| In recent months, a large swath of "piracy sites" which often contained media that had no current distribution licenses or was otherwise out-of-print or unavailable in certain languages/regions, have been struck down entirely, and after that, the Internet Archive lost their lawsuit for scanning and lending their own books, which may very well cascade into everything else held in the Internet Archive. For what purpose has this been done? Because the people who "own" the intellectual properties that be despise the idea of potential lost profit. Despite numerous studies that have found that people who pirate are often the ones who also support industries anyway, these fat cats cannot stand the idea that you could view something, oftentimes that they aren't doing anything with, without paying them money. It is under this motivation of profit and eternal growth that archivists are kept from sharing the fruits of their labor. |
 Dreams are worth fighting for |
Reply to deg
the big problem i see is that too long intellectual property rights of capitalists so its the reason archiving by 3rd parties are not allowed
intellectual property rights length should at least be only 10-20 years max after 20 years max then the product will be in the public domain
intellectual property rights length should at least be only 10-20 years max after 20 years max then the product will be in the public domain
| @deg Honestly, IP is really dumb and has historically screwed over creators and only helped people who can make claims to own ideas of all things and pay lawyers to back it up. The ultimate thing that the owner class hates about creative works is that ideas have no scarcity to them. |
| Dreams are worth fighting for |
| We need reforms to keep corporations from sitting on their IPs forever. How can it be that Black Jack-one of its creator's most popular manga-has chapters that can only be read through piracy? https://tezukainenglish.com/wp/?page_id=573 The 3 "rarest" chapters all have English scanlations for the curious. But these controversial chapters are not the only ones missing from the official English edition. Who does Tezuka Pro think they are, telling us gaijin which chapters we're allowed to read? |
| その目だれの目？ |
| That's because the ruling class who own all these IPs are soulless billionaire sociopaths who would genocide a small island nation for a nickel. They see no value in things like art, because they're husks, empty shells pretending to be normal humans, and the only thing that makes them feel any joy in their nihilistic little hearts is getting more money, and money only means anything to them because poor people die without it. What I'm saying is these people are objectively evil subhuman parasites who kill everything good humanity ever produces from the top down and they need to be put in that pit from Dark Knight Rises. |
| Life is more pleasure than pain. You have meaning so long as you choose to. Everything matters to someone. |
| The OP speaks the truth. Capitalism does indeed suck for everyone except for the good-for-nothing rich, elite parasites. |
| Here is my Pixiv account of my hentai drawings..... https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/104739065 Here is my blog.... https://theendofindustrialcivilization.blogspot.com/?m=1 |
| I think the same thing is happening to all media for a while as was already happening to academic or specific texts. Even if they are difficult to find in physical form, it is almost impossible to find them in digital format because they are taken down, because those who publish them prefer to make more money by selling a few copies than letting them be available to everyone for free. The difference with ten years ago is that everyone has now realized that selling digital products is extremely simple and putting up a website where they can be sold has become inexpensive. So those who hold the rights put more pressure to fight piracy. Before they didn't seem to be interested because it was a limited phenomenon and in any case they wouldn't have had the tools to reach those who used unauthorized material, so they couldn't make money from it. Now you can sell a book or film digitally to anyone in the world and piracy takes away their possible earnings. The problem is that by shutting down sites that uploaded material without authorization, they also end up making disappear that media that would otherwise be truly unobtainable. The same thing happened in my country with anime and manga a few years ago, before no one had the rights to broadcast or print them and the autors didn't care if they were published transleted on local public forums because it wouldn't reduce their earnings anyway. Dubbing an anime to broadcast it on TV or making a DVD costs much more than streaming it with subtitles, now that paid streaming services are popular it's obvious that they don't want to see other versions online. This led the forums to close or ban this type of content in general, thus removing both those that had actually become available and also those that otherwise were not. On the one hand it sucks that so many things become difficult to find, on the other it is quite impossible for the creators of a media to give up their earnings for the common good otherwise they would end up without a roof over their heads. |
| Everything you have is thanks to government, capitalism and property rights, you whiny little ingrates. It's hilarious that people are decrying the notion of IP owners wanting to make a profit when, in this case, it involves things not even sold anymore. Without the incentive of profit, many (if not most) of these creations would have never existed in the first place, as many series, films, inventions, etc. cost millions of dollars to produce. That said, I actually think that if something is no longer being sold in the market, there should be rules in place that allow things like archival and free distribution for digital entities. Timeline_man said: Honestly, IP is really dumb and has historically screwed over creators and only helped people who can make claims to own ideas of all things and pay lawyers to back it up. Without IP, those creators would effectively be unable to create in any professional capacity to begin with. Here's a more eloquent explanation from elsewhere: "Effective protection of intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights, is an essential role of government in encouraging innovation. Innovation typically requires substantial investment in education, research and development, and labor to bring a new idea to the marketplace. If others can steal the idea once it is proven, undermining the creator’s ability to recoup the cost of his or her innovative investment, the incentive to innovate is reduced." Darklordbambi said: That's because the ruling class who own all these IPs are soulless billionaire sociopaths who would genocide a small island nation for a nickel. They see no value in things like art, because they're husks, empty shells pretending to be normal humans, and the only thing that makes them feel any joy in their nihilistic little hearts is getting more money, and money only means anything to them because poor people die without it. What I'm saying is these people are objectively evil subhuman parasites who kill everything good humanity ever produces from the top down and they need to be put in that pit from Dark Knight Rises. I hope you realize that many intellectual property owners are the original creators themselves, not just billionaires and large corporations. The movie you mentioned would also not have come into existence without IP rights. It had a production budget of 250 million. They wouldn't invest so much money into something if they could not make a return on their investment. People care about money because it enables them to accomplish things, ranging from survival to the technological advancement of civilization. DesuMaiden said: The OP speaks the truth. Capitalism does indeed suck for everyone except for the good-for-nothing rich, elite parasites. Capitalism has dramatically improved the quality of life for billions of people. |
 |
| I like my markets but even I can admit that preservation isn't profitable which is why it's usually non-profits (Internet Archive), the state (National Film Registry) or individuals who are mostly dedicated to it. Museums can be very profitable but with the amount of art that is produced in the modern world, the commoditization of art (those two are related) and intellectual property laws it just doesn't seem viable. |
| MEA·MENTVLA·INGENS·EST |
Reply to Theo1899
I like my markets but even I can admit that preservation isn't profitable which is why it's usually non-profits (Internet Archive), the state (National Film Registry) or individuals who are mostly dedicated to it.
Museums can be very profitable but with the amount of art that is produced in the modern world, the commoditization of art (those two are related) and intellectual property laws it just doesn't seem viable.
Museums can be very profitable but with the amount of art that is produced in the modern world, the commoditization of art (those two are related) and intellectual property laws it just doesn't seem viable.
