|
Alchenar posted:The problem is that one the one hand you have an enormous amount of technical language, whereas on the other hand the critics of that philosophical theory manage to frame their objection in the terms of very plain English. No, it's just that the people 'speaking plain English' haven't done the reading. The ability to be able to exchange a commodity is part of its fundamental definition in Marxism. As is it's reproducibility and it's usefulness (for whatever purpose). Mud pies aren't a commodity. It's not a coherent criticism. Value and price are also not synonymous. The amount of socially necessary labour time* required to produce a commodity accords with its equilibrium value, not its price. *the average man-hours it will take for competitive firms to produce the commodity with the average technology and tools (which itself is an amalgamation of the dead labour required to produce it) Zane posted:in the past 40 years real wages have stagnated in the 'first world' and have increased in the 'third world' -- so much that the definition of the 'third world' has changed. nothing is explained by this leninist theory of imperialism of yours. Yeah man, I'm sure being a shelf stacker at your local supermarket pays way worse than mining cobalt in the Congo. Get on a flight. You'll be laughing all the way to the bank. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Oct 14, 2020 |
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
Part of communicating effectively with the masses is recognising that on balance they haven’t “done the reading” and aren’t going to. I’ve spent my entire adult life, about 20 years now, in the developing world, spanning Lebanon, Northern Iraq, Russia and China. 80% China, which has gone from “developing” to “developed in quite a few parts” while I’ve been here. Overall conclusion is that capitalism and communism both have their place and both have structural flaws that mean you can’t operate them too long before they start to overheat. Running capitalism keeps you in cool new things, overall higher amounts of stuff and scratching the psychological itch to compete [edit: and lets you catch up technologically with the most advanced part of the capitalist world really really fast, as America and China both did] at the expense of impoverishing large chunks of your country and creating an increasingly arrogant and hereditary parasite class of rich capitalists, and the longer you run it the less the new stuff is valuable and the worse the poverty is and the more arrogant and entitled the capitalists are. Running communism gives you excellent broad based education, healthcare and poverty reduction at the cost of goods shortages, fewer cool new things and an increasingly entrenched and hereditary bureaucrat class, and the longer you run it the fewer benefits you get from expanding education and healthcare and fairness and the more the overall goals get twisted into letting the bureaucrat class live a capitalist-lite lifestyle. This implies a strategy of switching from capitalism to communism and back again periodically to break up special interest groups and mitigate the formation of hereditary power, but this isn’t D&D so whatever. IMO paradox games are the only ones that do a good job of modelling both this and the factors that explain why it never happens (CK3 is the single best explanation in games of why history is mostly everyone trying to set their rear end in a top hat kids up to be advantaged against everyone else’s rear end in a top hat kids). Beefeater1980 fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 12:25
|
|
|
Zane posted:in the past 40 years real wages have stagnated in the 'first world' and have increased in the 'third world' -- so much that the definition of the 'third world' has changed. nothing is explained by this leninist theory of imperialism of yours. You're confused. The 'third world' hasn't seen a rise in wages, China and Vietnam have. Most other states within the third world have seen stagnation or an increase in their rate of poverty. As for the first world, it is true that there has been a general decline in wages, but the specific cohort who were workers in the 80s have (generally) seen their wealth increase to a dazzling degree. It is only the succeeding generations who have burden with debt, or forced into unceasingly precarious work, who have seen their wages decrease. In fact, the 80s cohort of first world workers have, in many cases, achieved the petite-bourgeois dream of landlordism They live parasitically off of their acquired capital and the labor of others. Socially, this particular cohort has been aligned against younger workers, unions, immigrants, etc. And their whims and prejudices are valorized by the ruling class. The fact that a small, pampered section of the working class has been used as a political base to crush the class power and solidarity of the majority of workers does not conflict with Lenin's view of imperialism, it confirms it. Now, you might ask why something Lenin observed happening in the colonies of the imperial powers of Europe has been occurring within the very heart of a modern imperial superpower, and I would say that over the last 40 years colonial violence has been implemented within the imperial core. If only we had a name for such a phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 12:26
|
|
|
Zane posted:in the past 40 years real wages have stagnated in the 'first world' and have increased in the 'third world' -- so much that the definition of the 'third world' has changed. nothing is explained by this leninist theory of imperialism of yours. if you remove china from the figures the amount of people working in extreme poverty across the third world has risen lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 12:33
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Part of communicating effectively with the masses is recognising that on balance they haven’t “done the reading” and aren’t going to. That wasn't about the masses but the critics of the theory that haven't even bothered to read what they're supposedly "critiquing".
