5 ms·

> That is just Marxist pseudoscience to pathologize success That's not a serious way to argue at all. That is just emotional dogma that criticism can ultimatel

> That is just Marxist pseudoscience to pathologize success That's not a serious way to argue at all. That is just emotional dogma that criticism can ultimately be traced to envy. > The amount that people toil has decreased largely as a result of the ruleset I mentioned, that is associated with capitalism. No, it hasn't.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>That's not a serious way to argue at all. There is nothing of substance to argue against. Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless. It's also extremely inflammatory, making this accusation totally irresponsible, and it unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. >>No, it hasn't. Economists who have studied development say it is: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill... http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-glo...
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless, extremely inflammatory, and totally irresponsible. Why? > It's totally irresponsible, and it's unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. More emotional stuff. > Economists who have studied development say it is: That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well), not that people spend their lives in toil.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>Why? Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. >>More emotional stuff. And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? >>That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well) Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous. A more developed economy also means more household chores become possible to automate or outsource to specialists who do them far more efficiently.
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      > Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. Why not? > And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? Well, I guess some might be, but not all. Furthermore all critic of exploitation driven on by the profit incentive is not Marxist. > Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous No. They are still not synonymous. That's just a textbook example of goalpost shifting.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Why not? I'm not going to play this game. When someone says something is baseless, the onus is on you to show the substance behind the claim. Asking "why not" is not even relevant to the statement.
        cloudfifty 5y ago
        > The pursuit of captial accumulation is always dependent on the exploitation of someone's labour / time somewhere. So what's wrong here? Are not capitalists exploiting the labour and time of others to accumulate capital? It's self-evident that they do. Maybe you think that you can send just send the top 50 capitalists to the planet Mars and out comes a terraformed planet? Simply by their immense power of innovation?
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Are not capitalists exploiting the labour and time of others to accumulate capital? They are not in any way exploiting the labor and time of others, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word 'exploit', where it connotes an immoral act that causes harm. They are trading resources for that labor and time, by making an offer that the worker is happy to take over all others. Your moral framework is totally incoherent, as it would imply that an offer that a worker is happy to receive, is an act of authoritarianism toward that worker.
        5y ago

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>That's not a serious way to argue at all. There is nothing of substance to argue against. Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless. It's also extremely inflammatory, making this accusation totally irresponsible, and it unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. >>No, it hasn't. Economists who have studied development say it is: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill... http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-glo...

cloudfifty 5y ago
> Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless, extremely inflammatory, and totally irresponsible. Why? > It's totally irresponsible, and it's unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. More emotional stuff. > Economists who have studied development say it is: That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well), not that people spend their lives in toil.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Why? Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. >>More emotional stuff. And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? >>That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well) Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous. A more developed economy also means more household chores become possible to automate or outsource to specialists who do them far more efficiently.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    > Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. Why not? > And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? Well, I guess some might be, but not all. Furthermore all critic of exploitation driven on by the profit incentive is not Marxist. > Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous No. They are still not synonymous. That's just a textbook example of goalpost shifting.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>Why not? I'm not going to play this game. When someone says something is baseless, the onus is on you to show the substance behind the claim. Asking "why not" is not even relevant to the statement.
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        > The pursuit of captial accumulation is always dependent on the exploitation of someone's labour / time somewhere. So what's wrong here? Are not capitalists exploiting the labour and time of others to accumulate capital? It's self-evident that they do. Maybe you think that you can send just send the top 50 capitalists to the planet Mars and out comes a terraformed planet? Simply by their immense power of innovation?
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Are not capitalists exploiting the labour and time of others to accumulate capital? They are not in any way exploiting the labor and time of others, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word 'exploit', where it connotes an immoral act that causes harm. They are trading resources for that labor and time, by making an offer that the worker is happy to take over all others. Your moral framework is totally incoherent, as it would imply that an offer that a worker is happy to receive, is an act of authoritarianism toward that worker.
        5y ago