Neoliberal economics

Let's get it all out here.

What if I want to go and work for a multinational corporation and have health insurance and a 401k matching plan and own some acres and a house and a stock market portfolio?

If everyone trusts the stock market WE NEED GROWTH!!!

It's not gambling man... it's the stock market. The S&P 500 has historically grown x.xx% ....

What are the alternatives? Where do we start?

Gross domestic product. Gross happiness product. Mental health statistics. Anguish statistics. How do we make any of that make sense?

What books are out there?

I read a book called the economics of happiness and thought it was shit. Although Bhutan (?) uses a gross happiness product which was interesting. Denmark's culture is interesting to me too.

Let's get some conversations going!

(Bhutan's) Gross National Happiness defined:

GNH is distinguishable from Gross Domestic Product by valuing collective happiness as the goal of governance, by emphasizing harmony with nature and traditional values as expressed in the 9 domains of happiness and 4 pillars of GNH.[12] The four pillars of GNH's are 1) sustainable and equitable socio-economic development; 2) environmental conservation; 3) preservation and promotion of culture; and 4) good governance.[13] The nine domains of GNH are psychological well-being, health, time use, education, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards.[14][15] Each domain is composed of subjective (survey-based) and objective indicators. The domains weigh equally but the indicators within each domain differ by weight.[16]

I think i have read the economics of happiness but i can't remember anything from it, except that it mentioned jeremy bentham a lot. lol

One of the main criticisms from economists for using GNH is that it is very difficult to quantify: I don't think this is a very reasonable criticism, of course it's difficult to quantify but it's still important to human beings. Many needs that human beings have cannot be quantified. My initial suspicion of GNH is that it would be absolutist but the definition does capture a wide array of human needs. It seems reasonable to me.


-recommended literature:

Any introductionary textbook on political economy written after the GFC.
Bad Samitaritans is the best book i've read for understanding the global economy under neoliberalism, and it's also accessible to people with not much education in economics.
A short history of neoliberalism, by david harvey
profit over people, by noam chomsky. This is a bit dated, but still good as a historical reference.
monopoly finance capital in the 21st century by john bellamy foster


I guess i can recommend some books that argue in favour of globalization, but tbh they are all poorly argued imo:
-In defense of globalization by jagdish bagwhati

Im mixing books here that cover 'globalization' and neoliberalism, as sometimes they are used interchangeably.

About neoliberalism:

Period from 1945-1971 is sometimes called the golden age of capitalism:

-had high egalitarian economic growth, wages went up as did profits.
-high government regulation
-zero economic crashes
-manufacturing based economy
-mix of nationalized and privatized assets.

period from 1971 onwards is the neoliberal era:
-has privitization of assets
-lower growth, and mostly comes from bubbles which lead to a crash, stagnant wages, high corporate profits.
-structural unemployment
-FIRE based economy; finance, insurance, real estate. manufacturing off-shored.
-low regulation, growth of monopoly power.
-corporate culture now cares about short term profit rather than long term profit.

while 1971 is seen as the beginning of neoliberalism, with experiments conducted in chile and new york, and then spreading around the world, it seems to me that neoliberalism has existed since the third world was created, perhaps around the time of the conquest of india. The third world has mostly been used as a free market to service foreign investors for a long time and the colonial masters have never wanted these countries to have their economy closed off.

lastly, neoliberalism is a highly politicized word; so we can expect the exact meaning of it to be hazy, there are various groups that want to hijack the meaning of the word for their own interests.

Everyone loves to talk about how awful everything is, how the gap between rich and poor only grows, how you cannot support a family with no skills/education anymore. It's viewed as a conspiracy by the rich to keep the poor down. You're born into the world with nothing, and nothing is guaranteed. We talked about this in another thread, but with market forces, of course unskilled labor is worth shit when globalization opens the door for billions of workers in poorer countries like China/India, etc. Along with other trends of specialization becoming more and more important.

Alas, trends are not as dire as they seem.
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content...Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png

I don't fkin get why we are having a spending deficit in the U.S. during such a long expansion, but politicians always just kick the can down the road.

@ Rikd:

mental health statistics probably wont be helpful since the psychiatry profession has changed as much as the economy has, the diagnostic book for mental health is far bigger than it used to be. There is also the concern that psychiatry isn't exactly a scientific profession, they are making value judgements about what is mentally unhealthy and what isn't. Looking back in history there are some very comical examples of what psychiatrists considered to be mentally unhealthy. They also receive rakeback from the pharmaceuticals

statistics here may no more useful than observing what is happening to friends and family

On May 12 2018 22:57 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Everyone loves to talk about how awful everything is, how the gap between rich and poor only grows, how you cannot support a family with no skills/education anymore. It's viewed as a conspiracy by the rich to keep the poor down. You're born into the world with nothing, and nothing is guaranteed. We talked about this in another thread, but with market forces, of course unskilled labor is worth shit when globalization opens the door for billions of workers in poorer countries like China/India, etc. Along with other trends of specialization becoming more and more important. Alas, trends are not as dire as they seem. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content...Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png I don't fkin get why we are having a spending deficit in the U.S. during such a long expansion, but politicians always just kick the can down the road.

well those particular statistics show a lot of progress you havn't included the effects of climate change and the threat of nuclear war, and also the threat of antibiotic resistant super bugs. I'm not sure if i'd call lobbying a conspiracy, but yeah the rich want policies that make them richer. The rich do engage in methods of class warfare and are pretty open about it, it isn't really a conspiracy although sometimes it is, like the powell memorandom. a lot of public relations is devoted to pacifying the population, and changing their attitudes and opinions.

On May 12 2018 22:57 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Everyone loves to talk about how awful everything is, how the gap between rich and poor only grows, how you cannot support a family with no skills/education anymore. It's viewed as a conspiracy by the rich to keep the poor down. You're born into the world with nothing, and nothing is guaranteed. We talked about this in another thread, but with market forces, of course unskilled labor is worth shit when globalization opens the door for billions of workers in poorer countries like China/India, etc. Along with other trends of specialization becoming more and more important. Alas, trends are not as dire as they seem. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content...Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png I don't fkin get why we are having a spending deficit in the U.S. during such a long expansion, but politicians always just kick the can down the road.

The only thing that is guaranteed is anguish and death. People are not born into this world with nothing. Look at Trump. He had a multimillionaire mentor and $100 milly trust fund upon his first breaths. So, we can't really do anything about death besides make things safer and healthier and prolong life a little bit. There are things we can do about anguish and suffering. Shouldn't we be focusing on that? No one chooses anguish and suffering. No one chooses to be a baby in Africa that has those bugs that eat their eyes so they die from that or they die from starvation or whatever fate becomes them. So, we rush to make cold profit and many people get sick. Some people can buy nice couches, country club memberships, and boats. Maybe a boat gets you some freedom out on the open seas like some sort of modern day pirate drinking luxury rum and singing pop songs but does it really anesthetize the looting and the pilfering in the form of more margin, charming sales pitches, more hours in the office, numbers in a spreadsheet, the expectation of being a perfect brand, man, whatever. There have got to be better markers of how we are doing as citizens of earth. Not fucking comparing GDP numbers. Nike and Apple should not be allowed to exploit and mistreat workers to such an extent that they are building deterrents because too many people are killing themselves.

stroggoz it's been a long time, but i should thank you formally for introducing me to stiglitz. despite studying economics in high school and later college i was surprised and disappointed to have never been introduced to his ideas.

i feel stuck in between you and mez. on one hand capitalism is inherently exploitive. its nuts that in a country like the US where the average gdp/capita is 60,000 we still have people dieing of hunger and a population without basic needs like healthcare. on the other it's hard to argue with people like mez. i have a lot of friends like that and its hard when by nearly every objective measure the world feels like it is progressing forward.

For books that you're probably not going to read (see video description if you want to save time):



Planetary (doughnut) economics:
+ Show Spoiler +

This guy makes pretty entertaining videos, I'm picking this one because I saw it today and it probably mimics something like a in-house LP debate (I'll let you guess between whom)





Pretty good places to start. Mexie also has a lot of great videos/resources. I would add "The Limits to Growth: the 30 Years Update" to her list. Also, probably one of the most important reads you could pick up is a novel called "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin. It's a wonderful novel that serves as an introduction to anarchism and it's very readable.

On May 13 2018 05:24 qwe5408 wrote: stroggoz it's been a long time, but i should thank you formally for introducing me to stiglitz. despite studying economics in high school and later college i was surprised and disappointed to have never been introduced to his ideas. i feel stuck in between you and mez. on one hand capitalism is inherently exploitative. its nuts that in a country like the US where the average gdp/capita is 60,000 we still have people dieing of hunger and a population without basic needs like healthcare. on the other it's hard to argue with people like mez. i have a lot of friends like that and its hard when by nearly every objective measure the world feels like it is progressing forward.

Yeah stiglitz was a critic from inside the establishment. he had a very unique perspective in and it's rare for someone to oppose power and rise that high through the ranks, typically it is because they only started to reflect on what they are doing after they got into power. I think his work is very good even though he isn't that radical he obviously understands what is important.

Your point about choosing between the two perspectives: capitalism is a highly politicised word so it's difficult to understand what it entails. That data doesn't really say much except that people are better off in important ways, than they were before. But does it say anything about capitalism? The level of democracy in the world surely can't be associated with American led capitalism-it was installing dictatorships all through the cold war, and the definition of democracy has become defined by the powerful, it's nothing like what i think democracy is. Colonialism is surely less harsh than it used to be so extreme poverty has gone down, but there are still 700million people in extreme poverty. We live in a society that is very technologically advanced and there really don't need to be any people living in that state of existence. There's a lot more to be said about this.

You also don't have to take the position of being anti-capitalist to eradicate poverty. New Zealand had zero percent unemployment rate in the 1950's and still identified as a welfare state capitalist society.

On May 12 2018 23:42 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2018 22:57 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Everyone loves to talk about how awful everything is, how the gap between rich and poor only grows, how you cannot support a family with no skills/education anymore. It's viewed as a conspiracy by the rich to keep the poor down. You're born into the world with nothing, and nothing is guaranteed. We talked about this in another thread, but with market forces, of course unskilled labor is worth shit when globalization opens the door for billions of workers in poorer countries like China/India, etc. Along with other trends of specialization becoming more and more important. Alas, trends are not as dire as they seem. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content...Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png I don't fkin get why we are having a spending deficit in the U.S. during such a long expansion, but politicians always just kick the can down the road. The only thing that is guaranteed is anguish and death. People are not born into this world with nothing. Look at Trump. He had a multimillionaire mentor and $100 milly trust fund upon his first breaths. So, we can't really do anything about death besides make things safer and healthier and prolong life a little bit. There are things we can do about anguish and suffering. Shouldn't we be focusing on that? No one chooses anguish and suffering. No one chooses to be a baby in Africa that has those bugs that eat their eyes so they die from that or they die from starvation or whatever fate becomes them. So, we rush to make cold profit and many people get sick. Some people can buy nice couches, country club memberships, and boats. Maybe a boat gets you some freedom out on the open seas like some sort of modern day pirate drinking luxury rum and singing pop songs but does it really anesthetize the looting and the pilfering in the form of more margin, charming sales pitches, more hours in the office, numbers in a spreadsheet, the expectation of being a perfect brand, man, whatever. There have got to be better markers of how we are doing as citizens of earth. Not fucking comparing GDP numbers. Nike and Apple should not be allowed to exploit and mistreat workers to such an extent that they are building deterrents because too many people are killing themselves.

The Apple suicides was just media junk to get clicks btw. The real headline could have read "Foxxconn workers have a signifcantly lower suicide rate than average." I'm sure that the working conditions aren't great or anything, but it is a better option that these workers had previously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

ABC News[32] and The Economist[33] both have done some simple comparison— although the number of workplace suicides at Foxconn is large in absolute terms, the suicide rate is actually lower when compared to the overall suicide rate of China[34] or the United States.[35] According to a 2011 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention report, the country has a high suicide rate with approximately 22.23 deaths per 100,000 persons.[36] In 2010, the worst year for workplace suicides at Foxconn with a total of 14 deaths, its employee count was a reported 930,000 people.[37]

It's just classic corporate negotiations and manipulation is what I am talking about. A large group of employees threaten to commit mass suicide so what does Foxconn do? They put in safety nets and claim to raise pay. China is probably worse than the US in this regard. The government still kidnaps journalists and tortures them.

But, I am typing this on a Macbook Pro with my trusty iPhone sitting right next to me.

At least I don't wear Nikes anymore. The swoosh no longer brings me comfort or security or cool. Only disdain. Why am I still hooked on Apple?

But, we are getting off track or are we?

Universal Anarchy. Bitcoin. What do we need? Food, clothes, shelter. Family, friends, transcendence. Slip everyone some psilocybin or MDMA.

Loco's trying to get me another YouTube crush:

On May 12 2018 22:57 MezmerizePLZ wrote: I don't fkin get why we are having a spending deficit in the U.S. during such a long expansion, but politicians always just kick the can down the road.

I mean you answered your own question in the first paragraph. The trading deficit seems like the rational explanation for your fast expansion. You don't need people in production, you need people that do research and development. Then again it's easy to make that assessment now.


@Loco got any good books with cool points of view/ideas on how the society could transition to social anarchism?

On May 13 2018 22:27 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 12 2018 22:57 MezmerizePLZ wrote: I don't fkin get why we are having a spending deficit in the U.S. during such a long expansion, but politicians always just kick the can down the road. I mean you answered your own question in the first paragraph. The trading deficit seems like the rational explanation for your fast expansion. You don't need people in production, you need people that do research and development. Then again it's easy to make that assessment now. @Loco got any good books with cool points of view/ideas on how the society could transition to social anarchism?

It's a very hard question to answer. I'm still relatively new to the topic of anarchism, the few books I have read on anarchy have not really laid out a blueprint on how to transition. I've gotten some ideas from this podcast which I think is a great place to start. But I think any solid blueprint could not be anarchistic in nature. This article also does a pretty good job of classifying different anticapitalist strategies going forward.

You can look at historical examples (like below), and I think a good place to begin is by looking at groups that are promoting communal/cooperative ways of working/living at the moment. There are multiple of what I'd call "regenerative paths" that are doing good in the world but are mostly disconnected from one another. I think the general goal is to have more of those prop up, build the infrastructure for them to be able to thrive, and make people more interested in them. It's a real challenge to pull people away from the cut throat/rat race world they were conditioned to think they inevitably have to be a part of.




It's also probably the question that Chomsky received the most often, so you can look at his many talks and interviews. I'm assuming that he goes into it in his book "On Anarchism" as well, although I haven't read it. I also searched for a video and quickly found this one:

@ spitfire check out the school of participatory economics; 'abc's of political economy' outlines an economic system that is participartory-in line with libertarian socialism/anarchism. robin hanel and mike albert are the two major authors in this area.

There are also more moderate suggestions to fix the economic system outlined by authors such as joseph stiglitz, and susan george. They are not anarchist solutions but simple policy decisions that would be a large improvement

just curious, how many hours a week do you guys spend reading? text and books specifically i mean. but i suppose long dense prose online would count as well. basically i am trying to exclude 5 min news articles or other weak/diluted sources of information.

and what industry do you guys work in? and does it help or get in the way of staying well informed/continuing your education? what continues to drive you even at this age to stay current or be so committed to truth? is it ever overwhelming how many different view points there are? and how difficult consensus and moving forward with any real "execution discipline" actually is?

even amongst wonderful friends and great people it's so difficult to agree on what the truth actually is. and even if by chance there's a topic that with enough overlap agreeing on action plans and executing is yet another insurmountable hurdle.

I am a professional poker player and that's my only job atm and doesn't help at all with my education.

I don't read that much lately, i spent half my undergrad reading about politics/economics and the other half focusing on my degree-not much of a life outside of that. so i used to spend around 40 hours a week reading about politics/economics and now i spend around 2 hours doing that and more time wasted on this forum. All of the content i listed here was something i read 2+ years ago. So my knowledge isn't exactly up to date and once i retire from poker i will leave this forum and go do back to researching; probably to get a phd in something. But atm poker just pays far too well and is trivially easy to me. It's not my main interest and serves as a means to an end. And politics/economics isn't my main interest as well but i gotta do that for moral reasons.

If people disagree over policy and the truth you can simply take a vote on what policy to implement and do whichever gets reasonable consensus. Human being's share a lot of values no matter where one lives, there is some evidence for that in cross cultural anthropology. So while it is difficult to get consensus, it's not impossible; we are all the same species.

I haven't read beyond the wiki on Parecon but I remember this Anarchy101 post about it which I'll share here. It's not a school within the libertarian/anarchist tradition for sure.

[Parecon is] absolutely horrible. It's the perfect example of the nominal "left" acceptance of their opponents' assumptions. It is important to point out that Albert and his friends are neither anarchists nor marxists, in fact they're highly dismissive of both anarchism and marxism, which is not surprising as their knowledge of both of those traditions is superficial at best. Instead, their ideology is based on neoclassical economics, with all the bullshit about rational or self-seeking actors that comes with it. Parecon is based on a Walrasian economic model of capitalism. It's huge on the work ethic. And "planning" is not an alternative to "markets", it's just commodity production without exchange or "markets" without exchange and it's highly bureaucratic and certainly as far from real socialism as one can imagine. Also it's a money-based system with work ethic based ideology: it's basically: fuck "communism" and human needs, you're not valued if you don't "work". Some of pro-market people are also neoclassicals, but most of them are neoliberals in the Mont Perelin Society sense of the word. If you want a critique of both "market" and "market" bullshit I recommend: - Seeing like a state - James C. Scott which is a critique of High-modernist schemes that include markets (price-mechanism) and "economic planning". - The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community by Stephen A. Marglin, which is a critique of a lot of the economists' bullshit. - Philip Mirowski's More Heat Than Light and Machine Dreams for a critical history of neoclassical economics. - Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber, which debunks a lot of myths about "markets" and some other stuff, also check out his other book Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. - The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition by William Davies. - Omnia Sunt Communia: On the Commons and the Transformation to Postcapitalism for some some alternative to "market" thinking.

^ what? I read the book and it is well within anarchist/libertarian thought. Also Albert is clearly an anarchist; he runs and writes articles for magazines that advocate anarchism, and set up IOPS-international organization for a particpatory society. His principles are very similar to other anarchist authors like daniel gaerin/chomsky/rudolf rocker.

anarchism represents a wide spectrum of thought and almost all anarchists disagree on some things

The only things true in the reddit post is it's representation of the idea of 'work' in the book, and being a money based system. I don't exactly agree with the book on the 'work' part either-but it's still within anarchism, it's something anarchists disagree on. The core principles of the book are what anarcho-syndaclism strove for; all aspects of social life being run democratically.

yeah read the book before making up your mind, and subreddits can be pretty bad sources of info in my experience.

On May 14 2018 04:35 qwe5408 wrote: just curious, how many hours a week do you guys spend reading? text and books specifically i mean. but i suppose long dense prose online would count as well. basically i am trying to exclude 5 min news articles or other weak/diluted sources of information.

I prob spend around 25-30hrs/week reading on average except 80% of that is spent on fantasy books and the other 20% on something that would actually benefit me in real life e.g. psychology. When it comes to news and analysis of what is going on in the world for example, it could get really overwhelming as everyone is trying to shove their propaganda up your throat and if you arent careful you could get sucked into it quite easily, that's why I prefer to actually discuss shit here, as people like Stroggoz/Baal/Loco base their opinions on scientific research and historical facts when they're backing their thesis and if their thesis is flawed it gets destroyed. With mass media, you'll never get that.

