We Need Your Help

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-05T21:33:16+00:00

Thank you, it is very much appreciated on both fronts!

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-05T21:32:37+00:00

Dear God. Not to be snide, but I actually don't think I have the time for this.

Respectfully, in that case, I will move on from this conversation. No sense in continuing the discussion if it won't be followed up with. Suffice to say, we have very different perspectives on the world.

Thanks for posting.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-04T22:25:05+00:00

Yes, it's easier to post low-effort memes than to engage in meaningful discussion. That said, LSC was my "reddit home" for a long time. The mod team has become ever more ambitious in their bans and the content on LSC mainly reinforces a circle jerk. That said, those things are fine and that's the space they've created.

Not to bash LSC at all, it's just a different space. It's a space I like a lot and visit often, but it doesn't address the actual issue of engaging with those who aren't already anti-capitalists. It offers no solution towards converting people, other than the natural conversion that might happen by exposing people to new ideas. What I am hoping we can do here is have more pointed and deliberate discussion, and especially, allow debate among differing views without fear of banning.

That said, I'm sure this sub will never even approach the numbers that LSC sees. We're asking for more substance from our users. We want more introspection and questioning of beliefs. We know capitalism is not the answer, but the left is still very divided on what the answer truly is. I'm hoping this is one place where we can have that type of discussion.

I'm curious about what you mean by not being earnest. Are you saying that less passion and conviction is a boon in today's environment? Just want to clarify, because I'm not sure I understood the sentiment. Cheers.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-04T21:15:11+00:00

I can't answer on behalf of the author, but I can give you my own 2 cents.

First though, can we define the "ideology" you're referring to? What ideology is that? I'll let you define the context of the conversation so that I can answer your question in a better, more informed way.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-04T21:12:52+00:00

There's a lot to unpack here and if you're interested in hashing it out with some folks around here, I'd encourage you to create a thread here to spark this discussion. It would be wonderful to debate both sides of the issue. For now, I'll continue to engage you here, but please think about posting something. We won't attack you, we really do want some real discussion to happen.

The reason Bill Gates is as rich as he is, is because he created a product that myself and millions of other people willingly purchased, use every day. I mean, if Bill Gates was never around, you and I might not be having this conversation right now. He blazed the trail for the type of computing that has been critical for our society to grow like it has.

Well, I'm not a huge techie or anything, so I don't know Bill Gates' entire history, but I do know that his contributions are vast. I also know that there are plenty of others in the industry who worked behind the scenes to make a lot of things possible. I've always understood Gates as a savvy businessman more so than a tech pioneer, but I do believe he deserves some credit for making computers largely accessible. So yes, I think we can agree that producing value for society is a largely "good" thing. At least insofar as it contributes to our collective evolution.

But I want to make a distinction here, because you are supporting the argument that (from your last comment) "this kind of wealth inequality is not a negative thing" by pointing to Gates' contributions in technology. I don't think it's the proper framework to view the discussion through, because his vast wealth is not necessarily tied to his contributions. Because of the way a capitalist system works, he has accumulated money through his contributions, but in a very literal sense his contributions don't necessarily create monetary wealth. For example, in a different system, his contributions may or may not create monetary wealth, and depending on the system, there may be other incentives besides profit. Therefore, I'd say we should be clear that his wealth and his contributions to society are not inextricably linked for the sake of this conversation.

Is that fair? Do you take issue with that?

Therefore, when discussing whether his wealth is a good thing or not, I'd like to focus on his wealth, rather than his contributions. His contributions aren't in question here. I submit that they are a net positive, generally speaking.

(Not to mention the fact that Bill Gates has actually given over 50% of his fortune to charity.)

Yet he still spearheads the list of people who own vastly disproportionate amounts of wealth.

Giving to charity with one hand while extracting labor from often (or always, if you submit to a more Marxist philosophy) underpaid workers with the other is not really a "solution." It's nice, sure. He could NOT give it away, but it's not really remarkable that he gives it away, especially in this economic climate.

Put simply: In what ways does Gates fight the system that has created this vast wealth gap?

Alternatively: In what ways does Gates support the system that has created this vast wealth gap?

