5 ms·

I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy. Nicola Tesla was a successful

I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy. Nicola Tesla was a successful capitalist? Isaac Neuton? Leu Paster? What about the guy that invented penicillin? Without capitalists, progress reaches the masses a bit slower. Without scientists, capitalists would still trade sheep, live in huts, and wipe their ass with tree bark.

alchemist1e9 3y ago
> I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy. I am amazed by the shameless disregard for empirical facts and data and hard historical evidence. I’m not shameless the anti-capitalists are. Here is a book you might be interested in: “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior” by Schoeck That can help explain this very common destructive human instinct towards collectivism in general. and here is an examination of the most failed idea in human history - socialism: https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/ https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-th... It’s outrageous and shameless to vilify entrepreneurs legitimate and ethical pursuit of profits.
- mcmcmc 3y ago
  > ethical pursuit of profits. There’s the sticking point. Way too many unethical capitalists, and without strong enforcement mechanisms those bad actors simply concentrate market power and actually break the capitalist system you’re so ready to cream your jeans over. Edit: also after having looked up that book, not sure if some Freudian level psychobabble making sweeping claims about human emotion and motivation is really that great of an argument for unrestrained capitalism.
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    The vulgarity of your language doesn’t mask the weakness of your argument. In capitalism, unlike collectivist systems, the market naturally weeds out those who don’t serve the public good, it’s self-regulating through consumer choice and entrepreneurial competition. Discrediting the entire structure due to a few unethical players is an oversimplification that ignores the successes of capitalism in driving progress and prosperity. The book delves a lot deeper than Freudian concepts, offering a sociological perspective on how envy drives societal dynamics. He argues that in modern societies, envy often triggers destructive emotions, leading to flawed support for collectivist and socialist ideas based on instinct rather than logical outcomes, understanding how emotional responses like envy generate repetitively failed economic and social policies. Socialism is literally the single most failed idea in history, no other idea has been tried so many times and failed so miserably so many times, the question is why? one definition of insanity in individuals is repeating the same approach and expecting different outcomes! why are we sociologically insane? understanding the evolutionary origins of envy is highly relevant, an emotion that in smaller groups can improve overall performance of the group, motivating aspirations, but in larger groups reverts to destructive actions.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > He argues that in modern societies, envy often triggers destructive emotions, leading to flawed support for collectivist and socialist ideas What is this socialism you are railing against, where can I find it? Russia is not socialist any more, neither is China, so where is it? I think you have a religion, and it is that capitalism must never be criticised. Its excesses must never be reigned in. For the past 20 years we have tried your ‘capitalism without breaks’ experiment and it has delivered fastest falling living standards and environmental destruction in recorded history of peacetime > Socialism is literally the single most failed idea in history Have you heard of this little 500 year long period called the DarkAges? We had plenty of capitalism, mercantilism, classism, religious fundamentalism, but no science, and half the population of Europe died in agony because they didn’t know about soap. Or about the trans Atlantic slave trade, an entirely capitalist institution that killed more people than Mao and Stalin combined. In fact how could you even make such a statement, what societal order existed for the previous 10,000 years of human history before socialism was invented? If socialism is such a failure, how come USSR was even ever a threat to the USA? Do you feel threatened by other societal orders, say a monarchy? No you don’t, they are not competitive
      - alchemist1e9 3y ago
        Your reference to the transatlantic slave trade and its erroneous association with capitalism is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually dishonest. Let’s be clear: the transatlantic slave trade resulted in the tragic deaths of approximately 1.2 to 2.1 million people, a horrifying figure. However, to compare this to the atrocities committed under Mao and Stalin, where the death tolls reached tens of millions - estimates suggest around 45 million under Mao and 20 million under Stalin - is not just deceitful but numerically absurd. Conflating the horrors of slavery with the principles of free-market capitalism, which fundamentally hinge on individual liberty and property rights, is beyond outrageous. It’s a gross misrepresentation of history and a blatant disregard for the millions who suffered under truly oppressive systems. Such distortion of facts is unacceptable in any serious debate about economic systems and their impact on human life and liberty. The claim that the Dark Ages represent an era of capitalism is a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and the essence of libertarian capitalism. The Dark Ages, characterized by feudalism, lacked the core tenets of modern capitalism – namely, individual property rights and the principle of non-aggression. True libertarian capitalism, as we understand it today, emerged around the 1800s, bringing with it unprecedented economic growth and scientific progress. This system is founded on respect for individual rights, voluntary exchange, and freedom from coercion – principles nonexistent in the feudal societies of the Dark Ages. In stark contrast, collectivism and socialism, despite their relatively recent emergence, have consistently