4 ms·

I mean, they do some pretty distasteful stuff but saying that providing an international communications platform is imperialist is just beyond silly.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Sounds like the communist usage of imperialism where anything not part of the nation, them, or their fellow travelers is imperialist even if it is better for the people and noncoerceive because they disrupt the native one. Even if it is say actual honest nongouging medicinal care displacing hedge practitioners who were themselves exploitative. While outsiders looking to make money have a long unfortunate history of doing bad things it is absurd to call them all imperialist or even all bad. Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice but that is highly contentious from at least the two extreme sentiment ends on the subject.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  > Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitarian, a property shared with fascism. Also, China and the Soviet Union both claimed to be socialist revolutions on the way to communism, not actual communists, and along the way the dictatorship of the proletariat/vanguard party became "corrupted". Real communism (which is inconsistently defined between different theories anyway) does not and never has existed, and seems like it won't be possible before we reach post-scarcity anyway.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. People devote themselves to voluntarily living an ascetic life, aspiring to the absolute, caring about the common good, and eschewing things like money from daily life. From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      > Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". I have to disagree with this, especially given that the CPC claims that China is in the "primary stage" of socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism. Communism in its original Marxist form is classless and stateless, which the PRC and the USSR certainly are/were not. Both countries were/are run by communist parties, but said communists recognise/d that a conversion from an agrarian, nominally capitalist society to a communist one would take a long time and require transition through a socialist state, as Marx originally laid out. > My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy. > From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. That's putting the cart before the horse somewhat. I know of many people who retreat from society in a hermit-like fashion for reasons other than asceticism or self-actualisation. > Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. But it will remove the primary need for an economy: effective distribution of scarce resources. It would also reduce the need for political hierarchy because property rights would become largely unnecessary to enforce. > This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans. They spoke about a lot of things that are purely based in ideology and do not gel with how the world works. Lysenkoism and the Four Pests Campaign strike me as good examples.
      - badosu 8y ago
        > The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy. See my comment above on how monasteries came from epicurean communes. See the title or Marx's PhD thesis: The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Not so far-fetched. It's true that communism as envisioned by Karl Marx had a materialistic sense, but so did Epicurus philosophy. Communism is Karl Marx's scaling attempt at Epicurean communes. Not a very good idea IMO.
  - 0x445442 8y ago
    Post scarcity wouldn't matter anyway. You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers and the idea that some of us are more equal than others... There is no Star Trek utopia.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      > You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers Could you expand on what you mean by this? If you remove the concept of material wealth (as a distinction between individuals), the cause for conflict is greatly reduced. > the idea that some of us are more equal than others I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things. > There is no Star Trek utopia. Certainly not now, but it's a good goal to aim for.
      - a_tractor 8y ago
        >If you remove the concept of material wealth How does communism really plan to do that when it is fundamentally a materialist philosophy? You need a philosophy founded on idealism to do that. >I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. Because Humans are not domesticated animals? Just give him some fresh newspaper and keep his food and water fresh and he'll be fine? No. >People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things. This is basically an unsupportable explanation ("just-so") that is woefully limited, over-simplified, and inadequate. This ignores or dismisses so many other aspects of the human spirit and human nature that I don't know where to begin. If you stop limiting humans and their "needs and wants" to materialistic terms, your entire concept falls apart, which is ironic. You are also engaging in doublespeak, when you state "once people's material needs and wants are all met" you actually mean "once people's material needs and wants are all equal," because that is the only result you actually could force into reality, but you could never force the satisfaction of human desire. Human desire is illimitable.
tomc1985 8y ago
Facebook trying to build an international (business) empire is not "imperialist"? When I used the word I was thinking of Dutch East Indies Co., etc.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  you're playing games with words. The various East India companies were imperialist because they dominated the countries they "traded" with. It was more of a militant occupation than an act of mutually beneficial exchange.
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    But those were different times, when companies could get away with militant operations. To say nothing of strike-breakers, African rubber plantations, or what-have-you. Most companies we know of (esp. American) can't get away with those sorts of things now, at least not in the public eye. Soft power is the new militant occupation. Facebook is taking cues from Pablo Escobar (minus the violence, we hope).
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      so in this new world where "soft power" (which I assume means any power imbalance) across borders is imperialism, how can a company be international and not be "imperialist"? Because if they can't then that's the kind of "imperialism" I couldn't care less about.
coldtea 8y ago
Actually it's very apt, whether the intention was imperialist or not the result inevitably is: a single company from a single culture/country controls an important communications channel globally. Besides, the intention is very much imperialist - to conquer the global markets. So much so that "world domination" is a standard part of business parlance.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  that's a pretty loose definition of imperialism. Conquering markets is not coercive, it's not an act of one group dominating another (beyond the realm of permissible competition that is the whole point of markets existing). Every company wants to reach the top of its market so at what point does the average company become "imperialist"? When it starts trading overseas? It weakens the concept of imperialism to the point of almost meaninglessness - it essentially becomes the same concept as globalisation. The nasty element of old-school mercantilist imperialism was its subjugation of the native people of other countries. If you remove the harmful element from the equation but continue to use the word for effect, you're playing games with words to cast something as bad without due cause. If you want to suggest that, say, oil companies moving operations into African nations (I forget exactly which ones, but read about it a few years ago), hiring military contractors, and reaping another country's natural resources is imperialism, then yes I totally agree. Putting something on the internet and letting people from other nations use it? Not even slightly.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >that's a pretty loose definition of imperialism. Conquering markets is not coercive, it's not an act of one group dominating another (beyond the realm of permissible competition that is the whole point of markets existing). Well, conquering markets also imposes one group's values (e.g. FB censorship based on what Americans deem offensive) and national interests (e.g. surveillance) on others. >It weakens the concept of imperialism to the point of almost meaninglessness - it essentially becomes the same concept as globalisation. Well, globalization is a form of imperialism. It's not equal access to the global markets and influence for all countries: it's a few countries dominating.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Sounds like the communist usage of imperialism where anything not part of the nation, them, or their fellow travelers is imperialist even if it is better for the people and noncoerceive because they disrupt the native one. Even if it is say actual honest nongouging medicinal care displacing hedge practitioners who were themselves exploitative. While outsiders looking to make money have a long unfortunate history of doing bad things it is absurd to call them all imperialist or even all bad. Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice but that is highly contentious from at least the two extreme sentiment ends on the subject.