David's new book is out. I think it'll do very well.

Oh great. More books. I don't think I've ever come across a bullshit job. I remember some days the masons would be holed up in their home base all day taking naps, playing games on their phones, and reading the newspaper but then other days they'd be working overtime doing intricate construction work. They are protected by the union after all. Sometimes you are out on a job sweating your ass off or in front of a tough customer who decides if they keep buying your stuff or not and you start thinking what the fuck is Human Resources anyway??? But, they are working their asses off too. I don't really buy the premise. I don't really care about the premise and I would much rather read a number of the other books listed in this thread.

I've come across some people on reddit who confessed that they had bullshit jobs (though they didn't use the word). They literally do nothing all day, or they work for an hour at most and then do nothing. There are no days where they are actually laboring. The common trend in the posts was exactly what David argued here: they felt like shit about it. There's really no doubt that there are a lot of those jobs out there, and it's very likely they will keep rising as more jobs become automated and UBI is not implemented.

I remember in the steel plants they had robots that could change tubes much faster and safer than humans. The human was making $30-40/hr to do the job. Let's say the robot costs $500,000 which I don't even think it was that much for that simple of a job. The robot can last decades if it is well taken care of. Of course, there is maintenance. 3 shifts x 365 days is $350,000 in human labor. It becomes clear to see how much profit there can be in automating jobs. A universal basic income just seems like the right thing to do. Let's say the robot costs $1million over 10 years. The human labor is $3.5 million over 10 years (I haven't even considered health insurance and matching retirement plans). That's $2.5 million basically going to the CEO and maybe he pays out the executives in bonus and stocks and maybe they pay out the managers in bonuses and small pay raises but I have never found trickle down to be a thing. The guys who get promotions are the ones that are willing to do fucked up work that no one else wants to do. You want a pay raise? Go to fucking China for 3 years and work 80 hours/wk. It's crazy. It's really crazy. UBI taxes even if they were 10% tax rate you get middle America bitching and moaning. I've made $63k in a year and I have made $70k in a year. It's no fucking different. It gets absurd when you consider a billionaire making $27 billion or $30 billion. What is the fucking difference? But, we could have a world where maybe babies in Africa don't get their eyes eaten out from the inside by parasites or starve to death. Fucking neoliberal economics man.

I don't really like watching youtube videos but i know graeber has written a bit on guard labour; basically labour that is devoted towards protecting and servicing the rich. It makes up a large part of the economy now, i thought that's what he meant by bullshit jobs but i read the article on it many years ago so could be wrong. The job that has proportionally increased the most over the neoliberal period in America is the job of security guard.

I had to spend 2 hours of my day today updating my taxes because I missed a form relating to the Health Insurance Marketplace. I was on Medicare in PA which ran pretty smooth but in South Carolina you need to be disabled AND have cancer (basically). I still don't really know how any of this Marketplace stuff works but I pay my bills and it's pretty decent with my psychiatrist and therapist but fucking terrible with my dentist. I made $10k last year. They defined the poverty line in my state at $11,xxx. So, they basically didn't want to give me my refund so I fill out these forms and it looks like they owe me more money but we will see. Oh yeah, I don't think the owner at the restaurant paid me for the last 2 weeks of work so there is that. It's a fucked system.

Someone has got to have healthcare down. Everyone pays a big chunk of money and then has access to decent healthcare. The super rich can pay for their own health care and get private care if they fucking want. Norway? Do they have it down? It just seems like one of those countries would.

I really want to study how collectives work and start my own or be a part of one because I don't think I have the skills to start my own business or rather I don't have any ideas or execution but my sister wants to start a coffee shop and hire me and I think it would be cool to make it a collective. Each person have a share of the company and any decision would go to a vote.

You know. I have time right now. The only thing I can really think of doing is read more. But, I think I get a lot out of watching videos and discussion too. I shun tv, most brands, most stuff. Those polished mannequins parading around as politicians. No different from the CEOs. Oh, it's vomit inducing. I try not to get too bitter because that is what the right has branded me. Oh, that bitter nihilist who wishes to destroy the world. Au contraire mes amis! ¡Viva la Revolucion! I love life and transcendence and people. Yes, I am atheist and anti-theist. Yes, I am excited by the ideas of Marx and anarchy. That doesn't mean I don't believe in anything or wish for total chaos upon the world. It's the opposite. Loco talks about animal liberation. That is pretty krunk. Not just the reduction of suffering in all sentient beings but the fucking liberation of all sentient beings. To be honest, I am not as exited about the liberation of a shrimp as I am about someone in prison for possessing marijuana or someone wrongfully accused or as I talk about a lot the children anywhere getting their eyes eaten out by parasites or starving to death.

I like these discussions on individual choices versus socialist/collective action. We could all decide to stop wearing Nikes but people are still going to wear Nikes and put them on a pedestal. How about the government or some entity being able to say "Hey, man, stop using shitty sweatshops!" I don't know if it's a fine larger than what they are saving on using that particular sweat shop or how bout throwing them in jail? Is it even possible that this could happen? I am just thinking out loud. Dreams can come true though. If it can be imagined it can come alive in some form or another.

I have a soft spot for cow. I think it is because when you go to the butchers you just see fucking slaughtered corpses strewn across the display tables. I don't seem to have the same sentiments towards chicken or shrimp. Chicken just seem so dumb and so ruthless. Ever throw a mouse into a chicken coup? Brutal. Shrimp and also lobster just seem so insect to me. So alien. But, I can not deny when I put those live lobsters in that boiling water they do not want to be there. Why not just eat some toast and some corn on the cob? BECAUSE I WANT SOME FUCKING LOBSTER AND BUTTER!!!! Torture and murder just to satisfy a self-centered craving. 5 min. of pleasure for boiling a sentient being alive. Great. What a life.

On May 18 2018 23:00 Stroggoz wrote: I don't really like watching youtube videos but i know graeber has written a bit on guard labour; basically labour that is devoted towards protecting and servicing the rich. It makes up a large part of the economy now, i thought that's what he meant by bullshit jobs but i read the article on it many years ago so could be wrong. The job that has proportionally increased the most over the neoliberal period in America is the job of security guard.

no, you got it right, that's what he theorizes.

"There are two sides to development. On the one hand, there is a global myth wherein societies, having become industrialized, attain well-being, reduce their extreme inequalities, and dispense to individuals the maximum amount of happiness that a society is capable of dispensing. On the other hand, development is a reductionistic conception which holds that economic growth is the necessary and sufficient condition for all social, psychological, and moral developments. This techno-economic conception ignores the human problems of identity, community, solidarity, and culture." - Edgar Morin, "Homeland Earth" page 59.

On May 30 2018 01:59 RiKD wrote: there is a global myth wherein societies, having become industrialized, attain well-being, reduce their extreme inequalities, and dispense to individuals the maximum amount of happiness that a society is capable of dispensing.

The free market reduces inequality only compared to more unequal systems like feudalism, but it is an unequal system, its a meritocracy, the good part about it is that in a true free market there is a lot of class-mobility, meaning its relatively easy to get rich and also to go bust, but the government greatly reduces this very vital part of the free market, just like socialism in their attempts to minimize suffering they cause much more long term.

Naturally you could call a meritocracy as unfair since IQ and most talents are quite genetic, and arguably even industriousness, but the alternative to this apparent injustice is simply terrible, lets call it equity, since that will invoke the worst in all of us, but thats kind of a phliosophical discussion and I'm not sure that is what we are doing right now in this thread.

It's not a pure meritocracy. This kind of gets into the competence hierarchy versus dominance hierarchy debate. There will always be coercion, manipulation, exploitation even if you want to call it a competence hierarchy. I think it is just as important to be a ruthless businessman and negotiator. That even may trump IQ and conscientiousness if we are talking about profit and power. Basically, it is important to be competent in manipulation, coercion, and exploitation to climb the hierarchy. There are countless stories of hardworking super smart guys getting fleeced by businessmen all the time.

What happens if someone goes bust in your free market? They just starve and die? What about the people who are already broke? Who were born broke and maybe they don't have the IQ or the conscientiousness to survive. I remember you said in another thread that the disabled would just get jobs. It's really not that easy. Yeah, it would be great that the banks don't get bailed out, beef doesn't get subsidized, corn syrup doesn't get subsidized, etc. but what is to stop a corporation from working their employees to death at sub-sustenance levels?

We can have a philosophical discussion about equity. I don't see how it would work in a capitalist society. The drive for competition and hyper continual improvement and reduction of life to profit and power doesn't lend itself to equity. It would really be the worst for the guys making like $150k and trying to live a $200k lifestyle. Taking $15k away from them when they are already maxed out and in debt they might kill somebody. I feel like that's how it is for a lot of people starting at about $80k all the way up to about $2 million. There's no liquid money. Consumption has taken its toll and will continue to take its toll. It's competition over everything. There is no empathy.

I certainly don't like the government stealing from people. That is major coercion. I don't think Bill Gates just because he's a billionaire knows better though. I don't think that is true. Warren Buffet is not a god. Our governments are so corrupt though that it's hard to stomach them handling something like equity.

I don't know how else to put it. I just finished a beautiful book today called "The Dispossessed," by Ursula K. Le Guin and she creates this anarchist colony on the moon of Anarress that is not perfect but it brings me hope even that one day a small commune could survive in that way or even a small country could say fuck it and go that route. It is more difficult in this world. I have been conditioned to want to live by myself in a large apartment and have my own property. I am getting over that though. I am considering moving into a sober living house and making all my possessions communal. Giving all my clothes away that I can't fit in a suitcase. Giving all my books to my sister or a library but really my sister because she said she wanted them and I told her I would give them all to her. But, I fear this might be getting away from equity. I am ok at living at less than equity if I don't have to put up with the unpleasantness of wage slavery. Unfortunately, in my position it is unavoidable but there are less unpleasant options than others of course.

Power is always illegitimate unless it can be proved to be legitimate. You can't call yourself an anarchist and just assume it's a meritocracy.

On May 30 2018 04:50 RiKD wrote: It's not a pure meritocracy. This kind of gets into the competence hierarchy versus dominance hierarchy debate. There will always be coercion, manipulation, exploitation even if you want to call it a competence hierarchy. I think it is just as important to be a ruthless businessman and negotiator. That even may trump IQ and conscientiousness if we are talking about profit and power. Basically, it is important to be competent in manipulation, coercion, and exploitation to climb the hierarchy. There are countless stories of hardworking super smart guys getting fleeced by businessmen all the time.

Its a meritoracy in the sense of usefulness and scarcity of skills, and its amazingly precise in dictaminating the market value of someones job, naturally its not perfect and a superb kindergarden teacher wont make much more than a regular one unless she is willing to move to other administrative positions but thats the nature of the job market, most jobs have a income cap and to earn more you either move to other position or accept the salary cap.

Of course being manipulative, lying etc can give edges in life, thats the whole point of integrity and having morals, if being dishonest always gave worse immediate results nobody would be dishonest lol, thats the nature of life.

What happens if someone goes bust in your free market? They just starve and die? What about the people who are already broke? Who were born broke and maybe they don't have the IQ or the conscientiousness to survive. I remember you said in another thread that the disabled would just get jobs. It's really not that easy. Yeah, it would be great that the banks don't get bailed out, beef doesn't get subsidized, corn syrup doesn't get subsidized, etc. but what is to stop a corporation from working their employees to death at sub-sustenance levels?

When I said "go bust" I mean people in the economically top tier tumbling down, all this people who are "already broke" will be much less in a free market and institutions financed through philantrophy like the Red Cross would grow in the absence of a state.

What stops the corporation from exploiting their employees is the free market, thats capitalism 101.

Corporation next door offers better job conditions, so the exploitive corporation either equals the conditions or goes bust, thats the same reason why you can't sell a can of coke for $100, because a pepsi is $1 and you either coke sets the price close to $1 or they go bust.

We can have a philosophical discussion about equity. I don't see how it would work in a capitalist society. The drive for competition and hyper continual improvement and reduction of life to profit and power doesn't lend itself to equity. It would really be the worst for the guys making like $150k and trying to live a $200k lifestyle. Taking $15k away from them when they are already maxed out and in debt they might kill somebody. I feel like that's how it is for a lot of people starting at about $80k all the way up to about $2 million. There's no liquid money. Consumption has taken its toll and will continue to take its toll. It's competition over everything. There is no empathy.

I dont know what the free market has to do with people earning 150k but spending 200k, thats just irresponsible behavior, also just like loco you believe that the free market means consumerism, again that is just personal irresponsible behavior.

I have a few simples questions about anarcho collectivism that perhaps you lefties can help me with brief answers no 2hours podcast replies loco please.

Is labor compulsory?

If yes, who picks what job people do? what happens if a job I want has has too many people like lets say there are no positions for doctors, so I have to do a job I dont like until doctors die? because this seem to have the same problem than capitalism, because the distribution of jobs needed and what people aspire to do are vastly different and we would end up basically with the same scenario of nobody working in what they want, and in this case not even hability and hard work would get you the position.

How are resources managed? Lets say there is a TV factory that build 1k TVs per day, who manages and distributes those TVs? are they sent to palces where you just pick any number you want? if so, what stops me from getting 1 million TVs? if its only x number of TVs per person, who controls this and how? and what happens if i broke my TV gets stolen?

I can't see how resources can be distributed in a big society without a big "distributor" entity which is basically the new government and then its not an anarchy.

On May 30 2018 03:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2018 01:59 RiKD wrote: there is a global myth wherein societies, having become industrialized, attain well-being, reduce their extreme inequalities, and dispense to individuals the maximum amount of happiness that a society is capable of dispensing. The free market reduces inequality only compared to more unequal systems like feudalism, but it is an unequal system, its a meritocracy, the good part about it is that in a true free market there is a lot of class-mobility, meaning its relatively easy to get rich and also to go bust, but the government greatly reduces this very vital part of the free market, just like socialism in their attempts to minimize suffering they cause much more long term. Naturally you could call a meritocracy as unfair since IQ and most talents are quite genetic, and arguably even industriousness, but the alternative to this apparent injustice is simply terrible, lets call it equity, since that will invoke the worst in all of us, but thats kind of a phliosophical discussion and I'm not sure that is what we are doing right now in this thread.

I disagree with all of this but I don't have the will to fight about it anymore lol

These free market capitalism/human nature assumptions have come directly from philosophers (Mill, Smith, Locke to name a few central figures). Though in the case of Adam Smith his thought was in some ways quite perverted, he would not be supporting neoliberal capitalism as the current "classical liberals" believe. You can't separate the two topics. People like Hayek, Friedman and Mises were just running with those philosophical/psychological assumptions despite the fact that they are really quite easily debunked by the historical record and modern science.

On May 30 2018 07:28 Baalim wrote: I have a few simples questions about anarcho collectivism that perhaps you lefties can help me with brief answers no 2hours podcast replies loco please. Is labor compulsory? If yes, who picks what job people do? what happens if a job I want has has too many people like lets say there are no positions for doctors, so I have to do a job I dont like until doctors die? because this seem to have the same problem than capitalism, because the distribution of jobs needed and what people aspire to do are vastly different and we would end up basically with the same scenario of nobody working in what they want, and in this case not even hability and hard work would get you the position. How are resources managed? Lets say there is a TV factory that build 1k TVs per day, who manages and distributes those TVs? are they sent to palces where you just pick any number you want? if so, what stops me from getting 1 million TVs? if its only x number of TVs per person, who controls this and how? and what happens if i broke my TV gets stolen? I can't see how resources can be distributed in a big society without a big "distributor" entity which is basically the new government and then its not an anarchy.

Anarchists are by definition anti-authoritarian. Nothing is compulsory. Behavior is socially enforced because its the only way to organize a society that benefits everyone (except those who are anti-social).

Resources: it depends who you ask. I've been reading about TZM/resource-based economy who are not anarchists but they share the same end goal of a classless society. They argue that computers can do it (and in fact already do it in some parts of the world for certain things) but it could be scaled up to do everything. Distribution can be automated. Anarchists as far as I know argue for syndicates and worker self-management. If the resources are not managed by the workers themselves, then the managers are directly elected and recallable. In other words, people are democratically rotated as needed. The entire workforce always decides who is best suited for a specific job, which is what makes it fundamentally different from private ownership or state ownership.

Yes, you could pick up any number of TVs you want. There are no laws in an anarchist society so it can't be "X number per person" lol. The whole idea is ridiculous since no one owns anything -- there is no private property. "Your" TV is not yours, it's a TV that you are currently using. Not sure why you would want to have more than one TV at a time while others don't have one though since you can't sell them to gain any sort of advantage over anyone else since it's not a competitive world driven by a market economy, you'd just become an outcast and probably get your ass kicked. Stealing things is ultimately an act motivated by deprivation. An anarchist society removes the preconditions for such deprivation to ever exist, as long as resources are not scarce.

When Adam Smith, extolling the power of the market, noted that, ‘it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner’, he forgot to mention the benevolence of his mother, Margaret Douglas, who had raised her boy alone from birth. Smith never married so had no wife to rely upon (nor children of his own to raise). At the age of 43, as he began to write his opus, The Wealth of Nations, he moved back in with his cherished old mum, from whom he could expect his dinner every day. But her role in it all never got a mention in his economic theory, and it subsequently remained invisible for centuries. As a result, mainstream economic theory is obsessed with the productivity of waged labour while skipping right over the unpaid work that makes it all possible, as feminist economists have made clear for decades. That work is known by many names: unpaid caring work, the reproductive economy, the love economy, the second economy. However, as economist Neva Goodwin has pointed out, far from being secondary, it is actually the ‘core economy’ and it comes first every day, sustaining the essentials of family and social life with the universal human resources of time, knowledge, skill, care, empathy, teaching and reciprocity. And if you have never really thought of it before, then it’s time you met your inner housewife (because we all have one). She lives in the daily dealings of making breakfast, washing the dishes, tidying the house, shopping for groceries, teaching the children to walk and to share, washing clothes, caring for elderly parents, emptying the rubbish bins, collecting kids from school, helping the neighbours, making the dinner, sweeping the floor, and lending an ear. She carries out all those tasks – some with open arms, others through gritted teeth – that underpin personal and family well-being and sustain social life. We all have a hand in this core economy, but some people (like Adam Smith’s mum) spend far more time in it than others. Time may be a universal human resource but it varies hugely in terms of how we each get to experience and use it, how far we control it, and how it is valued. In sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, time spent in the core economy is particularly visible because, when the state fails to deliver and the market is out of reach, householders have to make provision for many more of their needs directly. Millions of women and girls spend hours walking miles each day, carrying their body weight in water, food or firewood on their heads, often with a baby strapped to their back – and all for no pay. But this gendered division of paid and unpaid work is prevalent in every society, albeit sometimes less visibly so. And since work in the core economy is unpaid, it is routinely undervalued and exploited, generating lifelong inequalities in social standing, job opportunities, income, and power between women and men. By largely ignoring the core economy, mainstream economics has also overlooked just how much the paid economy depends upon it. Without all that cooking, washing, nursing and sweeping, there would be no workers – today or in the future – who were healthy, well-fed, and ready for work each morning. As the futurist Alvin Toffler liked to ask at smart gatherings of business executives, ‘How productive would your workforce be if it hadn’t been toilet trained?’ The scale of the core economy’s contribution is not to be dismissed lightly, either. In a 2002 study of Basle, a wealthy Swiss city, the estimated value of unpaid care being provided in the city’s households exceeded the total cost of salaries paid in all of Basle’s hospitals, daycare centres and schools, from the directors to the janitors. Likewise, a 2014 survey of 15,000 mothers in the USA calculated that, if women were paid the going hourly rate for each of their roles – switching between housekeeper and daycare teacher to van driver and cleaner – then stay-at-home mums would earn around $120,000 each year. Even mothers who do head out to work each day would earn an extra $70,000 on top of their actual wages, given all the unpaid care they also provide at home. Why does it matter that this core economy should be visible in economics? Because the household provision of care is essential for human well-being, and productivity in the paid economy depends directly upon it. It matters because when – in the name of austerity and public-sector savings – governments cut budgets for children’s daycare centres, community services, parental leave and youth clubs, the need for care-giving doesn’t disappear: it just gets pushed back into the home. The pressure, particularly on women’s time, can force them out of work and increase social stress and vulnerability. That undermines both well-being and women’s empowerment, with multiple knock-on effects for society and the economy alike. In short, including the household economy in the new diagram of the macroeconomy is the first step in recognising its centrality, and in reducing and redistributing women’s unpaid work.

