More on the evils of capitalism.

[Doer]

Well maybe you should go and read what I and others have said about Marx, a dilettante with old money, needing to publish.
That very idea is all made up.

Marx invented a class distinction that didn't exist before the Industrial Revolution. There were no free workers, only positions in a class stratified village culture for a 1000 years. Guilds and craftsmen. Soldiers and slaves. Yep, that's about it outside Court. And inside Court, no jobs, only titles and deadly responsibilities layered over ignorance and superstition.

So, the IR did create a new class. Marx did that. CEO have no power without everyone else. No one has full gear without her, in Yahoo's case. The CEO put everyone to shame with their energy and drive. The CEO set the bar and holds the line. They know a few jokes and can hold their liquour. They are the rainmaker. They can sell the buzz, also. So, inside and outside the company Buzz. There are only a very few that are very good.

Can workers run the show? Yes. Until it screws up...then more and more don't work, they have to manage. Business has to be managed. It is so simple. We need the top guy, and he needs us. All the rest of these ideas have never worked. The CEOs don't have any power. They are on thin ice and can be jailed for what they should have known at any point. No shit.

The very idea that CEOs, ( any business owner, you know?) form a class, and that class is against another "class"...the workers is as stupid an idea that has ever taken hold of the imagination of the un-informed. Now you are less so.

 

[learning05]

Well maybe you should go and read what I and others have said about Marx, a dilettante with old money, needing to publish.
That very idea is all made up.

Marx invented a class distinction that didn't exist before the Industrial Revolution. There were no free workers, only positions in a class stratified village culture for a 1000 years. Guilds and craftsmen. Soldiers and slaves. Yep, that's about it outside Court. And inside Court, no jobs, only titles and deadly responsibilities layered over ignorance and superstition.

So, the IR did create a new class. Marx did that. CEO have no power without everyone else. No one has full gear without her, in Yahoo's case. The CEO put everyone to shame with their energy and drive. The CEO set the bar and holds the line. They know a few jokes and can hold their liquour. They are the rainmaker. They can sell the buzz, also. So, inside and outside the company Buzz. There are only a very few that are very good.

Can workers run the show? Yes. Until it screws up...then more and more don't work, they have to manage. Business has to be managed. It is so simple. We need the top guy, and he needs us. All the rest of these ideas have never worked. The CEOs don't have any power. They are on thin ice and can be jailed for what they should have known at any point. No shit.

The very idea that CEOs, ( any business owner, you know?) form a class, and that class is against another "class"...the workers is as stupid an idea that has ever taken hold of the imagination of the un-informed. Now you are less so.

That makes sense. Aside from marx, what do you think about the CEOs that try to boost profit by reducing incomes of workers or reducing safety by cutting operating costs? Do you think CEOs and shareholders would accept lesser bonuses for the work of a corporation in total? The whole occupy movement- are those not working men and women who feel cheated by the same companies they support.

Honeslty, I am not an expert on any of these matters. That is why I am discussing it here. I would like to broaden my outlook and gain insight...

 

[cannabineer]

I actually quoted the study that your article was "based on". Verbatim.

You also said that you were looking for something specific and it was taking a while. That seemed a bit orchardy to me. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

That right there is what makes it difficult for me to understand why people compete so hard against each other. The masses have the power not the CEOs.

That was written by Hume, long before Marx was born.

Marx invented a class distinction that didn't exist before the Industrial Revolution. So, the IR did create a new class. Marx did that.

So this is just a falsehood.

 

[cannabineer]

That makes sense. Aside from marx, what do you think about the CEOs that try to boost profit by reducing incomes of workers or reducing safety by cutting operating costs? Do you think CEOs and shareholders would accept lesser bonuses for the work of a corporation in total? The whole occupy movement- are those not working men and women who feel cheated by the same companies they support.

Honeslty, I am not an expert on any of these matters. That is why I am discussing it here. I would like to broaden my outlook and gain insight...

There is a basic conflict of interest here. In my opinion, it is unavoidable. The shareholders care about max return, period. The CEOs answer to the shareholders, period. The shareholders will cheer any weasel move that gives them more share value andor an added penny of dividend. The shareholders are often fully insulated from the increment in human suffering among the Human Resources (employees). It's structural.
In my amateur opinion, that is where a free press makes the difference. They can without conflict of interest ... expose the dirty litlle value-boosting tricks of the CEOs and their lieutenents in charge of keeping the workers just fit enough to keep the money engine huffing&puffing.
Now we have a difficult situation where the press isn't as free as we like, being squeezed between a public who wants more Snooki and less tedious stories (containing annoyingly polysyllabic vocabulary) about injustice or predatory practices by ... their purchasers of ad space.