| @Theo1899 I was originally very optimistic about not entering the thread but I am a big museum person so I need to. Idk where you live but here as well as in most neighboring countries I think I didn't encounter a museum that would be "very profitable". I can't even remember a museum that would make even. The only way to really make money is to do very commercial stuff aimed at children (it's a bit of a meme to make a LEGO exhibition when a museum needs money). Museums here didn't make profit in the past and now, after 1989, with concepts such as "nation" and "scientific progress" not being cool anymore, museums are resembling ghost towns. It's similar in other countries I've been to, I really don't remember going to a museum that didn't require state support |
 |
| The main problem is that piracy sites don't share any of their profits with the creators, if they did then this whole conflict probably wouldn't exist. |
No, this isn't my signature. |
| These capitalist pigs are now selling everything via DRM-based cloud services for maximum profit. Well, fuck them. I hope NTHE pwns those losers. It totally will. Then again, media preservation is pointless because we get NTHE soon enough. |
| Here is my Pixiv account of my hentai drawings..... https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/104739065 Here is my blog.... https://theendofindustrialcivilization.blogspot.com/?m=1 |
LoveYourSmile said: Why should they? Public libraries and museums don't share their profits with authors too, and there is no problem. There's only no problem because they buy the works or it already is public domain. |
No, this isn't my signature. |
| @LoveYourSmile I don't know either, but I would assume they either pay for a rental license beforehand or royalties afterwards. |
No, this isn't my signature. |
| @LoveYourSmile I guess the difference is the scale, in public libraries each book is read by maybe a few hundred people before it's removed after a long time, but on piracy sites each anime has many hundreds of thousands viewers within a short time. |
No, this isn't my signature. |
| This is true. Capitalists don't care about media preservation, they don't care about art, or human life, or any kind of life for that matter. They don't care about the very Earth they live on. Capitalists would sooner destroy the world and kill everyone on it than give a dime to a homeless child beggar. I want to create a fairer, more egalitarian future. A future where art and science have the respect they deserve (especially art), and nobody will go hungry. All suffering in the world -- racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious persecution, ageism, ableism -- all of it intersects under capitalism. To free and liberate humanity, we must bring an end to capitalism. We'll have much better media preservation then. |
 |
LoveYourSmile said: Both systems must co-exist They do, but it's not a peaceful coexistence, because pirate sites earn lots of profits with the works of others without giving them a fair share. |
No, this isn't my signature. |
| The only thing that matters to capitalism is profit. And that cloud-based service nonsense is more profitable than traditional media....even though the cloud crap is even more unsustainable and scammy. Then again, capitalism was/is always a scam, so it is no surprise that things get more and more scammy and unsustainable as time passes by. |
| Here is my Pixiv account of my hentai drawings..... https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/104739065 Here is my blog.... https://theendofindustrialcivilization.blogspot.com/?m=1 |
Purple_Gh0st24 said: This is true. Capitalists don't care about media preservation, they don't care about art, or human life, or any kind of life for that matter. They don't care about the very Earth they live on. Capitalists would sooner destroy the world and kill everyone on it than give a dime to a homeless child beggar. I want to create a fairer, more egalitarian future. A future where art and science have the respect they deserve (especially art), and nobody will go hungry. All suffering in the world -- racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious persecution, ageism, ableism -- all of it intersects under capitalism. To free and liberate humanity, we must bring an end to capitalism. We'll have much better media preservation then. Leave it to socialists and their ilk to be utterly deluded... Capitalism is the embodiment of voluntary value exchange and respect of liberty, (relatively) free markets and individual human rights, including property rights. It is the only moral socioeconomic system (in a modern society, anyway) and has resulted in unprecedented prosperity, innovation and technological advancement. It has done vastly more to reduce poverty, hunger and suffering than socialism ever could. Capitalism succeeded wildly every time it has been tried. Socialism failed miserably every time it has been tried, and is responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people. Capitalists have to care about and serve others' needs and desires, because producing value for others is how money is generated under capitalism. Capitalists are human beings, not mindless money-making machines. Sheesh. Plenty of them care about things aside from profit, including media preservation. Some people spent a small fortune on media preservation...and they made that money thanks to capitalism. Capitalists created a large portion of all entertainment media (and so on), you know. Many capitalists are artists as well. And if you make money from producing art, that makes you a capitalist too. (Private ownership of the means of production and whatnot.) The meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs (aside from the smallest ones) had the power of ten billion nuclear bombs...and the planet is just fine. The entire global nuclear arsenal is only around 12,000 warheads. Even if humanity tried to destroy the planet, they couldn't come close. (Though I'm sure they could kill most life forms on it.) But for the sake of argument, let's say they could. Well, capitalists have no incentive to destroy the world, because then they wouldn't be able to make money and enjoy life, now, would they? Try using logic next time. As for charity, that is another demonstrably false assertion. Capitalists donate hundreds of billions of dollars to charity every year. Capitalism allows people to make their own financial decisions, including charity. It's ludicrous to blame capitalism for the cultural issues you cited. There is nothing inherently racist, sexist, etc. of having the means of production held by private owners...and that certainly has nothing to do with religion. At this point you're just grasping at straws. |
SmugSatokoSep 6, 2024 10:35 AM
|
Frumptastic said: What do you think of countries like Norway that are social democracies? Because I would wager most people who call themselves socialists online are arguing for a system along those lines and not some sort of Soviet republic. Those are still capitalist market economies with social safety nets. Most nations have adopted mixed economies, after all. The majority of businesses in Norway are private. It's nothing remotely close to socialism. For all intents and purposes, socialism is (in practice) when the state owns the means of production and holds enormous power over everyone's lives. Capitalism has done some good to help people, sure, but what about the people on the bottom of the pole? The cheap goods we have in the West aren't coming from some magic well. Many capitalist businesses actually pay foreign workers more than they would normally receive from local jobs. Human beings are producing them somehow and for someone to be making a profit, those people are not being paid what they are worth by the very definition of it. Things are worth whatever the market pays for them. If you find the pay offered by an employer to be disagreeable, you are free to decline. Without profit, everything falls apart: the products and services would not exist at all. (At least not for long.) You're also ignoring the deaths caused by the drive for the dollar. We have a history of strike-breakers and Pinkertons being hired by the capitalist class to murder people in the name of a buck. There's also things like The Opium Wars where Britain literally went to war with China to force them to continue selling opium so that the British Empire could keep profiting off their suffering. What about the snake oil salesmen that were the impetus for the Food & Drug Administration? They were attempting to make money from lying to people and in many cases injuring or killing them with their patent medicine. Capitalism does not prevent crime. (Though it can reduce it by creating better living conditions.) If you are talking about governments forcing people to do things in the market, that is certainly not free market capitalism. |
|
Reply to Gween_Gween
under socialism there would be no more copyright, the art would be sanctioned by the state and billion dollar marvel movies would be considered haram, robert downey jr to the gulag
| @Gween_Gween the art would be sanctioned by the state I miss that billion dollar marvel movies would be considered haram So true! robert downey jr to the gulag SO TRUE |
|
Reply to Purple_Gh0st24
This is true. Capitalists don't care about media preservation, they don't care about art, or human life, or any kind of life for that matter. They don't care about the very Earth they live on. Capitalists would sooner destroy the world and kill everyone on it than give a dime to a homeless child beggar. I want to create a fairer, more egalitarian future. A future where art and science have the respect they deserve (especially art), and nobody will go hungry. All suffering in the world -- racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious persecution, ageism, ableism -- all of it intersects under capitalism. To free and liberate humanity, we must bring an end to capitalism. We'll have much better media preservation then.
| Here here! Free markets can work in some cases when they are well regulated, but clearly the needed regulations are lacking when a piece of media can simply disappear forever because a fat cat or two decrees it. And since capitalists will fight tooth and nail to avoid regulation (or, rather, pay others to fight tooth and nail on behalf of their lazy asses), it is definitely fair for them to take the lion's share of the blame for the lost media. @Purple_Gh0st24 Purple_Gh0st24 said: All suffering in the world -- racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious persecution, ageism, ableism -- all of it intersects under capitalism. Can I get an amen in here? Well bleepin said! Capitalist pansies will always try to divide the working class along whatever lines they can to try and conquer us all. The more restrictions we place on wealth generation, the less bigotry and more freedom all of humanity will gain! edit: I still hate this updated quote system. |
 |
Reply to SmugSatoko
Purple_Gh0st24 said:
This is true. Capitalists don't care about media preservation, they don't care about art, or human life, or any kind of life for that matter. They don't care about the very Earth they live on. Capitalists would sooner destroy the world and kill everyone on it than give a dime to a homeless child beggar. I want to create a fairer, more egalitarian future. A future where art and science have the respect they deserve (especially art), and nobody will go hungry. All suffering in the world -- racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious persecution, ageism, ableism -- all of it intersects under capitalism. To free and liberate humanity, we must bring an end to capitalism. We'll have much better media preservation then.
This is true. Capitalists don't care about media preservation, they don't care about art, or human life, or any kind of life for that matter. They don't care about the very Earth they live on. Capitalists would sooner destroy the world and kill everyone on it than give a dime to a homeless child beggar. I want to create a fairer, more egalitarian future. A future where art and science have the respect they deserve (especially art), and nobody will go hungry. All suffering in the world -- racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious persecution, ageism, ableism -- all of it intersects under capitalism. To free and liberate humanity, we must bring an end to capitalism. We'll have much better media preservation then.
Leave it to socialists and their ilk to be utterly deluded...
Capitalism is the embodiment of voluntary value exchange and respect of liberty, (relatively) free markets and individual human rights, including property rights. It is the only moral socioeconomic system (in a modern society, anyway) and has resulted in unprecedented prosperity, innovation and technological advancement. It has done vastly more to reduce poverty, hunger and suffering than socialism ever could. Capitalism succeeded wildly every time it has been tried. Socialism failed miserably every time it has been tried, and is responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people.