Muh meritocracy. Interestingly, the libertarian belief in IQ just makes this case stronger too. If you inherit your IQ to a large degree from your mom then it's in part thanks to her that you earn such a good living -- shouldn't she be remunerated for that?

Show nested quote + On May 30 2018 05:33 Baalim wrote: [QUOTE]On May 30 2018 04:50 RiKD wrote: It's not a pure meritocracy. This kind of gets into the competence hierarchy versus dominance hierarchy debate. There will always be coercion, manipulation, exploitation even if you want to call it a competence hierarchy. I think it is just as important to be a ruthless businessman and negotiator. That even may trump IQ and conscientiousness if we are talking about profit and power. Basically, it is important to be competent in manipulation, coercion, and exploitation to climb the hierarchy. There are countless stories of hardworking super smart guys getting fleeced by businessmen all the time. Its a meritoracy in the sense of usefulness and scarcity of skills, and its amazingly precise in dictaminating the market value of someones job, naturally its not perfect and a superb kindergarden teacher wont make much more than a regular one unless she is willing to move to other administrative positions but thats the nature of the job market, most jobs have a income cap and to earn more you either move to other position or accept the salary cap. Of course being manipulative, lying etc can give edges in life, thats the whole point of integrity and having morals, if being dishonest always gave worse immediate results nobody would be dishonest lol, thats the nature of life.

I wouldn't say lying plays a big part. Every executive I've ever met I wouldn't say is dishonest. They have all been rather honest albeit also political. It is more about a subtle manipulation, coercion, exploitation. Do this or I am going to make you write the monthly report, do this or you can't go on vacation, do this or else you have to work on Saturday, do this or else you are fired. It is personal responsibility but we put ourselves in positions in which losing the job is worse for the individual than losing someone is for the corporation. I think it is this way in most cases. Also, it is very difficult for an individual to hold his own in negotiations with a ruthless hierarchy. Everything is a negotiation. The one towards the bottom of the totem pole is going to have a tough time keeping it up against every last ask of the manipulative hierarchy. They turn us into achievement-subjects obsessed with continual improvement and hyper-efficiency. Part of that is keeping the bosses happy. Part of that is no negotiating with the bosses over every seemingly minute thing in their eyes. So, we are constantly losing battles to keep the boss happy and for what? To get him a bonus. What's even the point of a bonus I still have to put up with this shit every day. We are now always hurried and stressed.

"A superficial agitation takes hold of individuals the moment they escape the enslaving constraints of work. Unchecked consumption turns into bulimic overconsumption, which alternates with curative privations." -Edgar Morin

It is what they want us to do after all.

I think it's easy to be a capitalist as a poker player. With poker the manipulation and exploitation happens openly at the table. It is part of the game. There are no rulers. I used to love that about poker. No authority. Then I go down to a place like Buenos Aires which has a certain lawlessness to it. A certain vibe. A certain energy. It's fucking brilliant. Capitalism all the way! I remember when I played poker I was fiercely anarcho-capitalistic even though that is an oxymoron. Get into a multinational corporation and see how it functions and capitalism loses it's luster.

Show nested quote + What happens if someone goes bust in your free market? They just starve and die? What about the people who are already broke? Who were born broke and maybe they don't have the IQ or the conscientiousness to survive. I remember you said in another thread that the disabled would just get jobs. It's really not that easy. Yeah, it would be great that the banks don't get bailed out, beef doesn't get subsidized, corn syrup doesn't get subsidized, etc. but what is to stop a corporation from working their employees to death at sub-sustenance levels? When I said "go bust" I mean people in the economically top tier tumbling down, all this people who are "already broke" will be much less in a free market and institutions financed through philantrophy like the Red Cross would grow in the absence of a state. What stops the corporation from exploiting their employees is the free market, thats capitalism 101. Corporation next door offers better job conditions, so the exploitive corporation either equals the conditions or goes bust, thats the same reason why you can't sell a can of coke for $100, because a pepsi is $1 and you either coke sets the price close to $1 or they go bust.

But, without unions or minimum wage laws the corporations are going to push it to the limits. I mean first thing these guys are going to do is automate everything and kick everyone to the curb. Then what? They are going to spring for a universal basic income out of the goodness of their hearts? Yeah...........................

Show nested quote + We can have a philosophical discussion about equity. I don't see how it would work in a capitalist society. The drive for competition and hyper continual improvement and reduction of life to profit and power doesn't lend itself to equity. It would really be the worst for the guys making like $150k and trying to live a $200k lifestyle. Taking $15k away from them when they are already maxed out and in debt they might kill somebody. I feel like that's how it is for a lot of people starting at about $80k all the way up to about $2 million. There's no liquid money. Consumption has taken its toll and will continue to take its toll. It's competition over everything. There is no empathy. I dont know what the free market has to do with people earning 150k but spending 200k, thats just irresponsible behavior, also just like loco you believe that the free market means consumerism, again that is just personal irresponsible behavior.

Yeah, but the whole system is set up for it. Again, I think this is your biases as a free thinking, non-conforming poker pro. You're off the grid, you are out of the system. Go work in an office at a multinational corporation for a month and see what you think.

Are you saying under a free market we could drop this idea of GDP and "never ending" growth? The profit and power mongers will never have it. Let's ride this train to the bitter end they say.

It's personal irresponsible behavior led by an entire culture.

It's not even a matter of "they won't let us have it"... as in, the system could survive if they did let us have it and the rich would just be less rich. No, the system would collapse if people weren't overconsuming (buying wasteful/inefficient products) and if they weren't getting indebted. That's why things are built with planned obsolescence to begin with, it's not even being hidden from us. It's not something that's up for debate... Are we going to debate creationism too?

The thing I find the most charming about anarcho-capitalists is that they believe that a single micro trade that perfectly advantages both parties in an isolated situation is what is represented in all trades in the "free" market, lol. Like, Stefan Molyneux gives this example in a debate with Peter Joseph of a little girl who opens up a lemonade stand. You buy the lemonade because you were thirsty and the little girl makes a few pennies. Win-win! That is the beauty of the free market -- there is absolutely nothing else to it. It's just win-win trading, perfectly consensual and fair, until the government interferes that is. Economics is so simple! Everyone has free will to act in the free market and the invisible hand takes care of everyone's needs, just like it took care of this little girl. The worst thing that can happen is that there is no demand for lemonade, and the little girl will have a little frowny face but she'll be freed up to put her talents to use towards something else.

On May 30 2018 11:56 Loco wrote: Anarchists are by definition anti-authoritarian. Nothing is compulsory. Behavior is socially enforced because its the only way to organize a society that benefits everyone (except those who are anti-social).

So you expect people to voluntarily mop up floors and sweat in hard blue colar jobs instead of just traveling and having a good time in the beach and chilling in mountain lakes?

Or are the people who choose to chill in the lake the antisocials you speak of, what % of people you believe would go this way ?

They argue that computers can do it (and in fact already do it in some parts of the world for certain things) but it could be scaled up to do everything. Distribution can be automated. Anarchists as far as I know argue for syndicates and worker self-management. If the resources are not managed by the workers themselves, then the managers are directly elected and recallable. In other words, people are democratically rotated as needed. The entire workforce always decides who is best suited for a specific job, which is what makes it fundamentally different from private ownership or state ownership.

Computers pick your job? that sounds like a bad episode of black mirror

Yes, you could pick up any number of TVs you want. There are no laws in an anarchist society so it can't be "X number per person" lol. The whole idea is ridiculous since no one owns anything -- there is no private property. "Your" TV is not yours, it's a TV that you are currently using. Not sure why you would want to have more than one TV at a time while others don't have one though since you can't sell them to gain any sort of advantage over anyone else since it's not a competitive world driven by a market economy, you'd just become an outcast and probably get your ass kicked. Stealing things is ultimately an act motivated by deprivation. An anarchist society removes the preconditions for such deprivation to ever exist, as long as resources are not scarce.

Have a "free big screen TV" day at Wallmart and people will die in the trample, I guess we go back to the main disagreement, you believe this is just capitalism programming that can be easily changed by removing capitalism, i believe you are daft


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separating this because I have a few more follow up questions if you dont mind answering:


Can this system work locally or has it to be globally accepted at once?

If it can be local (country etc) do you control migration?

If you don't then how do you stop somebody to cross the border, take all of the products they can and sell-them in their capitalist country?


what about luxury or premium items, for example as you know, I love cars (probably your utopia only has public transport but humor me for argument's sake), but the production of lets say a Lambo is far more complex and resource intensive than some Ford fiesta, so naturally there will be an overdemand of Lambos, so you sign up a 200-year long waiting list for one? do the Lambo factory asks for more voluntary workers to grow so everybody who wans a Lambo gets one? and if they do wouldn't that lead to huge ammounts of resources being consumed since we stated that a Lambo uses like 10x the resources a Fiesta does?

How do you tackle that problem? I just used the example of one product but that happens in hundreds of products.

On May 30 2018 20:05 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2018 11:56 Loco wrote: Anarchists are by definition anti-authoritarian. Nothing is compulsory. Behavior is socially enforced because its the only way to organize a society that benefits everyone (except those who are anti-social). So you expect people to voluntarily mop up floors and sweat in hard blue colar jobs instead of just traveling and having a good time in the beach and chilling in mountain lakes? Or are the people who choose to chill in the lake the antisocials you speak of, what % of people you believe would go this way ?

The best example of anarcho-syndicalism is from the book "The Dispossessed" written by Ursula K. Le Guin. The Anarresti were a group of people that left their earth and moved to the moon to start a commune. It's like if a bunch of anarcho-socialists could move to Mars and make a go of it there. The way the Anaressti handled it is they had what they called 10th day work. Every 10th day they would do the dirty work that was needed. They did this and the jobs they were posted to out of solidarity and brotherhood.

Someone that was just fucking off could get beat up, harassed, their life made a living hell. In this world probably a lot would be inclined to chill in the lake. I know I would be. Especially if a fucking computer was telling me what to do. One detail is that solidarity and brotherhood was not only needed for "happiness" on Anarres but in many cases simply survival depended on it. If Joevi is off chilling in the lake and there is a famine he is indirectly causing people to starve. There is a saying in Anarres: "Never eat if another man starves."

Show nested quote + They argue that computers can do it (and in fact already do it in some parts of the world for certain things) but it could be scaled up to do everything. Distribution can be automated. Anarchists as far as I know argue for syndicates and worker self-management. If the resources are not managed by the workers themselves, then the managers are directly elected and recallable. In other words, people are democratically rotated as needed. The entire workforce always decides who is best suited for a specific job, which is what makes it fundamentally different from private ownership or state ownership. Computers pick your job? that sounds like a bad episode of black mirror

It was actually one of the things that was criticized in the book. The computer becoming overly bureaucratic but I am sure a computer could do an efficient enough of a job of locating need. This is a world in which mutual aid is the highest good. They don't have property. They have never had property. It is duty to the commune to use your skills where it is needed. It is a similar idea to what Cuba did when they were sending their best doctors around the world to the places that needed it the most.

Another problem in the book is that the computer did not value theoretical physics. In fact the world didn't. It also didn't respect ingenious composing, absurdist satire, among others.

Show nested quote + Yes, you could pick up any number of TVs you want. There are no laws in an anarchist society so it can't be "X number per person" lol. The whole idea is ridiculous since no one owns anything -- there is no private property. "Your" TV is not yours, it's a TV that you are currently using. Not sure why you would want to have more than one TV at a time while others don't have one though since you can't sell them to gain any sort of advantage over anyone else since it's not a competitive world driven by a market economy, you'd just become an outcast and probably get your ass kicked. Stealing things is ultimately an act motivated by deprivation. An anarchist society removes the preconditions for such deprivation to ever exist, as long as resources are not scarce. Have a "free big screen TV" day at Wallmart and people will die in the trample, I guess we go back to the main disagreement, you believe this is just capitalism programming that can be easily changed by removing capitalism, i believe you are daft

On Anarres there is no stealing. If someone were hoarding TVs it would be looked at as some bizarre mental illness. People could just take them away from the guy too if they needed one. If there was an island somewhere bought by an eccentric billionaire that decided he was going to make his own commune and allowed socialist-anarchists to move there it eventually could get to that. It's not the most realistic case study because buying up a bunch of land in Montana would still be a United State of America. I think people can change though. It is possible to wake up from the consumerism and to wake up from the capitalism. A lot of people have no reason to or are just so hurried there's just no other options.

Separating this because I have a few more follow up questions if you dont mind answering: Can this system work locally or has it to be globally accepted at once?

I believe it has to be local and ideally be isolated. Like a smaller country saying fuck it and moving in an anarcho socialist direction.

If it can be local (country etc) do you control migration?

I would set up some sort of anarcho-syndicalism, socialist quiz or perhaps an interviewing process. You wouldn't want any damn propertarians or profiteers getting through.

If you don't then how do you stop somebody to cross the border, take all of the products they can and sell-them in their capitalist country?

You build a wall or simply let it happen.

what about luxury or premium items, for example as you know, I love cars (probably your utopia only has public transport but humor me for argument's sake), but the production of lets say a Lambo is far more complex and resource intensive than some Ford fiesta, so naturally there will be an overdemand of Lambos, so you sign up a 200-year long waiting list for one? do the Lambo factory asks for more voluntary workers to grow so everybody who wans a Lambo gets one? and if they do wouldn't that lead to huge ammounts of resources being consumed since we stated that a Lambo uses like 10x the resources a Fiesta does? How do you tackle that problem? I just used the example of one product but that happens in hundreds of products.

First of all, yes, the utopia would have public transport and perhaps ride sharing.

On Anarres wanting or having a lambo would be being a propertarian and an egoizer. A lambo factory would be deemed impractical and excrement. If they even have a car factory for personal use it would be to make electric powered Honda Civics or something similar and they would be used by whoever needs them similar to how some of the bike sharing works in cities. But, actually, taxis are free on Anarres so they would only need the bare minimum for car and truck factories.

After typing all this out I believe the first step is small scale communes. It might never get that far though. The neoliberals would be quick to snuff it out I would imagine so maybe we need a larger scale movement. I think a commune has a higher chance of success rate in a corner of Denmark or Finland then it does anywhere near the USA. Maybe some part of California. Some part of Paris. Some part of Montreal. It seems to make more sense as an extension from socialism. There seem to always be enough rationalizations for capitalism and the deep seeded fear of communism is strong in the USA. You tell someone you are an anarchist communist and their heads kind of explode. They don't know which misnomers to harp on first.

There is an anarchist community in a corner of Copenhagen, Denmark

It looks like they ended up buying the land and that they also pay taxes to the Danish government. It was legit anarchy when they were simply collectivist squatters though. That's badass.

This is kind of what I was thinking about will start emerging.

Trumbellplex

Before you know it you have a whole community tuned in. Then you have communities tuned in. Then maybe there is a bit of a shift in consciousness. It's not going to catch the folks hurrying through their middle class life but maybe it will someday.

Look Baal, I'm done discussing political economy here. The questions you are asking me are really basic misunderstandings and a lot of them are just appeals to personality incredulity, they are not even asked in good faith, you have already decided your position on things. I have better things to do than debate the very basics of something you should be knowledgeable about already as someone who has been calling himself an anarchist for like 10 years, or that you could look up in an anarchism FAQ. You can mock anarchism all you want, the historical record backs up left-anarchism only. 99% of human history involved people living in egalitarian societies, yet you think the burden of proof is on me to show you that a society could be egalitarian. It's your model that has no grounding in reality, it exists only in the minds of a few people online, at this one point in time, and has never been organized for. It couldn't exist or function at all.

As for luxury items, because it seems like it was a good faith question, I'll answer it. In an anarchist society, the plans for the luxury car are public domain. Everyone has access to everything. If the materials are available you can build yourself your car. The thing is, typical luxury goods are not naturally-occurring, 'organic' wants within a free society. They are dependent on a socio-economic system wherein luxury equals status. That is, the precondition for their existence is a 'consumer mindset' -- it's what you necessarily get when a society is market-based and structured hierarchically. An anarchist society is self-organized and formed voluntarily by people with a shared philosophy, you can't think about it in the way that you currently do by transposing capitalists/individualists/modern consumers into it and assuming anarchists would somehow have to tolerate them.

On May 31 2018 01:08 RiKD wrote: .....

Yes anarcho collectivism in small groups make sense, there is direct accountability in small groups like if in "dirty job saturday" or whatever John doesnt show up well the community will give him shit for that, but this isn't how big societies in the hundreds of millions work, theres complete anonymity so the social pressure is indirect and while many people wil be civil "japan style", many won't and will collapse the system.


On your response about the Lambo its a bit scary how ascetic society can become, a bit dystopian in the entertainment and passion side, fast cars will be "outlawed" and anything deemed non productive for society, poker and all gambling will also dissapear and I wonder how many of these little things we enjoy that make life wort living are going to be sacrificed in the altar of an equal society.

On May 31 2018 04:52 Loco wrote: Look Baal, I'm done discussing political economy here. The questions you are asking me are really basic misunderstandings and a lot of them are just appeals to personality incredulity, they are not even asked in good faith, you have already decided your position on things. I have better things to do than debate the very basics of something you should be knowledgeable about already as someone who has been calling himself an anarchist for like 10 years, or that you could look up in an anarchism FAQ. You can mock anarchism all you want, the historical record backs up left-anarchism only. 99% of human history involved people living in egalitarian societies, yet you think the burden of proof is on me to show you that a society could be egalitarian. It's your model that has no grounding in reality, it exists only in the minds of a few people online, at this one point in time, and has never been organized for. It couldn't exist or function at all. As for luxury items, because it seems like it was a good faith question, I'll answer it. In an anarchist society, the plans for the luxury car are public domain. Everyone has access to everything. If the materials are available you can build yourself your car. The thing is, typical luxury goods are not naturally-occurring, 'organic' wants within a free society. They are dependent on a socio-economic system wherein luxury equals status. That is, the precondition for their existence is a 'consumer mindset' -- it's what you necessarily get when a society is market-based and structured hierarchically. An anarchist society is self-organized and formed voluntarily by people with a shared philosophy, you can't think about it in the way that you currently do by transposing capitalists/individualists/modern consumers into it and assuming anarchists would somehow have to tolerate them.

My questions were aimed to define where you stand on certain things but I guess you wont answer.

The biggest anarchic experiment in modern history is Somalia, an involuntary form of anarcho capitalism in an actual country with millions of inhabitants, your anarcho collectivism bullshit experiments are nothing but a bunch of hippies living in the dirt and you ride me about ancap only living in the minds of online people, the borden of proof is in big societies, of course a bunch of people with likeminded ideas can live in a commune, but that wont happen when you have the anonymity and myriad of problems of a group of 300 million people.



