Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
It used to be the case that a higher education was good for exposing young minds to challenging ideas, and thereby teaching them to stare with resolve into the deep abyss that is existence, and to rebut bad arguments with good arguments.
However, collectivist authoritarians (namely Marxists) began their "long march" through the Institutions of the West; in the Universities, they started curbing speech by setting up "safe spaces", and then once the "safe" space spread across most of a campus, they started des
As an actual Marxist, I fucking wish Marxism was spreading throughout universities, but alas it isn't at all. What is spreading though universities is consumer ideology. People treating their degrees as commodities, demanding "consumer satisfaction" from their time at university. Institutes of learning have been invaded by the market, with everything valuable worthy and fun driven out.
All that shit you wrote has no basis in reality, and shows you've never been within 10km of a university ever, but as a Marxis
Well, it's been such a smashing success in Venezuela...and Cuba....and let's not forget the USSR, although I guess they can claim that thug Putin is a success. N. Korea is just an economic powerhouse.
Right. The problem with Marxism is that it cannot exist in a practical way, because the system is inherently unstable.
You really need to understand that different words do have different meanings. Democracy == capitalism == fascism as much as socialism == communism == Marxism.
In Marxism, the labor theory of value rules. Don't put in effort don't get the results. As opposed to what we have where Beszos just made in the time it took me to write this more money than both of us will make in our entire lives while putting in zero effort.
The labor theory of value (the price of a good or service should be equal to the total amount of labor value required to produce it) doesn't reward increase in efficiency. Why should I invest in a method to produce the same goods twice as fast, if that requires halving the price ? Without any effort to maximize efficiency, you'll quickly lose against competing communitities, and that's one reason it's unstable. Also, without a free market with independent agents settling on a mutually agreed price, you'll need an authority to set prices for you, which introduces a target point for corruption, and power struggles.
"Price" isn't a thing in Marxism, you know that's a free market idea, right? Arguments based on price fail to even address Marxist issues. Price signalling, on the other hand, is an issue, but with telecommunication, there are other ways for independent agents to settle on a mutually agreed upon value. For example, you could go on a website and set your personal preferences for various consumer goods and services. Your share of the output from the means of production would then be used to satisfy those pre
More generally, the problem with the labor theory of value is that it ignores the value of knowledge. The theory was defined in the context of a stable agrarian society with minimal industry, where the knowledge of how to produce things was fairly uniformly distributed, and innovation was so rare as to be negligible. With no differentials in knowledge to speak of, the output levels were entirely determined by the materials available and the labor applied.
As soon as you recognize that knowledge has value, though, it's trivial to see why the labor theory falls on its face. Invent a way to make widgets with half the materials and half the labor and you're producing twice as much as your competitor for the same cost. More subtly, but perhaps more importantly, discover a situation where some unavailable (or nonexistent!) good or service is needed, and arrange to remedy that need, and you may have generated 10X or 100X value. Knowing where to apply resources to maximize their utility can generate incredible returns to multiple segments of society, often with no losers.
A less-obvious result of ignoring the value of knowledge is that the labor theory is inherently zero-sum. To produce more widgets you have to shift labor away from making whatsits, so you make less of them. But the reality is that you can often create a way to make whozits which can be used to dramatically increase the efficiency of producing both widgets and whatsits, so by taking labor away to produce an entirely new thing, you actually produce more of everything. Such positive-sum outcomes are actually more common than not.
As a philosopher, Marx had some moderately-interesting ideas. As an economist, his ideas were just plain wrong.
Ummm, you literally just made that up. Anyone who has even briefly studied any economics whatsoever knows that the LVT is meant to drive price down to 0 as efficiency increases. Without profit, that is actually a realistic goal. Open source software (the most socialistic experiment in human history, bar none) exemplifies this, although the cart is before the horse somewhat: the price starts at free to maximize efficiency, but it intrinsically proves that a price of 0 can and does improve efficiency nigh
Perhaps an unobtainable member of that particular part of the island. Because every example I have been given I have deemed to not truly be from there....
Good (Score:1, Insightful)
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:2, Interesting)
It used to be the case that a higher education was good for exposing young minds to challenging ideas, and thereby teaching them to stare with resolve into the deep abyss that is existence, and to rebut bad arguments with good arguments.
However, collectivist authoritarians (namely Marxists) began their "long march" through the Institutions of the West; in the Universities, they started curbing speech by setting up "safe spaces", and then once the "safe" space spread across most of a campus, they started des
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
As an actual Marxist, I fucking wish Marxism was spreading throughout universities, but alas it isn't at all.
What is spreading though universities is consumer ideology. People treating their degrees as commodities, demanding "consumer satisfaction" from their time at university.