Capitalists have to care about and serve others' needs and desires, because producing value for others is how money is generated under capitalism.
Capitalists are human beings, not mindless money-making machines. Sheesh. Plenty of them care about things aside from profit, including media preservation. Some people spent a small fortune on media preservation...and they made that money thanks to capitalism. Capitalists created a large portion of all entertainment media (and so on), you know. Many capitalists are artists as well. And if you make money from producing art, that makes you a capitalist too. (Private ownership of the means of production and whatnot.)
The meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs (aside from the smallest ones) had the power of ten billion nuclear bombs...and the planet is just fine. The entire global nuclear arsenal is only around 12,000 warheads. Even if humanity tried to destroy the planet, they couldn't come close. (Though I'm sure they could kill most life forms on it.) But for the sake of argument, let's say they could. Well, capitalists have no incentive to destroy the world, because then they wouldn't be able to make money and enjoy life, now, would they? Try using logic next time.
As for charity, that is another demonstrably false assertion. Capitalists donate hundreds of billions of dollars to charity every year. Capitalism allows people to make their own financial decisions, including charity.
It's ludicrous to blame capitalism for the cultural issues you cited. There is nothing inherently racist, sexist, etc. of having the means of production held by private owners...and that certainly has nothing to do with religion. At this point you're just grasping at straws.
| @SmugSatoko and is responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people. Wow, it's over a 100 million now, looks like people had to start adding deaths of old age to the the number one bestest supersource, the Black Book of Communism, so the death toll can finally go over 100 million. Capitalism succeeded wildly every time it has been tried Oh maaaaa gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd |
|
| @LoveYourSmile Don't think there are any credible numbers since it's a black market, but I can't imagine they could have ever become such an incredibly comprehensive and high quality service, if they weren't highly profitable. |
No, this isn't my signature. |
KittenCuddler said: Capitalist Socialist pansies will always try to divide the working class along whatever lines they can to try and conquer us all. The more less restrictions we place on wealth generation, the less bigotry and more freedom all of humanity will gain! Fixed that for you. I just love how none of you leftist lunatics can explain how religious persecution and other nonsense is somehow inherent to capitalism. Capitalism = freedom. Socialism = tyranny. Period. Frumptastic said: How much is "many?" What percentage is this? Look it up, I guess. I don't care enough to provide exact numbers, but the phenomenon is well-known. Are we? Yes. No one forces you to work at any given company. (Under capitalism, that is.) If your job changed your pay right now to less, would you be in a position to decline it and be able to make a drastic life change? LOL @ the idea of me willingly working for someone else. Besides, I was talking about when people are first offered a job. What if the job you worked was a monopoly (or functional monopoly) in the area and your skillset does not transfer to something else available? There are countless jobs available in all sorts of industries, and you can always learn new skills. Capitalism as we recognize it is relatively new on the global scale, being a product of the Industrial Revolution, more or less. Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years longer than that. Plenty of things have and will exist without profit as a motive. Hell, the World Wide Web itself is a good example of that. People can make a profit on it but it wasn't the reason for it. We're talking about socioeconomic systems of nations, not whether some things exist without a profit motive. The point is, if you cannot make a profit, you will lose money and eventually go broke, hence no more products and services. Any exceptions would be funded by charity or the government. Those were not considered crimes at the time. Murder was not considered a crime? o.O Certainly not laissez-faire capitalism, true, but wouldn't such a need for profit still fall under the wider umbrella of capitalism? Governments can still do harmful things in a capitalist system...but those are separate from capitalism, not intrinsic to it. Commit_Crime said: Wow, it's over a 100 million now, looks like people had to start adding deaths of old age to the the number one bestest supersource, the Black Book of Communism, so the death toll can finally go over 100 million. Some estimates are in the range of nearly 150 million. Not sure where you're getting the old age metric from. Even without the genocide, you're missing the point. Socialism is a tyrannical ideology that has no place in a civilized society. Oh maaaaa gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd Wow, what a compelling argument. *rolls eyes* Here are some actual arguments, if you care to learn something for a change. |
|
| Are you for real? You actually think the cloud services is "good" for preserving information? Nevermind, that we are facing human extinction very soon. Nevermind, that digital information is extremely ephermal. |
| Here is my Pixiv account of my hentai drawings..... https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/104739065 Here is my blog.... https://theendofindustrialcivilization.blogspot.com/?m=1 |
Reply to SmugSatoko
Everything you have is thanks to government, capitalism and property rights, you whiny little ingrates.
It's hilarious that people are decrying the notion of IP owners wanting to make a profit when, in this case, it involves things not even sold anymore.
Without the incentive of profit, many (if not most) of these creations would have never existed in the first place, as many series, films, inventions, etc. cost millions of dollars to produce.
That said, I actually think that if something is no longer being sold in the market, there should be rules in place that allow things like archival and free distribution for digital entities.
Without IP, those creators would effectively be unable to create in any professional capacity to begin with.
Here's a more eloquent explanation from elsewhere:
"Effective protection of intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights, is an essential role of government in encouraging innovation. Innovation typically requires substantial investment in education, research and development, and labor to bring a new idea to the marketplace. If others can steal the idea once it is proven, undermining the creator’s ability to recoup the cost of his or her innovative investment, the incentive to innovate is reduced."
I hope you realize that many intellectual property owners are the original creators themselves, not just billionaires and large corporations.
The movie you mentioned would also not have come into existence without IP rights. It had a production budget of 250 million. They wouldn't invest so much money into something if they could not make a return on their investment.
People care about money because it enables them to accomplish things, ranging from survival to the technological advancement of civilization.
Capitalism has dramatically improved the quality of life for billions of people.
It's hilarious that people are decrying the notion of IP owners wanting to make a profit when, in this case, it involves things not even sold anymore.
Without the incentive of profit, many (if not most) of these creations would have never existed in the first place, as many series, films, inventions, etc. cost millions of dollars to produce.
That said, I actually think that if something is no longer being sold in the market, there should be rules in place that allow things like archival and free distribution for digital entities.
Timeline_man said:
Honestly, IP is really dumb and has historically screwed over creators and only helped people who can make claims to own ideas of all things and pay lawyers to back it up.
Honestly, IP is really dumb and has historically screwed over creators and only helped people who can make claims to own ideas of all things and pay lawyers to back it up.
Without IP, those creators would effectively be unable to create in any professional capacity to begin with.
Here's a more eloquent explanation from elsewhere:
"Effective protection of intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights, is an essential role of government in encouraging innovation. Innovation typically requires substantial investment in education, research and development, and labor to bring a new idea to the marketplace. If others can steal the idea once it is proven, undermining the creator’s ability to recoup the cost of his or her innovative investment, the incentive to innovate is reduced."
Darklordbambi said:
That's because the ruling class who own all these IPs are soulless billionaire sociopaths who would genocide a small island nation for a nickel.
They see no value in things like art, because they're husks, empty shells pretending to be normal humans, and the only thing that makes them feel any joy in their nihilistic little hearts is getting more money, and money only means anything to them because poor people die without it.
What I'm saying is these people are objectively evil subhuman parasites who kill everything good humanity ever produces from the top down and they need to be put in that pit from Dark Knight Rises.
That's because the ruling class who own all these IPs are soulless billionaire sociopaths who would genocide a small island nation for a nickel.
They see no value in things like art, because they're husks, empty shells pretending to be normal humans, and the only thing that makes them feel any joy in their nihilistic little hearts is getting more money, and money only means anything to them because poor people die without it.
What I'm saying is these people are objectively evil subhuman parasites who kill everything good humanity ever produces from the top down and they need to be put in that pit from Dark Knight Rises.
I hope you realize that many intellectual property owners are the original creators themselves, not just billionaires and large corporations.
The movie you mentioned would also not have come into existence without IP rights. It had a production budget of 250 million. They wouldn't invest so much money into something if they could not make a return on their investment.
People care about money because it enables them to accomplish things, ranging from survival to the technological advancement of civilization.
DesuMaiden said:
The OP speaks the truth. Capitalism does indeed suck for everyone except for the good-for-nothing rich, elite parasites.
The OP speaks the truth. Capitalism does indeed suck for everyone except for the good-for-nothing rich, elite parasites.
Capitalism has dramatically improved the quality of life for billions of people.
