Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

More Religious Insanity From The Us Of A


Maximius

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey, we haven't been a colony since 1900, so you can kiss my shiny metal ass. :P

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O rly? 1776, BITCH!

At least the crazy religious wackos in my country aren't influential, unlike the ones in yours. ;)

 

Right, so it's better to lounge around the beach with a cocktail your whole life?

I know which one I'd prefer!

 

Seriously though, Maximius didn't say that, and it's a false dichotomy anyway.

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, we haven't been a colony since 1900, so you can kiss my shiny metal ass. :P
You're still under the Queen's rule. I still can't believe you voted against an Australian republic when you had that referndum in 1999. The Welsh fought for about 800 years for its freedom from the English Royal Family, but never got it, and you guys got a vote on it and turned it down! D'oh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, so it's better to lounge around the beach with a cocktail your whole life?

 

What, rather than giving up most of your waking life to funding some rich executive's third yacht, while he awards himself endless pay rises but claims there is not enough money to keep the grunts' salaries up with inflation? Damn bloody right it is.

 

It's just not an option that's available to most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still under the Queen's rule.

Not true. The only real power the Queen actually has is the ability to appoint the Governor-General, whose role is mostly ceremonial. She doesn't even use that power; she just appoints whoever the Prime Minister tells her to appoint.

 

I still can't believe you voted against an Australian republic when you had that referndum in 1999. The Welsh fought for about 800 years for its freedom from the English Royal Family, but never got it, and you guys got a vote on it and turned it down! D'oh!

Hey, don't blame me, I woulda voted for it... if I'd had a vote. (Actually, my region was the only region that voted for it. By "region" I mean state, except that the Australian Capital Territory is technically just a "territory", not a fully-fledged state.)

 

One of the problems the referendum had was that it only put forward one model of republicanism. Some republicans voted against the change because they preferred a different model. In effect, the vote was split.

 

It doesn't help that our PM is a staunch monarchist. His political viewpoints are all relics of the 1950s (or earlier).

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if the dichotomy is good or not, but all I meant is that to enjoy a good life people must be industrious, converting the raw natural resources around them into goods and services of a civilized lifestyle, and in return, through something called money, they'll get the fruits of other people's industriousness. Of course one can work alone, but for bigger productivity, one can save up, buy some machines, hire some labour, and have better capacity and more income, while paying the labour. The only problem that I see with it is the static nature of it. Such economic structures are established and ardently protect their interests. I must say though, it's much easier for the owner to become labour and for labour to become owner, and for the power of such economic establishments to wax and wane these days than it was before the 20th century.

 

But like most of you, I would like to see a change to a more optimal system for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to enjoy a good life people must be industrious, converting the raw natural resources around them into goods and services of a civilized lifestyle, and in return, through something called money, they'll get the fruits of other people's industriousness.

 

I reject that assumption for two reasons:

 

1. One does not have to be industrious in order to obtain money. That may be the most common method of earning a living, but there are plenty of people who have money without doing any work, and plenty of people who do lots of work and earn nothing.

2. The belief that a good life requires "the goods and services of a civilised lifestyle" is pure capitalist dogma. The world is full of people who don't have the useless trappings of Western consumerism but still have perfectly happy lives. It is true that many people choose to spend their earnings on luxury goods, but it is not a proven requirement for happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which one is Marxist?

Orb, I agree, in practice people live different lives. But imagine a closed system, filled with people and some forms of material and energy. Would you not agree that the quality of life will depend on their industriousness? and by quality of life I mean the availability of products and services that people want, such as barbering, food, toilets, pots, whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orb, I agree, in practice people live different lives. But imagine a closed system, filled with people and some forms of material and energy. Would you not agree that the quality of life will depend on their industriousness?

 

I agree that some work will be necessary, in order to provide the basics (food, water, sanitation etc) plus whatever forms of entertainment are needed to keep people from going mad through boredom. However I don't agree that (1) a specific individual's happiness will depend on that specific individual's industriousness, or (2) increasing the overall industriousness of the society will result in an overall increase in happiness, once the basic needs are met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that (1) a specific individual's happiness will depend on that specific individual's industriousness,

First, I'm not saying happiness is proportional to the amount of goods and services one receives. Then again, one is more happy knowing there's always enough food rather than knowing that 20% of the population will starve to death because of some disturbance. Likewise, the goods and services or in other words work-output allows one to enjoy such happiness-inducing activities as Thief, or opera.

That's right, some people wanting to receive more work-results than to output will through certain manipulations coerce the others and create a economically-stratified society. I do however agree with you that currently overall people are outputting disproportionately more work than receiving, or said another way, one can get what one currently gets with less work, or get more for the same amount of work, and this is largely because of the inefficiency of our society. The inefficiency is caused by natural evolution of the society, which (like any complex evolving system is liable to) settled into a higher time-differential steady-state than is optimal. However, trying to artificially remodel it to more closely comply with the ideals wafts too much of communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yours. In more detail, it would be the pro-industrialist argument, and then extending it to the anti-work ethic by noting that happiness through a lack of work (relaxation) can only occur through the hard work of others. This produces a society of the bourgeois ruling the working class. This is clearly wrong, and must be fixed.

