Dangerous Myth Identified

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Work Ethic

Somewhere around page 3 I almost decided to leave the forum, until I realized that this myth is actually a pretty bad thing. It would be irresponsible of me to let it sit.

[Unidian]

Their irrational, reasoning-free responses are quite typical of the mainstream thinking on this issue. They are deeply indoctrinated and they don't know it. The level of obvious disdain and invalidation of you as an individual is also typical. Get used to it. If you plan to bring this up with others, you'll get this sort of unthinking Pavlovian response 90% of the time.

But yeah, it's still disturbing to see. I'm once again appalled by how many of them openly embrace forced work (slavery) and see nothing wrong with it. They even have the audacity to preach about "morality" in the same breath.

[Katy]

Nat, you read Bataille? I think he sorta supports you but from a different angle than Hegel, so you might be interested. But I'm still completely lost in this class so I'm not overly comfortable trying to explain beyond that we have to 'get rid of' energy and putting it places where it doesn't create more capital is good. There's a specific mention of work refusal in there, just in passing.

[Unidian]

Interesting. I'll have to look him up. Thanks. :)

For Trevor, these threads might be interesting:

Freedom, Capitalism, & Work

Minimum Wage: Is it Desirable? (Topic quickly shifts to work)

The Causes of Poverty (Topic is also work and welfare)

Grameen Bank & The Communist Fire Department

Some fairly heavy-duty work-refusal debate in all of those.

Also, this forum has some good posts and resources:

Why Work Forum

[Unidian]

I created an account, but it says you can't post for 24 hours. I was just going to fire them a link to this essay anyway. I wasn't planning to stick around and engage them at any length, because frankly that forum is very low-grade and the people there are simply not capable of rational argument. Maybe you can link them to the essay with my regards. Also feel free to paste anything I say in this thread over there if you want, although I don't think it's going to do any good. These people simply don't have the brains to recognize their true condition. It's a sophisticated sort of indoctrination devised and propagated by people much smarter than the average individual, giving Joe Six-Pack almost no chance of waking up. If Joe could see through it, the whole thing would collapse.

[Warp]

I see typical responses of mainstream America: just trusting difficult responsibilities in a recognized, higher power (government, God, etc.)

[Unidian]

How about the real higher power that controls the majority of an average citizen's waking life, the employer?

Preparation for servitude begins in the homes and the public schools and is realized in the workplace. One then spends most of their lives being willingly controlled by others until old age, when life is nearly over anyway.

And they have the nerve to put "be a man" and "get a job" in the same sentence...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Nice essay, Nat. I linked to it.

[Faust]

How about the real higher power that controls the majority of an average citizen's waking life, the employer?

Preparation for servitude begins in the homes and the public schools and is realized in the workplace. One then spends most of their lives being willingly controlled by others until old age, when life is nearly over anyway.

And they have the nerve to put "be a man" and "get a job" in the same sentence...

You're sadly mistaken if you think that communism is any better than free market capitalism. Communism will never work because it is much more Orweillian and totalitarian. "Centrally planned economies" and all that other nonsense.

Communism will control what you do and how much you do it, there's definitely less "freedom" than capitalism. Don't want an employer? Start a business if you're talented enough and have valuable skills that others need.

[Dan Rowden]

Hmm, that's a serious oversimplification of what communism can be and a rather naive notion of the freedom capitalism affords people. If you think capitalism doesn't control "what you do and how much you do it" you're either making a disingenuous argument or spend all your time in bed away from the world.

[Katy]

Don't confuse historical "communism" with socialism (which is what historical communism really was, and a tyrannical version thereof. There are communist and capitalist regimes that are just plain evil (look at the Shah of Iran who we propped up for not being communist...)

[Faust]

Hmm, that's a serious oversimplification of what communism can be and a rather naive notion of the freedom capitalism affords people. If you think capitalism doesn't control "what you do and how much you do it" you're either making a disingenuous argument or spend all your time in bed away from the world.

What can communism ever be? I can never trust a "community" to look after me, especially in a large country.