SmugSatoko said: this is factually and historically incorrect. We've had storytellers, philosophers, artists, etc, for thousands of years. These stories used to be shared freely between people, had new versions made, passed around more. Without IP, those creators would effectively be unable to create in any professional capacity to begin with. On the scales of legal record, it is far more numerous that in cases of IP laws and copyright cases, the rulings go in favor of corporate owners far more often than the actual creator. It's such a common story it's not even newsworthy to hear about a creator who wishes they could do something with the thing they created before, but some company owns it instead and wants an obscene fee to license it out at all, if they even allow that option at all. SmugSatoko said: this is a gross generalization that discounts the billions it has disenfranchised, such as the entire nation of Haiti, the native people of North America and Hawaii, and more. Idgaf about what capitalism or socialism does on the grand scale in this thread, I'm talking about how the owning class are actively working against cases of media preservation by attacking things like Libraries and the Internet Archive, as well as more independent Archivist work. If capitalism is freedom, when why are companies allowed to crush archivists underfoot like this?Capitalism has dramatically improved the quality of life for billions of people. |
| Dreams are worth fighting for |
Timeline_man said: this is factually and historically incorrect. We've had storytellers, philosophers, artists, etc, for thousands of years. These stories used to be shared freely between people, had new versions made, passed around more. Read it again. I said in any professional capacity. (And I was referring to the modern market.) I did not deny that people can do things for free. On the scales of legal record, it is far more numerous that in cases of IP laws and copyright cases, the rulings go in favor of corporate owners far more often than the actual creator. It's such a common story it's not even newsworthy to hear about a creator who wishes they could do something with the thing they created before, but some company owns it instead and wants an obscene fee to license it out at all, if they even allow that option at all. In those cases, they allowed their creations to be legally owned by someone else. this is a gross generalization that discounts the billions it has disenfranchised, such as the entire nation of Haiti, the native people of North America and Hawaii, and more. Idgaf about what capitalism or socialism does on the grand scale in this thread, Okay, but nothing you said here negates my statement. And it's not like a non-capitalist system would magically make culture clashes disappear. I'm talking about how the owning class are actively working against cases of media preservation by attacking things like Libraries and the Internet Archive, as well as more independent Archivist work. If capitalism is freedom, when why are companies allowed to crush archivists underfoot like this? Intellectual property incentivizes creators to innovate (such as inventing things or creating art) and protects their hard work to enable them to compete better in the market. But once it's no longer a market (ie products and services for sale) scenario, I don't think it's so much about capitalism anymore. I mean, I did specify that I think it would be better for certain things to be made freely available when they are no longer sold in the market. |
|
Reply to removed-user
@Gween_Gween Please look into the history of Soviet film if you believe this. The Soviets made some of the greatest films of all time.
| @Frumptastic i dont know why you think that i believe this is a bad thing, billion dollar marvel slop should be criminalized Commit_Crime said: Oh maaaaa gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd when capitalism fails it is not real capitalism bruh |
Reply to SmugSatoko
KittenCuddler said:
Capitalist Socialist pansies will always try to divide the working class along whatever lines they can to try and conquer us all. The more less restrictions we place on wealth generation, the less bigotry and more freedom all of humanity will gain!
Capitalist Socialist pansies will always try to divide the working class along whatever lines they can to try and conquer us all. The more less restrictions we place on wealth generation, the less bigotry and more freedom all of humanity will gain!
Fixed that for you. I just love how none of you leftist lunatics can explain how religious persecution and other nonsense is somehow inherent to capitalism.
Capitalism = freedom. Socialism = tyranny. Period.
Frumptastic said:
How much is "many?" What percentage is this?
How much is "many?" What percentage is this?
Look it up, I guess. I don't care enough to provide exact numbers, but the phenomenon is well-known.
Are we?
Yes. No one forces you to work at any given company. (Under capitalism, that is.)
If your job changed your pay right now to less, would you be in a position to decline it and be able to make a drastic life change?
LOL @ the idea of me willingly working for someone else.
Besides, I was talking about when people are first offered a job.
What if the job you worked was a monopoly (or functional monopoly) in the area and your skillset does not transfer to something else available?
There are countless jobs available in all sorts of industries, and you can always learn new skills.
Capitalism as we recognize it is relatively new on the global scale, being a product of the Industrial Revolution, more or less.
Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years longer than that.
Plenty of things have and will exist without profit as a motive. Hell, the World Wide Web itself is a good example of that. People can make a profit on it but it wasn't the reason for it.
We're talking about socioeconomic systems of nations, not whether some things exist without a profit motive.
The point is, if you cannot make a profit, you will lose money and eventually go broke, hence no more products and services. Any exceptions would be funded by charity or the government.
Those were not considered crimes at the time.
Murder was not considered a crime? o.O
Certainly not laissez-faire capitalism, true, but wouldn't such a need for profit still fall under the wider umbrella of capitalism?
Governments can still do harmful things in a capitalist system...but those are separate from capitalism, not intrinsic to it.
Commit_Crime said:
Wow, it's over a 100 million now, looks like people had to start adding deaths of old age to the the number one bestest supersource, the Black Book of Communism, so the death toll can finally go over 100 million.
Wow, it's over a 100 million now, looks like people had to start adding deaths of old age to the the number one bestest supersource, the Black Book of Communism, so the death toll can finally go over 100 million.
Some estimates are in the range of nearly 150 million. Not sure where you're getting the old age metric from.
Even without the genocide, you're missing the point. Socialism is a tyrannical ideology that has no place in a civilized society.
Oh maaaaa gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd
Wow, what a compelling argument. *rolls eyes*
Here are some actual arguments, if you care to learn something for a change.
| @SmugSatoko 100 million is blatantly false. If you want to discuss your sources for that, I am open to listen. Whatever source you decide to use, make sure it separates each regime and then it adds them together for a final number. I am willing to take a look at a death toll of some of them as I don't think neither of us has the time to sit through comparing the claim vs reality of each of the states. I am more than willing to look at USSR and (if it is present in the source) ČSSR. But I can do China too, especially if it claims 150 million. I never imagined something would top the Black Book but I guess Americans started adding deaths of old age to the death count |
|
Reply to Gween_Gween
@Frumptastic i dont know why you think that i believe this is a bad thing, billion dollar marvel slop should be criminalized
when capitalism fails it is not real capitalism bruh
Commit_Crime said:
Oh maaaaa gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd
Oh maaaaa gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd
when capitalism fails it is not real capitalism bruh
| @Gween_Gween when capitalism fails it is not real capitalism bruh damn I was about to write that! i dont know why you think that i believe this is a bad thing, billion dollar marvel slop should be criminalized engineers, miners, soldiers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>superheroes |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
Everything you have is thanks to government, capitalism and property rights, you whiny little ingrates.
It's hilarious that people are decrying the notion of IP owners wanting to make a profit when, in this case, it involves things not even sold anymore.
Without the incentive of profit, many (if not most) of these creations would have never existed in the first place, as many series, films, inventions, etc. cost millions of dollars to produce.
That said, I actually think that if something is no longer being sold in the market, there should be rules in place that allow things like archival and free distribution for digital entities.
Without IP, those creators would effectively be unable to create in any professional capacity to begin with.
Here's a more eloquent explanation from elsewhere:
"Effective protection of intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights, is an essential role of government in encouraging innovation. Innovation typically requires substantial investment in education, research and development, and labor to bring a new idea to the marketplace. If others can steal the idea once it is proven, undermining the creator’s ability to recoup the cost of his or her innovative investment, the incentive to innovate is reduced."
I hope you realize that many intellectual property owners are the original creators themselves, not just billionaires and large corporations.
The movie you mentioned would also not have come into existence without IP rights. It had a production budget of 250 million. They wouldn't invest so much money into something if they could not make a return on their investment.
People care about money because it enables them to accomplish things, ranging from survival to the technological advancement of civilization.
Capitalism has dramatically improved the quality of life for billions of people.
It's hilarious that people are decrying the notion of IP owners wanting to make a profit when, in this case, it involves things not even sold anymore.
Without the incentive of profit, many (if not most) of these creations would have never existed in the first place, as many series, films, inventions, etc. cost millions of dollars to produce.
That said, I actually think that if something is no longer being sold in the market, there should be rules in place that allow things like archival and free distribution for digital entities.