 

To put it in your words:

 

...to enjoy a good life people must be industrious, converting the raw natural resources around them into goods and services of a civilized lifestyle, and in return, through something called money, they'll get the fruits of other people's industriousness. Of course one can work alone, but for bigger productivity, one can save up, buy some machines, hire some labour, and have better capacity and more income, while paying the labour.
First, I'm not saying happiness is proportional to the amount of goods and services one receives. Then again, one is more happy knowing there's always enough food rather than knowing that 20% of the population will starve to death because of some disturbance. Likewise, the goods and services or in other words work-output allows one to enjoy such happiness-inducing activities as Thief, or opera.
The only problem that I see with it is the static nature of it. Such economic structures are established and ardently protect their interests. I must say though, it's much easier for the owner to become labour and for labour to become owner, and for the power of such economic establishments to wax and wane these days than it was before the 20th century.
...some people wanting to receive more work-results than to output[sic] will through certain manipulations coerce the others and create a economically-stratified society. I do however agree with you that currently overall people are outputting disproportionately more work than receiving, or said another way, one can get what one currently gets with less work, or get more for the same amount of work, and this is largely because of the inefficiency of our society. The inefficiency is caused by natural evolution of the society, which (like any complex evolving system is liable to) settled into a higher time-differential steady-state than is optimal.
...like most of you, I would like to see a change to a more optimal system for everyone.

^All this actually a pretty excellent summation of the Communist Manifesto. So, when you say this:

 

However, trying to artificially remodel [society/the economy] to more closely comply with the ideals wafts too much of communism.

It's probably for a reason...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are totally misreading him, Nyar.

 

Communism may be a lot of things, but I don't think "optimal" has ever been one of them.

 

It looks like he's talking about the efficiency of production, that we can get more output (and better, contributing to more happiness) for less or equal work. That to my mind is an argument clearly in the camp of those arguing for a free market and free trade. Competition drives industry to cut costs/labor.

 

When he says "certain manipulations coerce the others and create a economically-stratified society" that leads to inefficiency, this sounds like something like aparthied South Africa, which was incredibly inefficient for production, and it was industry that was breaking the rules so it could train black labor to take on more advanced positions, rather than spending more money for whites that couldn't do much better. He's also saying that interest politics (public choice theory) is detrimental to economic efficiency ("Such economic structures are established and ardently protect their interests"), and it is. And the root of the problem for him is "the static nature of it.", i.e., a command economy (whether racist or socialist or otherwise interest-based) that can't evolve outside artificial barriers that needs to be liberalized.

 

When he says "First, I'm not saying happiness is proportional to the amount of goods and services one receives." First, it seems here he's thinking about an old argument that a downside to capitalist culture is the over-consumption and dumbing-down of culture, a fetish of commodities (a lust for more when more isn't necessarily better), and let's go ahead and throw in triumph of public stupidity (public choice theory & "no one ever lost money underestimating the stupidity of the public"), and reinforcing asymmetrical power arrangements, things that are actually detrimental to human happiness and flourishing on the whole.

 

While this is one Marxist theme, it's hardly unique to Marxism. The religious right, who may be champions of the free market for other people, for themselves detest much of the vulgarization and "unholiness" of capitalist society and take pains to sheild themselves from it, and they inevitably have a softspot about injustices because of power asymmetries (if you pay attention to the big picture). Liberatarian types or a Nietzschean that thinks people should value higher expressions of culture outside mass-culture, similarly often look down on the lamentable mass culture of stupidity that capitalism fosters, and many use the freedom of free time that more efficient production provides for them to spend their time on more uplifting things like making this mod, going to opera, helping starving kids, or writing little treatises like this.

 

I think OHB has also put his finger on the great reply of a free market to the fetish of commodities problem, and he set up the sentence as if to make just this argument. "Then again, one is more happy knowing there's always enough food rather than knowing that 20% of the population will starve to death because of some disturbance. Likewise, the goods and services or in other words work-output allows one to enjoy such happiness-inducing activities as Thief, or opera." A free market is the only way to get vital distribution information throughout the system quickly and efficiently; so it morally outweighs the alternative: People need food; a free market distributes that information much more quickly and cheaply to a self-interested capitalist that wants to give it to them (and another one giving them labor-opportunties so they can pay for it) than any bureacrat (no offense) trying to please his supervisor. And every so often, the free market lets great cultural jewels like Thief and opera pass under the radar. And OHB just worded his post as if to say that he sees these things as morally off-setting the problems with human flourishing that a free market otherwise encourages. At least, this is how I understood what he was saying.

 

So I think all-in-all OHB, although he didn't articulate it so precisely, has intuitions that fit very well with conventional liberal democratic thinking. And when he says "...like most of you, I would like to see a change to a more optimal system for everyone", like "most of us" (in my experience), his intuition about reform is also on pretty conventional liberal democratic lines.

Edited by demagogue

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres too many good points flying around so I'll hide behind some general statements for right now. And remember that although I am a student of Marx, albeit a lazy one as of late, I am no expert and many of these claims might be disputed by someone better versed than I.