Yes it controls what you do and how much you do it through the market and through your talents, what's a better idea?

[Faust]

Don't confuse historical "communism" with socialism (which is what historical communism really was, and a tyrannical version thereof. There are communist and capitalist regimes that are just plain evil (look at the Shah of Iran who we propped up for not being communist...)

Socialism is nothing but another elite, taking money from rich people who many deserve their wealth, and giving it to jealous people, so called "social justice."

The Shah did have bad qualities such as torture, but he also provided many liberal freedoms, ones that Iran doesn't have now. Besides, a communist Iran at that time wouldn't be any better anyway, it would be much much worse. No doubt torture would continue, and a gross "distribution of wealth" under the control of a corrupt Soviet-backed government.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Socialism is nothing but another elite, taking money from rich people who many deserve their wealth, and giving it to jealous people, so called "social justice."

All wealth comes through some form of exploitation, says communist theory.

Unless these rich people obtained all their wealth directly (by tilling the land, selling what extra product they produced face-to-face with potential buyers, etc.), they do not "deserve" their wealth. They just manipulated a lot of people into getting it for them: manipulation is not, however, the single most valuable skill. Reassessing the value of their manipulations, and giving them the actual value provided by their craft, is not jealousy. It is conscious planning, and conscious planning always has the potential to produce a far superior system than blind luck.

[Faust]

All wealth comes through some form of exploitation, says communist theory.

It's the so says part that is peculiar.

selling what extra product they produced face-to-face with potential buyers

and when do they NOT do this? Don't buy it if you don't want it.

They just manipulated a lot of people into getting it for them.

No they didn't. They took a risk in the market, and have skills and talents that are paid for.

Reassessing the value of their manipulations, and giving them the actual value provided by their craft, is not jealousy.

Oh yeah?? WHO's going to do this? Government? Some sort of infallible community? You perhaps, and maybe some people on this board? Oh ok, etc etc...

It is conscious planning, and conscious planning always has the potential to produce a far superior system than blind luck

Once again, you have no idea how or what this conscious planning is. You have no criteria on what's useless and what's not, or how to control or regulate this. Who decides what's good and bad? How will this board be regulated? And so on and so on.

Capitalism is not "blind luck," it is based on the market and trade, that seems much more fair than some nonsense corrupt "board" or "community" that will have some obscure criteria.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

It's the so says part that is peculiar.

I was trying to indicate that I have no preference toward this theory or against it. I try, however, not to turn it into a strawman.

No they didn't. They took a risk in the market, and have skills and talents that are paid for.

They manipulated people. Plain and simple. People did things that they would not have done without interference.

Oh yeah?? WHO's going to do this? Government? Some sort of infallible community? You perhaps, and maybe some people on this board? Oh ok, etc etc...

I did not specify who would assess the value of the manipulations, but I'm sure it could be assessed democratically with the manipulators having their own say. The only part that comes into review is their earnings. Are their earnings so tenuously earned that public review is a bad thing?

Once again, you have no idea how or what this conscious planning is.

I am aware I did not specify it. There is simply no precedent for a Communist community, although the theory would be that there would be a conscious, democratic process going on. Distribution based on the unconscious blind luck of "market forces" (which may as well be "trial and error") would be replaced by distribution based on some sort of conscious communal planning, up for periodic review.

You have no criteria on what's useless and what's not, or how to control or regulate this.

I have some criteria, but not all the criteria. I do not rate "ability to take risks in a market" to be high on my list of priorities. I may as well be running a lottery.

Capitalism is not "blind luck," it is based on the market and trade, that seems much more fair than some nonsense corrupt "board" or "community" that will have some obscure criteria.

I disagree that a public committee is necessarily corrupt. So long as it is reviewed and democratic, it is far more conscious and ethical than the relatively random market forces. Natural selection, trial and error, and market forces are completely random compared to democratic communal planning.

[Faust]

They manipulated people. Plain and simple. People did things that they would not have done without interference.

How did they manipulate? What are the things that people would not have done?