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 12:37
|
|
|
Stux posted:if you remove china from the figures the amount of people working in extreme poverty across the third world has risen lol China did what is probably the perfect play which is to have communism and a massive state-run “make babies” campaign to make you the highest population country on the planet before switching to managed capitalism and suddenly you have more and better educated people than everywhere else and everyone else is desperate to build your infrastructure and industry even if you take 90% of the value, because you’re now the world’s biggest market, and all the special interest groups that form under capitalism (eg financiers/bankers) are building from zero and under state control. If it weren’t for the chinese written language being a real barrier to learning, China would probably be economically dominant by today, instead of just the only developing country to have mostly developed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:That wasn't about the masses but the critics of the theory that haven't even bothered to read what they're supposedly "critiquing". Sorry phone reading, you’re right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
what thread do you all think you're posting in
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 13:07
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:what thread do you all think you're posting in
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
victoria 3 chat is like anarcho-liberal revolts, it pops up often but nothing ever comes of it
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
Scrree posted:You're confused. The 'third world' hasn't seen a rise in wages, China and Vietnam have. Most other states within the third world have seen stagnation or an increase in their rate of poverty. Stux posted:if you remove china from the figures the amount of people working in extreme poverty across the third world has risen lol Scrree posted:As for the first world, it is true that there has been a general decline in wages, but the specific cohort who were workers in the 80s have (generally) seen their wealth increase to a dazzling degree. It is only the succeeding generations who have burden with debt, or forced into unceasingly precarious work, who have seen their wages decrease. Zane fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 14:00
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:China did what is probably the perfect play which is to have communism and a massive state-run “make babies” campaign to make you the highest population country on the planet You never heard about the one-baby policy that has been enforced fore several generations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 14:01
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:You never heard about the one-baby policy that has been enforced fore several generations? The one child policy was only introduced in 79, and was expressly a response to the population having exploded due to all the children conceived in the 50s and 60s. It’s part of the Deng policies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 14:11
|
|
|
Zane posted:you've arbitrarily--and inadequately--shifted your framing to avoid admitting the existence of a significant aggregate global increase in real wages over the last 40 years. how is this accounted for by the marxist theory of the declining rate of profit and the maximum exploitation of the surplus value of labour under capitalism? where is the dialectical contradiction--between the continual need to increase the extraction of surplus value, and continual need to increase profits--that prepares the way for socialism? excluding china from the third world when it is quickly becoming the largest global economy is not an arbitrary shift. absolute poverty has risen by all reasonable metrics and the figures used to claim poverty is going down is based off of both including chinas numbers as well as a ridiculously low bar for improvement using a $1-2 a day rate. if you remove china then the number of people in extreme poverty as defined by that ridiculously low rate hasnt budged at all. if you go off a more sensible figure, for example $7.40 a day, then since the 1980s there have been an additional 1 billion people pushed into living in extreme poverty, even with china included. what a wonderful increase in global prosperity. please do not look behind this curtain however, where 80% of the world makes $10 a day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
"Oh, look, a bunch of posts in the Paradox thread! Did Vicky 3 get announced?" (reads 3 pages of Marxist theory) "I.... think so?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
The Marxposting will continue until a release date is announced, your move Paradox
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The Marxposting will continue until a release date is announced, your move Paradox
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Be the change you want to see and refuse to marry your children to anyone but Leader of Peasant Revolt in CK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Be the change you want to see and refuse to marry your children to anyone but Leader of Peasant Revolt in CK. I love press ganging peasant leaders into being knights or commanders because they almost always have incredible stats for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:I love press ganging peasant leaders into being knights or commanders because they almost always have incredible stats for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Be the change you want to see and refuse to marry your children to anyone but Leader of Peasant Revolt in CK. sorting by alliance power and marrying revolt leaders without paying attention ftw
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Stux posted:sorting by alliance power and marrying revolt leaders without paying attention ftw You don't want an alliance with house Lowborn? They're the biggest dynasty in the world!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Be the change you want to see and refuse to marry your children to anyone but Leader of Peasant Revolt in CK. I love the EU4 peasant republic because it scratches the very dumb socialist part of my brain and makes me feel good about my silly alternate history narrative while I repeatedly elect lifelong peasant dictators and conquer all of Europe. It's me, I'm the intended audience for those three Vietnamese hill tribes in the new expansion that give you massive governing penalties but let you turn into peasant republics. Pretend Siamese anarcho-syndicalism by 1599 or bust, baby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Zane posted:in the past 40 years real wages have stagnated in the 'first world' and have increased in the 'third world' -- so much that the definition of the 'third world' has changed. nothing is explained by this leninist theory of imperialism of yours. Yeah, that's an American problem, wages been doing just fine in continental Europe, don't you dare lump our Glorious Scandinavian Socialist Utopias with that broken mess. Or it's lesser Avatar in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:I love press ganging peasant leaders into being knights or commanders because they almost always have incredible stats for it. drat thats a good idea. ive just been killing them