beaconstudios 8y ago
> Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitarian, a property shared with fascism. Also, China and the Soviet Union both claimed to be socialist revolutions on the way to communism, not actual communists, and along the way the dictatorship of the proletariat/vanguard party became "corrupted". Real communism (which is inconsistently defined between different theories anyway) does not and never has existed, and seems like it won't be possible before we reach post-scarcity anyway.
- nine_k 8y ago
  Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. People devote themselves to voluntarily living an ascetic life, aspiring to the absolute, caring about the common good, and eschewing things like money from daily life. From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    > Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". I have to disagree with this, especially given that the CPC claims that China is in the "primary stage" of socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism. Communism in its original Marxist form is classless and stateless, which the PRC and the USSR certainly are/were not. Both countries were/are run by communist parties, but said communists recognise/d that a conversion from an agrarian, nominally capitalist society to a communist one would take a long time and require transition through a socialist state, as Marx originally laid out. > My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy. > From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. That's putting the cart before the horse somewhat. I know of many people who retreat from society in a hermit-like fashion for reasons other than asceticism or self-actualisation. > Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. But it will remove the primary need for an economy: effective distribution of scarce resources. It would also reduce the need for political hierarchy because property rights would become largely unnecessary to enforce. > This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans. They spoke about a lot of things that are purely based in ideology and do not gel with how the world works. Lysenkoism and the Four Pests Campaign strike me as good examples.
    - badosu 8y ago
      > The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy. See my comment above on how monasteries came from epicurean communes. See the title or Marx's PhD thesis: The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Not so far-fetched. It's true that communism as envisioned by Karl Marx had a materialistic sense, but so did Epicurus philosophy. Communism is Karl Marx's scaling attempt at Epicurean communes. Not a very good idea IMO.
- 0x445442 8y ago
  Post scarcity wouldn't matter anyway. You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers and the idea that some of us are more equal than others... There is no Star Trek utopia.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    > You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers Could you expand on what you mean by this? If you remove the concept of material wealth (as a distinction between individuals), the cause for conflict is greatly reduced. > the idea that some of us are more equal than others I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things. > There is no Star Trek utopia. Certainly not now, but it's a good goal to aim for.
    - a_tractor 8y ago
      >If you remove the concept of material wealth How does communism really plan to do that when it is fundamentally a materialist philosophy? You need a philosophy founded on idealism to do that. >I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. Because Humans are not domesticated animals? Just give him some fresh newspaper and keep his food and water fresh and he'll be fine? No. >People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things. This is basically an unsupportable explanation ("just-so") that is woefully limited, over-simplified, and inadequate. This ignores or dismisses so many other aspects of the human spirit and human nature that I don't know where to begin. If you stop limiting humans and their "needs and wants" to materialistic terms, your entire concept falls apart, which is ironic. You are also engaging in doublespeak, when you state "once people's material needs and wants are all met" you actually mean "once people's material needs and wants are all equal," because that is the only result you actually could force into reality, but you could never force the satisfaction of human desire. Human desire is illimitable.