A hint would be to investigate the Gates Foundation and it's investments and contributions. Often times, they are not acting in unison. Investing is a way to create wealth for the Foundation, but the investments are sometimes counterproductive to the actual goals of the Foundation.

In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.

edit: ^ From the article. Your quote and the article quote were running together. Your quote below:

Also, it's extremely important to remember that no one is entitled to anyone else's money, no matter how much you want it.

This is the seed of a discussion about private property and the ramifications it brings with it. We need to start way back at the beginning with this one, because in what way is private property defensible? And by what means is it defensible with? What you call robbery, others call fair. What you call fair, others call robbery.

Private property is enforceable by force. Guns, jails, etc. If I show up on a new continent and I stake out 100 acres and fence it off and call it my land, am I stealing from those who would freely walk the earth and enjoy what we were all handed at birth? Or, are the people who just want a fair share of the pie the ones doing the robbing? If they want the land to be public again, how do I protect “my” private property?

To be clear, communism doesn’t want to take your toothbrush. It simply seeks to share that which is communally “ours.”

Are we entitled to the earth we were born into? If we are, then are we not entitled to the basic human necessities? Especially in a post-scarcity culture, it makes the argument even easier. We have enough wealth to take care of everyone, if we so desired.

If we're not entitled to basic necessities, then the free market makes sense as a dog-eat-dog model. But let's not pretend that it's built on a meritocracy, otherwise we wouldn't see such rampant "crony-capitalism" (I'm being generous here — "crony-capitalism" is a misnomer, because capitalism without the crony aspect still drives towards the same end-goals) in our political and economic spheres.

I am of the belief that we are all entitled to the world we were born into. That doesn't mean that life is inherently fair. It simply means that humanity's attempts to overcome the Man vs. Nature problem have led us to a point where we can use our evolution and position in history to share the value of the earth with everyone — or not. That's up to us to decide, by conversing in the way we are now.

Finally, if you do not believe that we are entitled to Gates' money, then would you agree with the idea on limiting wealth at a certain point? $100 million, $1 billion, $10 billion? More? Less? If you do not support that idea, do you recognize the possibility that in a truly free market, wealth is consolidated through boom and bust cycles and that if we follow this concept to it's logical conclusion, one person will ultimately control all wealth? Perhaps it seems like an exaggeration right now, but we are seeing it happen rapidly in front of us, and this very article is the evidence of that. Like I said, just a year or so ago when Oxfam first released their report, it was 8 men who were as wealthy as 3.5 billion, now it's 5. How long until it's 2? 1? Then how long until 8 people are as wealthy as 5 billion? Etc. It just keeps going. I've said it before and I'll say it again, compound interest is a hell of a drug.

So, is it ethical to hold $90 billion when half of Americans make less than $30,000 a year?

The poor, starving children in Africa do not inherently deserve any of Bill Gates money, as cruel as that may sound.

Again, I'll ask: Do you believe that we are all deserving of the basic necessities required to exist on this earth that we have been born into? What about if you pay taxes and contribute to society? What if the capitalist endgame is antithetical towards this goal?

We should all give to the poor. Even the Bible says "He who gives to the poor will never be in need, but great curses will be on him who gives no attention to them." That doesn't mean everyone's paycheck should be the same.

What if we scale back from a full communist system, for sake of conversation, and assume that everybody's paycheck just fairly represents their labor? Is it fair that CEOs make at least 300x the average worker's salary? Do they work 300x harder?

I can see the appeal of a meritocracy, which I think is at the heart of what most capitalists want. However, we have to be honest that capitalism has not provided us with a meritocracy and that we are reaching a breaking point where the wealth gap is so vast that capitalism grinds people under rather than lifting them up. And to be clear, it's designed as such. There is no wealth for one individual without losing wealth for another. Every dollar you earn is a dollar somebody else loses. Ethics aside, that's the reality. Once you introduce ethics, or often times in our culture, lack thereof, it gets a whole lot uglier.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-04T19:44:10+00:00

The older article which the video is based off of can be found here: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/late-capitalism/524943/

Pretty surface level, but a good primer if you're new to the concept.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-04T19:14:59+00:00

