|
Dukemont posted:Thought experiment for the capitalism apologists: It depends on what you mean by "drastic," and whether it's a natural consequence of the policies that eliminate poverty and homelessness, or an artificial restriction introduced on an ideological basis, which you appear to be arguing for with little or no actual reason. If the cost is "you won't have as much money to spend on luxuries, and as such the market contracts" then, yes, it's completely acceptable. If it's "everyone only drinks Victory Gin now," then no.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
PT6A posted:
Under socialism and capitalism the terms ’product’ and ‘consumer’ have different meanings and are not exactly transferable between systems. If under a planned economy things are only produced if needed, I don’t think it would be accurate to call these things ‘products’ that are ‘consumed’ in the same sense as under capitalism. This is more of a semantic argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Dukemont posted:This is more of a semantic argument. An argument between you and reality, more like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It depends on what you mean by "drastic," and whether it's a natural consequence of the policies that eliminate poverty and homelessness, or an artificial restriction introduced on an ideological basis, which you appear to be arguing for with little or no actual reason. On what ideological basis am I arguing for the reduction of luxuries here? Do I come across as some kind of luddite or minimalist? I think we can assume that under a more egalitarian system we would not have the same variety of choice in available goods, when so much of it is determined by the wealth of private individuals and predicated on gross inequality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Dukemont posted:On what ideological basis am I arguing for the reduction of luxuries here? Do I come across as some kind of luddite or minimalist? Frankly, yes, you do. You're arguing for a planned economy, and talking about how things are only produced "if needed." Humans need exceptionally few things, and once those things are guaranteed, there is no reason why luxuries should not exist even if they are not strictly needed. PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:An argument between you and reality, more like. Capitalism has broken your brain
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Dukemont posted:Capitalism has broken your brain Counterpoint: the idea of commerce and brands has existed in every socialist society that has ever existed -- really, in every society that's existed -- and it's not actually an idea that's intrinsically linked to capitalism. You're arguing for an austere, unappealing, and ultimately unnecessary restriction on socialism, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Humans need exceptionally few things, and once those things are guaranteed, there is no reason why luxuries should not exist even if they are not strictly needed. I think it's fine to reduce the luxuries we have for the: 'Elimination of poverty and homelessness in Canada'. Just remember that the luxuries we own are bought with the stolen labour of those people overseas working destitute wages, and one day if world economics changes under Capitalism it could be us paying for the luxuries of other people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:I think it's fine to reduce the luxuries we have for the: 'Elimination of poverty and homelessness in Canada'. Yes, but that not a necessary condition for the production of luxuries, it's just something that's happening under the current system. I'm defining "luxuries" as anything that isn't strictly necessary. There is no reason these could not be produced in a non-exploitative context. Indeed, workers' cooperatives already exist which are producing "luxuries" and the universe hasn't collapsed on itself as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, but that not a necessary condition for the production of luxuries, it's just something that's happening under the current system. You're greedy and would rather see people die on the streets than give up a choice of 50 brands of gin. Though the reality is that Canada has enough natural wealth that it's not likely that the amount 'luxuries' we do give up would be that dire. A small redistribution of wealth could eliminate poverty and homelessness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:You're greedy and would rather see people die on the streets than give up a choice of 50 brands of gin.  What the hell are you even talking about? I'm only saying that a lack of consumer choice a la 1984 is neither a desirable nor a necessary consequence of socialism. quote:Though the reality is that Canada has enough natural wealth that it's not likely that the amount 'luxuries' we do give up would be that dire. A small redistribution of wealth could eliminate poverty and homelessness. Well, yeah, that's exactly my point. We could eliminate those things without creating a dystopian planned economy that lacks for any luxuries or consumer choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Counterpoint: the idea of commerce and brands has existed in every socialist society that has ever existed -- really, in every society that's existed -- and it's not actually an idea that's intrinsically linked to capitalism. I’m not arguing for socialism as you describe it, but pointing out that a reduction in the luxuries available today would be inevitable under socialism. I agree that the production of luxuries is both desirable and practical under socialism, but only after there is no want of necessities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Dukemont posted:I agree that the production of luxuries is both desirable and practical under socialism, but only after there is no want of necessities. So then why are you arguing against things like the idea of consumer goods, brand differentiation, and capitalism? You're painting a picture based, oddly enough, on what anti-socialists criticize unjustifiably about socialism -- things like a drastic reduction of luxuries, and a lack of consumer choice -- and I still don't understand why you are doing this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
I’ll give up everything if I can keep my video games. Books are cool too I guess
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Okay so the 'thought experiment' that this tangent comes from goes: Give up luxuries > Eliminate poverty and homelessness in Canada You said having only one choice of gin 'victory gin' was unacceptable. I'm assuming this applies to all products like having a choice of watches or computer parts. The reality of poverty and homelessness is people dying on the street during winter, and summer due to exposure, poor health, starvation, or drug abuse. Poor health and poor prospects for people who are in poverty that leads to tangibly shorter lifespan overall and poor happiness. Therefore I observed that you're unwilling to give up your choices of brands, even if it meant people die on the streets. That sentiment seems callous so I called you greedy. You're the one jumping through hoops to say, 'No, giving up anything for the mass benefit of 5 million Canadians living below the poverty line is unacceptable'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So then why are you arguing against things like the idea of consumer goods, brand differentiation, and capitalism? You're painting a picture based, oddly enough, on what anti-socialists criticize unjustifiably about socialism -- things like a drastic reduction of luxuries, and a lack of consumer choice -- and I still don't understand why you are doing this. Because I never actually argued that? A drastic reduction in the availability of luxuries is inevitable under socialism and would be a positive. How many people in this thread will over own a lamborghini or aston martin? I’ve never said that the existence of multiple brands would be a bad thing, simply that there is no reason for them to be in ‘competition’ with each other as competition is understood under capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, but that not a necessary condition for the production of luxuries, it's just something that's happening under the current system. I wouldn't mind seeing some proof that luxury goods (or most any goods for that matter) can exist in any meaningful quantity without exploitative labor practices