Thats why i said premium/luxury, I didn't mean luxury as diamonds that are for status, I dont want a lambo as a symbol of status, I want it because its a fast car. I dont want a 5k PC as a symbol of status either, but there will be objects that will have overdemand, but I guess you will say that everbody will willlfully live frugally and desires such as these wont exist.

No gods. No masters. There was a year that I lived mostly in Argentina. I paid no tax to the USA government because I lived in Argentina. I paid no tax to the Argentinean government because I never met a poker player who did. Free market globalization baby. I was a successful small business owner. I was paying lower rent, lower costs while Buenos Aires is one of the most electrifying and magical cities on the planet Earth. Pretty damn fucking good CEO if I do say so myself. It's also quite lawless. I could smoke a joint on the street and no one would care. I could get pulled over for going 125 mph in a 45 mph and get away with a rather simple bribe. EV wise I'm driving however the fuck I want. EV wise I am doing whatever the fuck I want. It was quite liberating. I should have let the Swedes dress me. My fashion sense was hopeless at the time. You know I never once thought about giving my time or money to a charity. Certainly not time. You know how much my time is worth bro? Life is a lottery with winners and losers. Fuck up the world bro, we winners. I'll send some champagne to the Congo. Competition breeds innovation. Steel sharpens steel. We really want to be sitting around starving without iPhones? I'm not starving so niggas in Africa can eat. That's for damn sure.

Then a hollowness sets in. Then a depression. This game I loved so much is simply a means to a confused end. The drinks, the drugs, the prostitutes..... Don't get me wrong there were times with friends on a patio, at a house party, or at a parilla that I absolutely cherish. Those are some of the best times of my life but I didn't need money. Or, I needed enough money for a bottle of wine, some steak, chorizo, cheese. That's easily covered with 30 peso (10 USD). But, I soldier on and on and on. I make a bunch of money in the states. Now, they want tens of thousands from me. Now, they want tens of thousands in the form of estimated taxes. They aren't too pleased I got an interest free loan from them. I lose my drivers license for speeding and have to take mandated driver safety classes. I am afraid to possess marijuana. FREE MARKET WHERE ARE YOU?

I'm back in Argentina. I go broke.

I have money in the bank. I'm in the USA. I am a drifter. Crashing on couches living life. I just start reading books. I'm ready to go. I'm ready to win. I go to join the military. My dad gets me a job at a corporation. It's a new game. Steel sharpens steel. Let's win and I do. Promotion. Let's win and I do. Hyper-continual improvement, hyper-efficiency, self-exploited achievement-subject that can't bear to be alone with himself without a drink. Can't bare to be anywhere that isn't in a steel mill without a drink. I lose business, get depressed, self-destruct. I mean really self-destruct..........

Now, I am reading Edgar Morin. When is development a bad thing? What about growth? What about this obsession with the advance of technoscience?

I had to hit the bottom before I could see it. I mean really live at the bottom for years. It is very easy to be a free market guy as a business owner in the 2% living in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It's also easy for me to be an anarchist collectivist with nearly nothing.

The chances of a city in NAFTA converting to an anarchist collectivist commune is next to nothing. Now, a community? Now, there's a bit of a chance. A small country like perhaps Denmark, Finland, Iceland maybe someday. There version of politics seem to work out quite well for them. NAFTA I think just operates a little differently. Different histories, cultures, people. I just want to think about what can be done? What can I do?

Man, I don't want to be the guy to take the Lamborghini away from the guy who loves the racetrack or the country roads. My desire is I want to be the guy in the Lambo on the race track or the country roads. I am just not willing or not capable of doing the work that would lead to Lambo ownership. I don't think it's like a bitter thing though. I don't want to take this stuff away from them because I resent them. I don't know what I want. I want to move to France or Denmark or Finland. I want a universal basic income. I want capitalism and these fucking ghoulish corporate execs to chill the fuck out. I want all these manicured politicians and fucking lobbyists to die. I WANT NO GODS NO MASTERS!

On May 31 2018 22:14 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 31 2018 04:52 Loco wrote: Look Baal, I'm done discussing political economy here. The questions you are asking me are really basic misunderstandings and a lot of them are just appeals to personality incredulity, they are not even asked in good faith, you have already decided your position on things. I have better things to do than debate the very basics of something you should be knowledgeable about already as someone who has been calling himself an anarchist for like 10 years, or that you could look up in an anarchism FAQ. You can mock anarchism all you want, the historical record backs up left-anarchism only. 99% of human history involved people living in egalitarian societies, yet you think the burden of proof is on me to show you that a society could be egalitarian. It's your model that has no grounding in reality, it exists only in the minds of a few people online, at this one point in time, and has never been organized for. It couldn't exist or function at all. As for luxury items, because it seems like it was a good faith question, I'll answer it. In an anarchist society, the plans for the luxury car are public domain. Everyone has access to everything. If the materials are available you can build yourself your car. The thing is, typical luxury goods are not naturally-occurring, 'organic' wants within a free society. They are dependent on a socio-economic system wherein luxury equals status. That is, the precondition for their existence is a 'consumer mindset' -- it's what you necessarily get when a society is market-based and structured hierarchically. An anarchist society is self-organized and formed voluntarily by people with a shared philosophy, you can't think about it in the way that you currently do by transposing capitalists/individualists/modern consumers into it and assuming anarchists would somehow have to tolerate them. My questions were aimed to define where you stand on certain things but I guess you wont answer. The biggest anarchic experiment in modern history is Somalia, an involuntary form of anarcho capitalism in an actual country with millions of inhabitants, your anarcho collectivism bullshit experiments are nothing but a bunch of hippies living in the dirt and you ride me about ancap only living in the minds of online people, the borden of proof is in big societies, of course a bunch of people with likeminded ideas can live in a commune, but that wont happen when you have the anonymity and myriad of problems of a group of 300 million people. Thats why i said premium/luxury, I didn't mean luxury as diamonds that are for status, I dont want a lambo as a symbol of status, I want it because its a fast car. I dont want a 5k PC as a symbol of status either, but there will be objects that will have overdemand, but I guess you will say that everbody will willlfully live frugally and desires such as these wont exist.

Pull in front of a club when it closes with your lambo. There is something about a big breasted woman in a small cocktail dress giving me attention that gets me thinking hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe there is something to this whole status thing. She'll probably be vacuous and unbearable to actually spend time with but again it's those fucking breasts in that small cocktail dress. Her big eyes and experience at flirting will probably turn the tides. One day you will be fucking this little debutante and cum all over those marvelous tits and you will always remember the power of status.

What the fuck do we do about THAT situation in life anarcho collectivists?

If you were to have a poll where people who own luxury cars anonymously give their main reason why they bought it, they would virtually all say 'I like the way it looks' or 'it's a fast car'. That doesn't make it true. People are not aware of larger order systems affecting them. Luxury purchases within consumer capitalism are always related to status and just because you aren't conscious of it doesn't mean shit. People's interpretations of why they do what they do have been shown to be entirely inaccurate by neuroscientists. It's just a fact that a different society generates different desires. If you were to ask an Eskimo what they want, they wouldn't tell you they want a Lambo. It's outside of their frame of reference.

There cannot be "overdemand" for anything because it isn't a competitive system. This is just your restricted capitalist logic trying to impose itself onto a completely different system. And there's no reason to believe that a post-scarcity anarchist society would be valuing austerity. We have the technology now to create things at zero marginal cost. In fact its the capitalists who preach the dogma of austerity to maintain their dominance, anarchists are not against luxury items per se, they just don't think they would be very much desired if the goal is health and living a good life.

Now you are just moving the goal posts. You were arguing that it is people's inherently flawed psychologies that makes anarchism untenable in your incredulous examples, it's too utopian because man is selfish and lazy, so what difference does it make that there were only a few million people engaged in the historical anarchist revolutions versus half a billion? It wasn't internal problems that led to their destruction and that's all I had to refute.

If there is a next stage in human evolution, and we don't go extinct by our own hands, an anarchist/classless planetary society is what will eventually exist, that is certain beyond a reasonable doubt. We can discuss the 'how' and indeed there are thousands of books on it, but it's less a question of 'how' than it is of 'when'. Until you realize this fact you will never be truly interested in the 'how' and I will not be interested in writings essays on here to stimulate your imagination and get you interested. Even less to defend my own well-informed beliefs on the matter.

Somalia is not an example of anarchy, it was "governed" by competing warlords. It can only be said to have lacked an internationally recognized government. It was an example of neo-feudalism. Do you sincerely believe that transposing the dynamics of this failed state to all the countries in the world would lead to greater well-being on the planet? A dog eat dog world ruled by warlords is your idea of human evolution?

Oh i'm more than aware that people dont realize they want things because their status, thats why I dislike precoius metals or gems, but I would like a fast card regardless of the status.

You speak about a post-scarcity societ as if its within our grasps, I think you have watched Zeitgeist 2 too many times, we are probably hundreds of years away from a global post-scarcity world.

I think its stupid to seriously discuss how society will be formed in a distant future, in a post scarcity society sure competition for resources which is basically capitalism doesn't seem to work that well, but as structures of power goes the State is a much bigger threat to that utopia than the economic system.

A system that workds under a few people doesn't prove it will work for billions for obvious reasons, I have a german friend who was one of the starters of that movement where they dont use money, eat from the excess of restaurants etc, that works for their little group, would that work for 100 million? no.


Again, I think speaking about society in a distant future is perhaps fun, but silly, and to make such claims with that level of certainty is as stupid and narrowsighted as those drawings in the 1800 about the future with people flying with paper wings and baloons.


Somalia was torn and in the middle of violent struggles for power, yet it fluorished like never before by just removing the state idiotization of the free market for a brief moment, you knew the answer tho that "argument", why do you waste our time?

If that was the case then you could have a non-branded, very powerful car with the shape of a turd and it would make no difference to you. Why the Lambo? You can keep thinking that you are somehow outside of the system that has created you, but I think you have no valid reason to exclude yourself to any appreciable degree. It's just a comfortable thought to think that you're that much different than others who have been affected by the same higher-order influences. It doesn't matter at all what it is that you consume in terms of luxury, what matters is how much violence went into it and whether it really makes someone happier or not.

I have never said that a post-scarcity society is within our grasp, I said that the technology and the resources are there to allow it, which is a totally different argument and the case for it is damn strong. If the current economic incentives prevent it and individuals are incapable of cooperating to change that then it clearly isn't within our grasp. I have no false hopes here.

as structures of power goes the State is a much bigger threat to that utopia than the economic system.

This is an empirical claim, so where is your evidence? I have given you counter-evidence: if the state was a bigger threat to human flourishing then it would be reflected in the Nordic countries where there are more regulations than there are in the US and elsewhere. But they do better on every metric.


Anarchists openly mock the idea of a blueprint for "one" future civilization, they understand that self-organization involves the making of decisions in real time, collectively, to face the current issues in one particular place at one particular time. That you present anarchists as nothing but airy fairy ineffective utopians is really hilarious.

"Ineffective fantasists" who birthed the DFNS in 2016:





They built a revolution that has liberated hundreds of thousands of women from "housewife tradition" and conservative Islamism, helped ethnic groups that have been encouraged to be at each others' throats for years thanks to statecraft to organize themselves into cooperative communities; they helped Assyrians, Kurds and other oppressed minorities of the region discover their own culture and languages once more through schooling and events after they had been put down for years.

Meanwhile, anarcho-capitalists in 2016 and their concerns:

Again, I think speaking about society in a distant future is perhaps fun, but silly, and to make such claims with that level of certainty is as stupid and narrowsighted as those drawings in the 1800 about the future with people flying with paper wings and baloons.

The only certainty is that the principles are worth abiding by no matter what because they have consistently shown to be dependable and that they can generate positive outcomes when there is enough support to fight for them.

You're interpreting the anarchist understanding that capitalism is unsustainable and that its structural violence should be opposed as a certainty that anarchism will always prevail. They're not the same, it's a logical error that you keep making. There is a saying in philosophy, "the best is the enemy of the better". Anarchists don't let an utopian vision stop them from working towards something better.

Somalia was torn and in the middle of violent struggles for power, yet it fluorished like never before by just removing the state idiotization of the free market for a brief moment, you knew the answer tho that "argument", why do you waste our time?

Violent struggles for power are the norm of an unregulated market economy, they are not anomalies. So are the externalities that you refuse to acknowledge. I'm not wasting your time, it's just that your conception of flourishing seems to amount to nothing but GDP growth, it's incredibly narrow-sighted and even that has to take into account the fact that they received fairly significant international aid too. Is 20% civilians fleeing their homes the sign of a flourishing society? What about these guys, did they flourish under the invisible hand of the market, having to resort to wasting their lives attempting literal piracy? What were they missing, the warlords didn't stumble upon Molyneux videos to teach them about the moral theory of Universally Preferred Behavior so that they could give away some of their wealth to the poor?

On June 01 2018 08:32 Loco wrote: If that was the case then you could have a non-branded, very powerful car with the shape of a turd and it would make no difference to you. Why the Lambo? You can keep thinking that you are somehow outside of the system that has created you, but I think you have no valid reason to exclude yourself to any appreciable degree. It's just a comfortable thought to think that you're that much different than others who have been affected by the same higher-order influences.[/b]

I dont presume I'm above it, (It's me the one arguing the evolutionary psychology pont of view aren't I?), I'm saying I'm conscious to certain degree of it, and of course part of the appeal of a lambo is the status, however you know I race cars I appreciate a fast car with a beautiful engine sound, that handles, breaks and have an overall nice driving feeling, and yes I would be perfectly happy with a car with those characteristics that looked like shit.

I am not Marshall28 who bought a porsche with half of his bankroll when he cant even properly drive it, I had a Renault Clio for 10 years, I changed it 2 years ago because it was breaking down too much, so yeah im demonstrably happy with a car that drives as I want to and looks like shit.

I have never said that a post-scarcity society is within our grasp, I said that the technology and the resources are there to allow it, which is a totally different argument and the case for it is damn strong. If the current economic incentives prevent it and individuals are incapable of cooperating to change that then it clearly isn't within our grasp. I have no false hopes here.

you mean we currently have the technology to live in a post-scarcity world? I suppose how we define post scarcity, but if you mean that we have pretty much all of our desires satisfied I would disagree.

This is an empirical claim, so where is your evidence? I have given you counter-evidence: if the state was a bigger threat to human flourishing then it would be reflected in the Nordic countries where there are more regulations than there are in the US and elsewhere. But they do better on every metric.

How can it be empirical? I'm talking about your futuristic utopia, I said that because if we live in a post-scarcity society perhaps capitalism naturally starts losing sense, but I see slots for hierarchies to be built towards the management of resources which would be the state im talking about.

About your claims about Scandinavia I've read quite a bit about it and you will see that early in the XX century they were the most economically free countries in the world and nowadays that growth has stagnated, less so with Norway and its discovery of oil and extraction in the 1970s, so Scandinavia is basically cruising on the wealth created in the XX century, economically they certainly dont support your cause, however in this period they also developed as probably the most civil society in the world along with perhaps Japan, so socially and behaviorally do support your ideas I definitelly recknon that, but the "experiment" is still to young, the only way to see relatively fast if it can survive is if they abandon capitalism but given the amount of social benefits if they dont curtail migration the economic drain might be too high to fuck around with their entire model.

Anarchists openly mock the idea of a blueprint for "one" future civilization, they understand that self-organization involves the making of decisions in real time, collectively, to face the current issues in one particular place at one particular time. That you present anarchists as nothing but airy fairy ineffective utopians is really hilarious.

How is it relevant if they fought theocracies and freed people, that doesn't say anything about anarcho collectivism, perhaps it speaks well of these people but are you going adhominem here saying ancol are brave and strong and ancap are internet nerds or something? I hope you are not.

There is a saying in philosophy, "the best is the enemy of the better". Anarchists don't let an utopian vision stop them from working towards something better.

I am not doing that, I'm said I dont presume to know how society will look in a distant future, perhaps collectivism will make more sense then.

Your mistake is thinking that small increments to what you believe the ideal system is the way to go but It's not true, for example: You think that since free healthcare is part of your ideal you will pursue it, I think that under our system, free healthcare end up causing more suffering overall than the free market, so in your pursue of your utopia you will cause more suffering.

My ideal is ancap, but I think it would be difficult to defend in our level of social evolution, so perhaps a libertarian step before would work best, and perhaps collectivism later, as I said, I can't see that far and I see some scenarios where a post-scarcity society cannot be reached.

Somalia was torn and in the middle of violent struggles for power, yet it fluorished like never before by just removing the state idiotization of the free market for a brief moment, you knew the answer tho that "argument", why do you waste our time?

Violent struggles for power are the norm of an unregulated market economy, they are not anomalies. So are the externalities that you refuse to acknowledge. I'm not wasting your time, it's just that your conception of flourishing seems to amount to nothing but GDP growth, it's incredibly narrow-sighted and even that has to take into account the fact that they received fairly significant international aid too. Is 20% civilians fleeing their homes the sign of a flourishing society? What about these guys, did they flourish under the invisible hand of the market, having to resort to wasting their lives attempting literal piracy? What were they missing, the warlords didn't stumble upon Molyneux videos to teach them about the moral theory of Universally Preferred Behavior so that they could give away some of their wealth to the poor?

It didn't only grow in GDP, read a bit about it, and again what im saying is that despite all the mayhem going on, one would naturally expect everything collapse, yet it didn't, its certainly an anomality in the sense of what most people would expect to happen and what did happen, and why bring up piracy? of course there were big issues, it wasn't an evolution into ancap, simply the government was toppled and there was chaos in the country but amidsts this chaos it did better than it did when it had a state.

But it would be inconsistent of me to have such a low regard for mankind and not expect power struggles, as i said above maybe a libertarian society is a required step before ancap.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I think the biggest takeaway from this discussion is what you said about the better not getting in the way of the best.

You couldn't have democracy in 10,000 BC because the prime minister would get clubbed in the head by Wach'kul "the bone breaker" and he would take power, and in my eyes, you pursuing things like free healthcare would be like saying: "Ok Wach'kul is the leader, but he will require to get permission from congress to make laws"... no, congress are going to get the club too.

The 10,000BC society has to tone down at a personal level the head-clubbing, and then perhaps will be able to put a new societal system running.

https://youtu.be/9lD29jqH078?t=70

I didn't really want to watch too far into this one but response at around 1:20................

I didnt know who she was before the whole Kanye thing but afaik she was an ex-SJW who sued its past employer for sexist or racism or something and now she saw an opportunity to gain traction as a black conservative shill, so she seems to be a piece of shit.

Indeed.

Turning Point USA = Koch Brother's Propaganda.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a survey Thursday showing suicide rates increased by 25% across the country over nearly two decades ending in 2016. Twenty-five states experienced a rise in suicides by more than 30%, the government report finds.

Neoliberal economics wouldn't have anything to do with this would it?

The most interesting finding is that over half of those hadn't been diagnosed with a mental illness. Mental illness of course has been reported to have sharply increased in the last decades, in fact it has been increasing since the 30s, so slightly before late stage capitalism or what capitalists argue has been the golden age of capitalism. This tells us what we already suspected: that this already significant increase is in fact likely off by a lot... it's not accounting for all of the people who are suffering silently and not getting diagnosed. Men especially are more unlikely to seek help because depression is regarded as a weakness of character and unmanly in modern western society. This is despite all of the money that has gone into research and drug development to treat anxiety and depression. All of that of course is almost always a band-aid that causes more issues than they resolve, since these are psychosomatic illnesses caused by hierarchical structures of dominance and the competitiveness, the alienation and the poverty (both of mind and material) that they generate by design.

