Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: DesumWe'll see how European socialism fares when the United States goes into decline and ceases to be the friendly global hegemon. Y'know, when they'll have to pay for all of their own defense budget.

United States, friendly? OK now I know I really can't take you seriously, whathever you say about countries being socialist or not, this is top notch.
But you're right on one thing for sure, the United States are in decline, and when this day comes up it won't be a bad thing. So many countries are so tied, economically and politically, to the USA that's pretty slavery.

I won't reply on this thread again, at least I shouldn't.

You didn't say anything of substance this time. How are you going to keep that NHS when you also have to pay three times as much for your military as you do now?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Desum

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: DesumAh, another wall of text. Why am I not surprised?

Yeah, apparently he has some knowledge about this subject and his pseudo contains "Library Guy", so not surprising at all. ^_^
But don't mind me, go on the discussion.

There is a difference between having knowledge and being overly verbose. Eben Moglen comes to mind. The man could get his message across much more effectively with half the breath.

Maybe you should try reading and assimilating the words.

You mean just listen and believe? Tio be okazos~

We'll see how European socialism fares when the United States goes into decline and ceases to be the friendly global hegemon. Y'know, when they'll have to pay for all of their own defense budget.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: DesumAh, another wall of text. Why am I not surprised?

Yeah, apparently he has some knowledge about this subject and his pseudo contains "Library Guy", so not surprising at all. ^_^
But don't mind me, go on the discussion.

There is a difference between having knowledge and being overly verbose. Eben Moglen comes to mind. The man could get his message across much more effectively with half the breath.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: DesumYou seem to be taking all of this quite personally.

Funny, I was thinking of saying that to you. No, I'm talking a lot but that's not the same thing. I spend a good deal of time studying and thinking about political economy, so I have things to say about it. But in responding to you I should note that I haven't been spending much time advocating for any particular system, rather clearing up misconceptions about what they are and how they work. Not sure why that's "taking it personally".

If you think a person can own their own business and invest their money and assets however they wish, then you don't have a problem with capitalism. Corporatism, sure.

As I say, I've just been giving some definitions. Incidentally, I don't think your distinction there holds water--if people can invest money and assets however they wish, how exactly do you stop that from being or becoming "corporatism"? I feel like you're trying to make some sort of small business/big business distinction, but to maintain such a distinction you would have to precisely stop people from investing their money however they wish.
But OK, what I think? I think that the notion of it being self-evident that someone should "own their own business" is a creation of a certain kind of social frame. From a different social perspective, it's not "their own" business. It depends on their social environment to exist. It depends on the physical infrastructure, created mainly by the state. It depends on the education they have received. It depends on the web of contacts their social situation (including class/status level) has allowed them to accumulate. It depends on the money they have inherited; the very poor rarely start businesses. It depends on a social environment that has customers well enough off to buy their product. It depends on the existence of a pool of people who lack self-sufficiency and so are forced to work for wages, and have themselves been educated in such a way that they will be useful employees. This pool of people was also largely created by the state.

I think that a more egalitarian, co-operative approach which unleashes everyone's talents instead of subordinating most people would be better for almost everyone than the approach of "This one person owns, everyone else obeys".

>there are no Socialist countries

Mhm, if you say so.

Well, there's Cuba. I can't think of any other country with significant restrictions on people "owning their own business", so by your definition they're all capitalist. Cuba incidentally has done amazingly well in dealing with the virus, and has also helped other countries a great deal considering what a small place it is. Well, medical care has always been a big schtick of theirs.

Ah, another wall of text. Why am I not surprised?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Desum

Quoting: NagezahnA system that's built upon eternal growth in an environment that only has limited resources doesn't sound very future proof to me.

That is not what capitalism is. When you boil it down, all capitalism means is you can own your own business and invest your money however you want. Even Richard Stallman had to make it clear he wasn't against capitalism as such on several occasions when capitalism was blamed for the problem of proprietary software.

That might not be what capitalism is, but it is how capitalism works. It's kind of like the distinction between life and evolution--evolution isn't what life is, but it is what will happen if there is life.
The basis of capitalism is investment and profit. Private individuals with money invest it in hopes of making a profit. If they do make a profit, they have more money ("capital", hence capitalism) and can invest more. Now at this point we can see a sort of evolution working within capitalism: Say you have various private individuals. Some of them invest money and make profit for a while, decide they have enough, and start just living on the surplus and continuing to reinvest the same amount, entering a steady state where their capital, and the bit of the economy they own, does not grow. Others continue to reinvest, growing their capital continually. Which group dominates the capitalist economy? Which group ends up buying the other group out? Yes, that's right, it's the ones who kept growing their investment.

Thus, growth is inevitable in a capitalist system. This is true no matter what Richard Stallman might believe on the topic.

Now up to a point, growth is not a bad thing. It is capitalism's spurring of dynamic growth that caused it to overtake various previous systems, to rapidly develop technology, and to generate a great deal of wealth. Right now, though, it's kind of a problem.

So, you are against people owning their own businesses and being free to invest their money and assets however they wish as long as it's legal and ethical?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: DesumMarx made certain hypotheses about human history and from there, human nature, which turned out to be wrong. That is why communism doesn't work.
And It has never been "tried" because it runs counter to basic human evolutionary psychology.