I did not specify who would assess the value of the manipulations, but I'm sure it could be assessed democratically with the manipulators having their own say. The only part that comes into review is their earnings. Are their earnings so tenuously earned that public review is a bad thing?

"Democracy" is a terrible and tyrannizing and mediocre disease. I'm surprised you even mentioned this. No genuine philosopher would ever condone what we all know as "democracy".

Assessed democratically with the manipulators having their own say WHAT?

What the hell would public review be anyway? They earned by selling their products to consumers that wanted them, that's as democratic as it will get.

I am aware I did not specify it. There is simply no precedent for a Communist community, although the theory would be that there would be a conscious, democratic process going on. Distribution based on the unconscious blind luck of "market forces" (which may as well be "trial and error") would be replaced by distribution based on some sort of conscious communal planning, up for periodic review.

Haha, "conscious" and "democratic" are polar opposites. Market forces aren't blind luck, it's based on consumer wants and needs. According to you the so-called "manipulator" is actually doing something risky to himself.

Conscious communal planning, up for a periodic review Do you realize how terrible of an idea this is? Not only does it sound repugnant, but it will be a terrible mistake.

I have some criteria, but not all the criteria. I do not rate "ability to take risks in a market" to be high on my list of priorities. I may as well be running a lottery.

Competition is a pretty good and reliable criteria.

I disagree that a public committee is necessarily corrupt. So long as it is reviewed and democratic, it is far more conscious and ethical than the relatively random market forces. Natural selection, trial and error, and market forces are completely random compared to democratic communal planning.

What the hell is "reviewed and democratic"? Market forces aren't random, you can actually make pretty good predictions, since it relies on consumers and demand. Democratic communal planning Once again, this is nonsense. The "communal" part is what is reallly stupid. I mean what the hell would this even be? 10 people, 500 people, the whole country? Etc etc..

[Trevor Salyzyn]

How did they manipulate? What are the things that people would not have done?

An unmanaged person will not do many tasks that a manager would tell him to do for the good of a company, or a feudal lord for the good of the nation. They are coerced into doing so: the amount of labour required to make someone else do labour is not much.

"Democracy" is a terrible and tyrannizing and mediocre disease. "Democracy" is a terrible and tyrannizing and mediocre disease. I'm surprised you even mentioned this. No genuine philosopher would ever condone what we all know as "democracy".

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

The rest of this opinion sounds like it came out of a book of Nietzschian cliches.

What the hell would public review be anyway? They earned by selling their products to consumers that wanted them, that's as democratic as it will get.

It is not as democratic as is possible. The most democratic system would assess the value of labour not by its immediate fruits, but by its overall value as measured by some judicial standard. No get rich quick schemes under communist rule: only labour that can be justified (or at least rationalized) to the representatives of the community.

I assume the public review would be similar to the ratings board that reviews films, or the committee that hands out government grants.

Haha, "conscious" and "democratic" are polar opposites.

Only in dystopian fiction.

Market forces aren't blind luck, it's based on consumer wants and needs.

Communal planning is also based on consumer wants and needs. I have no idea what your point is in that regard, since no economic theory would ignore consumer wants and need. There is much more randomness at play with market forces. Laissez-faire capitalism is so blind and unethical that I don't think there is a single active politician who supports its full implementation. The monopolies and monopsomies would run the market: it would quickly degrade into feudalism.

Conscious communal planning, up for a periodic review Do you realize how terrible of an idea this is? Not only does it sound repugnant, but it will be a terrible mistake.

How does periodically reviewed planning sound terrible? It's how the contemporary legislative, judicial, and executive systems work in Canada.

Competition is a pretty good and reliable criteria.

Trial and error is more effective than natural selection. Careful engineering is more effective than trial and error. Engineering is remote from raw competitive urge: the farther we are from unconscious natural drive, the more intelligent our society is.

What the hell is "reviewed and democratic"?

Off-hand, I can't think of a country that does not review its laws.

Market forces aren't random, you can actually make pretty good predictions, since it relies on consumers and demand.