When people die under socialism, that's socialism. When they die or they suffer from chronic conditions under capitalism, it's just natural, it's just life.

Actually it has fluctuated a lot you idiots, there is a stronger correlation between internet penetration and suicide than economic policies and suicide, so is the internet responsible? or just perhaps correlation does not mean causation and a complex action like suicide has hundreds difficult to pin point factors.


Loco blames suicide on capitalism and hierachy, yet the most egalitarian and socialist modern countries in the world happen to have the highest suicides % in the world, yes the scandinavians.


This is the second time Scandinavia debunks your ill concieved dogmatic views, first your blank-slate views on gender roles and now this lol.


Scandianvians 2 - 0 Loco



+ Show Spoiler +

On June 08 2018 22:11 Loco wrote: depression is regarded as a weakness of character and unmanly in modern western society

You are one purple hair away from going full SJW here lol.

pretty much every single culture in the world through history stimatizes male weakness, its not a problem isolated to western white cis heternormative capitalistic patriarchy.

What? Scandinavians don't have the highest suicide rates in the world. Where do you have that from? It's not remotely close to true.

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

Sweden has the highest rate of any scandinavian country, but it's still below the OECD average. Norway and Denmark are in 102nd and 105th place respectively. African, Asian and Eastern European countries top the list, with different main reasons for different countries. Like Guyana (not african, but third world) has aids listed as a significant reason. Kazakhstan has 'School bullying, Absence or loss of values, Falling standards of social behavior, Alienation" as main reasons. For most of Eastern Europe it's tied together with Alcoholism. South Korea and Japan (10th and 26th) seem to be more in line with 'feeling of personal failure' type of explanation.

So like, I don't actually agree that it's about hierarchy, nor really about capitalism. Reasonings seem to differ greatly based on which region of the world you're examining. Disease, drug/alcohol abuse and being social outcasts seems like consistent factors though. But that male ratios everywhere are 4 times higher than female rates back up the idea that there's a relation between willingness to talk about depression/emotions and suicide (and that this is one of the actual examples of what I would describe as 'toxic masculinity' ).

But your idea that Scandinavian countries top suicide charts is.. completely wrong. You're not the first person I've seen make the claim that 'Norway's suicide rate is among the highest in the world', but I have no idea where this myth originated from, because it has never been the case.

"Europe is the most suicidal region in the entire world, while the Eastern Mediterranean the least."

I noticed Germany and the U.K. way down on the list and all the Eastern European countries higher on the list.

Eastern Mediterranean countries:

Cyprus
Greece
Lebanon
Syria
Palestine
Israel
Turkey
Egypt
Jordan

I've read a lot about Ikaria, Greece and it's hard to imagine people offing themselves there. I look at some of the other places though and think they are underreporting due to Islam. One of those reality distortion things where they don't acknowledge. Or, a strong belief in Islam is a suicide deterrent (besides suicide bombings and virgins and all that). I think that's why France is higher on the list. It's a culture of cynical atheists.

"A 2014 overview pointed at the economic crisis' years (2007-2008) as a period from which suicide rates surged globally."

Not surprising. The 2007-2008 crises was a direct result of Neoliberal economics. Ivory Coast workers working under inhumane conditions to pick coffee beans is also a result of Neoliberal economics. I was considering offing myself working in a pizza place. Imagine working literally all day picking coffee beans for virtually no money and then having to wake up and do it all again every day. There's no exit except for maybe one.

"The study was about China's suicide rates which have been declining instead: in the 1990s China was among the countries with highest suicide rates in the world (above 20 per 100,000), but by the global economic crisis they kept dropping as significantly (as they were by the end of 1990s) with the main force having been migration from rural to urban areas."

China is pretty atheist as well. So, you have all these Chinese rice farmers making next to nothing out in the fields all day long picking rice which is horrible work. China could also be lying on the data.

"Per recent WHO releases, challenges represented by social stigma, the taboo to openly discuss suicide, and low availability of data are still to date obstacles leading to poor data quality for both suicide and suicide attempts. In much of the world, suicide is stigmatized and condemned for religious or cultural reasons. In some countries, suicidal behaviour is a criminal offence punishable by law. Suicide is therefore often a secretive act surrounded by taboo, and may be unrecognized, misclassified or deliberately hidden in official records of death."

So, we should take any suicide data with some skepticism and cynicism. If anything suicide and mental illness are UNDER REPORTED and still misunderstood.


Drone,

All the reasons you listed for suicide are related to hierarchy and capitalism except for aids. For me, hierarchy, capitalism, depression, anxiety and alcoholism were all inter-related. It was tied into junk values, lack of connections, shitty job, lack of respect/status, disconnect from nature, and no hope/no future which goes back to hierarchy, capitalism, depression, anxiety, and alcoholism. Why is someone a social outcast? Well, typically they don't fit in with any hierarchy or corporate structure. I know I never did. So, I get depressed and I get anxious and I drink more and do drugs. The more I become a social outcast the more I drink and do drugs and the more I drink and do drugs the more I become a social outcast. The whole reason I am a social outcast is because of hierarchies and capitalism. I just can't seem to fit a square peg into a round hole and I can't seem to create any art that liberates me. I am a tortured soul and a suicide story in the making. As I learn more I still have hope for a better future but always in the back of my head there is something that tells me I will probably kill myself at 45 or 55. In that case I wouldn't solely blame hierarchies or capitalism because I obviously would be very much depressed but why would I be depressed? There would be factors that I learned about in outpatient bipolar rehab like sleeping too much and not connecting with people which is a loop with depression. The way to break that cycle is to sleep less, do more, connect with people. However, the root cause of my depression and suicidal ideations is always the world, hierarchies and capitalism. It's a good thing I'm "manly" enough or "unmanly" enough to talk about my depression and suicidal ideations with professionals and friends with similar problems or else I would have been dead long ago.

I agree that some of the reasonings for suicide are related to hierarchical structures. Bullying most certainly is. Alienation, sure. But I don't think you can really make the claim that alcoholism or drug abuse are caused by capitalism or hierarchical structures, and these seem strongly related to suicidal tendencies..

Anyway, one page ago you linked to Christiania, the anarchist collective in Copenhagen. I've been there several times. We also have a similar thing, just smaller scale, in Trondheim. The main commonality of those places in my experience? They are absolutely rife with drug and alcohol abuse. The main reason why people visit either place is to buy drugs, and the people who live there use way more than average. Literally the previous time I was at a party at Svartlamon, the police+ambulance came right around the time we were leaving the party - because the guy who lived one floor above us had killed himself while we were partying. I'm somewhere between a pragmatic social democrat and an idealistic socialist anarchist, and I've had issues with both alcohol and drug abuse. I mean yes you can claim that 'but it's the hierarchical structures permeating through society that alienate people which makes the same group of people a) hooked on drugs/alcohol b) enter anarchist/socialist collectives c) suicidal', but that seems hard to back up by data. From looking at which countries are more or less suicidal, I just don't see 'more or less capitalist' as a defining trait.

Also, while 'real' socialism aims for the classless society, that's not the equivalent of completely abolished hierarchy. When answering 'what's gonna motivate the best and the brightest to be the best and the brightest when there's no monetary incentive', giving people recognition for their feats is highlighted. People in a socialist society could still compete in sports. A brilliant musician or author would get recognition for their contributions. You wouldn't become materially wealthier through being the best, but you'd still be recognized as being the best. And you'd still get more laid. I recognize that competitiveness is a drive in humans. So is cooperativeness. I want to highlight the latter, not the former, but I still enjoy friendly competition in sports or games. I don't want to organize society around competition, but I do want people to get recognition for doing good things.

Like, I don't actually know to what degree monsanto and patenting seeds and shit like that has been responsible for Indian farmers committing suicide. I just have a peripheral understanding of that whole subject matter, so it's fair if you consider this a hypothetical. But in the case where that is an accurate description, then this would be a case of capitalism causing suicide. But Lithuanians drinking an average of 15.2 liters of pure alcohol per year, that's not capitalism. I'd never describe the states comprising the soviet union as socialist or free of hierarchy - but I'd also never describe them as 'more capitalist' or 'more hierarchical' than the USA. They still have more problems with alcoholism and with suicide than the US does. I'm not saying it's a non-factor, but I can't see 'capitalism' or 'hierarchy' as a defining trait when explaining suicide rates around the world.

On June 09 2018 01:07 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 08 2018 22:11 Loco wrote: depression is regarded as a weakness of character and unmanly in modern western society You are one purple hair away from going full SJW here lol. pretty much every single culture in the world through history stimatizes male weakness, its not a problem isolated to western white cis heternormative capitalistic patriarchy.

Status quo warrior versus social justice warrior: round 42!

My post had nothing to do with some vague universal notion of "male weakness", but precise examples of male gender norms which have varied in different cultures throughout history, even in the modern West.

On June 09 2018 01:01 Baalim wrote: Actually it has fluctuated a lot you idiots, Scandianvians 2 - 0 Loco + Show Spoiler + Also when we blame deaths on socialism its because they starve to death, not because of some bullshit indirect correlation

Get the argument right first and then you can actually move on to the cherry-picking if you want. The argument was that mental illness has increased fairly consistently (and for some conditions quite drastically) over time since the 30s. Not that suicide rates have have sharply and consistently gone up. You posted a picture of (completed) suicide rates, not global mental illness. Surely you're capable of understanding that one is simply a risk factor for the other, and not the same thing? (Btw, that's not "a lot of fluctuations" in suicide rates)

there is a stronger correlation between internet penetration and [poor mental health] than economic policies and [poor mental health] [...] blabla Scandinavian countries

Oh really?



It is very much about capitalism, hierarchy in and of itself makes people sick, and capitalism has drastic inequality built into it. In the words of the brilliant neuroscientist and stress-health expert Robert Sapolsky, “It isn’t [just] about being poor, it is about feeling poor.” It's something few people realize but relative poverty or deprivation is a massive driver of mental health issues separate from extreme poverty.

On June 09 2018 14:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: I agree that some of the reasonings for suicide are related to hierarchical structures. Bullying most certainly is. Alienation, sure. But I don't think you can really make the claim that alcoholism or drug abuse are caused by capitalism or hierarchical structures, and these seem strongly related to suicidal tendencies. Anyway, one page ago you linked to Christiania, the anarchist collective in Copenhagen. I've been there several times. We also have a similar thing, just smaller scale, in Trondheim. The main commonality of those places in my experience? They are absolutely rife with drug and alcohol abuse. The main reason why people visit either place is to buy drugs, and the people who live there use way more than average. Literally the previous time I was at a party at Svartlamon, the police+ambulance came right around the time we were leaving the party - because the guy who lived one floor above us had killed himself while we were partying. I'm somewhere between a pragmatic social democrat and an idealistic socialist anarchist, and I've had issues with both alcohol and drug abuse. I mean yes you can claim that 'but it's the hierarchical structures permeating through society that alienate people which makes the same group of people a) hooked on drugs/alcohol b) enter anarchist/socialist collectives c) suicidal', but that seems hard to back up by data. From looking at which countries are more or less suicidal, I just don't see 'more or less capitalist' as a defining trait. Also, while 'real' socialism aims for the classless society, that's not the equivalent of completely abolished hierarchy. When answering 'what's gonna motivate the best and the brightest to be the best and the brightest when there's no monetary incentive', giving people recognition for their feats is highlighted. People in a socialist society could still compete in sports. A brilliant musician or author would get recognition for their contributions. You wouldn't become materially wealthier through being the best, but you'd still be recognized as being the best. And you'd still get more laid. I recognize that competitiveness is a drive in humans. So is cooperativeness. I want to highlight the latter, not the former, but I still enjoy friendly competition in sports or games. I don't want to organize society around competition, but I do want people to get recognition for doing good things. Like, I don't actually know to what degree monsanto and patenting seeds and shit like that has been responsible for Indian farmers committing suicide. I just have a peripheral understanding of that whole subject matter, so it's fair if you consider this a hypothetical. But in the case where that is an accurate description, then this would be a case of capitalism causing suicide. But Lithuanians drinking an average of 15.2 liters of pure alcohol per year, that's not capitalism. I'd never describe the states comprising the soviet union as socialist or free of hierarchy - but I'd also never describe them as 'more capitalist' or 'more hierarchical' than the USA. They still have more problems with alcoholism and with suicide than the US does. I'm not saying it's a non-factor, but I can't see 'capitalism' or 'hierarchy' as a defining trait when explaining suicide rates around the world.

I don't know much about Lithuania but 15.2 L of pure alcohol is not even 1.5 drinks/day. So, the average Lithuanian is a moderate drinker. Remember that globalization also includes the Russian oligarchy.

According to Onut? Davidonien?, director of the State Mental Health Center, a major reason behind the dramatic rise in suicides over the last decade is the economic and social transition. This can be linked to the Russian economic crisis of 1998 which was prolonging the phenomenon in Lithuania.

Russian economic crisis of 1998

when the average is a moderate drinker (the site I got the number from said 2.7 drinks per day though, guess their drink is half the size of your drink. I think they went with 0.33 liters of beer as 1) then there a whole lot of people who drink way more than that.

the other point is more valid. I simplify things if I claim that the high number of suicide is only about alcoholism.

On June 09 2018 14:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: I can't see 'capitalism' or 'hierarchy' as a defining trait when explaining suicide rates around the world.

That's because they are not "defining traits", one's a mode of production and the other is a structure or a mode of organization. We don't judge anything by "degrees of hierarchy" or "degrees of capitalism". They're omnipresent and foundational, and the world's empires have done everything to make sure we never get a proper standard for comparison by being able to look at a thriving socialist country.

The traits would be the various stressors and health markers they engender, which would be directly affected by how regulated or unregulated the economy is and how democratic or unequal it is. If you look at actual trends based on these traits, taking into account geographical differences and how affected by colonialism they have been, and avoided zooming in on one particular outlier, then there's a very clear picture there. Lituania might significantly prefer booze over other self-medication methods, but they're not in the top 10 of most depressed and anxious countries according to the latest WHO report, and they don't show up in the top 10 for heaviest alcohol and drug use either.

Yeah, I'm an alcoholic I really shouldn't be commenting on what "normal" drinking is.

On alcoholism:

AA says we drink because of a "spiritual malady." I would say that is accurate but too much AA. I drank because of a depression and anxiety (loneliness, alienation, etc.) that was caused by the world I lived in but I was already alcoholic and prone to depression and anxiety. It was a loop. There was more factors than just that but depression and alcoholism is the simplest loop. I drank because I was depressed and I was depressed because I drank. Well, what is the root cause of my depression?
I can't bear the world that I live in. Why? I just lost a bunch of business, I don't like my job, I don't like where I live, etc. Why? Corporate hierarchies, bribery, corruption, my bosses are manipulating and exploiting me, I have to manipulate and exploit my customers and my underlings, where I live is one giant strip mall filled with bourgeois poshlust, I have no friends that aren't a customer or alcoholic, et al.

So, how do I break the loop?

Well, to simplify it I stop drinking and take medication but that didn't do it. I drank again and I drank again and I drank again. Ok, let's leave the shithole I'm living in and go to Paris. Hey, this world IS bearable. In fact, I love it. In fact, I'm in love with it. Life is great! Then I am back to work at an even shittier job and I can't medicate myself with alcohol and it is time to kill myself..... This could go on for a while so I will just summarize and say the biggest hurdle I have to get over is the idea that the world is unbearable. I don't get depressed or want to drink when life is bearable. So, what do I have to do? I have to find meaningful work, I have to connect to people, I have to get new values, I have to workout childhood trauma, I have to acquire respect/status in healthy achievable ways, I have to take walks in the forest with my dog, I need things to be hopeful about in the future. Capitalism does not care about these goals. Furthermore capitalism does not care about the earth that we inhabit. Capitalism simply wants to acquire profit and growth. Not just a decent amount. THE MOST POSSIBLE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Many of the leaders in this space share these goals and this IS something that does trickle down the hierarchy.

On June 09 2018 16:49 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2018 14:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: I can't see 'capitalism' or 'hierarchy' as a defining trait when explaining suicide rates around the world. That's because they are not "defining traits", one's a mode of production and the other is a structure or a mode of organization. We don't judge anything by "degrees of hierarchy" or "degrees of capitalism". The traits would be the various stressors and negative health markers they engender, which would be directly affected by how regulated or unregulated the economy is. If you look at actual trends, taking into account geographical differences and how affected by colonialism they have been, and avoided zooming in on one particular outlier, then there's a very clear picture there. Lituania might significantly prefer booze over other self-medication methods, but they're not in the top 10 of most depressed and anxious countries according to the latest WHO report, and they don't show up in the top 10 for heaviest alcohol and drug use either.

The problem started when Russia started privatizing and the oligarchs gained power. There was an increase in suicides during an economic crisis. Russia's "capitalism" is worse than capitalism.

Are you saying it is likely that a large amount of mental health is being undiagnosed or unreported in Lithuania?

I have no reason to think it's more under-reported there than everywhere else. I'm just saying they don't appear to be much of an outlier when you're looking at global alcohol and drug consumption, i.e. when they're accounted for together.

Are you attributing the under-reporting solely to toxic masculinity? It would be interesting to look at the most under reported countries and the cultures there.

I am not. Lack of trust in the system is likely another big factor. My partner and I have never seen a mental health professional, she is especially distrustful of their competence. And of course, you need to have access to be diagnosed, many poor and disabled people don't have it.

Interesting. Especially with your history of severe anxiety and depression to the point of leaving school. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask out of curiosity but the one I am interested in the most is:

How is your depression and anxiety today and what do you attribute that to?

Maybe another:

What do you think of someone who is as fucked up as me taking medications and seeing a therapist? Once I ended up in the psych ward and they got their hands on me there didn't seem like any other route. My preference would actually be to get off all drugs UNTIL I start showing signs of excessive mania or psychosis and then taking drugs if needed. The hand tremors from my lithium can be particularly annoying and there is no telling what this stuff is doing to my body long term. I would still like to see a therapist though. My insurance covers it and I feel like it's worth the time.

On June 09 2018 16:49 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2018 14:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: I can't see 'capitalism' or 'hierarchy' as a defining trait when explaining suicide rates around the world. That's because they are not "defining traits", one's a mode of production and the other is a structure or a mode of organization. We don't judge anything by "degrees of hierarchy" or "degrees of capitalism". They're omnipresent and foundational, and the world's empires have done everything to make sure we never get a proper standard for comparison by being able to look at a thriving socialist country.

Isn't this somewhat in conflict with the previous post where 'increased inequality corresponds with increased mental problems?

I mean Norway nationalized it's oil. Putting that in a pension fund for the entire population with clearly defined rules for how much can be used from this fund on a yearly basis is arguably the single most crucial policy element in defining norway's 'success', and it's clearly a 'more socialist' policy than what privatizing the oil fortune would have been. Yes, we're still fundamentally capitalist, yes I agree that it's impossible to find a proper standard of comparison between capitalist and communist countries. (Which is also why I'm skeptical towards concluding that something is clearly the effect of living in a capitalist country - while I'm inclined to agree from a deducting pov, I want data to make conclusions.) But I basically mean that, one of the negative side effects of capitalism is that resources virtually always end up being unevenly distributed. There are other, more complex problems, relating to the psychology of the people living within the society, clearly environmental concerns, etc., but I think inequality is one element of 'negative consequences of capitalism'. Then I think it's fair to consider a capitalistic society that takes certain measures to reduce the degree of inequality, through say, commonly owned public resources, focused public education and health care, is 'less capitalistic' than one that takes no such measures. I think a society that rewards participation and not just winning in sports will to some degree be 'less hierarchical' than societies where they only reward winning. Avoiding grades in school, or at the very least starting the grading process at a later point in time, will have a similar effect. There's a lot of possible policy choices to be made even within the framework of a capitalist, hierarchical society that can make society suffer less from the failures of capitalism and to make hierarchies that organically form within a capitalistic framework be less detrimental, or to make them less likely to organically form.