There is a much more free press (and just about priced right) all over the Internet now. But the act of mining info from all the phyllo-dough blogs repackaging the same newsrumors and concealed editorials is hard work. It's my belief that our way of consuming information is rapidly evolving at this time. sadly, the onus is on us as individuals more than ever to educate ourselves about the deeper, underlying issues and to speak into the gale of the Internet idiocracy. It's what humans crave. cn

 

[spandy]

i know what i'll be doing tonight once you go to bed.

We can rule out going to work.

 

[abandonconflict]

Where ever there is wage slavery, you will find private property.

 

[cannabineer]

Where ever there is wage slavery, you will find private property.

I cannot imagine an even remotely viable system that undoes private property ... that isn't infinitely corruptible. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I cannot imagine an even remotely viable system that undoes private property ... that isn't infinitely corruptible. cn

I'm more interested in what you mean by "remotely viable" than how you can use this phrase to juxtapose what is certainly not viable.

 

[cannabineer]

I'm more interested in what you mean by "remotely viable" than how you can use this phrase to juxtapose what is certainly not viable.

We've been here before, and we probably won't agree. To me "viable" comes down to accepting the Prisoner's Dilemma insight that being a pirate andor empire builder is a risk worth taking. A viable system accounts and corrects for our baser instincts. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

We've been here before, and we probably won't agree. To me "viable" comes down to accepting the Prisoner's Dilemma insight that being a pirate andor empire builder is a risk worth taking. A viable system accounts and corrects for our baser instincts. cn

Prisoner's dilemma contains no useful insight. Aside from that I'm not suggesting that a utopia exists where there is no crime, I am suggesting we stop rewarding dickish behavior (which capitalism does). If you are looking to call me a utopian and dismiss me so you don't have to defend your assertions, than do so.

Why try to keep sitting on game theory as if it doesn't OVERWHELMINGLY attest to the benefit of mutual aid? Be as afraid as you want and go out and screw everybody you come across if that is what you want but calling me a utopian does not excuse capitalism for it's structural defects.

 

[learning05]

Press is so heavily influenced nowadays...I agree free-press helps but people also need the time to take action. Present day, when you work a 8am - 8pm day in which you must perform or risk being fired due to the high level of competition and ease of hiring others, it becomes tiresome for people to stay informed of such things. The structure of the business, insurance, energy, and health sectors + the interconnectedness of our bubble economy + debt make it a overwhelming feat for people to do anything about the injustices of business.

 

[cannabineer]

Prisoner's dilemma contains no useful insight. Aside from that I'm not suggesting that a utopia exists where there is no crime, I am suggesting we stop rewarding dickish behavior (which capitalism does). If you are looking to call me a utopian and dismiss me so you don't have to defend your assertions, than do so.

Why try to keep sitting on game theory as if it doesn't OVERWHELMINGLY attest to the benefit of mutual aid? Be as afraid as you want and go out and screw everybody you come across if that is what you want but calling me a utopian does not excuse capitalism for it's structural defects.

Maybe because I don't see how 3+3 is overwhelmingly better than 5+1. 'Splain me that one. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Maybe because I don't see how 3+3 is overwhelmingly better than 5+1. 'Splain me that one. cn

Because the Prisoner's Dilemma is a clearly rigged game. It was performed and published by a global policy think tank called Rand, which I'm only pointing out, not arguing that it means anything, but that expiriment is as follows, I have posted it before. I will also point out that I am trying to avoid citing any "anarchists" since it could be said they would be biased. If you are curious about them just ask.

Prisoner's Dilemma:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The police admit they don't have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain. If he testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get three years in prison on the main charge. Oh, yes, there is a catch ... If both prisoners testify against each other, both will be sentenced to two years in jail.