Random does not mean unpredictable. There are still causes. However, it is random -- and careless -- when compared to a planned economy.

Democratic communal planning Once again, this is nonsense.

Once again, it describes the Canadian government.

The "communal" part is what is reallly stupid. I mean what the hell would this even be? 10 people, 500 people, the whole country? Etc etc..

How are you finding difficulty in comprehending a representative democracy? Which country do you live in?

[Tomas]

.

-the sage comments-

Hmm, that's a serious oversimplification of what communism can be and a rather naive notion of the freedom capitalism affords people. If you think capitalism doesn't control "what you do and how much you do it" you're either making a disingenuous argument or spend all your time in bed away from the world.

-tomas-
god, yer good! ;-)


tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

[Faust]

An unmanaged person will not do many tasks that a manager would tell him to do for the good of a company, or a feudal lord for the good of the nation. They are coerced into doing so: the amount of labour required to make someone else do labour is not much.

What? Everyone does labour, the CEO works over 8 hours a day usually, since he's controlling such a huge asset.

The rest of this opinion sounds like it came out of a book of Nietzschian cliches.

It's not a book on Nietzsche, it's Nietzsche's own books!

It is not as democratic as is possible. The most democratic system would assess the value of labour not by its immediate fruits, but by its overall value as measured by some judicial standard. No get rich quick schemes under communist rule: only labour that can be justified (or at least rationalized) to the representatives of the community.

WTF? How the fuck are you going to assess the value of labour, especially "democratically"? WTF is the overall value of the judicial standard. This is all garbage that is so obscure and you don't even know what you're defining here. There's no such thing as a "get rich scheme" in capitalism, name me some. WTF is justified/rationalized labour? This is all nonsense, if a job did not have any justification it would not exist anymore, that's how it works. You think companies would uselessly pay employees that have no justification? Also, a company only survives if it is useful dummy, it doesn't just take money from somewhere without doing anything for it.

Who the hell are going to be the representatives of the community anyway?

I assume the public review would be similar to the ratings board that reviews films, or the committee that hands out government grants.

Yes they review films, they don't decide if it's useful or not and trash it, they just review it, not infringe on civil liberties.

Only in dystopian fiction.

Uhh what?? Are you a utopian?

Communal planning is also based on consumer wants and needs. I have no idea what your point is in that regard, since no economic theory would ignore consumer wants and need. There is much more randomness at play with market forces. Laissez-faire capitalism is so blind and unethical that I don't think there is a single active politician who supports its full implementation. The monopolies and monopsomies would run the market: it would quickly degrade into feudalism.

If communal planning is also based on consumer demand, then what the hell is the difference? If a company loses out because of lack of demand, that's the game, there's no manipulation, it's a risk and it gives the most freedom to the consumer and producer. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it SURE AS HELL beats some cynical, obscure, treacherous "communal" planning bullshit in the hands of who the hell knows. There's already monopolies, but it's better than having a communal monopoly. And the market still isn't entirely "run" by monopolies either. According to you, we should have degraded into feudalism by now, but we haven't.

How does periodically reviewed planning sound terrible? It's how the contemporary legislative, judicial, and executive systems work in Canada.

It's terrible because you don't even know what the hell it will be. The whole thing is so obscure and unplanned that you should first conceive of such an absurd thing, then come and say it, not just merely express some nonsense idea that wants to control things and limit things by some obscure "community." Those systems are LEGAL systems in Canada, designed to protect civil liberties, not to control and limit and coerce businesses at their whim.

Trial and error is more effective than natural selection. Careful engineering is more effective than trial and error. Engineering is remote from raw competitive urge: the farther we are from unconscious natural drive, the more intelligent our society is.

There's no such thing as "careful engineering." You cannot continously measure consumer DEMAND, that would take too much time and resources and be useless. What the hell is "engineering" anyway? Competition is not "unconscious," we are all well aware of it and know it to be a strong and effective incentive.

Off-hand, I can't think of a country that does not review its laws.

Yeah, laws about civil liberties and private property, not about how to limit, coerce, and control businesses to achieve some obscure yet to be defined goal.