And, yeah, I was lucky to be on salary and have great health insurance when I went into the psych ward. I was lucky to move to Pittsburgh which had one of the best psychiatric hospitals in the country. They wouldn't let me in until I ended up in their psych ward. So, that was lucky that I had an event at the right time and my friend took me there. I was lucky that Pennsylvania has a very generous Medicare (welfare) program and lucky that UPMC accepted it.

One thing to note as well is that when I used to get depressed I wouldn't even know what it was I would just feel that way. I certainly wasn't going to talk to a doctor about it. That was pretty much my life up until 30. In fact, I didn't see even a dentist or a doctor in my 20s. I certainly wasn't going to talk to a shrink. The first time I talked to a therapist she asked if I was having suicidal thoughts. I went into a panic as I constantly was having suicidal thoughts but told her no. That was a breakthrough the first time I told a therapist I had not only suicidal thoughts but homicidal and genocidal thoughts as well.

I can feel for the people through out the world that can't afford it or don't trust it. Honestly, for me, more psychiatric care has been kind of shit than helpful. I was mis-diagnosed multiple times and mis-treated multiple times if my current diagnosis is even correct. I don't know though. Ever since going through UPMC my life has gotten better in regards to my mental illness. It's crazy though. I heard the term "toxic masculinity" before but never knew about the link to psychological problems. I am a pretty classic case although I've never used violence against a woman. I have manipulated women. I said I never sought power over women but I certainly have. Not with violence but with money and status. I don't adhere to any of those norms now and surprise, surprise I don't experience any of those psychological problems except depression on occasion. That's eye opening. The message needs to be passed along somehow. Instead the Michael Jordans and Jocko Willinks and Dan Bilzerians of the world are beloved and embraced. That is the story that people see.

On June 09 2018 19:40 RiKD wrote: Interesting. Especially with your history of severe anxiety and depression to the point of leaving school. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask out of curiosity but the one I am interested in the most is: How is your depression and anxiety today and what do you attribute that to? Maybe another: What do you think of someone who is as fucked up as me taking medications and seeing a therapist? Once I ended up in the psych ward and they got their hands on me there didn't seem like any other route. My preference would actually be to get off all drugs UNTIL I start showing signs of excessive mania or psychosis and then taking drugs if needed. The hand tremors from my lithium can be particularly annoying and there is no telling what this stuff is doing to my body long term. I would still like to see a therapist though. My insurance covers it and I feel like it's worth the time.

I don't really have any symptoms of depression anymore. I had panic disorder but I haven't had a panic attack in many years, I only came close a few times during high stress events. My anxiety is mild and very manageable, especially in the last couple years since I've been eating very well and exercising. I was once very agoraphobic and now I often go to shows and I have no issue standing in the middle of a crowd. Speaking of which, you might enjoy this, it was the best show of my life (I pop up at 6:30 filming with my phone ):




I think it's important that you keep seeing a therapist and drugs should only be reduced (and eventually maybe removed) slowly and carefully if you feel like they're more problematic than helpful. I'm living on the fringes of society and my interactions with people are very brief and minimal, so I don't need drugs to function, but it would likely be another story if I was forced into a shitty job I hate. I'd say I attribute those improvements to becoming more spontaneous and less worried about status and how I appear to others. My desire to learn and oppose that which caused these problems has been crucial. I did a good job sourcing material that would eventually lead me to a greater understanding of myself and society, what I have failed at is creating new connections with people, so I still have symptoms of alienation that I'm trying to overcome.

On June 09 2018 20:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2018 16:49 Loco wrote: [QUOTE]On June 09 2018 14:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: I can't see 'capitalism' or 'hierarchy' as a defining trait when explaining suicide rates around the world. That's because they are not "defining traits", one's a mode of production and the other is a structure or a mode of organization. We don't judge anything by "degrees of hierarchy" or "degrees of capitalism". They're omnipresent and foundational, and the world's empires have done everything to make sure we never get a proper standard for comparison by being able to look at a thriving socialist country.

Isn't this somewhat in conflict with the previous post where 'increased inequality corresponds with increased mental problems?

Not really, like I said in the following sentence that you didn't quote, it's once we look at inequality and the degree to which people feel included in the decisions of their society and its direction and also regulations that we start to see a picture emerging. It's still capitalism and it's still based on dominance hierarchies in both cases, it's just that you can mitigate its negative impacts with careful regulations.

I mean Norway nationalized it's oil. Putting that in a pension fund for the entire population with clearly defined rules for how much can be used from this fund on a yearly basis is arguably the single most crucial policy element in defining norway's 'success', and it's clearly a 'more socialist' policy than what privatizing the oil fortune would have been. Yes, we're still fundamentally capitalist, yes I agree that it's impossible to find a proper standard of comparison between capitalist and communist countries. (Which is also why I'm skeptical towards concluding that something is clearly the effect of living in a capitalist country - while I'm inclined to agree from a deducting pov, I want data to make conclusions.) But I basically mean that, one of the negative side effects of capitalism is that resources virtually always end up being unevenly distributed. There are other, more complex problems, relating to the psychology of the people living within the society, clearly environmental concerns, etc., but I think inequality is one element of 'negative consequences of capitalism'. Then I think it's fair to consider a capitalistic society that takes certain measures to reduce the degree of inequality, through say, commonly owned public resources, focused public education and health care, is 'less capitalistic' than one that takes no such measures. I think a society that rewards participation and not just winning in sports will to some degree be 'less hierarchical' than societies where they only reward winning. Avoiding grades in school, or at the very least starting the grading process at a later point in time, will have a similar effect. There's a lot of possible policy choices to be made even within the framework of a capitalist, hierarchical society that can make society suffer less from the failures of capitalism and to make hierarchies that organically form within a capitalistic framework be less detrimental, or to make them less likely to organically form.

Well, this is in part just a semantic disagreement. I don't think it's less capitalistic, it's just less barbaric. The mode of production doesn't have degrees, it's the ideological assumptions, theories and movements supporting it that vary and can have different positive and negative effects. Ultimately, the issue is that they are never negated enough to make the system sustainable when you take into account globalization and the psychological health of individuals will always suffer more than that of those who feel like they have direct control over their lives.

As much as I'd like to see a modern socialist country thrive to have that geeky standard of comparison, I don't think it's necessary. Deductive reasoning is enough to know, especially once you take an historical perspective and look at violence over time as well as the observations of bonobos, gorillas and other primates that emphasizes the malleability of aggression and dominance-seeking. It would definitely be great to have Peter Thiel create his Randian free-market utopia island and be able to compare it to an anarchist one, but no civilization can exist in isolation anymore so we'll never have anything like that.

+ Show Spoiler +

On June 09 2018 20:37 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2018 19:40 RiKD wrote: Interesting. Especially with your history of severe anxiety and depression to the point of leaving school. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask out of curiosity but the one I am interested in the most is: How is your depression and anxiety today and what do you attribute that to? Maybe another: What do you think of someone who is as fucked up as me taking medications and seeing a therapist? Once I ended up in the psych ward and they got their hands on me there didn't seem like any other route. My preference would actually be to get off all drugs UNTIL I start showing signs of excessive mania or psychosis and then taking drugs if needed. The hand tremors from my lithium can be particularly annoying and there is no telling what this stuff is doing to my body long term. I would still like to see a therapist though. My insurance covers it and I feel like it's worth the time. I don't really have any symptoms of depression anymore. I had panic disorder but I haven't had a panic attack in many years, I only came close a few times during high stress events. My anxiety is mild and very manageable, especially in the last couple years since I've been eating very well and exercising. I was once very agoraphobic and now I often go to shows and I have no issue standing in the middle of a crowd. Speaking of which, you might enjoy this, it was the best show of my life (I pop up at 6:30 filming with my phone ): I think it's important that you keep seeing a therapist and drugs should only be reduced (and eventually maybe removed) slowly and carefully if you feel like they're more problematic than helpful. I'm living on the fringes of society and my interactions with people are very brief and minimal, so I don't need drugs to function, but it would likely be another story if I was forced into a shitty job I hate. I'd say I attribute those improvements to becoming more spontaneous and less worried about status and how I appear to others. My desire to learn and oppose that which caused these problems has been crucial. I did a good job sourcing material that would eventually lead me to a greater understanding of myself and society, what I have failed at is creating new connections with people, so I still have symptoms of alienation that I'm trying to overcome.

That's pretty cool. Connection is a tricky one. I think oddballs like us have a tough go of it. The only person I've hung out with in months is my parents and a fellow oddball 70 yr. old multi-millionaire retiree. There is also Chomsky, Orwell, Morin, Marx, Amis, Hemmingway, David Foster Wallace, yourself and the rest of LP but that is part of the problem eh?

Here's a problem:

I was at the "cool" meeting ages ago where I barely know people but desperately wanted to be liked. I went to share and got hit with a panic attack. Now, it's like an agoraphobia situation. I would panic when I shared at meetings and then I would panic that I would panic at meetings. This has been the last year. In the past I could read or share no problem. I could even speak for 100 people I barely knew for an hour no problem but now it seems like even reading a small text at the beginning of a meeting causes anxiety. I've been using some immersion therapy. Reading the smallest texts at meetings, speaking at very small meetings where I know most people. It's gotten a little better but to be honest I have mostly just avoided it altogether. Were there any materials that helped with your panic, anxiety, fear?

ps, my internet has not been good today. I will watch the video when I can.

Regular meditation and visualization exercises along with CBT are good pillars. One thing in particular is pretty powerful for me, it consists of exerting myself physically and ideally exhausting myself prior to an event that I'm anxious about. Panic attacks take a lot of energy out of you, and what I found is that if you can burn that energy prior or even during, it prevents or terminates it.

Yeah, I have a job interview tomorrow and I am looking to go buck shit wild in the gym tomorrow morning. It will be interesting to see. The panic developed specifically in AA meetings (although I have had panic attacks and panic in the past). I think part of it is that I feel like a "fake" in there since there is so much I don't agree with at this point. It's almost impossible for me to carry a message in a meeting because I don't really agree with the message. So, I actually don't care that I haven't been going to meetings it has been a good thing for me (even though my entire social circle thinks I'm crazy). I am just a bit anxious about the job interview tomorrow because I don't want to panic there too and then panic that I am going to panic for every job interview. As I'm sure you know there is nothing worse than panicking at just the wrong time. When the heart starts to race and it is like your throat is closing off, and there is just a tightness in all of the muscles and the vision gets a bit whoozy.... ugh. Fuck, I'm motivated to destroy myself tomorrow in the gym.

ps, I will be lifting to Dead Congregation tomorrow morning. I remember my last back workout to them I went into a trance and turned into a werewolf and blacked out. I will try and top that tomorrow. There will be no fucks given for anatomy tomorrow. It's pure energy and exertion. I'm already starting to turn super saiyan listening to this concert.

On June 09 2018 14:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: Also, while 'real' socialism aims for the classless society, that's not the equivalent of completely abolished hierarchy.

You are totally right, my data was way off I should have checked before posting I read a lot of articles about scandinavian suicide rates being one of the worst (obv always behind japan) but it seems there are many other countries worse.



Ditto on that part, capitalism is one tiny way we have hierarchies, some people are smarter, more attractive, more charismatic, better spoken and hundreds of qualities that define one's suble ranking in society.

On June 09 2018 15:25 Loco wrote: It is very much about capitalism, hierarchy in and of itself makes people sick, and capitalism has drastic inequality built into it. In the words of the brilliant neuroscientist and stress-health expert Robert Sapolsky, “It isn’t [just] about being poor, it is about feeling poor.” It's something few people realize but relative poverty or deprivation is a massive driver of mental health issues separate from extreme poverty.

Again correlation =/= causation, do you see another pattern there?

Becauase I see a strong race homogenity pattern there so... are you advocating for an ethnostate now too because there is a correlation?


For a guy who rants about the nuances of complex problems you sure love to simplify when it suits your dogmatic views.

On June 09 2018 09:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: f what I would describe as 'toxic masculinity' ).

This was true for me:

Men who adhere to traditionally masculine cultural norms, such as risk-taking, violence, dominance, primacy of work, disdain for homosexuality, need for emotional control, desire to win, and pursuit of social status, tend to be more likely to experience psychological problems such as depression, stress, body image problems, substance abuse, and poor social functioning.[16] The effect tends to be stronger in men who also emphasize "toxic" masculine norms, such as self-reliance, seeking power over women, and sexual promiscuity or "playboy" behavior.

It's complex but when I stopped adhering to those norms my psychological problems went away (I experienced all of them before). Even doing something like racing to the gym to compete with everyone in there my body image problems come back. When I was a big man in poker or a big man in the steel mills I had all of the problems.

"I'm the man and your the man and he's the man as well so why don't you stick that fucking finger up your assssssss!"

On June 10 2018 04:03 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2018 15:25 Loco wrote: It is very much about capitalism, hierarchy in and of itself makes people sick, and capitalism has drastic inequality built into it. In the words of the brilliant neuroscientist and stress-health expert Robert Sapolsky, “It isn’t [just] about being poor, it is about feeling poor.” It's something few people realize but relative poverty or deprivation is a massive driver of mental health issues separate from extreme poverty. Again correlation =/= causation, do you see another pattern there? Becauase I see a strong race homogenity pattern there so... are you advocating for an ethnostate now too because there is a correlation? For a guy who rants about the nuances of complex problems you sure love to simplify when it suits your dogmatic views.

Once again you fail to get the argument right and you throw ad hominems as soon as you realize you are out of your depth and you can't back up your views with evidence. Your claim was that the correlation between social inequality and suicide (meaning mental health, which you had gotten wrong in the previous argument) was weak. Now that you have been shown to be wrong--this is a very strong correlation and it has been replicated--you are moving the goal post by saying that epidemiological studies can't definitely prove my thesis, it's "just a correlation". You want something causal that makes the big picture even more clear? There you go, in short video format to suit your attention span.

- I still take risks but not nearly like I used to. I used to easily be in the top 1% of risk taking.
- I haven't been violent since BJJ which is a much better outlet than street fighting. If you are doing BJJ or MMA there is no longer a reason to be violent outside of the sport.
- I would say I am dominant in some circumstances and subordinate in others. Not worrying too much about it. The only time I would be out and out submissive is if this dominatrix on tinder matches with me and it works out. I have always wanted to try that but I am usually dominant in bed.
- I always wanted to be the FBI agent, Phil Ivey, James Bond with emotional control. Now, I can watch a "Carmina Burana" ballet and let the tears just stream down my face with no shame. It's liberating. I don't have to be perfect.
- I was raised on Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods. Two GREAT role models....................... I still have a desire to win. It's not nearly as hyper-extreme as it used to be but there is a burning still there inside of me. I am not sure what to do about it and I am not convinced it's a bad thing.
- I more so pursue respect than status these days but of course I would like to be held in high regard among a social sphere. The problem is I am a bit of a misfit so if I had a goal it would just be to be a respectable misfit or I have to find other misfits. I certainly don't care what the bourgeois poshlust think about me anymore. In fact, I shouldn't even care what the job interviewer thinks about me today. Either it will be a good fit or it won't and I can go on with my day and go on my vacation on Tuesday.

On June 10 2018 12:00 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2018 04:03 Baalim wrote:   On June 09 2018 15:25 Loco wrote: It is very much about capitalism, hierarchy in and of itself makes people sick, and capitalism has drastic inequality built into it. In the words of the brilliant neuroscientist and stress-health expert Robert Sapolsky, “It isn’t [just] about being poor, it is about feeling poor.” It's something few people realize but relative poverty or deprivation is a massive driver of mental health issues separate from extreme poverty. Again correlation =/= causation, do you see another pattern there? Becauase I see a strong race homogenity pattern there so... are you advocating for an ethnostate now too because there is a correlation? For a guy who rants about the nuances of complex problems you sure love to simplify when it suits your dogmatic views. Once again you fail to get the argument right and you throw ad hominems as soon as you realize you are out of your depth and you can't back up your views with evidence. Your claim was that the correlation between social inequality and suicide (meaning mental health, which you had gotten wrong in the previous argument) was weak. Now that you have been shown to be wrong--this is a very strong correlation and it has been replicated--you are moving the goal post by saying that epidemiological studies can't definitely prove my thesis, it's "just a correlation". You want something causal that makes the big picture even more clear? There you go, in short video format to suit your attention span.

You didn't prove even a weak correlation between suicide and income inequality and yet you talk like you proved a strong correlation between suicide and capitalism.

Now you are changing the tone from suicide to mental health because that data suits your narrative arent you buddy? Intellectual dishonesty 101.

These are the countries with the lowest suicide rates:




So lets play the correlation game shall we?, what I deduct is that what prevents suicide is: massive income inequality, religious fanaticism and pretty beaches.


The ad-hominems are because you have dragged discussions to your obtuse dogmatic beliefs because you have devolved into cliché that looks everything through the lens of opression dynamics that sees capitalism as the root of all evil, civil discourse is out of the window, this is just shit flinging.

I'll try to take VanderMeyde's advice and try to cut down on the pointless discussions

I made no prior claims about suicide dude. How about you first quote me before calling me intellectually dishonest for changing the topic? RiKD is the one who posted the suicide increase news. What I initially said in response to it is that the most interesting finding in that report is that over half of those people didn't have a known mental health condition. You and I were not in an argument at that time. You then replied saying "you idiots are wrong" and attacked me as if I had made a specific claim about suicide rates when my claims were about the rise in mental health issues and later on its strong link to inequality. I don't know why you think the ultimate public health metric we should pay attention to are completed suicides and everything else is irrelevant, but yeah, it is a completely pointless discussion... thanks for that.

Here's the little I'll actually say on suicide. Suicide is a form of violence (self-violence) and so it should be looked at as part of a global picture on violence. When you can't take your aggression out on others, and you can't flee from what makes you miserable and inhibited, you can only turn your aggression towards yourself. This happens when someone's BIS (behavioral inhibition system) has been activated for a long time, which has stimulated the neuroendocrine responses that lead to negative health consequences (i.e. the body is constantly flooded with damaging stress hormones). It is the "ultimate act" that had a whole series of chain reactions that preceded it. You're not interested in those chain reactions, their link to structural causes, probably because you're too afraid your entire ideology would collapse if it turns out that dominance hierarchies and inequality are the main driver. Not the only driver, but the main driver. It would force you to either give it up or revert to a crude social Darwinism to justify it and you can't square it. It's better to stay ignorant, stable and happy, right?

"A consensus on the causes and prevention of violence has been emerging over the past few decades among investigators of this subject from virtually every branch of the behavioral sciences. All specialties, independent of each other, have identified a pathogen that seems to be necessary but not sufficient cause of violent behavior, just as specifically as exposure to the tubercle bacillus is necessary but not sufficient for the development of tuberculosis. The difference is that in the case of violence, the pathogen is an emotion, not a microbe—namely, the experience of overwhelming shame and humiliation. And just as people’s vulnerability to tuberculosis is influenced by the state of their body’s defense mechanisms, so their vulnerability to violence is influenced by the state of their psychological defense mechanisms."


