EPTIf your product or service is really innovative, the capital will come.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 104
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
If your product or service is really innovative, the capital will come. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Also you have confused Marxism with the ideas of Karl Marx, the influential philosopher economist, whose ideas underpins much of the workings of government in the modern capitalist world and Marxism, the declaration of a socialist state. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On April 12 2018 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: It feels weird how Trump announces air strikes and now everything is silent until it happens. A really major military escalation is announced, but nothing yet. Usually it seems like we hear about major escalations after the fact. There's something uncomfortable about knowing about it ahead of time. Well. That's relatively easy to explain. I can't be arsed searching for the tweets, but i distinctively remember trump going off about how It's strategy. You announce that you attack really really soon, but then you don't say where. That's genius levels of warfare right there. edit: found them It's kinda mindblowing to me (and this doesn't just goes for trump this time) how willingly the entire western world starts rattling sabers without any actual proof. It's not like we haven't had that before. There's a lot of guesswork, there might've been something used, but nobody can actually say who did. France already up in arms, UK as usually already spreading their legs, already announcing that there won't even be a parliamentary vote about it. I can't be the only one who thinks that using WoMDs is despicable, but before you retaliate, you should make sure (and not "indicative", fucking sure) that you attack the correct person. Recently, when it comes to stuff that in some degree involves russia, people seem to willing to not wait for proof but just act. The Novichok attack on that russian dude, where russia actually raised legit concerns was the same. There's zero proof that it was russia, other than "well it was a nerve agent that nobody knows how it works but we identified it in 20 minutes np, but only russia knows how to make it!!!!" - yet everyone immediately jumped onto that diplomatic crisis as well. It's ridiculous. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On April 12 2018 04:57 Kickboxer wrote: I'm trying to explain things in very simple terms Igne, but you still don't understand. Maybe because I'm not following your iron definitions? You should really be able to infer more precisely what I mean from the plain language. The Marxist notion of a "capitalist" is, the way I see it: a) outdated, because you've de facto been able to run a business with 0 capital for decades, while still exploiting labour, ever since the internet - something that "should not compute". The necessity for any kind of intermediary between labor and consumption is, theoretically, no longer there in many professional and even service fields. But the proletariat is still not behaving according to expected marxist models since functioning cooperatives are something you need to look for with a magnifying glass. I find that interesting and problematic, and also wonder why the left doesn't talk about it all the time b) fails to understand there is implicit labour, of a non-proletarian nature altogether, performed by any (non-failing) capitalist that is core for the operation of the entire capital-labor symbiosis. Call it politico-socio-economic networking or whatever you want, that is likely critical in the generation of large-scale value in society. Yes, some people really do "create jobs". Out of thin air. In fact without these people, the economy tends not to work. I haven't found this concept in my admittedly very rudimentary understanding of Marx where the proletariat in some endgame is able to run the show by itself the "value" concept should be pretty clear. Whatever improves the wellbeing of people or keeps them healthy and smiling Ahhh of course, when discussing Marx you used your own definition of 'capitalist', which very few people would agree with, and decided not to tell anyone. The proletariat not behaving according to 'Marxist models' IS one of the big questions that hangs over Marxism - a theory that predicted the coming of a truly democratic society as a result of a proletariat bound together due to struggle against a bourgeois class clearly missed the mark, and it is for Marxists to adjust the theory - if possible - to explain why. That doesn't change that both your definition of capitalist and your definition of value aren't cohesive with how, when talking about Marx and economics, anyone else would describe these things. You can't just expand the definition of capitalist to include all the people at the top of the company because that's not what a capitalist is. Similarly you can't adopt a utilitarian view of 'value' because that's not what value, in Marxian terms, is. Saying that Marxism doesn't properly appreciate the utility that corporate executives provide to society is missing the forest for the twigs. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:25 Kickboxer wrote: I haven't said that. You're doing the Cathy Newman. What I'm asking - if it has to be one thing - is why the left doesn't support, enable, organize and propagate worker's cooperatives in an era where capital is no longer necessary part of the equation. People, even the lower class, can theoretically raise capital via pooling networks and do whatever they want, and they're not doing it. Like, they're not doing it at all. It's something I'm genuinely curious about. Several people are coming back at me with the same definition of "capitalist" I'm trying to dispute. Maybe the definition is wrong? The capitalist (a "good" capitalist, let's call him) appears to be doing something in addition to providing capital Isn't that literally what crowd-funding is? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:25 Kickboxer wrote: I haven't said that. You're doing the Cathy Newman. What I'm asking - if it has to be one thing - is why the left doesn't support, enable, organize and propagate worker's cooperatives in an era where capital is no longer necessary part of the equation. People, even the lower class, can theoretically raise capital via pooling networks and do whatever they want, and they're not doing it. Like, they're not doing it at all. It's something I'm genuinely curious about. Several people are coming back at me with the same definition of "capitalist" I'm trying to dispute. Maybe the definition is wrong? The capitalist (a "good" capitalist, let's call him) appears to be doing something in addition to providing capital "The left" is, Democrats/neoliberals not so much. "The capitalist" outside of 'their' capital is just another worker. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:25 Kickboxer wrote: I haven't said that. You're doing the Cathy Newman. What I'm asking - if it has to be one thing - is why the left doesn't support, enable, organize and propagate worker's cooperatives in an era where capital is no longer necessary part of the equation. People, even the lower class, can theoretically raise capital via pooling networks and do whatever they want, and they're not doing it. Like, they're not doing it at all. It's something I'm genuinely curious about. Several people are coming back at me with the same definition of "capitalist" I'm trying to dispute. Maybe the definition is wrong? The capitalist (a "good" capitalist, let's call him) appears to be doing something in addition to providing capital And you're doing the Jordan Peterson - fundamentally misunderstanding key concepts resulting in a very unclear representation of your position. As to your question, some people on the left DO advocate for what you suggest! By grouping together the left, which presumably encompasses everyone from Clinton to Che Guevara, you can easily homogenise opinions. That the mainstream left isn't in my opinion would be because the influence of capital in politics, the media, the general culture we live in is far too significant to permit ideas like that to penetrate the mainstream and to allow projects such as co-operatives to flourish. I think 'the left' is either corrupted by money (the centrists) or realises that more significant action than encouraging co-operatives is required to effect change. 'The left' after all generally isn't Marxist, and advocates for social democratism at its most popularly extreme. As for your wish to redefine capitalist, the skills a capitalist brings to a company - if he even works for it - objectively don't matter with regards to his status as a capitalist. You're conflating two definitions that aren't compatible because a 'good' capitalist is driven by profit motive, not by social value. That they might bring some skills to a company that improves its potential to be profitable doesn't necessarily improve the value it provides to society. The only way in which this could be the case is if you're arguing that capitalism does, on balance, provide value to society - not a controversial opinion - in which case your objection to Marxism is hardly one that the left hasn't considered. Like if I understand your argument correctly it's that the left see capitalist as a pejorative term, when actually capitalists provide social value and can be good, and the left need to address this. That doesn't really address any aspects of Marxist theory though. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:41 plasmidghost wrote: So if Trump fires Rosenstein, he has the power to appoint someone else (with the approval of Congress, I think), so what's to stop him from appointing someone that will end the Mueller probe, or is that even possible? the main thing stopping him would be the massive blowback that would occur. also congress would probably use one of variou smeans to reinstate mueller by legislative action (there's enough republican legislators worried about another nixon scenario that they reallyw oudln't take well to trump essentially firing mueller) | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:41 IgnE wrote: oh right we've moved into the randian world where capital isnt necessary to run a business. people have zero capital investment with massive profit returns all over the place. thats how facebook happened after all, the zuck just did it all w zero dollars until he started rolling in so much cash he decided to reinvest some of it to make a nice campus, outfitted with its own police force and everything Well that's kinda the story of Mojang/Minecraft, isn't it? At least to me it sounds like it, might be wrong. Although if i'm correct, i'd call that one of the very few exceptions nowadays. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote: Well that's kinda the story of Mojang/Minecraft, isn't it? At least to me it sounds like it, might be wrong. Although if i'm correct, i'd call that one of the very few exceptions nowadays. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-bourgeoisie Zizek has written about this I think. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8111 Posts
On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote: Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote: Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21787 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:41 plasmidghost wrote: So if Trump fires Rosenstein, he has the power to appoint someone else (with the approval of Congress, I think), so what's to stop him from appointing someone that will end the Mueller probe, or is that even possible? Nothing. Nixon did it, go check how that worked out for him. Just because the President has to the power to do something doesn't mean that Congress won't punish him for it. (ofcourse there is a chance Congress will do nothing. But I would consider that unlikely, and a new congress can re-instate it at any time if they don't). | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote: No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote: Well that's kinda the story of Mojang/Minecraft, isn't it? At least to me it sounds like it, might be wrong. Although if i'm correct, i'd call that one of the very few exceptions nowadays. imagine if minecraft could only be reproduced and distributed through a physical cd-rom. just because information goods and services have nearly zero marginal reproduction cost these days that doesnt mean either 1) that such an information economy exists independently of other forms of production (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) or that 2) minecraft is even a traditional capitalist good which operates under "normal" capitalist market logic as analyzed by marx. think about it. why should anyone even pay for minecraft if its essentially free to reproduce? what is the minecraft economy built around? something like a mix of voluntary payments, payment for services like ease of distribution, webhosting, organizational labor, and payment enforced by an intellectual property regime which extracts rent payments. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote: I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote: Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. So is it fine because Clinton did it? Or is it bad for both of them? Do we need a footer in every single post citing the three common ways Clinton did the same thing and how those are also bad to discuss anything that Trump and his people do? | ||
| ||