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:Give up luxuries > Eliminate poverty and homelessness in Canada Well, yes, specifically because having only one choice of gin, or whatever basic luxury, doesn't meaningfully help achieve a more equal society. Trying to restrict consumer choice artificially serves no purpose other than to conform to some bizarre idea of what you think socialism is. Let's say all liquor production in Canada is controlled by a single worker-owned cooperative and the proceeds of labour are redistributed to the workers; there is literally no reason or justification for not allowing that cooperative to produce multiple styles/brands/labels of gin or any other liquor at multiple price points to account for different consumer tastes. If we're talking about watches, yes, again we could have different styles that compete with one another. Maybe one person likes a digital watch, one person likes a minimalist watch with no decoration around the edge and only hour and minute hands, and another person like a watch with a second hand, a stopwatch, and an alternate timezone face. There's no reason to restrict consumer choice by producing One Watch For Everyone. Allowing for consumer choice and competition between products is not anti-socialist. I've heard it often said in this very thread that socialism concerns first and foremost the relationship between labour and the means of production, so I'm confused by the present argument that somehow consumer choice is anti-socialist. It does not meaningfully depend on the the relationship between labour and the means of production.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Just get rid of all the gin, gin is loving gross
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Dukemont posted:I’ve never said that the existence of multiple brands would be a bad thing, simply that there is no reason for them to be in ‘competition’ with each other as competition is understood under capitalism. If you have two alternatives for the same thing, those two alternatives are, de facto, in competition with each other. It cannot be otherwise
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Just get rid of all the gin, gin is loving gross Gin was not the point, it was a reference to 1984 that got taken too literally and then got out of hand. Do you folks read?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If you have two alternatives for the same thing, those two alternatives are, de facto, in competition with each other. It cannot be otherwise Your fundamental problem is that you are trying to make sense of socialism from the perspective of capitalism It’s much like trying to understand feminism from the perspective of the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Dukemont posted:Your fundamental problem is that you are trying to make sense of socialism from the perspective of capitalism No, I'm not. I'm telling you about things that actually exist in socialist countries, you absolute idiot. If there are two similar products available to fill the same niche, how are they not in competition? Explain what the gently caress you're talking about with socialism eliminating the idea of production and consumption and competition in normal loving English words, or I'm done debating you. I can't read your mind and try to figure out how you've redefined words.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
They are competing for popularity, but not for sales, since there are no sales
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
xtal posted:They are competing for popularity, but not for sales, since there are no sales Yes there are. Things are bought and sold under socialism; currency exists. Seriously, is there a loving gas leak in this thread or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
This is pretty amazing TBH.DariusLikewise posted:Just get rid of all the gin, gin is loving gross No, see I was with y'all up 'till here, Victory gin and everything, but this is just too far. The revolution will be strangled in its crib.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
We're just talking about different things and then disagreeing over the definitions of them, I guess Did this thread already talk about https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/27/peter-khill-found-not-guilty-of-second-degree-murder-in-death-of-indigenous-man.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
xtal posted:We're just talking about different things and then disagreeing over the definitions of them, I guess How do you define sales then? The only functional difference is under socialism, as far as I'm aware, is the labour of the people making the products in not exploited to enrich the capital class, but rather redistributed back to the workers themselves. Commerce and currency are not eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
xtal posted:We're just talking about different things and then disagreeing over the definitions of them, I guess Khill? Really, the guy's name is Khill? A little too on the nose. And yes, it's disheartening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
quote:The Crown argued that Styres did not pose a reasonable threat to Khill and his girlfriend while they were inside their locked home, and that Khill should have called 911 and waited for police rather than run out of the house with a loaded shotgun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
xtal posted:We're just talking about different things and then disagreeing over the definitions of them, I guess Could see clearly enough to believe he was armed, but not clearly enough to know he was native so no racism !
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
TBF, he could have been any kind of darker skinned person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
xtal posted:We're just talking about different things and then disagreeing over the definitions of them, I guess Jesus Christ what the gently caress is wrong with jurors in this country? Shooting people to protect your truck should not be acceptable, period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 17:56
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Jesus Christ what the gently caress is wrong with jurors in this country? Shooting people to protect your truck should not be acceptable, period. He was a soldier just sticking to his training to proactively go outside and kill a brown person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
So is this just a thing now? I can go kill whoever I want and say "I thought they were armed," and get away with it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
xtal posted:They are competing for popularity, but not for sales, since there are no sales Why would there be no sales?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
The Duggler posted:Why would there be no sales? Because someone smoked too much weed and confused "socialism" with "Star Trek" as best as I can figure 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So is this just a thing now? I can go kill whoever I want and say "I thought they were armed," and get away with it? Well, not "whoever" exactly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Jesus Christ what the gently caress is wrong with jurors in this country? Shooting people to protect your truck should not be acceptable, period. What colour was the person who got shot
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:What colour was the person who got shot 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:49
|
|