Turns out that most people can't be at the top and they get to feel a lot of shame and humiliation as a result of being perpetually subordinate, especially when they realize how rigged it is against them... something that only gets worse the more unequal (i.e. the more ''free'') the economic system is. Who would have thunk?

[...]

“Worldwide, the most powerful predictor of the murder rate is the size of the gap in income and wealth between the rich and the poor. The most powerful predictor of the rate of national or collective violence—war, civil insurrection, and terrorism—is the size of the gap between income and wealth between the rich and poor nations.”

- Dr. James Gilligan, a lifelong prison psychologist and former director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School

Something more: "Dr. Gilligan was brought in as the Medical Director of the Massachusetts prison mental hospital in Bridgewater, Massachusetts because of the high suicide and murder rates within their prisons. When he left ten years later the rates of both had dropped to nearly zero." But I'm sure you as a poker player know a lot more about violence and inequality than he does.

"Suicide, something our intuition would peg as a very personal, detached act of “free will,” is very much a public-health problem because of its population-level predictability in reaction to certain social preconditions. While it is often difficult to determine why a given individual commits suicide, the socioeconomic correlations are undeniable. For example, suicides can be directly correlated with inevitable outcomes of the “boom and bust” cycle of economic growth and recession. A study produced by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and University of Oxford, using data from Canada, the US, and twenty-four EU nations, found that an additional 10,000 suicides were linked to the global recession between 2008 and 2010. The study found the biggest risk factors were job loss, home repossession, and debt. Coauthor David Stuckler stated with respect to the economic correlation, “Suicides are just the tip of the iceberg . . . these data reveal a looming mental health crisis in Europe and North America. In these hard economic times, this research suggests it is critical to look for ways of protecting those who are likely to be hardest hit.” This data is corroborated by a more dramatic 2015 study, which found that about 46,000 suicides across sixty-three countries were associated with unemployment in 2008 alone, also due to the global financial crisis."

Sources:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-06-12-r...cides-across-europe-and-north-america

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...cle/PIIS2215-0366(14)00118-7/abstract

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24925987

On June 11 2018 13:57 Loco wrote: a whole series of chain reactions that preceded it. You're not interested in those chain reactions, their link to structural causes, probably because you're too afraid your entire ideology would collapse if it turns out that dominance hierarchies and inequality are the main driver. Not the only driver, but the main driver. It would force you to either give it up or revert to a crude social Darwinism to justify it and you can't square it. It's better to stay ignorant, stable and happy, right?

Of course not, as I've said many times capitalism is flawed but its the best system in a society with finite resources and flawed people, perhaps in a more abundant future in a more advanced society collectivism makes more sense.

What I'm attacking here is the weak correlation game you both are playing, as I said for someone who likes to talk about nuances ad nauseum you shure like to make the silliest simplifications when it suits you.

Turns out that most people can't be at the top and they get to feel a lot of shame and humiliation as a result of being perpetually subordinate, especially when they realize how rigged it is against them... something that only gets worse the more unequal (i.e. the more ''free'') the economic system is. Who would have thunk?

You are wrong to think that the more free a market is the more unequal it is.

Top 20 countries by income inequalilty (gini):



Top 20 countries by economic freedom:



Any correlations there bud?

Actually what that top 20 list of inequality have in common is a strong presence of the state in the economic side, they are actually more mercantilists than capitalists, and the government involvement not only increases wealth inequality it greatly reduces class mobility.

As you can see Mexico is in there and just as a quick example, Carlos Slim, ranked the richest man in the world a couple of years ago made his fortune through the state, telecomunications was nationalized (as you probably would love lol), one day the government decided to "sell" it and they gave it to him who obviously had dirty ties with the goverment, and bam... a few years later richest man in the world, is this free market?

You mentioned the 2008 meltdown a couple of times and I think its imprtant to clarify that crisis was caused by the government, they created a moral hazard while guaranteeing B and C rating mortgage loans that naturally wallstreet exploited... so the government after causing the crisis, they bailed out their buddies, so as I said, in that move alone they increased wealth inequality and also by preventing them to go bust they froze class mobility.

You constantly keep blaming capitalism for the mistakes of the state, thats the reason why I'm an anarchist.

[/QUOTE]

Why revolution is no longer possible

baal you are out of your depth, study some dam economic history instead of grabbing charts from right wing think tanks to try and prove a point. The heritage institute uses the term economic freedom in an ideological way, it's really about freedom for the investor. Economic freedom for workers has gone down in New Zealand over the past 40 years, as is true for most countries on that top 20 list, but that doesn't count in the heritages definition of economic freedom.

Those nations in africa and south america that have huge inequality have had structural adjustment programs imposed on them by the unholy trinity: WTO, IMF, World bank. Structural adjustment means policy directed away from nationalization of assets-which is what third world countries have often tried to do. Structural adjustment means privatization, and opening up the economy for foreign investment. I suspect they rank lower on freedom because of the high rate of corruption in them, but they have had structural adjustment programs to turn them into markets, under the dubious argument of comparative advantage. But also economies have shifted towards privatisation in both the rich and poor nations, inequality has increased in every country. So study some economic history and get a full picture of the situation before taking one chart and claiming expertise, or u can at least read the wiki page on structural adjustment

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

You absolutely missed my point there.

Loco was saying that the more capitalist is a country the more inequality and I proved him wrong.


If what Loco said was true, then we would see the most capitalistic countries with the highest Gini coefficient, but we dont, in fact we see almost the opposite, the more unequal countries are african and southamerican, countries with little economic freedom, most not capitalist bur mercantilists with a strong state presence, which proves my point which is that while indeed the free-market naturally creates inequality, the biggest catalyst for it its the state.

I'm also against the "unholy trinity" as you call them fwiw... but we obv disagree in privatization.

Need help !
so im kinda getting bored of life and how things are going, for the last 4 or 5 months ive just been sitting here in my room grinding out poker.. and just taking care of the basics, saving up money to move out. But im getting very bored, and its taking a toll on me, i just feel like i really need to make a change in my life... i duno if i should go somewhere. I have a good car i could use to travel, but not much money, i have my roll thats at about 3K and like a hundred in cash in my pocket.. nothing in the bank... also dont have a passport yet.

anyway thats where i stand, like i said, i duno if i should go somewhere. maybe go out and try and find a cool job? get a new hobby? i just really want a change, i feel like this grind is just taking over my life..
btw this isnt a depressed running bad thread, im feeling great, just taking a look back and thinking i would really like to do something different..

if anyone has any good ideas, GIVE ME THEM.
Facebook

User was banned for this post.

Han:Today, we live under a dictatorship of neoliberalism. In neoliberalism, everybody is an entrepreneur of themselves. In Marx’ day, capitalism had a completely different work structure. The economy consisted of factory owners and factory workers, and no factory worker was an entrepreneur of themselves. There was external exploitation. Today, we exploit ourselves – I exploit myself under the illusion that I am expressing myself.

ZEIT Wissen: The term neoliberalism is therefore frequently seen as a left wing weapon.

Han: That’s not correct. Neoliberalism describes the state of current society very well, because it’s about exploiting freedom. The system strives towards increasing productivity, and so it switches from exploiting others to exploiting the self, because this generates more efficiency and more productivity, all under the guise of freedom.

We live today in the neoliberal system, which breaks down temporally stable structures, fragments living-time and permits the disintegration of what binds us together in the interests of increasing productivity. This neoliberal politics of time creates anxiety and insecurity. And neoliberalism fragments humans into isolated entrepreneurs of themselves. This isolation, which goes hand in hand with the elimination of solidarity and total competition, produce anxiety. The diabolical logic of neoliberalism is this: anxiety increases productivity.

Byung-Chul Han, The Expulsion of the Other

On July 06 2018 06:38 michaeltu015 wrote: Need help ! so im kinda getting bored of life and how things are going, for the last 4 or 5 months ive just been sitting here in my room grinding out poker.. and just taking care of the basics, saving up money to move out. But im getting very bored, and its taking a toll on me, i just feel like i really need to make a change in my life... i duno if i should go somewhere. I have a good car i could use to travel, but not much money, i have my roll thats at about 3K and like a hundred in cash in my pocket.. nothing in the bank... also dont have a passport yet. anyway thats where i stand, like i said, i duno if i should go somewhere. maybe go out and try and find a cool job? get a new hobby? i just really want a change, i feel like this grind is just taking over my life.. btw this isnt a depressed running bad thread, im feeling great, just taking a look back and thinking i would really like to do something different.. if anyone has any good ideas, GIVE ME THEM. Facebook User was banned for this post.

Successful LP meme

On July 04 2018 04:41 Baalim wrote: You absolutely missed my point there. Loco was saying that the more capitalist is a country the more inequality and I proved him wrong. If what Loco said was true, then we would see the most capitalistic countries with the highest Gini coefficient, but we dont, in fact we see almost the opposite, the more unequal countries are african and southamerican, countries with little economic freedom, most not capitalist bur mercantilists with a strong state presence, which proves my point which is that while indeed the free-market naturally creates inequality, the biggest catalyst for it its the state. I'm also against the "unholy trinity" as you call them fwiw... but we obv disagree in privatization.

I was saying the countries on those top 20 list on inequality were forced to undergo changes to make them more capitalist, particularly since the 1970's. They all underwent major capitalist reform from the 70's-90's:

This is the list of conditions of a structural adjustment program according to wiki,-which is correct:

Typical stabilisation policies include

balance of payments deficits reduction through currency devaluation
budget deficit reduction through higher taxes and lower government spending, also known as austerity
restructuring foreign debts
monetary policy to finance government deficits (usually in the form of loans from central banks)
eliminating food subsidies
raising the price of public services
cutting wages
decrementing domestic credit.

Long-term adjustment policies usually include:

liberalization of markets to guarantee a price mechanism
privatization, or divestiture, of all or part of state-owned enterprises
creating new financial institutions
improving governance and fighting corruption (from the perspective of a neoliberal formulation of 'governance' and 'corruption')
enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-à-vis national laws
focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction
increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment with the opening of domestic stock markets).

So yes loco's point that there is large inequality in capitalist economies is true. The third world as a whole went further towards capitalism.

Probably the best history book on this is 'the poorer countries', by vijay prashad. It goes into depth on structural adjustment programs and the whole economic history of latin america, africa and east asia especially, over the last 60 years.


nowdays structural adjustment is called austerity-the policies are pretty similar.

You missed the point again.

There is no correlation between economic freedom (capitalism) and income inequality, if there were as loco and now you claim, you would see the most capitalist countries having the highest GINI scores, yet they don't.

It doesnt matter if the 3rd world is more or less capitalistic today than it was 60 years ago to the point of correlation between economic freedom and income inequality, you have provided nothing but non-sequitur fallacies.



Also those measures weren't applied, while indeed the world bank wants to put neoliberalism in latinamerica and they have had minimal sucess, there has never been austerity or a reduction of budgets and the size of the state in any latinamerican country, and actually half of latinamerica is or was just recently sunken by leftitst leaders, Lula daSilva and Dilma Rouseff in Brazil, Kirchner in Argentina, Evo Moralez in Bolivia, Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, Castros in Cuba and you can add Honduras, Panamá and now Mexico elected a socialist president and the country who is doing the best of all latinamerica is Chile who happens to be the most economically free.

On July 09 2018 03:08 Baalim wrote: There is no correlation between economic freedom (capitalism) and income inequality, if there were as loco and now you claim, you would see the most capitalist countries having the highest GINI scores, yet they don't. .

This conclusion can't generally be drawn from a positive correlation.

On July 09 2018 17:18 def_jammer wrote: Show nested quote + On July 09 2018 03:08 Baalim wrote: There is no correlation between economic freedom (capitalism) and income inequality, if there were as loco and now you claim, you would see the most capitalist countries having the highest GINI scores, yet they don't. . This conclusion can't generally be drawn from a positive correlation.

depending on many factors correlations have different degrees of value as evidence, but in this case there is no correlation at all, yet they continue talking as if it were a fact.

On July 09 2018 03:08 Baalim wrote: You missed the point again. There is no correlation between economic freedom (capitalism) and income inequality, if there were as loco and now you claim, you would see the most capitalist countries having the highest GINI scores, yet they don't. It doesnt matter if the 3rd world is more or less capitalistic today than it was 60 years ago to the point of correlation between economic freedom and income inequality, you have provided nothing but non-sequitur fallacies. Also those measures weren't applied, while indeed the world bank wants to put neoliberalism in latinamerica and they have had minimal sucess, there has never been austerity or a reduction of budgets and the size of the state in any latinamerican country, and actually half of latinamerica is or was just recently sunken by leftitst leaders, Lula daSilva and Dilma Rouseff in Brazil, Kirchner in Argentina, Evo Moralez in Bolivia, Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, Castros in Cuba and you can add Honduras, Panamá and now Mexico elected a socialist president and the country who is doing the best of all latinamerica is Chile who happens to be the most economically free.

Inequality was reduced in latin america as it shifted away from capitalism under the pink tide movement in the early 2000's. citing wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_tide "At the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, the region’s initial unsuccessful attempts with the neoliberal policies of privatization, cuts in social spending, and foreign investment left many countries with high levels of unemployment, inflation and persistent inequality. [30] ... Some of the initial results after the first pink tide governments were elected in Latin America included a reduction in the income gap,[5] unemployment, extreme poverty,[5] malnutrition and hunger,[2][52] and rapid increase in literacy.[2]

When you say the world bank had minimal success implementing neoliberal policies in latin america you are wrong on this claim, take mexico as one example, from 1982 right up to the economy's collapse in late 1994, the Mexican government implemented virtually all of the adjustment policies promoted by the World Bank and the IMF. The richest 20 per cent of the population received 54.2 per cent of national income in 1992, against 48.4 per cent in 1984. And it's a similar story in other countries in Latin America.

I think it is fairly idiotic to use gini charts and indexs from the heritage institute instead of trying to look at economic history and finding the causes that have greatly increased inequality in nations. Picking from that chart of top 20 nations that are unequal, you get the highly capitalist nations, but you don't get any information other than that. China, Russia and India have all had drastically increased inequality since 1990, all having had increased privtization in their economy. yet they don't make it onto their charts. yet that is an important set of countries one might want to study if you want to know whether capitalism correlates with inequality.

According to economic historian ha joon chang, the global economic system is run as a 'do as i say, not do as i do' principle, the rich nations engage in Keynesian measures but made sure the third world didn't, when they could control them as one example.. The pink tide was an era where north america lost control of latin america. The countries in sub-saharan africa are the most capitalist in the world . They are the ones with free markets imposed on them, along with the rest of the third world, while the rich nations use some sort of keynesianism when they feel like it.

Another thing that is important in knowing is that there has been a global shift towards increased inequality, in all countries, over the last few decades. New Zealand doesn't make it onto the country with high inequality index, but it's inequality has increased massively over the last few decades. It only doesn't reach that top 20 chart because every other country has also had increased inequality. it received a full structural adjustment program from 1984-1993, opened up it's economy, did a lot of what you could define as capitalist. It still preserves some government intervention as all rich nations do, but it's a lot more capitalist than it used to be, and yes it's inequality has gone way up as a direct result.

So yes there is a clear direct correlation between capitalism and inequality and those charts don't say shit.

From your own wikipedia "pink tide" article:



LOL thats pretty much a map that paints in red the countries which economies are in tatters, hell I dont think I could have found a better support for my argument, thanks for that.





Argentina - The Kirchners, direct nepotism, probably the most hated presidents in Argentinian history, many close political associate in jail, Judge issued Cristinas arrest but she had diplomatic immunity, the argentinian peso plummeted to historic levels
Bolivia - Evo Morales.... a fucking dictator
Brazil - Lula Da Silva is in jail... Dilma Rousseff impeached
Ecuador - Correa destroyed its already small economy
Nicaragua - Daniel Ortega.... another fucking dictator
Venezuela, - Chavez and Madura, another 2 fucking dictators lol.
Guyana - aaaaaaand another dictator


Are you seriously going to argue with me about the economy and leftist president in latinamerica using examples as Venezuela? are you going to go full Loco and claim that Chavez was a great president too?

On the subject of Mexico there was never an austerity measure, these libertarian policies you claim were forced by the WB and IMF were never established, its almost impossible to enforce austerity as I've argued multiple times because of the nature of the state.

The only neoliberal policies carried out were privatization, but since we are a deeply corrupt mercantilist country these privatizations were simply signing off government infrastrcture to politicians, as I told earlier, thats how TELMEX the biggest telecom company in latinamerica was signed to Carlos Slim Helu which was a couple of years ago the richest man in the world.

Even a decade of this pseudo privatization of Telmex it was a total monopoly, only a few years ago competing companies opened their doors and forced Telmex hegemony to tone down its abusive practices, and fyi Pemex which is the mexican oil company its state owned, schools have a sindicate so strong that they constantly sway presidential elections and are corrupt to a degree you people in the civilized world can barely imagine.

But please keep lecturing me on the economy of my own country

i'm pretty sure you made a claim about latin america, about inequality and capitalism and i showed it wasn't true, now your changing the topic to something i didn't discuss. The claim i made about mexico was true, and IMF/WB always force their policies on the public, you can threaten governments with capital flight or military intervention, support rebels inside the country, or you can get ones that are compliant but don't represent the interests of the public, which is often the case. Typically the elites in that country get big amounts of private capital out of structural adjustment, so they win and are cool with it, but the public loses. The public never wants austerity, or structural adjustment...ever. They arn't involved in the political process, and get no choice in the matter

On July 12 2018 00:14 Stroggoz wrote: i'm pretty sure you made a claim about latin america, about inequality and capitalism and i showed it wasn't true, now your changing the topic to something i didn't discuss. The claim i made about mexico was true, and IMF/WB always force their policies on the public, you can threaten governments with capital flight or military intervention, support rebels inside the country, or you can get ones that are compliant but don't represent the interests of the public, which is often the case. Typically the elites in that country get big amounts of private capital out of structural adjustment, so they win and are cool with it, but the public loses. The public never wants austerity, or structural adjustment...ever. They arn't involved in the political process, and get no choice in the matter

you didnt show it was true, you said the most free the market is the most inequality, there is literally zero correlation shown.

You first said that latinamerica was pushed to free markets by the WB and IMF, then you said latinamerica pushed back with leftist leaders since the 90s.

According to your view in economics those countries with leftists leaders should be thriving and its quite the opposite.

How is africa an example of true free markets, you are crazy, africa just like latinamerica are mercantilist with heavy presence of a corrupt state with high inequality and low class mobility.

PS: I already agreed that the WB and IMF are shit and abuse developed countries, no discussin there but that doesnt have anything to do with how an economy performs under free or controlled markets and individualism and collectivism

no completely free market society exists but yes sub saharan africa is quite far in the free market camp. They are not mercantalist.

I think most right wing economists agree with loco and I on this topic, that capitalism has the most inequality. the argument u see from the right and those pushing structural adjustment is that inequality will increase under structural adjustment but that growth will increase in the long run. same goes for those on the right and capitalism, that it increases inequality but it also increases gdp per capita, so everyone is better off with the given increase of inequality. That's what i got from right wing economists like milton friedman and others that defended globalization later on.

Yes there isnt a completely free market and African countries arent the closes to free market the world has, thats such a ludicrous thing to say, please back it up with data, or an index, since you say the wikpedia numbers are cooked, please show us your metrics to make such a bold claim.


No, they don't agree with you/loco on that lol, neither are those numbers I posted above that you just claimed as false without providing contradictory evidence.