Random does not mean unpredictable. There are still causes. However, it is random -- and careless -- when compared to a planned economy.

The company is taking a risk, you don't have to buy its products if you don't want to, it's not your responsibility and power to tell another company that what it is doing is "careless," it has nothing to do with you. Is it affecting you? Is it taking money from you?

Once again, it describes the Canadian government.

No it really doesn't. The Canadian government doesn't have a COMMUNAL PLANNED economy, it's pretty capitalistic. Not as much as US, but there's nothing "communal" or "planned" about it.

How are you finding difficulty in comprehending a representative democracy?

A representative democracy of POLITICAL PARTIES, not companies and businesses. This is all nonsense, a company only survives if it HAS CUSTOMERS, so really it IS democratic.

Once again your idea like so many other pinkos is obscure and treacherous. You can't even tell of what the hell a representative body would be, and saying "representative democracy" doesn't mean anything. That's for the legal system, not for controlling private businesses. The only improvement I see to capitalism for now lies in the third world. All the countries of the third world should band up and establish workers' rights and environmental protection, only then will it be much more fair and reasonable. But this improvement makes sense and is based on reality, unlike your idea which I don't even know what its goal is in the first place.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I'm having a hard time seeing what is offending you so greatly about my rather mild, off-hand defense of Communism. Your post has all the characteristics of a knee-jerk reaction.

You even mislabeled me as a "pinko". I never once said I was a Communist, nor even interested in it; I'm simply not one to turn everything that isn't my own opinion into a strawman. I defend it only because your own opinion is so careless.

It's not a book on Nietzsche, it's Nietzsche's own books!

Well, you are the walking Nietzsche cliche then. I don't think you have a very deep understanding of his writing.

Uhh what?? Are you a utopian?

No, I simply don't have the view that democracy is unconscious, or that the fullest expression of all utopian ideals (of which pure capitalism is one) must always lead to a dystopia. Utopias, however, should be balanced against one another: they are perfect societies, but unobtainable for different reasons.

How the fuck are you going to assess the value of labour, especially "democratically"?

By having members of the community assess the value through an executive process, rather than the captains of the industry assess the value through an executive process. It is a shift of responsibility from power-brokers to elected officials.

Yes they review films, they don't decide if it's useful or not and trash it, they just review it, not infringe on civil liberties.

Nothing is trashed, just assessed to see how much funding it needs to survive and do its job. If funding is ever withheld, it is no more unethical than a government committee refusing to give a grant to any given project.

Yeah, laws about civil liberties and private property, not about how to limit, coerce, and control businesses to achieve some obscure yet to be defined goal.

I don't define it because I'm only referring to the very peripheral of the theory. I'm not a Communist, but that doesn't mean I think Communists are evil or stupid.

There's no such thing as "careful engineering." You cannot continously measure consumer DEMAND, that would take too much time and resources and be useless. What the hell is "engineering" anyway? Competition is not "unconscious," we are all well aware of it and know it to be a strong and effective incentive.

Walk into an engineering faculty at a university and inform one of the engineers that their entire profession doesn't exist because you don't understand it.

No it really doesn't. The Canadian government doesn't have a COMMUNAL PLANNED economy, it's pretty capitalistic. Not as much as US, but there's nothing "communal" or "planned" about it.

Members of the community serve the community, and plan legal procedures and resource allocation.

A representative democracy of POLITICAL PARTIES, not companies and businesses. This is all nonsense, a company only survives if it HAS CUSTOMERS, so really it IS democratic.

That is a very loose definition of democracy. A feudal empire has customers, so is it democratic as well? I guess it would have to be, right?

[Iolaus]

Unidian,

I skimmed through your essay, all the while thinking that while I wish I could agree with you, how is it supposed to work? You name Sweden. What are the details. Surely most people in Sweden have jobs? Is it perhaps a better welfare state? Somehow or other, people went from hunting and gathering, to farming and crafting, and then on to capitalism and hierarchical societies, but all along the way, people need to exert themselves and produce either food or something worth trading for it.