Timeline_man said:
Honestly, IP is really dumb and has historically screwed over creators and only helped people who can make claims to own ideas of all things and pay lawyers to back it up.
Honestly, IP is really dumb and has historically screwed over creators and only helped people who can make claims to own ideas of all things and pay lawyers to back it up.
Without IP, those creators would effectively be unable to create in any professional capacity to begin with.
Here's a more eloquent explanation from elsewhere:
"Effective protection of intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights, is an essential role of government in encouraging innovation. Innovation typically requires substantial investment in education, research and development, and labor to bring a new idea to the marketplace. If others can steal the idea once it is proven, undermining the creator’s ability to recoup the cost of his or her innovative investment, the incentive to innovate is reduced."
Darklordbambi said:
That's because the ruling class who own all these IPs are soulless billionaire sociopaths who would genocide a small island nation for a nickel.
They see no value in things like art, because they're husks, empty shells pretending to be normal humans, and the only thing that makes them feel any joy in their nihilistic little hearts is getting more money, and money only means anything to them because poor people die without it.
What I'm saying is these people are objectively evil subhuman parasites who kill everything good humanity ever produces from the top down and they need to be put in that pit from Dark Knight Rises.
That's because the ruling class who own all these IPs are soulless billionaire sociopaths who would genocide a small island nation for a nickel.
They see no value in things like art, because they're husks, empty shells pretending to be normal humans, and the only thing that makes them feel any joy in their nihilistic little hearts is getting more money, and money only means anything to them because poor people die without it.
What I'm saying is these people are objectively evil subhuman parasites who kill everything good humanity ever produces from the top down and they need to be put in that pit from Dark Knight Rises.
I hope you realize that many intellectual property owners are the original creators themselves, not just billionaires and large corporations.
The movie you mentioned would also not have come into existence without IP rights. It had a production budget of 250 million. They wouldn't invest so much money into something if they could not make a return on their investment.
People care about money because it enables them to accomplish things, ranging from survival to the technological advancement of civilization.
DesuMaiden said:
The OP speaks the truth. Capitalism does indeed suck for everyone except for the good-for-nothing rich, elite parasites.
The OP speaks the truth. Capitalism does indeed suck for everyone except for the good-for-nothing rich, elite parasites.
Capitalism has dramatically improved the quality of life for billions of people.
| @SmugSatoko Let me address your arguments by paragraph; 1. Yeah duh, but these people aren't the ones issuing mass takedowns. They often lack the power to even protect their own copyright. 2. No duh, I literally smelled this argument coming when I made my post. This is just "you critique society yet you participate in society" with extra steps. 3. Again, there's a difference between the average working class person pursuing money to survive economically and billionaire CEOs hoarding wealth they will never spend or put back into society because they're psychotic. Not to mention if this is meant as a defense of capitalism, it doesn't really work. Feudalism and slavery advanced civilization, it doesn't mean we should have been thankful and kept that system. Throughout history we find slightly less flawed systems to keep the world functioning, and we should continue that history of societal progression. |
| Life is more pleasure than pain. You have meaning so long as you choose to. Everything matters to someone. |
Frumptastic said: Capitalism is a very specific form of economics and is very new. Money and profit? Yeah, those existed but those are not synonyms for capitalism. Not nearly as new as you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism These two statements do not go together. If you're making things or providing a service without the desire for profit, how can you say it's required? I meant that if you try to run a business without making a profit, and you don't have the funds to continue investing in the business, then you will go broke and no longer be able to run the business. (Unless you're one of the lucky ones who runs a business that doesn't require monetary investment.) I didn't mean that people can't do things for free if they want to. What about a hypothetical situation where someone provides a service and the charge only covers their costs? Will that person go broke then? If they only break even, then they have no more money than when they began, limiting their ability to reinvest to continue the business. It's possible to just stay even without really making money, but not many want to do that, and in many cases, they wouldn't be able to pay their bills if they weren't making a profit. There are also other economic systems such as a barter system that don't rely on profits. Yeah, but we're talking about running businesses here. Bartering tends to involve private individuals trading things for personal use. It can't be that well-known. I've been reading this stuff for a very long time and I've never seen it before. I'm surprised you never encountered such basic information. There are plenty of areas in the world where the local jobs barely pay anything at all...and when a capitalist foreign business comes in, it's not uncommon for them to pay more than that. (Even if it would be seen as a low amount compared to a first world nation.) Legally? Sure. Practically? Coercion exists and is very effective. If you choose to work for a company, that is your choice; same goes for if you decline and seek work elsewhere. It is voluntary, not coercion. Socialist regimes, on the other hand, have literally forced people (at gunpoint) to do the work they commanded. In some strike-breaking cases? Not legally murder. Just like how some states have recently tried to make it legal to hit protesters on roads with a car. Well, governments can generally get away with more than private businesses can. These videos are quite bad, sorry. The short one jumps from point to point, making declarative statements without any sort of evidence for the claims. There's literally no argument there, just a series of statements. So he quotes Alexis de Tocqueville but so what? Would you be convinced by a video if I just tossed in a Eugene V Debs quote? Both videos constantly assume that socialism requires a dictator too, which is false. Think about The People, as in everyone in a country, owning the means of production. Voting on what to do with these means is entirely valid, no? It's like shareholders in a company, I suppose. And then that example about putting railroad through a mountain versus going around it makes no sense. It seems to be assuming that people don't keep track of how much or how hard it is to get material? Knowing how much time and effort it is going to take to construct something is knowable. Data doesn't just... disappear. Do you identify as a socialist, then? Saying "the people" own the means of production in socialism is nonsense. What actually happens is that the state ends up owning it. And when the government owns and controls all that, you lose your rights and your freedom. (And no, stealing other people's property is not valid.) Just look at the disastrous track record of socialism and communism. No rational person could ever support something so insane. Only totalitarian pieces of shit advocate leftist lunacy. What he said in the first video is accurate. It's your problem if you are unable to understand it...or if you think someone needs to prove every single statement they make, even when it's already been proven. I should have linked this one instead, though, as it explains it better. And another for good measure, since you're being stubborn. hehe Commit_Crime said: 100 million is blatantly false. If you want to discuss your sources for that, I am open to listen. Whatever source you decide to use, make sure it separates each regime and then it adds them together for a final number. I am willing to take a look at a death toll of some of them as I don't think neither of us has the time to sit through comparing the claim vs reality of each of the states. I am more than willing to look at USSR and (if it is present in the source) ČSSR. But I can do China too, especially if it claims 150 million. I never imagined something would top the Black Book but I guess Americans started adding deaths of old age to the death count So "only" killing tens of millions (or a few million) is morally acceptable to you, apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes Darklordbambi said: Again, there's a difference between the average working class person pursuing money to survive economically and billionaire CEOs hoarding wealth they will never spend or put back into society because they're psychotic. Most billionaires invest their money into businesses and so on, which benefits people all over the world. Not to mention if this is meant as a defense of capitalism, it doesn't really work. Feudalism and slavery advanced civilization, it doesn't mean we should have been thankful and kept that system. Throughout history we find slightly less flawed systems to keep the world functioning, and we should continue that history of societal progression. Show me the results of a "better" system than capitalism. |
SmugSatokoSep 6, 2024 3:11 PM
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
Frumptastic said:
Capitalism is a very specific form of economics and is very new. Money and profit? Yeah, those existed but those are not synonyms for capitalism.
Capitalism is a very specific form of economics and is very new. Money and profit? Yeah, those existed but those are not synonyms for capitalism.
Not nearly as new as you think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism
These two statements do not go together. If you're making things or providing a service without the desire for profit, how can you say it's required?
I meant that if you try to run a business without making a profit, and you don't have the funds to continue investing in the business, then you will go broke and no longer be able to run the business. (Unless you're one of the lucky ones who runs a business that doesn't require monetary investment.) I didn't mean that people can't do things for free if they want to.
What about a hypothetical situation where someone provides a service and the charge only covers their costs? Will that person go broke then?
If they only break even, then they have no more money than when they began, limiting their ability to reinvest to continue the business. It's possible to just stay even without really making money, but not many want to do that, and in many cases, they wouldn't be able to pay their bills if they weren't making a profit.
There are also other economic systems such as a barter system that don't rely on profits.
Yeah, but we're talking about running businesses here. Bartering tends to involve private individuals trading things for personal use.
