Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Amazing video by Technology Connections. It’s a long one, but don’t miss his 30 minute angry rant at the end.
it’s the same story as weed legalization, it only happens after the current established powers have given themselves enough time to secure the new playing field.
Wondering now if paradoxically accelerating global warming increases stock ROI in renewables as the perceived value of renewable energy increases with the perceived/predicted level of global warming.
You have less power but more wealth than a Mycenean king. You have a more steady diet that is healthier for you, with better healthcare, better housing, more time for leisure, less chance of being robbed or murdered or killed in battle, etc. etc. But the king could have people killed or tortured; he could send people to their deaths; pass judgment in any moral dispute between hundreds of his subjects; etc.
The capitalist elite gladly loses wealth to gain power. And the power a rich person has over someone who must work for them to eat is incomprehensibly greater than the power a rich person has over someone who can eat regardless of whether they work for them. Thanks to ICE and other anti-immigration laws, rich people can effectively keep undocumented migrants as slaves again. What are they going to do? Complain and get themselves sent to a concentration camp?
What do you think a billionaire would rather have? A hundred mansions, ten private jets, twenty yachts, and a thousand unionized employees; or ten mansions, one private jet, two yachts, and a hundred slaves?
I agree that wealth is not equivalent to power but I continue to assert that it is the fundamental concept of capitalism. It’s rule by those who can exploit a market most effectively amassing the greatest amount of capital (by money/property value).
I find wealth in having hobbies and relationships that don’t return monetarily on my energy investment. This is incompatible with capitalism. While living under capitalism, i could have the highest quantity of relationships of the highest quality with other humans and it would still be worthless compared to someone with more capacity than me for taking on debt.
I wonder if I’m being misinterpreted here so if it’s unclear at this point; i see capitalism as a direct assault on our very humanity and a psychological disease that tears from us our empathy and feeling for one another through the pursuit of “wealth”. I despise it.
I do not understand what this adds to the concept of capitalism other than introducing the term “social darwinism”.
There is no difference between “the aesthetics” of capitalism and its actualization, and neither base a capitalist’s actions in regard to benefitting society beyond “the market”. Capitalism is simply the current method of accruing power for someone to push their personal ideology on others. It just happens that the most effective method to exploit capitalism is to reject any sense of empathy or consideration for anything external or internal, especially flesh and blood humans because they are the only real threat to your power.
Let me try to rephrase this, so that maybe it makes sense. The point I’m trying to make is that social-darwinism is not an extension of capitalism, they’re two different things but with aesthetic overlap.
Capitalism aims to optimize work, by naturally rejecting inefficient ways to do things. The production line wins over the workshop. It’s about things and processes, not about people directly.
Social-darwinism is about rejecting people. To refuse people the space to thrive or reproduce. To push them to the edge of society until they die from exposure or suicide or simply that their bloodline ends when they can’t support their families over the course of generations. Thus the noble classes dominate by right, and whoever is unsuccessful deserves to die and rot.
Mmm… Well i think there are enough of them that think long term to maintain their institutions. The oil industry has been suppressing concerns about climate change and disaster for well over a century now
they’d probably be more wealthy from their heavy investments in renewable energy, which is more profitable than fossil fuels btw
it’s the same story as weed legalization, it only happens after the current established powers have given themselves enough time to secure the new playing field.
Wondering now if paradoxically accelerating global warming increases stock ROI in renewables as the perceived value of renewable energy increases with the perceived/predicted level of global warming.
No, they are just after power, not money. They have a darwinist ideology to push.
It’s capitalism, power is wealth by definition. These are compatible concepts.
By perceived value i mean speculation.
You have less power but more wealth than a Mycenean king. You have a more steady diet that is healthier for you, with better healthcare, better housing, more time for leisure, less chance of being robbed or murdered or killed in battle, etc. etc. But the king could have people killed or tortured; he could send people to their deaths; pass judgment in any moral dispute between hundreds of his subjects; etc.
The capitalist elite gladly loses wealth to gain power. And the power a rich person has over someone who must work for them to eat is incomprehensibly greater than the power a rich person has over someone who can eat regardless of whether they work for them. Thanks to ICE and other anti-immigration laws, rich people can effectively keep undocumented migrants as slaves again. What are they going to do? Complain and get themselves sent to a concentration camp?
What do you think a billionaire would rather have? A hundred mansions, ten private jets, twenty yachts, and a thousand unionized employees; or ten mansions, one private jet, two yachts, and a hundred slaves?
Wealth truly is not equivalent to power.
I agree that wealth is not equivalent to power but I continue to assert that it is the fundamental concept of capitalism. It’s rule by those who can exploit a market most effectively amassing the greatest amount of capital (by money/property value).
I find wealth in having hobbies and relationships that don’t return monetarily on my energy investment. This is incompatible with capitalism. While living under capitalism, i could have the highest quantity of relationships of the highest quality with other humans and it would still be worthless compared to someone with more capacity than me for taking on debt.
I wonder if I’m being misinterpreted here so if it’s unclear at this point; i see capitalism as a direct assault on our very humanity and a psychological disease that tears from us our empathy and feeling for one another through the pursuit of “wealth”. I despise it.
They use the aesthetics of capitalism to intellectualize and explain why we should not question their supremacy.
In reality, capitalism does not in any way justify monopolization of natural resources, or the large-scale destruction of the environment.
Capitalism is the ideology of thr petit-bourgeoisie, not the actual bourgeoisie. They are just social-darwinists.
I do not understand what this adds to the concept of capitalism other than introducing the term “social darwinism”.
There is no difference between “the aesthetics” of capitalism and its actualization, and neither base a capitalist’s actions in regard to benefitting society beyond “the market”. Capitalism is simply the current method of accruing power for someone to push their personal ideology on others. It just happens that the most effective method to exploit capitalism is to reject any sense of empathy or consideration for anything external or internal, especially flesh and blood humans because they are the only real threat to your power.
Let me try to rephrase this, so that maybe it makes sense. The point I’m trying to make is that social-darwinism is not an extension of capitalism, they’re two different things but with aesthetic overlap.
Capitalism aims to optimize work, by naturally rejecting inefficient ways to do things. The production line wins over the workshop. It’s about things and processes, not about people directly.
Social-darwinism is about rejecting people. To refuse people the space to thrive or reproduce. To push them to the edge of society until they die from exposure or suicide or simply that their bloodline ends when they can’t support their families over the course of generations. Thus the noble classes dominate by right, and whoever is unsuccessful deserves to die and rot.
At a certain point of wealth inequality under capitalism it becomes more efficient to make everyone else poorer than to acquire more wealth.
Yeah, and that’s certainly an effective strategy from the very moment an inequality exists at all.
i don’t think they’re that far-sighted though it’s probably a neat side-effect to them
Mmm… Well i think there are enough of them that think long term to maintain their institutions. The oil industry has been suppressing concerns about climate change and disaster for well over a century now