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:All human social systems are based around the production and distribution of surplus value. These systems face constant contention from those producing and those who control the distribution. This contention causes development, think about the power of the labour movement leading to the invention of the welfare state to keep first world workers' demands in check (built on imperialism in the third world). But one of the most important facets of dialectical thinking is the understanding that due to this method of development, new societies necessarily contain elements of the old society. One can't click their fingers and change society because our entire understanding of the world is shaped by the previous world. this was helpful, thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:drat thats a good idea. ive just been killing them killing them is helpful too if you don't need more knights or a decent marshal. it's free dread, and there's no downside to high dread other than the cost to get high dread pressganging peasant leaders was a trick you could do in CK2, too, until they nerfed it with the "broken spirit" malus
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
How fun is the loyalty system in Imperator? I can see it being frustrating to play with, but it makes sense. I guess I have had trouble in CK2 with landed relative commanders who just kept abandoning their armies for personal business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:How fun is the loyalty system in Imperator? I can see it being frustrating to play with, but it makes sense. I like it though there is a slight issue because there's no such thing as people actually being loyal, there's just different levels of disloyalty. So every character is potentially a rebel if you give them a strong enough army / governorship even when that doesn't really make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 07:57
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Overall conclusion is that capitalism and communism both have their place and both have structural flaws that mean you can’t operate them too long before they start to overheat. Running capitalism keeps you in cool new things, overall higher amounts of stuff and scratching the psychological itch to compete [edit: and lets you catch up technologically with the most advanced part of the capitalist world really really fast, as America and China both did] at the expense of impoverishing large chunks of your country and creating an increasingly arrogant and hereditary parasite class of rich capitalists, and the longer you run it the less the new stuff is valuable and the worse the poverty is and the more arrogant and entitled the capitalists are. Running communism gives you excellent broad based education, healthcare and poverty reduction at the cost of goods shortages, fewer cool new things and an increasingly entrenched and hereditary bureaucrat class, and the longer you run it the fewer benefits you get from expanding education and healthcare and fairness and the more the overall goals get twisted into letting the bureaucrat class live a capitalist-lite lifestyle. this is completely insane
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 13:07
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I like it though there is a slight issue because there's no such thing as people actually being loyal, there's just different levels of disloyalty. So every character is potentially a rebel if you give them a strong enough army / governorship even when that doesn't really make much sense. I think it makes perfect sense. Except for maybe some specific traits everyone should be a potential rebel. This isn’t GoT where certain people have the loyalty gene. Especially in a setting like Rome where you can go “alright legions, let’s go to Italy to save my good friend the Emperor, who I will never betray” only to arrive and find all your legions have decided you should be Emperor, they’ve marched all this way, and they’re not keen on your declining the honour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:08
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I think it makes perfect sense. Except for maybe some specific traits everyone should be a potential rebel. This isn’t GoT where certain people have the loyalty gene. That stuff happened after the time period of the game though. I think there needs to be some way to simulate the republican ideals/institution being strong or breaking down that affects loyalty gain or loss or whatever (I haven’t played since launch). Perhaps some kind of meter that you fill?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
The problem is breaking down is kind of a vague idea. Like we like to give an idea of why people rebelled in the late republic versus the early but we don’t really completly understand it
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
I'm okay with it not being 100% historically accurate
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Then good news
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Alright, thanks for your contribution
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
I think even more than people actually being disloyal, there was an intense fear of people possibly being disloyal that often seemed really unfounded, so it's historical to give the player the same fears.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
Would having "real" loyalty be historical for CK? Real meaning something like vassals that stick by their liege even when its materially beneficial for them not to. I dont know anything about medieval history so idk if people took their oaths and stuff seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Would having "real" loyalty be historical for CK? Real meaning something like vassals that stick by their liege even when its materially beneficial for them not to. I dont know anything about medieval history so idk if people took their oaths and stuff seriously. Isnt that basically what the opinion system does?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Would having "real" loyalty be historical for CK? Real meaning something like vassals that stick by their liege even when its materially beneficial for them not to. I dont know anything about medieval history so idk if people took their oaths and stuff seriously. I think it's fair to say that they would on the whole, though it definitely varied from person to person. If you want to dive in to some medieval literature to get a feel for yourself then Historia Calamitatum by Abelard is really accessible and since it's an autobiography you get an insight into how people thought. The acoup blog is fantastic for this sort of stuff as well: This article covers oath taking in general, including vassalage: https://acoup.blog/2019/06/28/collections-oaths-how-do-they-work/ And this one covers letters from a mother to her son with general advice on rulership: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/27/a-trip-through-dhuoda-of-uzes-carolingian-values/ quote:[3.4] Hold to Charles still, whom you have as your lord, since God, as I believe, and also your father Bernard, in the beginning of your youth chose for you a flourishing strength for service [to Charles], for he descends in his lineage from great nobility on both sides of his family. Serving not just such that you are pleasing in his eyes, but also with fit insight both for body and soul; Hold a pure and certain faith to him [read: be faithful to Charles] in all practical matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:30
|
|