It can't be that well-known. I've been reading this stuff for a very long time and I've never seen it before.
I'm surprised you never encountered such basic information. There are plenty of areas in the world where the local jobs barely pay anything at all...and when a capitalist foreign business comes in, it's not uncommon for them to pay more than that. (Even if it would be seen as a low amount compared to a first world nation.)
Legally? Sure. Practically? Coercion exists and is very effective.
If you choose to work for a company, that is your choice; same goes for if you decline and seek work elsewhere. It is voluntary, not coercion.
Socialist regimes, on the other hand, have literally forced people (at gunpoint) to do the work they commanded.
In some strike-breaking cases? Not legally murder. Just like how some states have recently tried to make it legal to hit protesters on roads with a car.
Well, governments can generally get away with more than private businesses can.
These videos are quite bad, sorry. The short one jumps from point to point, making declarative statements without any sort of evidence for the claims. There's literally no argument there, just a series of statements. So he quotes Alexis de Tocqueville but so what? Would you be convinced by a video if I just tossed in a Eugene V Debs quote? Both videos constantly assume that socialism requires a dictator too, which is false. Think about The People, as in everyone in a country, owning the means of production. Voting on what to do with these means is entirely valid, no? It's like shareholders in a company, I suppose.
And then that example about putting railroad through a mountain versus going around it makes no sense. It seems to be assuming that people don't keep track of how much or how hard it is to get material? Knowing how much time and effort it is going to take to construct something is knowable. Data doesn't just... disappear.
And then that example about putting railroad through a mountain versus going around it makes no sense. It seems to be assuming that people don't keep track of how much or how hard it is to get material? Knowing how much time and effort it is going to take to construct something is knowable. Data doesn't just... disappear.
Do you identify as a socialist, then?
Saying "the people" own the means of production in socialism is nonsense. What actually happens is that the state ends up owning it. And when the government owns and controls all that, you lose your rights and your freedom. (And no, stealing other people's property is not valid.) Just look at the disastrous track record of socialism and communism. No rational person could ever support something so insane. Only totalitarian pieces of shit advocate leftist lunacy.
What he said in the first video is accurate. It's your problem if you are unable to understand it...or if you think someone needs to prove every single statement they make, even when it's already been proven. I should have linked this one instead, though, as it explains it better. And another for good measure, since you're being stubborn. hehe
Commit_Crime said:
100 million is blatantly false. If you want to discuss your sources for that, I am open to listen.
Whatever source you decide to use, make sure it separates each regime and then it adds them together for a final number. I am willing to take a look at a death toll of some of them as I don't think neither of us has the time to sit through comparing the claim vs reality of each of the states. I am more than willing to look at USSR and (if it is present in the source) ČSSR. But I can do China too, especially if it claims 150 million. I never imagined something would top the Black Book but I guess Americans started adding deaths of old age to the death count
100 million is blatantly false. If you want to discuss your sources for that, I am open to listen.
Whatever source you decide to use, make sure it separates each regime and then it adds them together for a final number. I am willing to take a look at a death toll of some of them as I don't think neither of us has the time to sit through comparing the claim vs reality of each of the states. I am more than willing to look at USSR and (if it is present in the source) ČSSR. But I can do China too, especially if it claims 150 million. I never imagined something would top the Black Book but I guess Americans started adding deaths of old age to the death count
So "only" killing tens of millions (or a few million) is morally acceptable to you, apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
Darklordbambi said:
Again, there's a difference between the average working class person pursuing money to survive economically and billionaire CEOs hoarding wealth they will never spend or put back into society because they're psychotic.
Again, there's a difference between the average working class person pursuing money to survive economically and billionaire CEOs hoarding wealth they will never spend or put back into society because they're psychotic.
Most billionaires invest their money into businesses and so on, which benefits people all over the world.
Not to mention if this is meant as a defense of capitalism, it doesn't really work. Feudalism and slavery advanced civilization, it doesn't mean we should have been thankful and kept that system. Throughout history we find slightly less flawed systems to keep the world functioning, and we should continue that history of societal progression.
Show me the results of a "better" system than capitalism.
| @SmugSatoko I have asked you to give sources regarding your made up numbers of 100+ million, you didn't give me those, that's because even the most popular anti-communist source, the Black Book, claims lower and that is a source which is not respected anywhere in academia. Morally acceptable? Once again, let's talk about specifics. If you don't know where to start, then let's start with the Soviet Union. Were the many terrible terrible deaths, way more than a million of people that died as result of centrally planned forced industrialization morally acceptable? No, they were preventable and were a result of mistakes in the planning. However, without that same exact policy, without those five year plans, the USSR would not industrialize. And without sufficient heavy industry, the USSR had no chance to outproduce and eventually defeat Germany. Furthermore, after the famines caused by WW2, famines on a large scale stopped being a thing in the Union. I am glad I live in a timeline in which this policy was put into practice considering the alternative of a Europe under Nazi control. And no, there is no example at which industrialization on such a massive scale went on in such a short period of time under capitalism. |
|
SmugSatoko said: "allowed"... If you truly think that those sort of decisions were made without factors of coersion, you're an idiot. Artists trying to get their start are most desperate and willing to take a bad deal, and once they're stuck in a bad deal, the current systems make it incredibly difficult to get out of itIn those cases, they allowed their creations to be legally owned by someone else. SmugSatoko said: This exactly the kind of thing Corporate owner-types don't want. Using Video games as an example, Nintendo, Sony, Sega, and all of those giants are incentivized to, even if they aren't actively doing anything with an IP, sit on their IPs for the event that they could eventually maybe do some sort of re-release on newer hardware. They have a monetary incentive to behave in that way, to send Cease & Desists over emulators for 3 generations out-of-date consoles and striking down fangames. These are features, not bugs, of the system of Capitalism. It's why DIsney has the vault, where they purposely keep their stuff out of print for up to 20 years at a time.I think it would be better for certain things to be made freely available when they are no longer sold in the market. in the digital age, many of the best things we've had were create in spite of this system, not because of it. Most programs today are still built on Open-Source projects, because in an environment without scarcity, it's the most logical course of action to share freely |
| Dreams are worth fighting for |
Commit_Crime said: I have asked you to give sources regarding your made up numbers of 100+ million, you didn't give me those, that's because even the most popular anti-communist source, the Black Book, claims lower and that is a source which is not respected anywhere in academia. I literally posted a link with tons of info... Morally acceptable? Once again, let's talk about specifics. Oh, okay. So according to you, sometimes killing millions of people is acceptable. Good to know. If you don't know where to start, then let's start with the Soviet Union. Were the many terrible terrible deaths, way more than a million of people that died as result of centrally planned forced industrialization morally acceptable? No, they were preventable and were a result of mistakes in the planning. However, without that same exact policy, without those five year plans, the USSR would not industrialize. And without sufficient heavy industry, the USSR had no chance to outproduce and eventually defeat Germany. Furthermore, after the famines caused by WW2, famines on a large scale stopped being a thing in the Union. I am glad I live in a timeline in which this policy was put into practice considering the alternative of a Europe under Nazi control. Now you're just speculating on history and politics. You may have had a better case if the Allies did not also defeat Nazi Germany...but nothing you said defends socialism or communism on its own merit. And no, there is no example at which industrialization on such a massive scale went on in such a short period of time under capitalism. Not a particularly strong selling point, I must say. Imagine bragging about building a war machine to be as destructive as possible in the shortest time possible and thinking that justifies anything. Frumptastic said: Look up the Kentucky coal strikes. That does not appear to involve forcing people to work at a company or in a specific profession. As far as I can tell, they could simply walk away and not continue working there. No. It would help if you elucidated your standpoint. I mean... no? You're just stating things as if they are facts without evidence. Keep telling yourself that. If the state is made of people and people make the decisions with voting, how is that losing rights? If you believe this statement you made, then you don't believe in democracy. Is it impossible for a corporation to own anything or do anything because of shareholders? Socialist states were (and always are) collectivist and authoritarian, far from democratic, and dictated people's lives to an extreme extent. Also, I live in Alabama, so