I don't doubt that if we lived in a truly good society, instead of producing so many fabulously wealthy people we'd have a nice standard of living with a workweek of maybe 24 hours.

How do you really expect whatever it is you envision to be workable?

[Faust]

Well, you are the walking Nietzsche cliche then. I don't think you have a very deep understanding of his writing.

If I'm a Nietzsche cliche then I'm supporting Nietzsche's views. The fact is is that I do understand what he said, and alot of it is just egotistical bosh. He is probably the most manipulated philosopher, everyone likes to think that they know what Nietzsche "really" meant, when you should read his stuff exactly as he wrote it. The fact is is that he WAS against democracy, please just show me some quotes of his that would disprove this. Second, he was a POSTMODERNIST in his later life. He said lame stuff like, "there are many truths, consequently there is no truth." Bla bla bla, he forgot about Truth and just went after what's egotistically satisfying and what gave him power. He was all about power in his later life, he didn't care for Truth anymore. He was also an aristocrat, are you even going to try and disprove that he advocated aristocracy? Nietzsche was god awful good, but alot of his stuff is just plain bosh, he was also influenced by Max Stirner (yawn). He talked of dionysus but he had an entirely apollonian lifestyle, because you need order to control chaos. Read Santayana's criticism of him, Nietzsche's just not criticized enough among supposed "geniuses". http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Arc ... tzsche.htm

No, I simply don't have the view that democracy is unconscious, or that the fullest expression of all utopian ideals (of which pure capitalism is one) must always lead to a dystopia. Utopias, however, should be balanced against one another: they are perfect societies, but unobtainable for different reasons.

Do you actually think that most people are conscious? Do you actually believe that most people are philosophers and wise and able to make conscious choices when we already see countless times that they are not conscious at all?

By having members of the community assess the value through an executive process, rather than the captains of the industry assess the value through an executive process. It is a shift of responsibility from power-brokers to elected officials.

Customers assess the value by buying or not buying products. That's how companies survive, by depending on the customer. This is pretty democratic and you always avoid this important fact.

Nothing is trashed, just assessed to see how much funding it needs to survive and do its job. If funding is ever withheld, it is no more unethical than a government committee refusing to give a grant to any given project.

"Funding" is profits, why would a god damn resourcefully wasteful council decide how much funding something gets, this makes no sense, I don't even see the reason for this. Government committees give grants to public works projects, not private businesses. Basically what you're advocating is a state capitalism, ie we will have one company for this, and one company for this, bla bla bla.

Walk into an engineering faculty at a university and inform one of the engineers that their entire profession doesn't exist because you don't understand it.

WTF? An "engineering faculty" does ACTUAL ENGINEERING OF PHYSICAL STRUCTURES. What you're talking about is ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

Members of the community serve the community, and plan legal procedures and resource allocation.

What resource allocation??? Taxes? For public works, I don't see how businesses have to do with this.

That is a very loose definition of democracy. A feudal empire has customers, so is it democratic as well? I guess it would have to be, right?

We don't live in a feudal empire, big and small companies start and end all the time. You don't like a product? Don't buy it.


Your position makes no sense because you basically want businesses to somehow serve the public interest, when there's no real "public interest" anyway. What's the definition? It's just redistribution (stealing) of wealth from what I see. Laissez-Faire isn't "blind," it's rooted in a need for survival and contracts, therefore good and careful decisions must always be done. "A representative democracy" has no responsibility with private businesses, what the hell is its goal anyway? You complain about capitalism being blind and unconscious, but it doesn't even affect you that much if you choose not to participate in it. Why would other people be given a right to have a say in how private businesses manage themselves? It's basically like me telling someone how to live because they're blind and unconscious.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

when you should read his stuff exactly as he wrote it.

Nietzsche had a sense of irony almost as profound as Kierkegaard. I can't imagine anyone who takes him at face value having a deep understanding of him at all.