The point I am making can now just be summarized. Since I am arguing removal of capitalism, essentially I am arguing that another example of Nash game theory be used, instead of Prisoner's Dillema, since in this game (which I agree resembles capitalism). However, EVEN IN THIS ONE, even though they obviously will betray one another, it would still have clearly been beneficial if they would have not ratted eachother out. They both would have been better off, even if they did not know it. Therefore, even in your preferred model of Nash Game Theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma (which is a perfect model to describe capitalism by the way, not sure if I said that already) mutual aid is a better strategy...if only the situation was more like two strangers deciding to cooperate or compete under any other circumstances...

So yes, I am familiar with Nash game human behavior experiments.

 

[cannabineer]

In the matrix I linked, 3+3 v. 5+1 is a wash, and iirc that is the one the game theorists have developed into useful robust models. What intrigues me about the matrix derived from your essay problem is that there is no benefit as in the more modern form, only damage control. The reward matrix to which I'd linked isn't at best zero-sum like the punishment-only example you use as a benchmark. Distinct type of outcome leads to incomparable results. Apples. Oranges. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

They each got 2 years, since they ratted each other out, but if they would have cooperated (mutual aid) or kept mouths shut, they would each have gotten 1 year.

Like I said, you can be selfish everytime for the occasional 5 and mostly 3s or everybody could get 4s every time.

In fact there can only exist the benefit of occasional selfishness if there are plenty of altruists (suckers), and the only way there could possibly be suckers, is if it beneficial for them to exist, not only for the predators, but also for the other altruists. Therefore selfishness can not exist in the absence of altruism.

Now, can we move away from the yin yang dualities and just agree, that if there is a system that rewards selfishness, at the very least, it ought to be sustainable so as not to scare all the suckers?

In order to do this you have to just kind of be nice sometimes. That is all I really ask, although yes, utopia would be nice too.

Just remove the dick head cop offering them secret deals.

 

[cannabineer]

They each got 2 years, since they ratted each other out, but if they would have cooperated (mutual aid) or kept mouths shut, they would each have gotten 1 year.

Like I said, you can be selfish everytime for the occasional 5 and mostly 3s or everybody could get 4s every time.

In fact there can only exist the benefit of occasional selfishness if there are plenty of altruists (suckers), and the only way there could possibly be suckers, is if it beneficial for them to exist, not only for the predators, but also for the other altruists. Therefore selfishness can not exist in the absence of altruism.

Now, can we move away from the yin yang dualities and just agree, that if there is a system that rewards selfishness, at the very least, it ought to be sustainable so as not to scare all the suckers?

In order to do this you have to just kind of be nice sometimes. That is all I really ask, although yes, utopia would be nice too.

Just remove the dick head cop offering them secret deals.

We are at an impasse because you only refer to a PD matrix that metes out punishments. The one I reference is about rewards.

I have no problem with being nice once in a while or even all the time, speakig personally. But what fascinates about the PD matrix is hat it isn't about one individual but about a transaction. And a basic human truth is: Not everyone is a nice guy all the time. The unconditional givers get fleeced. You're apparently suggesting being a giver all the time and taking the occasional loss to a defector on the nose. Without a defector-limitation strategy, that just breeds bigger bears, so to speak and imo. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

We are at an impasse because you only refer to a PD matrix that metes out punishments. The one I reference is about rewards.

We aren't at an impasse, I have refuted everything you have suggested regarding selfishness being an evolutionary boon. You're the one who insists on PD, I simply posted what i found regarding it. Also the study that was the basis of the article that you posted also does not indicate what the article boasts.

The fact is that even in the worst scenario, mutual aid was the best strategy, even in the presence of coercive fear.

 

[cannabineer]

We aren't at an impasse, I have refuted everything you have suggested regarding selfishness being an evolutionary boon. You're the one who insists on PD, I simply posted what i found regarding it. Also the study that was the basis of the article that you posted also does not indicate what the article boasts.

The fact is that even in the worst scenario, mutual aid was the best strategy, even in the presence of coercive fear.

I disagree. You SAY you have refuted it. I say you have based that statement on a small and imo biased, cherrypicked dataset. That does not equal an actual refutation in my or any careful thinker's book.
We are at an impasse because you keep inserting your rules when I ask you to ponder the ones I've presented. That isn't honest. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I disagree. You SAY you have refuted it. I say you have based that statement on a small and imo biased, cherrypicked dataset. That does not equal an actual refutation in my or any careful thinker's book.
We are at an impasse because you keep inserting your rules when I ask you to ponder the ones I've presented. That isn't honest. cn

I haven't presented a dataset. I have used yours.