I see the remnants of the disastrous track record of capitalism and the African Slave Trade. Capitalism really made those people's lives better, huh? Capitalism advocates liberty, not slavery. If your assessment of the causes of poverty and so on in Alabama is "hurr durr capitalism bad", I would urge you to conduct more research, starting with a quick Google search that can show you a list of factors. Why is it that everything bad that happens under a socialist government is a failure of socialism but nothing bad that happens under capitalism can be connected to it? For one, socialism actively opposes individual freedom and property rights. I never claimed capitalism is flawless, but it's a hell of a lot better. To those who wish to blame capitalism itself for any number of problems: the burden of proof is on you. Also, I never called you a piece of shit, so maybe tone that down? I realize you're lashing out because you've never received pushback on your worldview before but it's a little silly. I vehemently stand by my declaration toward socialists and other leftists, with that exact wording. (Even those who aren't smart enough to comprehend how dangerously anti-liberty their views are.) Nothin' personal. It's amusing that you think I've "never received pushback on my worldview before." I hope you're young and can grow out of this worldview. I used to be sympathetic towards libertarian arguments when I was like 19 but it didn't take me long to realize that billionaires are not my friend once I was out on my own. I hope the same happens to you someday. I'm in my late 30s, kiddo. You've got a lot to learn. I got fooled into being a leftist before...but never again. Timeline_man said: If you truly think that those sort of decisions were made without factors of coersion, you're an idiot. Artists trying to get their start are most desperate and willing to take a bad deal, and once they're stuck in a bad deal, the current systems make it incredibly difficult to get out of it It's still their responsibility for accepting such a deal. Fortunately, it's easier nowadays to self-release or start your own record label and such, to use the music industry as an example. This exactly the kind of thing Corporate owner-types don't want. Using Video games as an example, Nintendo, Sony, Sega, and all of those giants are incentivized to, even if they aren't actively doing anything with an IP, sit on their IPs for the event that they could eventually maybe do some sort of re-release on newer hardware. They have a monetary incentive to behave in that way, to send Cease & Desists over emulators for 3 generations out-of-date consoles and striking down fangames. These are features, not bugs, of the system of Capitalism. It's why DIsney has the vault, where they purposely keep their stuff out of print for up to 20 years at a time. Oh, so you are arguing against capitalism? What, pray tell, do you suggest as an alternative? By the way, some proponents of capitalism, free markets and the like oppose intellectual property rights altogether. I support IP to an extent, but in some cases believe items no longer for sale should be able to be archived and distributed. So I wouldn't say IP is a defining component of capitalism. in the digital age, many of the best things we've had were create in spite of this system, not because of it. Most programs today are still built on Open-Source projects, because in an environment without scarcity, it's the most logical course of action to share freely I freaking love open source software. |
SmugSatokoSep 6, 2024 4:46 PM
|
SmugSatoko said: My hope would be a moneyless, luxury space super-communism where we have robots to do all the basic survival tasks and humans get to pursue art, science, philosophy, and sports all the time, but that's a long way off, so I think my more reasonable aim is something like social democracy, where a certain survivable quality of life is guaranteed to everyone, and the element of capitalism is to aim above that minimum for yourself, or something to that effect. Oh, so you are arguing against capitalism? What, pray tell, do you suggest as an alternative? |
| Dreams are worth fighting for |
Timeline_man said: My hope would be a moneyless, luxury space super-communism where we have robots to do all the basic survival tasks and humans get to pursue art, science, philosophy, and sports all the time, but that's a long way off, so I think my more reasonable aim is something like social democracy, where a certain survivable quality of life is guaranteed to everyone, and the element of capitalism is to aim above that minimum for yourself, or something to that effect. Sounds nice. The issue is getting there and what sacrifices are made in the process. |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
Commit_Crime said:
I have asked you to give sources regarding your made up numbers of 100+ million, you didn't give me those, that's because even the most popular anti-communist source, the Black Book, claims lower and that is a source which is not respected anywhere in academia.
I have asked you to give sources regarding your made up numbers of 100+ million, you didn't give me those, that's because even the most popular anti-communist source, the Black Book, claims lower and that is a source which is not respected anywhere in academia.
I literally posted a link with tons of info...
Morally acceptable? Once again, let's talk about specifics.
Oh, okay. So according to you, sometimes killing millions of people is acceptable. Good to know.
If you don't know where to start, then let's start with the Soviet Union.
Were the many terrible terrible deaths, way more than a million of people that died as result of centrally planned forced industrialization morally acceptable? No, they were preventable and were a result of mistakes in the planning. However, without that same exact policy, without those five year plans, the USSR would not industrialize. And without sufficient heavy industry, the USSR had no chance to outproduce and eventually defeat Germany. Furthermore, after the famines caused by WW2, famines on a large scale stopped being a thing in the Union. I am glad I live in a timeline in which this policy was put into practice considering the alternative of a Europe under Nazi control.
Were the many terrible terrible deaths, way more than a million of people that died as result of centrally planned forced industrialization morally acceptable? No, they were preventable and were a result of mistakes in the planning. However, without that same exact policy, without those five year plans, the USSR would not industrialize. And without sufficient heavy industry, the USSR had no chance to outproduce and eventually defeat Germany. Furthermore, after the famines caused by WW2, famines on a large scale stopped being a thing in the Union. I am glad I live in a timeline in which this policy was put into practice considering the alternative of a Europe under Nazi control.
Now you're just speculating on history and politics. You may have had a better case if the Allies did not also defeat Nazi Germany...but nothing you said defends socialism or communism on its own merit.
And no, there is no example at which industrialization on such a massive scale went on in such a short period of time under capitalism.
Not a particularly strong selling point, I must say. Imagine bragging about building a war machine to be as destructive as possible in the shortest time possible and thinking that justifies anything.
Frumptastic said:
Look up the Kentucky coal strikes.
Look up the Kentucky coal strikes.
That does not appear to involve forcing people to work at a company or in a specific profession. As far as I can tell, they could simply walk away and not continue working there.
No.
It would help if you elucidated your standpoint.
I mean... no? You're just stating things as if they are facts without evidence.
Keep telling yourself that.
If the state is made of people and people make the decisions with voting, how is that losing rights? If you believe this statement you made, then you don't believe in democracy. Is it impossible for a corporation to own anything or do anything because of shareholders?
Socialist states were (and always are) collectivist and authoritarian, far from democratic, and dictated people's lives to an extreme extent.
Also, I live in Alabama, so I see the remnants of the disastrous track record of capitalism and the African Slave Trade. Capitalism really made those people's lives better, huh?
Capitalism advocates liberty, not slavery.
If your assessment of the causes of poverty and so on in Alabama is "hurr durr capitalism bad", I would urge you to conduct more research, starting with a quick Google search that can show you a list of factors.
Why is it that everything bad that happens under a socialist government is a failure of socialism but nothing bad that happens under capitalism can be connected to it?
For one, socialism actively opposes individual freedom and property rights.
I never claimed capitalism is flawless, but it's a hell of a lot better. To those who wish to blame capitalism itself for any number of problems: the burden of proof is on you.
Also, I never called you a piece of shit, so maybe tone that down? I realize you're lashing out because you've never received pushback on your worldview before but it's a little silly.
I vehemently stand by my declaration toward socialists and other leftists, with that exact wording. (Even those who aren't smart enough to comprehend how dangerously anti-liberty their views are.) Nothin' personal.
It's amusing that you think I've "never received pushback on my worldview before."
I hope you're young and can grow out of this worldview. I used to be sympathetic towards libertarian arguments when I was like 19 but it didn't take me long to realize that billionaires are not my friend once I was out on my own. I hope the same happens to you someday.
I'm in my late 30s, kiddo. You've got a lot to learn.
I got fooled into being a leftist before...but never again.
Timeline_man said:
If you truly think that those sort of decisions were made without factors of coersion, you're an idiot. Artists trying to get their start are most desperate and willing to take a bad deal, and once they're stuck in a bad deal, the current systems make it incredibly difficult to get out of it
If you truly think that those sort of decisions were made without factors of coersion, you're an idiot. Artists trying to get their start are most desperate and willing to take a bad deal, and once they're stuck in a bad deal, the current systems make it incredibly difficult to get out of it
It's still their responsibility for accepting such a deal.
Fortunately, it's easier nowadays to self-release or start your own record label and such, to use the music industry as an example.
