Atlas667

10 ms·

61.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
Strictly it is capitalists who run the government. While an individual can be wealthy, it is those who own the wealth-making-assets who control the government, AKA the capitalists. Because controlling the wealth-making-assets makes you an i
62.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
I mean, It's the same as consciousness of ourselves in the present. There are pieces of media that present the real struggles of the average worker. But not that many. Many films are instead invested in the ephemeral (and ever lasting)
63.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
Peoples idea of their own history are influenced by the media (print, film, tv, etc). The owners of said media often prefer to fund historical content from the perspective of rulers, as this reflects their class character and aspirations. M
64.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
Many people romanticize their past so much that they side with historical oppressors. Oppressors who most likely subjugated most of their ancestors. This is not a coincidence, but is the result of consuming media from people who engage in t
65.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
I'm definitely aware of this. This is a very very far stretch from saying your family was royalty. Though i do guess you are technically correct. Forgive me, your highness. lol Let me add that you've delineated a technicality with
66.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
We need this for the Romephiles who definitely don't think they would have been slaves during the Roman Empire. In the same vein, a racist meme shared around the internet is that supposedly some black people, while remembering their sh
67.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
This is kinda how I've come to view psychology because in the context I was raised mental health support was a luxury left for the wealthy. Albeit more about personality, upbringing and status rather than just individual idiosyncracies
68.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
Is it a democracy when theres a whole class of people who can take over the political apparatus? Is it democracy if a group of people totally coopt the electoral process by cultivating all the candidates and their policies behind the scenes
69.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
A rich billionaire has millions of times more political power than you. You are living in a dictatorship right now. The dictatorship of capital. And just because our culture does not draw a line to differentiate capitalists and workers does
70.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
As if you have a say other than "that guy" or "that other guy". The wealthy already fund politicians' careers, they fund judges, they fund campaigns. The wealthy already run the country. They fund both parties as a
71.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
You're simplifying too much. So to you its the state VS who? The rich billionaires + us? The rich billionaires are the state. We're the ones with no real representation. The fundamental divide is workers vs capitalists, not simply
72.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
The AI astroturfing campaign. If you had billions to gain, would you invest a few 100k or millions in an astroturfing campaign?
73.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
> If you actually make individualized decisions by votes of the entire public, that's direct democracy. But it doesn't scale. You're right. I was making a mistake. What I'm actually talking about is delegate democracy
74.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
> ...people in Florida care a lot about hurricane response but can't command a majority and people in Illinois or California have little reason to care about it. You mistake direct democracy for literally just majority decision maki
75.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
> The only way to have a large central government but not have a small handful of people with an outsized amount of power would be to make the decisions through direct democracy, which is the thing that doesn't scale to organization
76.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
Nah, I think the rich are the kings, politicians are their court. We have a bunch of little kings with a public court that theyre all trying to use for themselves. IDK you but I think you cant get rich by being a good person. You actively h
77.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
Someone at the top isnt necessarily autocratic. To preside is not autocracy. Both of them freed the slaves. > These are inherently synonyms for each other. As soon as you have anyone deciding how resources are allocated, they're tak
78.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
What are you talking about? I don't think authority is bad. What we're talking about isn't purely organizational, its economical. Of course we need leaders, and groups, and hierarchy. What we don't need is structures tha
79.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
Could cryptographic voting/blockchain, which is already a reality, be a part of this new system? I believe it will, or something similar at least. But I am a programmer, not a cryptographer. I'm not THE guy. I'm just some ran
80.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
IDK, man, I hear Christians talk about people being misguided (spiritually) all the time. In fact I think they're the ones who say it the most. But I actually meant it as a sort of drive (spirit), not wholly about belief (spiritual). B
81.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
> As is the idea that everyone is an interchangeable unit of labor, all producing the same outputs if only they were given the same inputs. Agreed. That's why I don't believe in that. And actually that's kind of what I&#x2
82.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
You know, I am not a historian. And I'm not gonna talk as if I know anything about how kings were viewed by the people. But in my mind kings can be "good" in the same way slave owners can be "good". Not that much, i
83.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
> could reduce their achievements to whatever configuration of gray matter Even if we could do that it would not "reduce" any personal value. I think these are biases you may have. Accountability can be defined, even in that to
84.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
> Is that the traditional meaning of 'great' in "great men theory"? It isn't, though I may be tangentially speaking about Great Man Theory, I wasn't focusing on it. > If so, why not just say "strong
85.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
If you were to truly do a science of people would you not take into account all of the circumstances that person was in, in order to understand them? You say: "One achieved it, but the other person in similar circumstances didn't
86.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
Yes, facts make it necessarily both. But what does that mean? What is attribution? What is ownership? How does our legal framework work? How does the media speak about reality? The reason for "great men" isn't that its true,
87.
by Atlas667 10mo ago
"Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." - Karl Marx My last few comments on this site have been precisely about these ideas. These ide
88.
by Atlas667 11mo ago
Luddism is a reaction to the current situation as it pertains to labor. Marx had this to say about it: "It took both time and experience before the workers learned to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to
89.
by Atlas667 11mo ago
I dig what you're saying... I have to quote one of my favorite thinkers here: "Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." - K. Marx Th
90.
by Atlas667 11mo ago
A bunch of anecdotal evidence follows: There's this popular notion that humans are fundamentally different beings to everything else, which I believe is just a form of narcissism. If intelligence is used to navigate the world, then it

More ›