Lou

5y

Blowback season 2 out now

Birdie

5y

Capitalism doesn't account for assymetric leverage at a global geopolitical scale

I don't think its possible for any ideology to honestly and that's not a defense of capitalism

krishna bound

5y

Well, it kinda does, but not really in the way that I think most people would be accepting of it.

Like even on a small scale (let's say an economy of five people), if someone owns the only farm in a town (in a vacuum), and there's 3 other people, and their farms suddenly get destroyed by a natural disaster, but the last person in town refuses to share their farm, then the same dynamic basically plays out. The usual reason people say this wouldn't happen assumes the last farmer wants growth, and thus would trade out of necessity of growth...but like, that's a poor assumption, because if you assume the farmer has other interests beyond the interest of the system itself (let's say like, he only cares about his own self-sufficiency, or he has a religious belief which doesn't allow him to share), then the system is kinda nullified. I know a lot of AnCaps say "well if he doesn't prioritize growth then it isn't capitalism"), which sure, okay, but that's kind of the point, because if everyone needs to evangelize growth then you basically just need a global AnCap caliphate which defeats the point of individualism AnCaps would otherwise themselves evangelize anyway.

The real outcome i think is that the actual pure capitalist answer is "it doesn't matter if the other people die" since the principle of individualism to them (the belief of the entity) is worth more than the forced desire to share with the other entitites, but let's be honest, while you can say that if you want, it's not a great selling point

cozy

5y

Why is that s*** on stitcher lmao

Birdie

5y

You're right but what if there's the scenario where inherently the farmer puts a value to the lives of other farmers.

Economists like to use the word rationality and would probably say just something like " Well not for the sake of growth but also because the farmer finds value in the lives of those near him, he would share his land or aid in the expansion of others lands" so " a rational decision maker would recognize the positive externalities of letting go some self sufficiency for what a community of other farmers can provide (things other than growth)"

The inequities are birthed by the divergence of individual values. I don't think capitalism in the situation like that gives guidance of how to operate. Growth of capital is only the goal in the economic sense but people themselves still make decisions and will prioritize differently.

Birdie

5y

Avocate the end of the embargo on Cuba but don't try to paint Cuba as a happy place in the meantime to defend Socialism. Cubans don't care about ideology as much as the reality of their current situation.

Again you can say this is the US fault but point is Cubans voices matter and that's not what they're focusing on the most

cozy

5y

Why is that s*** on stitcher lmao

Lou

5y

It’s releasing weekly for free on Apple and Spotify now

krishna bound

5y

You're right, but I think if there's a scenario where he puts himself first, then it's more of a reason that his value system or belief system works rather than the economic system. I think since Capitalism is so dependent on individualism (or, at least, the modern philosophical strain of capitalism), it's kind of impossible to not bring up the divergence of individual values/beliefs of entities when discussing its extrapolations. Kinda unrelated but I also think this is why so many ancient religions place such value on the universalism of their beliefs (i.e. muslim caliphates or catholic distributionism), because even on a very basic level they've kind of deduced individual values are a lot of what drive externalities

spongebob

5y

what context are u using externalities i’m trying to understand where u were going with that

krishna bound

5y

I mean externalities in the way of like, effects/results of activities between parties. I basically would say that many philosophical systems look at things on such a removed or detached level that they forget or disregard how much distinctions between individuals can produce can have bearing on other aspects of their belief system in practice.
The solutions these systems tend to have for when people create conflict by working against the systems tend to be either self-referential or something like "well uh other people will just die/etc" because of obsessing with principles rather than practicality. It's rare for a system to have built into it a way of dealing with conflicts the system doesn't already pre-account for or consider within its scope

krishna bound

5y

Well, it kinda does, but not really in the way that I think most people would be accepting of it.

Like even on a small scale (let's say an economy of five people), if someone owns the only farm in a town (in a vacuum), and there's 3 other people, and their farms suddenly get destroyed by a natural disaster, but the last person in town refuses to share their farm, then the same dynamic basically plays out. The usual reason people say this wouldn't happen assumes the last farmer wants growth, and thus would trade out of necessity of growth...but like, that's a poor assumption, because if you assume the farmer has other interests beyond the interest of the system itself (let's say like, he only cares about his own self-sufficiency, or he has a religious belief which doesn't allow him to share), then the system is kinda nullified. I know a lot of AnCaps say "well if he doesn't prioritize growth then it isn't capitalism"), which sure, okay, but that's kind of the point, because if everyone needs to evangelize growth then you basically just need a global AnCap caliphate which defeats the point of individualism AnCaps would otherwise themselves evangelize anyway.

The real outcome i think is that the actual pure capitalist answer is "it doesn't matter if the other people die" since the principle of individualism to them (the belief of the entity) is worth more than the forced desire to share with the other entitites, but let's be honest, while you can say that if you want, it's not a great selling point

Birdie

5y

You're right but what if there's the scenario where inherently the farmer puts a value to the lives of other farmers.

Economists like to use the word rationality and would probably say just something like " Well not for the sake of growth but also because the farmer finds value in the lives of those near him, he would share his land or aid in the expansion of others lands" so " a rational decision maker would recognize the positive externalities of letting go some self sufficiency for what a community of other farmers can provide (things other than growth)"

The inequities are birthed by the divergence of individual values. I don't think capitalism in the situation like that gives guidance of how to operate. Growth of capital is only the goal in the economic sense but people themselves still make decisions and will prioritize differently.

Yuzzy

5y

@op you ought to remove the word "heavy" from title

ARCADE GOON

5y

"CIA theories"
U dont think the CIA supports regime change operations abroad?
What do you think the CIA actually does with their multi-billion dollar budget? Jerk off all day?

sniper

5y

Good thread talking about the movement throughout Cuba and what it has been building up to.

Hopefully tankies ITT can actually make a sensible take about this issue sometime, but not expecting much.

Buchan

5y

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-57799852

the police is beating the protesters, including minors (!)

The "president" (dictator) also calls for his supporters to "physically confront" the protesters.

"The order to fight has been given - into the street, revolutionaries!" he announced.

How are you guys defending this???

Buchan

5y

They sure do, but do you honestly believe that every f***ing thing is set up by the CIA? Do you think people would always only risk their livelyhood just when the CIA, a foreign entity, told them so? Don't you think it possibly also could have something to do with their lack of freedom? That their "president" is someone that calls for violence against them?

By the way. Do not call me an idiot. I haven't called you names either and it shows a lack of respect. Why would I bother debating with you if you don't give me the same kind of respect?

Buchan

5y

No. These are heavy protests. EVERYONE OF THESE PEOPLE IS RISKING JAIL OR DEATH. The president LITERALLY CALLS FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE.

YANDHI

5y

Haiti in shambles with officials requesting U.S troops
Now Cuba all of a sudden has protests against their regime

Very interesting and familiar s*** going on rn. Especially coinciding with U.S withdrawal in Afghanistan (which also is a sloppy but intentional military strategy against China)

U.S might be back like Biden said