This exactly the kind of thing Corporate owner-types don't want. Using Video games as an example, Nintendo, Sony, Sega, and all of those giants are incentivized to, even if they aren't actively doing anything with an IP, sit on their IPs for the event that they could eventually maybe do some sort of re-release on newer hardware. They have a monetary incentive to behave in that way, to send Cease & Desists over emulators for 3 generations out-of-date consoles and striking down fangames. These are features, not bugs, of the system of Capitalism. It's why DIsney has the vault, where they purposely keep their stuff out of print for up to 20 years at a time.
Oh, so you are arguing against capitalism? What, pray tell, do you suggest as an alternative?
By the way, some proponents of capitalism, free markets and the like oppose intellectual property rights altogether. I support IP to an extent, but in some cases believe items no longer for sale should be able to be archived and distributed. So I wouldn't say IP is a defining component of capitalism.
in the digital age, many of the best things we've had were create in spite of this system, not because of it. Most programs today are still built on Open-Source projects, because in an environment without scarcity, it's the most logical course of action to share freely
I freaking love open source software.
...so am I. Holy shit, you post like a teenager. That's... so sad. Like I think I can just write you off now because you seriously do not know what you're talking about.  |
removed-userSep 6, 2024 5:15 PM
Reply to SmugSatoko
Commit_Crime said:
I have asked you to give sources regarding your made up numbers of 100+ million, you didn't give me those, that's because even the most popular anti-communist source, the Black Book, claims lower and that is a source which is not respected anywhere in academia.
I have asked you to give sources regarding your made up numbers of 100+ million, you didn't give me those, that's because even the most popular anti-communist source, the Black Book, claims lower and that is a source which is not respected anywhere in academia.
I literally posted a link with tons of info...
Morally acceptable? Once again, let's talk about specifics.
Oh, okay. So according to you, sometimes killing millions of people is acceptable. Good to know.
If you don't know where to start, then let's start with the Soviet Union.
Were the many terrible terrible deaths, way more than a million of people that died as result of centrally planned forced industrialization morally acceptable? No, they were preventable and were a result of mistakes in the planning. However, without that same exact policy, without those five year plans, the USSR would not industrialize. And without sufficient heavy industry, the USSR had no chance to outproduce and eventually defeat Germany. Furthermore, after the famines caused by WW2, famines on a large scale stopped being a thing in the Union. I am glad I live in a timeline in which this policy was put into practice considering the alternative of a Europe under Nazi control.
Were the many terrible terrible deaths, way more than a million of people that died as result of centrally planned forced industrialization morally acceptable? No, they were preventable and were a result of mistakes in the planning. However, without that same exact policy, without those five year plans, the USSR would not industrialize. And without sufficient heavy industry, the USSR had no chance to outproduce and eventually defeat Germany. Furthermore, after the famines caused by WW2, famines on a large scale stopped being a thing in the Union. I am glad I live in a timeline in which this policy was put into practice considering the alternative of a Europe under Nazi control.
Now you're just speculating on history and politics. You may have had a better case if the Allies did not also defeat Nazi Germany...but nothing you said defends socialism or communism on its own merit.
And no, there is no example at which industrialization on such a massive scale went on in such a short period of time under capitalism.
Not a particularly strong selling point, I must say. Imagine bragging about building a war machine to be as destructive as possible in the shortest time possible and thinking that justifies anything.
Frumptastic said:
Look up the Kentucky coal strikes.
Look up the Kentucky coal strikes.
That does not appear to involve forcing people to work at a company or in a specific profession. As far as I can tell, they could simply walk away and not continue working there.
No.
It would help if you elucidated your standpoint.
I mean... no? You're just stating things as if they are facts without evidence.
Keep telling yourself that.
If the state is made of people and people make the decisions with voting, how is that losing rights? If you believe this statement you made, then you don't believe in democracy. Is it impossible for a corporation to own anything or do anything because of shareholders?
Socialist states were (and always are) collectivist and authoritarian, far from democratic, and dictated people's lives to an extreme extent.
Also, I live in Alabama, so I see the remnants of the disastrous track record of capitalism and the African Slave Trade. Capitalism really made those people's lives better, huh?
Capitalism advocates liberty, not slavery.
If your assessment of the causes of poverty and so on in Alabama is "hurr durr capitalism bad", I would urge you to conduct more research, starting with a quick Google search that can show you a list of factors.
Why is it that everything bad that happens under a socialist government is a failure of socialism but nothing bad that happens under capitalism can be connected to it?
For one, socialism actively opposes individual freedom and property rights.
I never claimed capitalism is flawless, but it's a hell of a lot better. To those who wish to blame capitalism itself for any number of problems: the burden of proof is on you.
Also, I never called you a piece of shit, so maybe tone that down? I realize you're lashing out because you've never received pushback on your worldview before but it's a little silly.
I vehemently stand by my declaration toward socialists and other leftists, with that exact wording. (Even those who aren't smart enough to comprehend how dangerously anti-liberty their views are.) Nothin' personal.
It's amusing that you think I've "never received pushback on my worldview before."
I hope you're young and can grow out of this worldview. I used to be sympathetic towards libertarian arguments when I was like 19 but it didn't take me long to realize that billionaires are not my friend once I was out on my own. I hope the same happens to you someday.
I'm in my late 30s, kiddo. You've got a lot to learn.
I got fooled into being a leftist before...but never again.
Timeline_man said:
If you truly think that those sort of decisions were made without factors of coersion, you're an idiot. Artists trying to get their start are most desperate and willing to take a bad deal, and once they're stuck in a bad deal, the current systems make it incredibly difficult to get out of it
If you truly think that those sort of decisions were made without factors of coersion, you're an idiot. Artists trying to get their start are most desperate and willing to take a bad deal, and once they're stuck in a bad deal, the current systems make it incredibly difficult to get out of it
It's still their responsibility for accepting such a deal.
Fortunately, it's easier nowadays to self-release or start your own record label and such, to use the music industry as an example.
This exactly the kind of thing Corporate owner-types don't want. Using Video games as an example, Nintendo, Sony, Sega, and all of those giants are incentivized to, even if they aren't actively doing anything with an IP, sit on their IPs for the event that they could eventually maybe do some sort of re-release on newer hardware. They have a monetary incentive to behave in that way, to send Cease & Desists over emulators for 3 generations out-of-date consoles and striking down fangames. These are features, not bugs, of the system of Capitalism. It's why DIsney has the vault, where they purposely keep their stuff out of print for up to 20 years at a time.
Oh, so you are arguing against capitalism? What, pray tell, do you suggest as an alternative?
By the way, some proponents of capitalism, free markets and the like oppose intellectual property rights altogether. I support IP to an extent, but in some cases believe items no longer for sale should be able to be archived and distributed. So I wouldn't say IP is a defining component of capitalism.
in the digital age, many of the best things we've had were create in spite of this system, not because of it. Most programs today are still built on Open-Source projects, because in an environment without scarcity, it's the most logical course of action to share freely
I freaking love open source software.
| @SmugSatoko You posted a link which does not support your 100+ million. It says that the estimates are in between 10-148 million. You have not read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article, did you? Imagine how stupid it would be for me to say that communism killed as little as 10 million people and then link the same article you did, refuse to elaborate on any single specific state and leave it at that. I picked an example, the USSR; My point was that the industrialization of the Soviet Union was a step without which Allied victory in WW2 wasn't possible and no industrialization on this scale was completed at a pace even remotely comparable to the two Soviet 5 year plans in any capitalist system. That's not a speculation. I was simply giving an example in which socialism saved tens of millions of lives as it was mainly the Soviet industry that defeated the Nazis. In the process, due to mistakes that were preventable, more than a million people died, and if you read my post, you might notice I did mention that and didn't defend that. Nothing changes the fact that the Soviet policy of the 30s saved tens of millions of people more than it killed. |
|
| The people with the money have little reason to care about backing up old media that they do not consume in general. |
 |
More topics from this board
Poll: » How amazing do you think recent technological progress has been?Freshell - 51 minutes ago |
3 |
by TransferUser
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» What's nature to you ?Moonspeak - Yesterday |
9 |
by Freshell
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
» u only think silk feels better than cotton cuz u ain't worn leather beforeXMGA030 - 46 minutes ago |
1 |
by Zarutaku
»»
33 minutes ago |
|
» Do you think the internet has a positive or negative effect on people?RobertBobert - Sep 12 |
21 |
by HrrmyHmHuuuuhHm
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» IQ tests and prerequisite knowledge808gpp - Jun 20, 2022 |
37 |
by Freshell
»»
2 hours ago |