Hard socialism, like the USSR, DPRK, Mao's China, Cuba indeed generate a plateau in a gaussian wealth distribution, the "1%"* remains extremely wealthy and powerful, in this case through the high ranking positions in the state, in fact these people are far more powerful than anybody in a free market could be.


mercantilism (soft collectivism, leftism, assistencialism, protectionism etc) - high inequality, low class mobility
free market (libertarianism, individualistm etc) - inequality, high class mobility
hard collectivism (abolition of private property, communism etc) - low inequality but top 1% still as wealthy and powerful, non-existant class mobility.


I made that last part to make clear my point that the the further you go from capitalistm the less inequality isn't true, the only way to remove it is to totally remove private property like Loco advocates, however that model has the itsy bitsy problem of having to bulldoze the corpses of the millions who starve to death.

On July 12 2018 15:13 Stroggoz wrote: no completely free market society exists but yes sub saharan africa is quite far in the free market camp. They are not mercantalist. I think most right wing economists agree with loco and I on this topic, that capitalism has the most inequality. the argument u see from the right and those pushing structural adjustment is that inequality will increase under structural adjustment but that growth will increase in the long run. same goes for those on the right and capitalism, that it increases inequality but it also increases gdp per capita, so everyone is better off with the given increase of inequality. That's what i got from right wing economists like milton friedman and others that defended globalization later on.

what do you say to ppl who say this?

i've been getting a lot of push back on "poverty is just the price you pay for technology/competition/progress". i'm not the best communicator of ideas and even though u can have technological progress without such rampant poverty through alternative systems, there's this attitude of "disprove this statement to disprove capitalism". iono it's weird. alot of my friends are very capitalist and very clever in the mental gymnastics to make things work but so inflexible in their thinking to try even momentarily to view things in a different paradigm.

On July 14 2018 02:23 qwe5408 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 12 2018 15:13 Stroggoz wrote: no completely free market society exists but yes sub saharan africa is quite far in the free market camp. They are not mercantalist. I think most right wing economists agree with loco and I on this topic, that capitalism has the most inequality. the argument u see from the right and those pushing structural adjustment is that inequality will increase under structural adjustment but that growth will increase in the long run. same goes for those on the right and capitalism, that it increases inequality but it also increases gdp per capita, so everyone is better off with the given increase of inequality. That's what i got from right wing economists like milton friedman and others that defended globalization later on. what do you say to ppl who say this? i've been getting a lot of push back on "poverty is just the price you pay for technology/competition/progress". i'm not the best communicator of ideas and even though u can have technological progress without such rampant poverty through alternative systems, there's this attitude of "disprove this statement to disprove capitalism". iono it's weird. alot of my friends are very capitalist and very clever in the mental gymnastics to make things work but so inflexible in their thinking to try even momentarily to view things in a different paradigm.

Yeah it's a big debate in 20th century politics/philosophy. John Rawls the well known political philosopher argued that inequality is fair so long as it increases the wealth of those less well off. Well, i think i agree with that, or at least think it's worth trying. Ok, rawls political philosophy is very abstract, and you can make a lot of crazy conclusions on what his ideal society would like like based on your interpretation of the facts. If one wants to look at the current existing system and claim that inequality here is making everyone better off, they have to show it. And the easiest way to show that is looking at the say the richest 100 corporations, and their share holders, and we can see if they are improving the lives of the poor or not. The economy has also grown very monopolistic and oligopolistic, with price collusion among several industry leaders being the industry standard. That's another form of rent-seeking, since it's collecting profits off monopoly power.

Well, from what i can tell a lot of them are doing the opposite. They are enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. And a lot of them are making a lot of money without effecting the poor. Joseph Stiglitz, the economist we are both familiar with has been critical of the rich and making money off rent seeking behaviour. (the term in economics for making money for oneself without actually creating wealth for society.) The FIRE economy (finance insurance real estate), now takes up a huge portion of our economy, and the people in that sector can get paid crazy amounts of $$. The FIRE economy is largely rent seeking behavior, it's gambling in the sense that poker is gambling, and doesn't contribute much at all to the rest of society. Sometimes it indirectly harms the poor, like when speculative frenzies on food prices drove the price up and caused riots in thirty countries after the 2008 crisis (susan george, 2010).

Then there are corporations that are actively increasing their wealth at the expense of the rest of human civilisation; energy corporations. I've encountered comments by those who work in the energy industry and seriously think they are going around lifting third world countries out of poverty. Ok, but those people are delusional. Pretty clear what's going on there, and pretty clear it's going to make everyone far worse off in the long run, with africa and india/bangladesh getting hit the worst. I mean not just the hundreds of millions of people dying, the destruction in ecology will be bad for scientific progress. Every species that become's extinct is another lost potential discovery in science.

Then there is the wage system. A lot of people point to the massive growth rates that come from it, and point to this as progress. But there are a lot of things about that system that don't seem progressive about this. For one, a lot of the stuff that is made in china is junk-you need to sufficiently propagandise people to sell it to them. And it's like economics textbooks point out, this kind of advertising is undermining the ability for people to make rational choices, which are deemed necessary for a free market. Another thing is that it requires human beings to become as stupid as it is possible for a creature to be. If you work in the wage slave system your repeatedly doing the same tasks over and over again...their is a lot of lost potential in a human being if they just become an extension of a machine, and that's bad for making everyone better off.

There is also an argument that you need to pay people large amounts of money to incentivize them to be creative and work. I don't think that is that true, the people who claim this are largely economists and havn't provided any evidence to back it up. scientists get paid a salary-sometimes it's pretty good money, but a lot of the innovative work comes from people who are young in the field, in the post doc level which doesn't get paid much. Imo in most cases you can only do that job if your very passionate about what your doing. You have to do a lot of creative work at that level to advance anyway, i think.

So yeah the only way to asses the claim that inequality is making everyone better off, is to go through the activities of a huge sample of the richest people in the world and check to see if their activities are making people better off, and not too many people can be bothered to do that. if there was a full study into this topic i'd be very interested in reading it.

Really great stuff Stroggoz

Once piece I am not so sure about:

There is also an argument that you need to pay people large amounts of money to incentivize them to be creative and work. I don't think that is that true, the people who claim this are largely economists and haven't provided any evidence to back it up. scientists get paid a salary-sometimes it's pretty good money, but a lot of the innovative work comes from people who are young in the field, in the post doc level which doesn't get paid much. Imo in most cases you can only do that job if your very passionate about what your doing. You have to do a lot of creative work at that level to advance anyway, i think.

There is a certain amount of pride, family pride, and expectations in getting a doctorate and working at a prestigious university for post doc. There is a fascination and passion for the subject in all cases but I think it is like the devil and the angel on the shoulders. In times of sameness or burnout that high paying corporate job starts looking appetizing. Or, the high paying corporate job is what a lot of people are brought up on. I think it's just a matter of what the market price is and what can be negotiated. My brother was just sort of a passionate physics nerd that lost the passion and had to grind out his dissertation a little bit and then got his PhD. He then turned into this ruthless negotiator and is doing very well for himself monetarily. Big data for a criminal bank sounds criminal and horrible but he loves it and lives quite comfortably albeit perhaps he is not quite alive and not quite dead (undead).

I have a cousin who is doing a post doc at Harvard in Chemistry. Both his parents are chemists and sort of pushed him towards that his whole life. There were and are expectations. After all, he is his parent's vanity. My cousin is a pretty chill dude though and I could tell in conversations even before he went to grad school that chemistry was his shit. I don't know if he cares about awards or accolades. He is one guy that might truly be in the end-itself. ~$40,000 (or less) is probably enough to do something you love in most cases. I don't know how far that money would go in Boston though and the overtime with out pay could become tiresome. There is a danger to becoming a hyper entrepreneur of the self and a self-exploiting achievement-subject.

I guess I didn't provide any factual information or even take a stand on much. Maybe the main point is that when Neoliberalism is dictator there will always be that pull for more prestige and profit (and productivity). I think even in my cousin's case there is a drive for prestige and the knowledge that he could probably negotiate a $100,000+ salary if he wanted to. So, discover something great in science or make a high salary are choices people would live to have. So, that has to be a part of it. Or, maybe not. I can only really speak for myself when I was playing poker. I LOVED playing 5 NL but there was always in the back of my mind that I could play 200 NL or 1k NL and play for a living. I was passionate for streaks in my career and one definitely needs passion to move up but part of that later in my career was to be a boss. I wonder how much money is "fuck you" money? But, that is what I was going for.

The want of a high salary is conditioned. I think most people do not understand that the utility of money is not linear. And, also the fact that after a certain amount say around $80,000 depending on where one lives money does not buy "happiness." Actually, I don't entirely agree with that. I think someone people understand the value of money, time, sovereignty and how to spend it. Most just consume. That is where there are steps that develop. I don't want to list all the objects that can be consumed but typically these types of consumers want the same level (the highest level they can afford) of everything so there are jumps/steps. It would be weird to see a guy in a $50 shirt, $50 pants, $80 shoes living in the low rent part of town with a Porsche 911. It's much more common to see a woman wearing some on sale Zara and some Nikes and a Coach bag in a Toyota Camry. That is then extended to everything one could possible consume. So, maybe that is a salary of $30-60,000 where $20,000 can get some of those things and $80k is consuming frugally. To "level up" to the next level might take $100,000. Actually, that's not exactly right and I never consumed exactly like this when I was a hyper consumer but for the most part it's true. I think what I forgot in the equation are people are always striving for higher and more. So, I remember I got this really expensive Le Corbusier lamp that was way out of my "level" but I got it because it was impulsive and I wanted it and I wanted to be on that level. In a way that is what I was motivated by. I would buy a pair of $400 Hugo Boss pants. I certainly couldn't afford an entire wardrobe of Hugo Boss but I wanted THOSE pants. I stayed at the W Hotel in Chicago. So, I needed large amounts of money and I wanted large amounts of money to do my work. Everything was always a negotiation in order to negotiate for me (I meant to write "more" but me is also very appropriate). Barely anyone is going to take less if more can be negotiated. There is stuff to buy and things to do. I need the money so I can buy more. So, I can "BE" more. These are all symptoms of the Neoliberalism Dictatorship.

On July 14 2018 06:40 Stroggoz wrote: And the easiest way to show that is looking at the say the richest 100 corporations, and their share holders, and we can see if they are improving the lives of the poor or not. The economy has also grown very monopolistic and oligopolistic, with price collusion among several industry leaders being the industry standard. That's another form of rent-seeking, since it's collecting profits off monopoly power.

You are misunderstanding, you are seeing again as if the more free market, the more inequality and the more inequality the more overall wealth, thats not how it works, inequality is a requirement for this economic model that generates that wealth, its just that, wealth and inequality do not have a direct correlation.

Those 100 corporations aren't the way to show anything, because as you stated these corporations are monopolies that stifle the free market through lobbying and anti capitalist practices like price-setting etc, so indeed these corporations increase inequality without increasing wealth/productivity, but they are an example of exactly the opposite of what you are saying.


On the subjects of wages for creative work there are studies who show people underperforming in "bonuses" schemes, so indeed it doesnt squeeze the maximum performance in certain fields but if you dont offer that they will walk to other place, care to give another sistem where these people dont underperform withouth destroying the economy?

not really sure what you mean baal. I was treating Qwe's post as a seperate topic from the previous discussion on whether capitalism has the highest inequality. All i was interested there is whether the massive wealth inequality makes society richer overall. And yes i think looking at the activities of the richest and top 100 corporations is a good way to test that hypothesis, got any better idea's on how to test it?

As for the previous topic, on further reflection i think i disagree with a lot of what i said earlier, there is too much interaction between the economies of different nation states to test if huge inequality and free market capitalism correlate. As an example afrca's inequality is surely contributed to by protectionist policies from US agribussiness, and protectionist IP laws like the TRIPs agreement. And also the US where inequality is very high is an example of a society that arn't really free market societies and where the rich do intervene in the economy using the government to make themselves richer.

No system i have to offer, i advocate democratic governance in the economy but that is for reasons unrelated to motivation. I think you gotta go through every industry and try things out one by one. Different industries attract different personalities so they will have their own unique motivations. I don't have any evidence but i think human creativity is biologically hardwired so that humans would largely pursue creative work on their own rather than vegetate, and it is only in an anti social culture that this creative drive won't properly manifest itself.

Yes rikd, social prestige is surely a factor in motivating people. Society just has to try and get rid of vice motivations.

How do we get rid of vice motivations? I know how I did it to some degree so I guess the answer lies somewhere in there but again my brain is a bit scrambled from work and I don't even know if I could express it at the moment. No one needs another long post from me at this point. I will say I have peculiar experiences that have gotten me to this point.

On July 15 2018 05:38 Stroggoz wrote: not really sure what you mean baal. I was treating Qwe's post as a seperate topic from the previous discussion on whether capitalism has the highest inequality. All i was interested there is whether the massive wealth inequality makes society richer overall. And yes i think looking at the activities of the richest and top 100 corporations is a good way to test that hypothesis, got any better idea's on how to test it? As for the previous topic, on further reflection i think i disagree with a lot of what i said earlier, there is too much interaction between the economies of different nation states to test if huge inequality and free market capitalism correlate. As an example afrca's inequality is surely contributed to by protectionist policies from US agribussiness, and protectionist IP laws like the TRIPs agreement. And also the US where inequality is very high is an example of a society that arn't really free market societies and where the rich do intervene in the economy using the government to make themselves richer. No system i have to offer, i advocate democratic governance in the economy but that is for reasons unrelated to motivation. I think you gotta go through every industry and try things out one by one. Different industries attract different personalities so they will have their own unique motivations. I don't have any evidence but i think human creativity is biologically hardwired so that humans would largely pursue creative work on their own rather than vegetate, and it is only in an anti social culture that this creative drive won't properly manifest itself. Yes rikd, social prestige is surely a factor in motivating people. Society just has to try and get rid of vice motivations.

Then we agree on most things, in fact a free market creates inequality but how does it behave in long iterations we dont really know if wealth keeps flowing to the top, we see it but mostly because of the interferances in it, basically all the legan and illegal ways to control the government and viceversa, and its something difficult to model given the relative irrationality of the market/buyer.

If we discovered that indeed it followed a perpetual acumulation of wealth then a redistribution mechanism should be deviced, idially UBI, people like Loco disagree with this because it leaves the hierarchy structure intact, which I think its required in a society with limited resources and primitive behavior.

BTW Ortega in Nicaragua just started killing students and dissidents lol, so add him to the list of murderous dictators from the left in latinamerica.

On May 12 2018 22:57 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Everyone loves to talk about how awful everything is, how the gap between rich and poor only grows, how you cannot support a family with no skills/education anymore. It's viewed as a conspiracy by the rich to keep the poor down. You're born into the world with nothing, and nothing is guaranteed. We talked about this in another thread, but with market forces, of course unskilled labor is worth shit when globalization opens the door for billions of workers in poorer countries like China/India, etc. Along with other trends of specialization becoming more and more important. Alas, trends are not as dire as they seem. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content...Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png I don't fkin get why we are having a spending deficit in the U.S. during such a long expansion, but politicians always just kick the can down the road.

you can see why (((they))) love globalisation while walling off their own insulated enclave

"A new investigation published by The Intercept exposes how a libertarian think tank called the Atlas Network is remaking Latin American politics with the help of powerful conservative institutions and funders in the United States, some of whom you may recognize, such as the Koch brothers. The Intercept reports the Atlas Network is behind dozens of prominent groups that have supported right-wing forces in the anti-government movement in Venezuela, as well as those who ousted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. We are joined by The Intercept’s Lee Fong, who covers the intersection of money and politics. His new piece is tilted, Sphere of Influence: How American Libertarians Are Remaking Latin American Politics."



(This is a couple years old but I wasn't aware of it)

On July 18 2018 23:48 Baalim wrote: BTW Ortega in Nicaragua just started killing students and dissidents lol, so add him to the list of murderous dictators from the left in latinamerica.

It's true that he is a murderous dictator, but this tells us nothing about what led to this, what were the forces that led to this kind of violence and corruption. We have to pay attention to details here: these protests and the repression that came with it were the result of slashing pensions, outlawing abortion, Ortega being increasingly pro-business and having extremely low social spending -- clearly these are not positions that are associated with the left. Quite the contrary, they are positions associated with neoliberal Republicanism.

I think the situation in Nicaragua is the best one for me to sympathize with your hatred of leftism, because you are used to seeing these bankrupt parties, but it is also the best one for me to illustrate the mistake of generalizing and oversimplify the left axis as a single, homogeneous left. Like, this obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the leftist revolution in Rojava or Mexico. Pointing to this and saying "this is leftism, this is socialism, it always leads to this" is dumb, and taking the absolute opposite position, the position of reinforcing the imperialist, profit-over-people agenda, which has robbed these people of the possibility of living well in their countries in the first place, that is a tragic mistake. The corruption and the failures of these regimes only represent these regimes, they do not represent the entire left and what is possible, in fact from this we can see that he is only a "socialist" in name carried from the past -- neither his social or economic policies are socialist.

Authoritarianism (born out of and maintained through hierarchical structures of organization) and the pressures to conform to an homogeneous neoliberal America are the causal factors here, not 'leftism'. The underlying capitalist system was never done away with; they still had to operate within it, making bad alliances that lead to bad results, while trying to rebuild from the insane amount of damage that the US caused to their land and economy, while still under their threats and sanctions. A rational person should be completely disillusioned with these so-called socialist governments once they look at them, but they shouldn't fail to make the causal links to the capitalist/imperialist ideology that it sought to free itself from unsuccessfully and which not only breed these revolutionary efforts but corrupts them as well.

A short history of what happened post-war:

Ortega’s tendency within the Sandinistas, the terceristas, had always favoured an approach that married armed insurrection to cross-class alliances with business owners, the churches, professionals on one hand and shanty-town dwellers and the unemployed on the other. This strategy is echoed in other Latin American left nationalist movements. In 2006 Ortega won the presidential elections, with a former Contra leader as his running mate. He firmed up his alliance with the Catholic Church and as a part of this deal introduced strict legislation against abortion where before in the 1980s he had supported abortion rights. He also formed an alliance with the Constitutional Liberal Party. He began to build alliances with Iran, Cuba and then Venezuela. Recently he has increased his ties with China and Russia. He was again re-elected in 2011 and in 2016. He increased his support of business in this period. Using the assets from the confiscated land and property, Ortega and his wife Vice-President Rosario Murillo, together with other Sandinistas formed an alliance with big businessmen to build up a considerable business conglomerate, which includes control of various media outlets. Meanwhile Nicaragua’s social spending per head is one of the lowest in the region. 62% of the population live in dire poverty, whilst there are around 250 multimillionaires who have prospered under Ortega. This April 18th Ortega announced cuts in pensions and increases in social security contributions as dictated by the International Monetary Fund. This was a bridge too far for many. Barricades were erected in towns south of the capital Managua, and heavy fighting with police and army has resulted in many deaths. The unrest has continued now for three months and shows no signs of abating. The movement has increasingly called for the removal of Ortega and Murillo. The USA for its part, whilst looking favourably on Ortega’s pro-business positions, is disturbed by the Nicaragua-Venezuela-Cuba axis, and the links with Russia, China and Iran. The revolt in Nicaragua must not be allowed to be hi-jacked by the US, who would install another reactionary regime more compliant with their policies. The whole sorry scenario in Nicaragua, and indeed in Mexico and Venezuela, reveals the bankruptcy of leftist politics in Latin America. It is even more imperative that a pan-American revolutionary anarchist movement is developed, a movement based on the working class, peasantry and indigenous peoples, not tied to any of the power blocs, and that the road to social revolution is opened."