TootSweet @ TootSweet @latte.isnot.coffee

Posts

0

Comments

61

Joined

2 yr. ago

I didn't realize people were advocating philosophies that bowed to the idea that "needs" should take priority over personal possessions.

Yeah, I tend to work Maslow's work into my take on political systems. Maybe I should call myself an anarcho-Maslowist or something. Heh.

I do really think that society is best that best fulfills people's needs. And by "needs," I mean something very like the way Maslow used the term. I'm not sure what higher purpose one could give for a society than the fulfillment of needs, really.

(Mind you, I do know that there have been other psychologists who have built on Maslow's work as well as some with different models of needs. I don't necessarily mean to exclude those other definitions of needs. I don't think it would serve us well to be dogmatic about one person's take. But even if Maslow can be improved on, I do think the broad strokes of his take are on to something.)

To be fair, just about any purpose a society might have can be shoehorned into the language of "needs" and that paradigm may be better for some things than others.

Also, of course, more basic needs are more important. If you're trying to improve things and you have one option that will address society's unfulfilled need for basic sustinence and another option that will improve society's access to aesthetic fulfillment, let's fill people's bellies first and put up murals later.

Now, I do largely believe in "usership," but the idea can definitely go too far. If in the revolution, Ted takes possession of a mansion and uses it daily for a private indoor jogging track, that's fine with me so long as others are not deprived of some sufficiently basic need. Under a strict usership system, one could say that Ted uses all of that mansion daily and that there is no "surplus" of space there. And, again if others are not deprived, I have no issue with it. But if homelessness exists in that area, Ted's claim to that mansion for his comparatively frivolous use of the structure is superceded by other people's right to not have to live in a tent under a bridge.

But this is all mostly my own take. I don't think I've seen anyone else take quite the same stance on things. But then, I haven't really read that much anarchist theory either. Just Conquest of Bread and /r/Anarchism, pretty much. (Oh, and some random guy on a first person shooter I used to play a lot that was my introduction to anarchism.)

Edit: Oh! Also, there is the whole "to each according to need" thing. Maybe Marx would've been a fan of Maslow's ideas. Who knows.

So, first off, let me say that if it'll help us move toward something better than we have now, even if in my head I call it anarcho-communism, I'll happily call it "capitalism."

For reference, there's an author named Charles Eisenstein who in his book "Sacred Economics" advocates for taking steps that he intends to move us (the world, I guess) eventually to a gift-based economy without money or barter. And he calls it capitalism. With a straight face. Now, I don't know if deep down in his heart he believes it actually qualifies as capitalism or if he's calling it capitalism because he feels like his aims are more likely to be well received by pro-capitalists if he calls it "capitalism."

One can IMO go too far with that. Case in point: ecofascism. But I digress.

On to the definition of capitalism. At least in my head, capitalism is characterized by:

• The profit motive. The incentive to amass. (Typically money, but a barter-based system could well be the same in every way that matters.)
• Quid pro quo. The whole system is based on it.
• Private property. A particular set of rules for who has ownership rights over what.
• The institution of employment.

My answer didn't include the word "capital", so I'll skip that second question.

As to your third question, let me take exception with the question itself. I don't believe "control over what you produce" is necesssarily a good thing per se. I believe in having something roughly like ownership rights over what one uses. But if one produce a surplus, I don't believe they should be able to deprive others in need of said surplus.

I think capitalism coerces people into producing surplus for others to sell for a profit that the producer (employee) doesn't get a fair share in if that goes more to the spirit of your question.

Bonus questions:

1. I... don't know or care? "Capitalist" can mean someone who supports the institution of capitalism. Or it can mean something like an owner of a company that employs people. I think plenty of people participate in capitalism (by selling things they make, by accepting an employment position, etc) out of necessity while disapproving of the system as a whole. Hell, I'm one of them. I'm not sure I understand why you ask.
2. If I'm the person who sells things I make? Again, anticapitalists participate in capitalism because capitalism doesn't give them a choice. Does that answer your question?
3. The word "sell" here has some baggage I don't like. I'm not for a system in which anybody "sells" anything. But to answer how one might expand an operation that produces things, worker cooperatives are probably the most obvious answer.
4. Anyway, worker cooperatives are owned and run by the workers. Corporations are owned by shareholders and run by boards of directors. Worker cooperatives don't have incentives and power to fuck their workers over. They do have incentive and power to take care of their workers.

Maybe I should have read the first thread you referenced before answering these. Maybe it would have given more context. But hopefully this response gives you what you were looking for.

Are you defending Patriot Front?

Not rhetorical. Genuinely confused.

Wait, do people who are counting calories cook, for instance, spaghetti with meat sauce, cheese, and meatballs and only count the calories in the spaghetti? That's got to be kindof a denial and/or self-deception kind of phenomenon rather than legitimately thinking that the calories in, say, sauce are negligible or "cook off" somehow, right?

I've got a smart TV on which the Wifi broke very shortly after I got it. I just use a Chromecast and it works nicely.

Derivative and uninspired. Have an upvote.

Ok, then. What if the judge signing the warrant is an occupant of the property in question?

Sure that would basically never happen, but suppose the vampire manages to trick the judge into signing a warrant that covers the judge's own house or maybe some place the judge frequents.

What's a warrant if not a court-signed invitation to enter a suspect's house?

Yeah, if the information in phone books isn't in scope of copyright for failing to meet a minimum standard of "creativity" surely a random number shouldn't be either.

But yeah. It sounds like the legal tactic Nintendo used to scare Valve (well, Valve was complicit, but anyway) was about the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking parts of the DMCA.

If Trek goes dark, that'll just be a good excuse to watch all of what's out there now again from the beginning. Or watch more fan-made and non-canon content.

I know this is supposed to be humor, but if philosoraptor is trying to say AI is overhyped, I wholeheartedly agree.

I feel like there needs to be much more of an "AI Skepticism" movement. (Like there has existed a healthy cryptocurrency skepticism movement for a good long while now.) In short, the world needs a lot more of this.

The AI economic bubble is already fucking us all over.

I can still feel in my mind's skin the sticky, greasy venier that coated the inside of the play places.

This u?

The kiosk, but only if it's new and hasn't been handled by the greasy-fingered hordes for years already.

I'm pretty sure latte.isnot.coffe admins are also tankies. Should've done my research before I signed up. Maybe some day account migration will be a thing. ('Cuz I'd like to keep my post history if I were to jump to a different instance.)

How did you get it to play sound when my phone is muted? How!?

Plus the iceberg lettuce. I'm not saying it's unhealthy (unless it's covered in pesticides.) It's just nutritionally vacuous. Just as healthy with as without.

I think she's ripping the still-beating heart out of the cameraman with her telekinesis.

I believe in "to each according to need," (or to put it into the language of a "right," the right to fulfillment of your needs.) but I don't trust "countries" to do that. There's a long history of governments saying they're doing that while perpetuating the worst atrocities.