tomc1985 8y ago

Facebook trying to build an international (business) empire is not "imperialist"? When I used the word I was thinking of Dutch East Indies Co., etc.

beaconstudios 8y ago
you're playing games with words. The various East India companies were imperialist because they dominated the countries they "traded" with. It was more of a militant occupation than an act of mutually beneficial exchange.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  But those were different times, when companies could get away with militant operations. To say nothing of strike-breakers, African rubber plantations, or what-have-you. Most companies we know of (esp. American) can't get away with those sorts of things now, at least not in the public eye. Soft power is the new militant occupation. Facebook is taking cues from Pablo Escobar (minus the violence, we hope).
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    so in this new world where "soft power" (which I assume means any power imbalance) across borders is imperialism, how can a company be international and not be "imperialist"? Because if they can't then that's the kind of "imperialism" I couldn't care less about.

coldtea 8y ago

Actually it's very apt, whether the intention was imperialist or not the result inevitably is: a single company from a single culture/country controls an important communications channel globally. Besides, the intention is very much imperialist - to conquer the global markets. So much so that "world domination" is a standard part of business parlance.

beaconstudios 8y ago
that's a pretty loose definition of imperialism. Conquering markets is not coercive, it's not an act of one group dominating another (beyond the realm of permissible competition that is the whole point of markets existing). Every company wants to reach the top of its market so at what point does the average company become "imperialist"? When it starts trading overseas? It weakens the concept of imperialism to the point of almost meaninglessness - it essentially becomes the same concept as globalisation. The nasty element of old-school mercantilist imperialism was its subjugation of the native people of other countries. If you remove the harmful element from the equation but continue to use the word for effect, you're playing games with words to cast something as bad without due cause. If you want to suggest that, say, oil companies moving operations into African nations (I forget exactly which ones, but read about it a few years ago), hiring military contractors, and reaping another country's natural resources is imperialism, then yes I totally agree. Putting something on the internet and letting people from other nations use it? Not even slightly.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >that's a pretty loose definition of imperialism. Conquering markets is not coercive, it's not an act of one group dominating another (beyond the realm of permissible competition that is the whole point of markets existing). Well, conquering markets also imposes one group's values (e.g. FB censorship based on what Americans deem offensive) and national interests (e.g. surveillance) on others. >It weakens the concept of imperialism to the point of almost meaninglessness - it essentially becomes the same concept as globalisation. Well, globalization is a form of imperialism. It's not equal access to the global markets and influence for all countries: it's a few countries dominating.