Institutes of learning have been invaded by the market, with everything valuable worthy and fun driven out.
All that shit you wrote has no basis in reality, and shows you've never been within 10km of a university ever, but as a Marxis
Re:Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:1, Informative)
Well, it's been such a smashing success in Venezuela...and Cuba....and let's not forget the USSR, although I guess they can claim that thug Putin is a success. N. Korea is just an economic powerhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Except zero of those countries are marxist. Do you even know what the word means?
Re: (Score:2)
Except zero of those countries are marxist.
Right. The problem with Marxism is that it cannot exist in a practical way, because the system is inherently unstable.
Re: (Score:0)
So just like everything else, as the chaos butterfly theory proves.
Re: (Score:0)
Except zero of those countries are marxist.
Right. The problem with Marxism is that it cannot exist in a practical way, because the system is inherently unstable.
You really need to understand that different words do have different meanings. Democracy == capitalism == fascism as much as socialism == communism == Marxism.
In Marxism, the labor theory of value rules. Don't put in effort don't get the results. As opposed to what we have where Beszos just made in the time it took me to write this more money than both of us will make in our entire lives while putting in zero effort.
Re:Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:5, Informative)
In Marxism, the labor theory of value rules.
The labor theory of value (the price of a good or service should be equal to the total amount of labor value required to produce it) doesn't reward increase in efficiency. Why should I invest in a method to produce the same goods twice as fast, if that requires halving the price ? Without any effort to maximize efficiency, you'll quickly lose against competing communitities, and that's one reason it's unstable. Also, without a free market with independent agents settling on a mutually agreed price, you'll need an authority to set prices for you, which introduces a target point for corruption, and power struggles.
Re: (Score:-1)
"Price" isn't a thing in Marxism, you know that's a free market idea, right? Arguments based on price fail to even address Marxist issues. Price signalling, on the other hand, is an issue, but with telecommunication, there are other ways for independent agents to settle on a mutually agreed upon value. For example, you could go on a website and set your personal preferences for various consumer goods and services. Your share of the output from the means of production would then be used to satisfy those pre
Re:Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:4, Informative)
More generally, the problem with the labor theory of value is that it ignores the value of knowledge. The theory was defined in the context of a stable agrarian society with minimal industry, where the knowledge of how to produce things was fairly uniformly distributed, and innovation was so rare as to be negligible. With no differentials in knowledge to speak of, the output levels were entirely determined by the materials available and the labor applied.
As soon as you recognize that knowledge has value, though, it's trivial to see why the labor theory falls on its face. Invent a way to make widgets with half the materials and half the labor and you're producing twice as much as your competitor for the same cost. More subtly, but perhaps more importantly, discover a situation where some unavailable (or nonexistent!) good or service is needed, and arrange to remedy that need, and you may have generated 10X or 100X value. Knowing where to apply resources to maximize their utility can generate incredible returns to multiple segments of society, often with no losers.
A less-obvious result of ignoring the value of knowledge is that the labor theory is inherently zero-sum. To produce more widgets you have to shift labor away from making whatsits, so you make less of them. But the reality is that you can often create a way to make whozits which can be used to dramatically increase the efficiency of producing both widgets and whatsits, so by taking labor away to produce an entirely new thing, you actually produce more of everything. Such positive-sum outcomes are actually more common than not.
As a philosopher, Marx had some moderately-interesting ideas. As an economist, his ideas were just plain wrong.
Re: (Score:0)
Because otherwise you'll shortly go out of business, because you'll be competing against people offering the same thing as you at half the price.
Next question?
Re: (Score:0)
Ummm, you literally just made that up. Anyone who has even briefly studied any economics whatsoever knows that the LVT is meant to drive price down to 0 as efficiency increases. Without profit, that is actually a realistic goal. Open source software (the most socialistic experiment in human history, bar none) exemplifies this, although the cart is before the horse somewhat: the price starts at free to maximize efficiency, but it intrinsically proves that a price of 0 can and does improve efficiency nigh
FOSS is Capitalism (Score:0)
By contributing to a FOSS project, you are choosing to allocate your resources (e.g., your money, your time, your skills, your labor, etc.).
FOSS is Capitalism. You're a Capitalist.
FOSS is socialism (Score:0)
You cannot redefine socialist as "anything bad" and capitalism as "anything good".
Re: (Score:0)
Alright you just admitted there is no marxism so now forget the word and let poor people have healthcare dipshit.
I'm looking for a guy from the northern part of UK (Score:0)
Perhaps an unobtainable member of that particular part of the island. Because every example I have been given I have deemed to not truly be from there....
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:1)
Marxist, communism, socialism. Same shit, different flavor