failed wherever tried, lacking the efficiency and innovation-driven growth inherent in capitalist systems. It’s crucial to distinguish between these vastly different epochs and ideologies. Modern libertarian capitalism is not only the most successful system in human history for advancing prosperity and human well-being, but also a cornerstone for scientific and technological advancement. The supposed success of the USSR, which was indeed a threat to the US, was built on a foundation of resource exploitation, extreme violence, and suppression of individual freedoms. This model proved to be unsustainable, ultimately leading to the USSR’s collapse. The real threat was not its competitive prowess but its potential for global destabilization through military force and ideological expansion. As for the modern resurgence of collectivist ideas, now often cloaked in terms like ‘progressive,’ ‘social democratic,’ and ‘social justice,’ these are merely rebranded versions of the same failed ideologies. They promise equity and fairness but historically deliver devastation and disaster. This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it’s a matter of learning from history to avoid repeating catastrophic mistakes. The resurgence of these collectivist ideas poses a real threat to the future of humanity, as they undermine the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and innovation that have driven human progress. It’s crucial to recognize and resist these regressive ideologies for the sake of preserving and advancing a prosperous and free society. Lastly, the assertion that the last 20 years of capitalism have led to the fastest falling living standards is factually incorrect. On the contrary, global living standards have significantly improved over this period. The World Bank and other international organizations consistently report reductions in extreme poverty and improvements in health, education, and overall quality of life worldwide, largely due to the spread of market-based economies. Furthermore, the greatest environmental challenges are often seen in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, where there is less transparency, weaker environmental regulations, and less accountability. In contrast, many capitalist countries have been at the forefront of adopting sustainable practices and investing in green technologies. It’s essential to base our arguments on accurate data and acknowledge the complex interplay between economic systems and environmental outcomes.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Here is a hard fact that you seemingly missed - Alexander Fleming was not a capitalist, or a socialist, he invented penicillin for the betterment of human condition and his work was funded by taxpayers. There are millions of people whose work made the West a great civilisation that it is today, who did not pursuit profit, many of them through self-sacrifice. This propensity to claim credit for their work is morally corrupt. That’s outrageous and shameless. It’s the same ideology that allowed boss of United Carbide to shelter in US from justice after killing 10,000 people Bhopal
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    Capitalism isn’t about claiming scientists like Tesla or Pasteur were capitalists, but about creating a system where their innovations reach and benefit the masses. For instance, the widespread use of penicillin, a monumental scientific breakthrough, was massively scaled up and distributed thanks to capitalist structures. It’s about turning breakthroughs into real-world solutions that improve lives. Fleming’s invention of penicillin wasn’t about capitalism or socialism, but how capitalism effectively used his discovery to save millions of lives globally. It’s not about claiming credit, but recognizing the system that best harnesses such innovations for widespread benefit. Regarding corporate responsibility, capitalism doesn’t excuse unethical behavior, as seen in public and legal backlash against such incidents. True capitalism demands accountability, not sheltering the guilty. Consider the printing press, invented not just for knowledge’s sake, but also driven by Gutenberg’s vision for profit. This invention revolutionized the spread of knowledge, paving the way for scientific progress and the Enlightenment. Just like with penicillin, it’s a prime example of how the pursuit of profit under capitalism can fuel advancements that benefit all of humanity. The real moral outrage would be ignoring how capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty. It’s not self-congratulatory to acknowledge facts. Capitalism, unlike any other system, has consistently turned innovations into tangible benefits for the masses. Using emotive language like ‘shameless’ or ‘morally corrupt’ doesn’t change these historical truths. It’s about progress and real-world results, not ideological rhetoric.
Jensson 3y ago
Science is public, everyone can read and learn the results if they want. So why are some countries better off than others? The poor ones could just use the science if they wanted to. The answer is their governing and economic systems, and you are much better off in a capitalist democracy than other kinds of countries.
- mcmcmc 3y ago
  There are some really insidious undertones of racism in this comment. Geography is a much bigger determinant of national economic well-being than whether or not they want to read about science. And blaming citizens for being born in autocratic countries and not immediately implementing a western democracy is also pretty gross.
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    Accusing this argument of racism misses the point entirely and shifts the focus from the real issue: the impact of economic systems on national well-being. It’s not about geography or race; it’s about policies and governance. Countries rich in resources have languished under collectivism, while others with few natural resources have thrived with capitalism. This isn’t about blaming citizens; it’s about recognizing that systems matter. And it’s a disservice to the debate to reduce this critical discussion to baseless accusations of racism, rather than confronting the hard truth about the effectiveness of different economic systems.