The basis of, perhaps not upper level academic capitalist economics, but the capitalist economics that people get taught in ECON 101 and is echoed in editorials and political parties, is the efficient market hypothesis more or less as seen in neoclassical Walrasian economics.
It assumes all human beings are completely selfish maximizers who can efficiently calculate the most effective way to maximize their wealth, have perfect information, and value gains and losses as equal. This "Homo Economicus" is the basis of most capitalist economics. It obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with actual human nature or evolutionary psychology. So if false ideas about human nature make a system not work, I guess capitalism must really not work, and if they cause it not to be tried, I guess capitalism has never been tried.

Is the current system in the west perfect? No. But at least capitalism is somewhat self-aware that it's playing on human foibles. Communism is basically a secular religion. You have a fallen state, a state of perfection and a means to get from A to B. The problem is that it's based on a fauls idea about what people need to be happy.

Ah yes, of course, while capitalism is based on the truth, that what people need to be happy is as many crappy clothes from malls as possible.

As for socialism, it ironically has the same problem as what many people like to throw at capitalism: Every generation needs to chip in more resources into the system than the one before it. Elsewise, it cannot sustain itself. Or at the very least, it can't cover everyone of retirement age. Hence many of the problems socialist countries are facing now with their aging populations.

Huh?
First, socialist countries aren't facing any problems now because there aren't any socialist countries. There are some economies that are more mixed, but I don't see any signs that they're having bigger problems with taking care of their elderly than the more pure capitalist ones, unless you define "not letting them die in squalor" as a "problem".
I have seen a lot of articles talking about demographic time bombs and how supposedly we aren't going to have enough young people to take care of all the older ones. I've seen a whole lot of others about how the sky is falling because automation is going to take everyone's jobs and we'll all be unemployed. Well. It can't be both.
The fact is that productivity has grown faster than the proportion of dependent elderly in the population, so we can in fact spare more people to take care of them than we once could, and in the long term it's a temporary demographic bulge anyway.

You seem to be taking all of this quite personally. If you think a person can own their own business and invest their money and assets however they wish, then you don't have a problem with capitalism. Corporatism, sure. And the bigger problem of automation is that most people NEED to work to be happy. Nevermind just making a living, there is the matter of their mental wellbeing.

>there are no Socialist contries

Mhm, if you say so.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mumrik93

Yes. Because communism doesn't work.

How do you know if they've never tried it, all "Communist" states people know of has all been dictatorships and according to Karl Marx himself, Communism and Democracy is inseparable, you need both. There are "Communist" governments still today who operate under democratic systems and those nations are all fine, Nepal and Mongolia to mention two.

Capitalism is great in that it drives progress in all fields as everyone strives to compete with each other

That's the description for a Market Economy, not Capitalism, they are two completely different things. You can have a Market Economy without Capitalism (Yugoslavia during Tito managed to do it and so did CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War), basically remove the whole system of stock-ownership and you're about 80% there, the remaining 20% is making sure you construct a system where workers own the companies they work for/at, if you work in a factory then you're a part-owner of said factory, such companies exists all over the world already and they work. Here in Sweden (where i live) our bigest store chain, Coop, is such a collective and we have many others. In Spain (which i mentioned before) there is a multi-sided company called 'Mondragon' which is also such a company, they all prove it's possible.

A system that's built upon eternal growth in an environment that only has limited resources doesn't sound very future proof to me.

That's the root of the problem with capitalism right there! Constant growth is not achievable nor practical if you want to keep the world from collapsing due to getting all it's resources sucked out. This is also what differentiates Capitalism from just a "Market Economy" a ME does not require constant growth, capitalism on the other hand, does.

So yeah.. never thought I'd write something political on this page but hey.. sometimes the world surprises you!

\

Marx made certain hypotheses about human history and from there, human nature, which turned out to be wrong. That is why communism doesn't work. And It has never been "tried" because it runs counter to basic human evolutionary psychology.

Is the current system in the west perfect? No. But at least capitalism is somewhat self-aware that it's playing on human foibles. Communism is basically a secular religion. You have a fallen state, a state of perfection and a means to get from A to B. The problem is that it's based on a fauls idea about what people need to be happy.

As for socialism, it ironically has the same problem as what many people like to throw at capitalism: Every generation needs to chip in more resources into the system than the one before it. Elsewise, it cannot sustain itself. Or at the very least, it can't cover everyone of retirement age. Hence many of the problems socialist countries are facing now with their aging populations.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NagezahnA system that's built upon eternal growth in an environment that only has limited resources doesn't sound very future proof to me.

That is not what capitalism is. When you boil it down, all capitalism means is you can own your own business and invest your money however you want. Even Richard Stallman had to make it clear he wasn't against capitalism as such on several occasions when capitalism was blamed for the problem of proprietary software.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Looking at Proton as a gamer and not a Linux user, it's doing FAR more good than harm. Proton is basically the only insurance policy anyone is ever going to get for the games they already have and will never be ported to any other platform, let alone Linux.

The benefits from the game preservation angle in general are obvious. Not every PC game is getting an OpenMW-like total rewrite. Those are rare. This is the next best thing, really.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Activated the beta, but it's still only showing 5.0-6 for me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments