being the sole driving factor, but in a modern context, I'd absolutely find it to be the main one.

If selfishness was the prime driver of human behavior, we'd already be living in communism.
local neighborhood gommunist xxxddd

“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” -J. V. STALIN

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Camelone, Connori Pilgrims, Gallade, Jetan, Longweather, Sapientia Et Bellum, Seangoli, Thuzbekistan, Warvick, Woodfiredpizzas, Yahoo [Bot], Yenzlund

Advertisement

Remove ads