alchemist1e9 3y ago

> I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy. I am amazed by the shameless disregard for empirical facts and data and hard historical evidence. I’m not shameless the anti-capitalists are. Here is a book you might be interested in: “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior” by Schoeck That can help explain this very common destructive human instinct towards collectivism in general. and here is an examination of the most failed idea in human history - socialism: https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/ https://iea.org.uk/publications/socialism-the-failed-idea-th... It’s outrageous and shameless to vilify entrepreneurs legitimate and ethical pursuit of profits.

mcmcmc 3y ago
> ethical pursuit of profits. There’s the sticking point. Way too many unethical capitalists, and without strong enforcement mechanisms those bad actors simply concentrate market power and actually break the capitalist system you’re so ready to cream your jeans over. Edit: also after having looked up that book, not sure if some Freudian level psychobabble making sweeping claims about human emotion and motivation is really that great of an argument for unrestrained capitalism.
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  The vulgarity of your language doesn’t mask the weakness of your argument. In capitalism, unlike collectivist systems, the market naturally weeds out those who don’t serve the public good, it’s self-regulating through consumer choice and entrepreneurial competition. Discrediting the entire structure due to a few unethical players is an oversimplification that ignores the successes of capitalism in driving progress and prosperity. The book delves a lot deeper than Freudian concepts, offering a sociological perspective on how envy drives societal dynamics. He argues that in modern societies, envy often triggers destructive emotions, leading to flawed support for collectivist and socialist ideas based on instinct rather than logical outcomes, understanding how emotional responses like envy generate repetitively failed economic and social policies. Socialism is literally the single most failed idea in history, no other idea has been tried so many times and failed so miserably so many times, the question is why? one definition of insanity in individuals is repeating the same approach and expecting different outcomes! why are we sociologically insane? understanding the evolutionary origins of envy is highly relevant, an emotion that in smaller groups can improve overall performance of the group, motivating aspirations, but in larger groups reverts to destructive actions.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > He argues that in modern societies, envy often triggers destructive emotions, leading to flawed support for collectivist and socialist ideas What is this socialism you are railing against, where can I find it? Russia is not socialist any more, neither is China, so where is it? I think you have a religion, and it is that capitalism must never be criticised. Its excesses must never be reigned in. For the past 20 years we have tried your ‘capitalism without breaks’ experiment and it has delivered fastest falling living standards and environmental destruction in recorded history of peacetime > Socialism is literally the single most failed idea in history Have you heard of this little 500 year long period called the DarkAges? We had plenty of capitalism, mercantilism, classism, religious fundamentalism, but no science, and half the population of Europe died in agony because they didn’t know about soap. Or about the trans Atlantic slave trade, an entirely capitalist institution that killed more people than Mao and Stalin combined. In fact how could you even make such a statement, what societal order existed for the previous 10,000 years of human history before socialism was invented? If socialism is such a failure, how come USSR was even ever a threat to the USA? Do you feel threatened by other societal orders, say a monarchy? No you don’t, they are not competitive
    - alchemist1e9 3y ago
      Your reference to the transatlantic slave trade and its erroneous association with capitalism is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually dishonest. Let’s be clear: the transatlantic slave trade resulted in the tragic deaths of approximately 1.2 to 2.1 million people, a horrifying figure. However, to compare this to the atrocities committed under Mao and Stalin, where the death tolls reached tens of millions - estimates suggest around 45 million under Mao and 20 million under Stalin - is not just deceitful but numerically absurd. Conflating the horrors of slavery with the principles of free-market capitalism, which fundamentally hinge on individual liberty and property rights, is beyond outrageous. It’s a gross misrepresentation of history and a blatant disregard for the millions who suffered under truly oppressive systems. Such distortion of facts is unacceptable in any serious debate about economic systems and their impact on human life and liberty. The claim that the Dark Ages represent an era of capitalism is a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and the essence of libertarian capitalism. The Dark Ages, characterized by feudalism, lacked the core tenets of modern capitalism – namely, individual property rights and the principle of non-aggression. True libertarian capitalism, as we understand it today, emerged around the 1800s, bringing with it unprecedented economic growth and scientific progress. This system is founded on respect for individual rights, voluntary exchange, and freedom from coercion – principles nonexistent in the feudal societies of the Dark Ages. In stark contrast, collectivism and socialism, despite their relatively recent emergence, have consistently failed wherever tried, lacking the efficiency and innovation-driven growth inherent in capitalist systems. It’s crucial to distinguish between these vastly different epochs and ideologies. Modern libertarian capitalism is not only the most successful system in human history for advancing prosperity and human well-being, but also a cornerstone for scientific and technological advancement. The supposed success of the USSR, which was indeed a threat to the US, was built on a foundation of resource exploitation, extreme violence, and suppression of individual freedoms. This model proved to be unsustainable, ultimately leading to the USSR’s collapse. The real threat was not its competitive prowess but its potential for global destabilization through military force and ideological expansion. As for the modern resurgence of collectivist ideas, now often cloaked in terms like ‘progressive,’ ‘social democratic,’ and ‘social justice,’ these are merely rebranded versions of the same failed ideologies. They promise equity and fairness but historically deliver devastation and disaster. This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it’s a matter of learning from history to avoid repeating catastrophic mistakes. The resurgence of these collectivist ideas poses a real threat to the future of humanity, as they undermine the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and innovation that have driven human progress. It’s crucial to recognize and resist these regressive ideologies for the sake of preserving and advancing a prosperous and free society. Lastly, the assertion that the last 20 years of capitalism have led to the fastest falling living standards is factually incorrect. On the contrary, global living standards have significantly improved over this period. The World Bank and other international organizations consistently report reductions in extreme poverty and improvements in health, education, and overall quality of life worldwide, largely due to the spread of market-based economies. Furthermore, the greatest environmental challenges are often seen in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, where there is less transparency, weaker environmental regulations, and less accountability. In contrast, many capitalist countries have been at the forefront of adopting sustainable practices and investing in green technologies. It’s essential to base our arguments on accurate data and acknowledge the complex interplay between economic systems and environmental outcomes.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Here is a hard fact that you seemingly missed - Alexander Fleming was not a capitalist, or a socialist, he invented penicillin for the betterment of human condition and his work was funded by taxpayers. There are millions of people whose work made the West a great civilisation that it is today, who did not pursuit profit, many of them through self-sacrifice. This propensity to claim credit for their work is morally corrupt. That’s outrageous and shameless. It’s the same ideology that allowed boss of United Carbide to shelter in US from justice after killing 10,000 people Bhopal
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  Capitalism isn’t about claiming scientists like Tesla or Pasteur were capitalists, but about creating a system where their innovations reach and benefit the masses. For instance, the widespread use of penicillin, a monumental scientific breakthrough, was massively scaled up and distributed thanks to capitalist structures. It’s about turning breakthroughs into real-world solutions that improve lives. Fleming’s invention of penicillin wasn’t about capitalism or socialism, but how capitalism effectively used his discovery to save millions of lives globally. It’s not about claiming credit, but recognizing the system that best harnesses such innovations for widespread benefit. Regarding corporate responsibility, capitalism doesn’t excuse unethical behavior, as seen in public and legal backlash against such incidents. True capitalism demands accountability, not sheltering the guilty. Consider the printing press, invented not just for knowledge’s sake, but also driven by Gutenberg’s vision for profit. This invention revolutionized the spread of knowledge, paving the way for scientific progress and the Enlightenment. Just like with penicillin, it’s a prime example of how the pursuit of profit under capitalism can fuel advancements that benefit all of humanity. The real moral outrage would be ignoring how capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty. It’s not self-congratulatory to acknowledge facts. Capitalism, unlike any other system, has consistently turned innovations into tangible benefits for the masses. Using emotive language like ‘shameless’ or ‘morally corrupt’ doesn’t change these historical truths. It’s about progress and real-world results, not ideological rhetoric.

Jensson 3y ago

Science is public, everyone can read and learn the results if they want. So why are some countries better off than others? The poor ones could just use the science if they wanted to. The answer is their governing and economic systems, and you are much better off in a capitalist democracy than other kinds of countries.

mcmcmc 3y ago
There are some really insidious undertones of racism in this comment. Geography is a much bigger determinant of national economic well-being than whether or not they want to read about science. And blaming citizens for being born in autocratic countries and not immediately implementing a western democracy is also pretty gross.
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  Accusing this argument of racism misses the point entirely and shifts the focus from the real issue: the impact of economic systems on national well-being. It’s not about geography or race; it’s about policies and governance. Countries rich in resources have languished under collectivism, while others with few natural resources have thrived with capitalism. This isn’t about blaming citizens; it’s about recognizing that systems matter. And it’s a disservice to the debate to reduce this critical discussion to baseless accusations of racism, rather than confronting the hard truth about the effectiveness of different economic systems.