|
Album Rating: 4.5
ask fdr
| | |
Pretty weird considering my pick for 2024 is Kristi Noem and Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite intellectuals but go off I guess.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Lol of course you love Sowell. The one Uncle Tom in a SEA of black people that disagree, wow.
| | |
Nice.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
#Election2020: ‘How Did 12 Percent of Black Men vote for Trump?'
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9708358/
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
There's a lot to unpack here and I do have some questions.
In your mind, will this system eliminate all forms of economic inequality?
By owning embedded and actual labor, do you mean the most recent laborer to transform the input or good is entitled to all its embedded labor and whatever value they added (so, by virtue of transferred possession, they also own value created by past laborers)? Or are past laborers still entitled to a portion of the value they embedded in the product or good? Please clarify.
Edit: response to Hyperion.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
let's talk about the culture industry
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Are you also arguing anyone who does not directly contribute labor should not be entitled to any of the value and wealth generated? This would extent to capitalists, managers, and supervisors. Nothing they do contributes anything substantial to allow products, goods, and services to be created?
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
@Ghost: Dude, you listen to/read a black person that thinks systemic racism is unproven or made up. Makes too much sense. You like conservative women who are anti-women's rights. Also, makes too much sense. lmao "Meth, We're On It" GENIUS.
"#Election2020: ‘How Did 12 Percent of Black Men vote for Trump?'" What about the other 88%, chief? It's not like cultures are a hivemind. Blacks and Latinos can be rich, chauvinistic, proud, brainwashed, and self absorbed the same as any other human being can and will be. Doesn't make it right or valid.
| | |
Ah yes, the internalized misogyny and internalized racism of the right wing women and minorities, respectively.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
"By owning embedded and actual labor, do you mean the most recent laborer to transform the input or good is entitled to all its embedded labor and whatever value they added"
yes and no. in this framework, a laborer reaps the rewards of both embodied labor and acted labor when they are compensated for the entirety of what they produce. in simple terms, the laborer who produces the hammer is compensated for the production of that hammer including the raw materials they had to acquire to produce something new. but, once it transfers hands to another laborer, the embedded labor value of that hammer now contributes to the overall labor value of whatever the new owner produces. so, value begins to accrue at the base of the chain, the ones who harvest raw materials; the raw materials are essentially the base line value of each product, and the labor needed to extract and prepare those raw materials add value that needs to be compensated for. each jump up the chain of production, every laborer is compensated for the embedded value of whatever materials they use plus the added value of their labor to create whatever product they decide to create.
"Are you also arguing anyone who does not directly contribute labor should not be entitled to any of the value and wealth generated?"
in general, yes. most bureaucracy is unnecessary. however, labor doesn't just mean physical labor; there is much value in intellectual labor as well, and organizing is a type of labor that does add value to a system. the problem arises when intellectual labor is seen as MORE valuable than physical labor, and thus those doing the intellectual labor are compensated for more than the the overall value they add to a system. however, in this scenario, of course, whose who simply own things aren't actually doing any labor, physical or intellectual, and shouldn't be included in the system.
we can think about intellectual value with a music metaphor, since this is ostensibly a music discussion board. a musician acquires an instrument from a craftsman who produces it. now, they don't actually produce anything physically tangible, but they do take that tool (the instrument) and organize it into something that has value of its own, i.e. a musical composition. the intellectual labor they do in utilizing an object in the creation of art is valuable labor that can and should be compensated for, even if they're not necessarily adding anything new of physical value to the equation.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
"In your mind, will this system eliminate all forms of economic inequality?"
the only honest answer is that i have no fucking idea. until these ideas are actually put into practice to see if they actually work, the only reasonable stance to take is that i think, based on the information ive consumed, that this would be the optimal way to structure society and human interaction. there is a very significant chance that im completely and entirely wrong about all of this, and thus i can't say for certain where or not these ideas will work in practice. but that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try them to see if it really does improve things. im just one person floating in a cosmic sea of infinite possibilities, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that i have all the right answers. that's not possible, which is why being able to engage in good discourse to work these things out is so important.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
I can tell you right now, definitively, it will not create meaningful economic equality. The reason being:
Labor is not homogenous. My biggest problem with Marxist theory is that it was brought up when labor, indeed, was much more interchangeable and homogenous. Now is not the case. There is now specialization (which is generally more lucrative), as well as disparities in technical know-how, skills, and experience even among people who perform essentially the same labor.
So if labor is indeed entitled to all that they produce, they will be compensated for the value they contribute to the production process. And this value will vary immensely depending on the skill level, experience, and knowledge of the laborer. If the compensation is in the form of "money," this inequality will necessarily mean the accumulation of resources among the better compensated. And thus, the vicious cycle of inequality continues.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
On what basis would you say, that intellectual labor (namely in the form of organizing and managing labor) is overvalued?
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
I'm also not going to defend people who genuinely contribute nothing to an overall production or service process other than capital. But I will say, though, that throwing enormous sums of resources at an enterprise or collective that does churn out products or services allows them to operate at a scale and level of efficiency that they would not be allowed to otherwise. Usually.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7kaK2-725w&t=372s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeAMZkHF6Go
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
Games are $90 now in Canada 
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
So the same in conversion. Nuts price point for anyone to pay though. All for corpo greed.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
ok, ill accept your premise here. you're right that labor is a much different beast now than it was in 1870, specifically because of how complicated bureaucracy has become.
so then let me pose a question. how exactly do we create a system where it is both impossible and unacceptable for a single person to hold enough wealth to buy an entire nation while millions dont have enough to cover their basic necessities like food and shelter? do we simply regulate capitalism so heavily that it functionally isn't capitalism anymore? that seems to me like a rather inefficient way to organize labor, where we paradoxically spent more labor and resources regulating labor relations than we do actually producing goods and services for the general population.
if we can all accept the premise that everyone is due basic rights like the aforementioned ones, where not one single person should go without regardless of circumstance or capability, what system most efficiently creates an environment for that to happen?
my perspective is that, whatever system that is must be concerned with the morality and ethics of its institutions above all else. but first we have to liberate people from their own greed and selfishness, and i do not see how a system that lauds and rewards selfish, narcissistic hedonism above all else will ever furnish the conditions necessary to create this kind of society.
| | | |
|
|
