Making products can be detrimental to the rest of society (cf. the fast-fashion industry, among other cases), but that is a subject for another time.
As a tech worker myself, it would be untenable to declare that elaborating products period is a detriment to humanity. What I’m criticizing here is the way products are put to market in our world. We can do better, without a parasitic owner class.
I’m currently trying to put my money where my mouth is by working on creating a product in a worker coop setting, which is one of the ways I think we can fix this. There are probably other alternatives, though.
If you study how things work in the real world - and there is a science that studies this, sociology - capitalists only have embryonic plans and capital. They use their capital to materialize their ideas - which,
by the way, are not often very original - into tangible things, by hiring people with actual skill. They don’t build or architect factories, offices, not any more than they print books or build houses. Working class people do it for them in exchange for shiny rock.
The case you make for labor being mobile is again rooted in unrealistic ideology. Material conditions prevent most people from being actually free to find satisfying conditions of employment. Again, sociology teaches us how and why.
The main thing I’d like to stress here is that we need to rid ourselves of golden-path ideologies. Things can and will go wrong. Any ideology that fails to satisfiably account for the complexity of the real world is not worth our time.
And I’d argue that Rand libertarianism is - at best - naive in that way.
About products, I know you said it’s for another time. The fact is, capitalists provide us with workplaces and products. They not doing it themselves, but the trunk of the tree. The root cause is people needs. I can’t call them parasites or robbers if they earn it honestly.
Well, I am not a materialist, so I can’t support you with “material conditions prevent”. In my opinion, if you free and nobody forces you, than it’s not labour. You can live whenever you want, or change something you don’t really want.
It’s cool, what you are doing, hope this gets recognition! Maybe one day you’ll be as someone, who changed the way we see product production.
Maybe one day I will understand your saying about ideology, but I really don’t. For me Rand’s philosophy is really the best, cause it’s simple and answers all of my questions. Do whatever you want with respect to other people right to live. I can’t call it ideology, like can’t call Buddhism a religion. Both I classify as philosophy. And mostly I unintentionally followed Rand’s without knowing it.
Be careful of simple explanations to complex problems. Just like in maths, models need to be as simple as possible, without becoming simplistic. It’s not just about being right or wrong in theory, the conclusions to these discussions have material impact on the world we live in. Bad motives drive disastrous political choices, sometimes, in one way or another.
We could talk forever about how free will is or isn’t an illusion, but it’s a conversation that could stretch out for days. People much smarter than us have provided smart answers to all those questions. Let’s tackle problems one at a time, and continue the discussion in the other thread!
Oh and btw: I’m not taking credit for the whole concept of worker coops! I just wanted to outline that I want to do my part!
Making products can be detrimental to the rest of society (cf. the fast-fashion industry, among other cases), but that is a subject for another time.
As a tech worker myself, it would be untenable to declare that elaborating products period is a detriment to humanity. What I’m criticizing here is the way products are put to market in our world. We can do better, without a parasitic owner class.
I’m currently trying to put my money where my mouth is by working on creating a product in a worker coop setting, which is one of the ways I think we can fix this. There are probably other alternatives, though.
If you study how things work in the real world - and there is a science that studies this, sociology - capitalists only have embryonic plans and capital. They use their capital to materialize their ideas - which, by the way, are not often very original - into tangible things, by hiring people with actual skill. They don’t build or architect factories, offices, not any more than they print books or build houses. Working class people do it for them in exchange for shiny rock.
The case you make for labor being mobile is again rooted in unrealistic ideology. Material conditions prevent most people from being actually free to find satisfying conditions of employment. Again, sociology teaches us how and why.
The main thing I’d like to stress here is that we need to rid ourselves of golden-path ideologies. Things can and will go wrong. Any ideology that fails to satisfiably account for the complexity of the real world is not worth our time.
And I’d argue that Rand libertarianism is - at best - naive in that way.
About products, I know you said it’s for another time. The fact is, capitalists provide us with workplaces and products. They not doing it themselves, but the trunk of the tree. The root cause is people needs. I can’t call them parasites or robbers if they earn it honestly.
Well, I am not a materialist, so I can’t support you with “material conditions prevent”. In my opinion, if you free and nobody forces you, than it’s not labour. You can live whenever you want, or change something you don’t really want.
It’s cool, what you are doing, hope this gets recognition! Maybe one day you’ll be as someone, who changed the way we see product production.
Maybe one day I will understand your saying about ideology, but I really don’t. For me Rand’s philosophy is really the best, cause it’s simple and answers all of my questions. Do whatever you want with respect to other people right to live. I can’t call it ideology, like can’t call Buddhism a religion. Both I classify as philosophy. And mostly I unintentionally followed Rand’s without knowing it.
Be careful of simple explanations to complex problems. Just like in maths, models need to be as simple as possible, without becoming simplistic. It’s not just about being right or wrong in theory, the conclusions to these discussions have material impact on the world we live in. Bad motives drive disastrous political choices, sometimes, in one way or another.
We could talk forever about how free will is or isn’t an illusion, but it’s a conversation that could stretch out for days. People much smarter than us have provided smart answers to all those questions. Let’s tackle problems one at a time, and continue the discussion in the other thread!
Oh and btw: I’m not taking credit for the whole concept of worker coops! I just wanted to outline that I want to do my part!
I will try to be more careful, thank you. I can understand why is that and how people can understand simple explanations