You basically need to know the history of Greek and German philosophy up to Nietzsche to be able to appreciate him at all. Some of the things it looks like he's saying are satiric responses to things that other writers wrote decades, centuries, or even millenia earlier; or explorations of methods; or experiments with following single trains of thought. Taking all of these as his written-in-stone opinions is nothing short of idiotic. Dubbing him as any particular "-ism" (especially one that didn't exist at his time) is also pretty silly. (If pushed against a wall, though, I'd call him an incredibly witty Christian classicist and apologist.)

Do you actually think that most people are conscious?

Yes, just not conscious of the same things I'm conscious of.

Do you actually believe that most people are philosophers and wise and able to make conscious choices when we already see countless times that they are not conscious at all?

In their waking lives, people are very much conscious.

Customers assess the value by buying or not buying products. That's how companies survive, by depending on the customer. This is pretty democratic and you always avoid this important fact.

That is a rather naive way of viewing economics, since the customer does not always end up assessing the value of the product. To confuse capitalism with democracy shows a degree of ignorance that is almost American.

WTF? An "engineering faculty" does ACTUAL ENGINEERING OF PHYSICAL STRUCTURES. What you're talking about is ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

I was using an analogy to show that planning is more effective than accident.

We don't live in a feudal empire, big and small companies start and end all the time. You don't like a product? Don't buy it.

I see many parallels between a large company and a feudal empire.

Your position makes no sense because you basically want businesses to somehow serve the public interest, when there's no real "public interest" anyway.

Huh? There's no public interest? What does a city counsel do when it allocates funds to road maintainence, then? Is that raw greed-based capitalism?

[Faust]

Nietzsche had a sense of irony almost as profound as Kierkegaard. I can't imagine anyone who takes him at face value having a deep understanding of him at all.

You basically need to know the history of Greek and German philosophy up to Nietzsche to be able to appreciate him at all. Some of the things it looks like he's saying are satiric responses to things that other writers wrote decades, centuries, or even millenia earlier; or explorations of methods; or experiments with following single trains of thought. Taking all of these as his written-in-stone opinions is nothing short of idiotic. Dubbing him as any particular "-ism" (especially one that didn't exist at his time) is also pretty silly. (If pushed against a wall, though, I'd call him an incredibly witty Christian classicist and apologist.)

Hmm ok. And what was this sense of irony? According to who, you? How can you tell where he was being ironic and where he was being sarcastic, or plain honest and serious? You "just know"? Right.... For any writer, if you don't take their writing at the level that they wrote it then it's meaningless, because it's pretty hard to CONVEY irony and sarcasm or seriousness or any other tone of voice for generations later, without actually WRITING IT. A writer can't just hope to IMPLY it in his writing for future readers, for that will cause too much confusion, second-guessing and factions.

I didn't even dub him as an "ism." And which one didn't exist at his time? Aristocracy, democracy? These existed.

Ahhh Yes I thought so, "YOU would call him." And what? A Christian classicist and apologist? What the hell do you mean by classicist and apologist? And Christian?????? It's going to be pretty damn hard to prove that he was a Christian, please do it.

In their waking lives, people are very much conscious.

If they're very much conscious, then what's the problem with free market capitalism? Fuck you contradict yourself terribly. First you say the free market is quote, BLIND AND UNCONSCIOUS, and now? PEOPLE ARE VERY MUCH CONSCIOUS. What the hell is this shit? Let me guess, only businessmen are blind and unconscious....

That is a rather naive way of viewing economics, since the customer does not always end up assessing the value of the product. To confuse capitalism with democracy shows a degree of ignorance that is almost American.

Wait a minute, you said people were very much conscious during their waking lives, and now? Oh, "they don't always end up assessing the value of the product." Righttt, more like you want to tell them what to buy.

I see many parallels between a large company and a feudal empire.

Like what? It doesn't force anyone to buy their products. What else?

Huh? There's no public interest? What does a city counsel do when it allocates funds to road maintainence, then? Is that raw greed-based capitalism?

Once again, those are public works projects meant to serve whole populations out of necessity, not a business making a product that individual people may buy.