 

 

1. Work is necessary to live, but its the nature, implementation, and goals of different kinds of work that can be good or bad so to speak. For example, in a communistic society, the aggregate product of society would used for the needs of society rather than today where the much of the product of society falls into the hands of a few. So for example, research and development would not be allowed to be controlled by copyright, it would be public property paid for with public funds and used to the betterment of the public, not the enrichment of the few. Everyone capable would have work, but they would see the fruit of that work returned in the form of a stable, well supported social structure. HEalth care would be free and universal, because no one would own the medical knowledge, the hospitals, and doctors would have their educations provided by the State. Examples exist around the world of this sort of activity, even here in the US. (Social security, the post office, public education) And its not utopian, as some dullards are quick to charge, it would suffer its share of problems as well, but a parasite ruling class would not be one of them.

 

And the kinds of work would change, some would disappear completely, what need would their be for marketing or advertising wonks when Pac Man style consumption is a thing of the past? Their only role now is to keep hyper consumerism alive and humming, keep people convinced that two cars must be better than one, that their old mp3 player simply must be discarded for a new one. Created consumption, fetishistic consumption. This is the real spirit of the U.S. and its wrecking the environment as quickly as it can.

 

Under capitalism, work is exploited, stolen from workers who are paid as little as the owners can afford to get away with, for the vast majority of the worlds workers its a minimal/below or barely survivable income. Now, i realize its not quite that black and white, but it tends to move towards that polarity, owners are constantly looking for ways to pay less for more, be it resources or labor, and to eventually do away with workers as much as possible. The only time it moves in the opposite direction is when the working classes begin to demand it, by striking and raising hell and all.

 

2. Marxism is not for or against industrialization any more than it is pro or contra gravity. It does take a stand against the human misery this process produces but thats more a point for the political dimension of Marxism, not the historical/economic vision of human society it proposes. People very commonly confuse the two, especially in this moralistic society in the US. Marx avoided moral questions in his historical/economic studies, rightfully seeing them as being context dependent (read historically dependent) and in general the product of religious or liberal ideologies. This is not to say there cannot be a Marxist moral /ethical code, he was just concerned with other stuff at the time.

 

Marx saw industrialization as a natural part of the process of development of society. Humans use technology, in fact they cannot live without it since the time of Australopiticus , and in time that technology develops to the point of industrialization, when the processes of production are of a national and transnational scale, mechanized, and uber-productive. Marx also believed that within this process were contradictions that would eventually grow too extreme for the old order to continue and it would collapse, ushering in the next stage of development. He believed that at some point this would lead to a socialistic society and then eventually to a communistic society, but there is a lot of debate over whether he thought it HAD to or whether he thought it merely COULD go that way.

 

3. Marxism is first and foremost a theory of history, namely the historical development of the economy of human societies. It identifies history as the history of class struggle because where ever Marx studied history he found the same thing, one group of people in a position of power dominating another group which sought to upturn that domination. This seems fairly commonsense today, thank Marx, but remember in his time there were theological, monarchial, and other fantastic theories of history. Today, we still deal with Christian historical fables, other religious horse shit, or nationalistic crap such as "America the Exceptional." Marx identified the "motor" of historical change, one group duking it out with others, so to speak.

 

Here is an excerpt from the Manifesto. Bear in mind its an old document, but it still has much relevance. Its important to remember too that Marx is no longer Marxism, there have been entire schools devoted to his theories and claims that have risen, fallen, and have risen again. It is also important to remember that Marx's thinking changed radically ^_^ over the course of his life, early Marx is in many ways quite different from later Marx. Its also important to remember that he and his collaborator Engels wrote the Manifesto at a time (1848) when the world did seem headed for a general revolution, workers were striking all over Europe, not just sit down strikes but brick tossing, property sabotaging violent strikes with armies and cannon and bloodshed. And finally, remember its a manifesto, a public statement written in broad strokes. If you want to see Marx's mind at its theoretical finest, check out the Grundrisse or Kapital.

 

"I -- BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS [1]

 

The history of all hitherto existing society [2] is the history of class struggles.

 

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master [3] and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

 

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

 

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

 

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.

 

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

 

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

 

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.

 

Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

 

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

 

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange........"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. Well for the record, I was just trying to reconstruct OHB's position based on what (I thought) he said. It didn't sound like textbook Marxism to me.

I didn't represent my own thinking so much, though, esp since I was kind of caricaturizing the arguments.

I also studied Marxism a bit, just to see if I could understand it, and have always been a little bi-curious with the left and right.

I'll see if I can put together a good response to your post that better reflects my own thinking, Max.

Edited by demagogue

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. Well for the record, I was just trying to reconstruct OHB's position based on what (I thought) he said. It didn't sound like textbook Marxism to me.

I didn't represent my own thinking so much, though, esp since I was kind of caricaturizing the arguments.

I also studied Marxism a bit, just to see if I could understand it, and have always been a little bi-curious with the left and right.

I'll see if I can put together a good response to your post that better reflects my own thinking, Max.

 

Most excellent, sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...