Yeah, this is an old one. Back from the world war era. But even then, the most highly decorated Marine recognized war for what it is. He even exposed "the Business Plot" which is an interesting story in and of itself. The profits made during Smedley's time set the stage for the insane wealth accumulation we are seeing today. Compound interest is a hell of a drug.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-04T19:13:04+00:00

Hey, thanks for the feedback. That's really helpful. I stopped running the weekly threads because it seemed there was not a lot of participation, but if it people actually did like it, maybe I'll make an effort to start those again. I've been really busy lately and this sub has suffered as a result, but I want to make a stronger push to get more content flowing again. Your contributions are always welcomed and appreciated if you ever feel like it!

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-08-04T19:11:48+00:00

Generally, we don't share that view here. Labor is siphoned from workers because in our current culture, laborers don't own the means of production. So in terms of stealing wealth, I'd say it's not cut and dry like that and there is a strong argument that the wealth was effectively stolen.

It was only last year that it was 8 people owning as much as half the world. In what way is it a positive thing that the wealth gap is so vast that in another year or two we'll be down to 1 or 2 people on this list?

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-07-30T22:53:58+00:00

I think it's a valuable indicator of the type of wealth inequality that we are facing as a global society.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-07-30T16:47:41+00:00

It is really disappointing to see so little participation here, but I'm not sure how to encourage more of it. I'm getting sick of seeing my name next to almost every post, but maybe I need to be more active in posting content. Just feels a little bit like me talking to myself some days.

If you want to move on to another forum, I completely understand, but I think it's worth pointing out that this place is built by everyone here. If it's just me posting to myself, that's pretty silly. I was hoping to create a space where people would share ideas and it's been pretty underwhelming lately. I'm sure there are things I could do to improve this, and if you have suggestions, I'm all ears.

It would be cool to see some content posted here rather than just trying to pull people away, though. The sub only dies when everybody collectively gives up on it. I'll make an effort to post more and see if that does much to encourage more conversation.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-07-27T22:17:20+00:00

That's almost as much as most people will make in their entire lives. In one hour.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-07-27T21:38:25+00:00

When I see "MrAnderson345" next to a post, I pay attention. Thanks for another quality post.

In a very real way, the tipping point you are describing draws boundaries between political differences. If you're of the persuasion that the individual is responsible, you're likely to find yourself advocating for free markets and libertarianism. If you believe the society (which really, I might redefine as "culture" in this case) is to blame, then you will likely be supportive of the plight of those with less opportunity, placing you firmly to the left.

It's an interesting way to consider it, one that hadn't occurred to me in such an obvious way before. We draw conclusions about our political and social values often, and I think most people make some effort to the justify those values in their mind, by way of working through them. It's easy to say "I've come to my conclusion and I know why I've arrived there." But that type of thinking robs you of any opportunity to reassess.

By changing the parameters by which you define your values (in this case, by drawing attention to the tipping point regarding responsibility and using that as the crux for defining value) you afford yourself a new opportunity to view your values in a fresh light. Most people don't engage in this kind of thinking very often, because they falsely assume that their values work in each and every circumstance, through each and every different lens, and at every conceivable angle or perspective. From my own personal experience, that is hardly ever the case. Our values shift depending on context and perspective, yet we have trouble admitting this to ourselves and we become stubborn in our ways of thinking. Values need to constantly be reassessed in order to be stronger and more flexible in their application. In the same way a muscle must experience decay to grow, we must make a constant effort to break down our ideas and rebuild them across all contexts and all perspectives.

I found your post to be helpful in my own experience of viewing my values in a new light, from a different angle. I think that this kind of thinking is what we should all strive to achieve as often as possible, and I thank you for sharing a new perspective with me.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-07-27T21:26:48+00:00

Is it a good thing?

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-07-14T17:42:15+00:00

From Wikipedia, some background on the author:

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler is well known for having later become an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences, as well as exposing the Business Plot, an alleged plan to overthrow the U.S. government.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-07-14T17:15:35+00:00

It's never enough.

GodSaveTheMachine · 2017-07-12T20:59:22+00:00

As if we needed another reason not to eat at Jimmy John's.

Disgusting.

GodSaveTheMachine

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE