tl;dr: socialism isn't a thing in the way they're talking about here, it's pure capitalism in action.
I have a big problem with the term socialism, especially applied to things like this video tries to, applying it to a guild in a video game.
According to Marx and Engels, Socialism is the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat where an all powerful state takes over everything to try to remove the old power structures, in particular by using violence against the previously powerful. It is a temporary state in between capitalism and communism.
This idea is of course really stupid. You think you're going to hand absolute power to a group of people including the power to claim certain people are evil the power to execute people and the power to distribute resources, and it's magically going to result in a stateless, classless society? That's like a weight loss plan where you eat 4 liters of ice cream every day.
Socialism has been tried a bunch of times, and the obvious outcome always results -- mass murder of dissidents of any kind and mass suffering while the leaders get fat.
Since what is actually socialism is not desirable, we have stuff like people voluntarily working together being called socialism. You can kinda see what they're trying to do, linguistically it seems like "oh, it's social, so it's socialism!" but that's sorta dumb to the point that it seems sinister. It's like "Oh, we're called the Nazis! But don't worry, it's not like being *that* nazi" -- right. So why exactly are you choosing to name your thing after nazis if it isn't nazis? Oh, and then it turns out after you buy into their new nazi thing they sneak in a "Hitler was right!" and you're like "oh shit wait what?"
Capitalism is defined as an economic system characterized by private ownership and control of the means of production.
Under capitalism, individuals are free to acquire capital for themselves and try their best to utilize them for whatever purpose they desire. They can choose to use it to produce a good for profit, or they can choose to use it for public benefit, or they can choose to waste it. As well, human labor is a form of capital, and individuals are free to use their own labor as they see fit. They can choose to use their labor for themselves to produce something, or they can choose to sell it to someone else, or they can choose to spend it on the community, or they can choose to waste it. That's their choice, and they're free to make their own decisions in that regard.
At its best, capitalism has everyone doing what they're best at for mutual benefit. Of course, it can also be exploitative too, because freedom is dangerous; On one hand, freedom means the freedom to do things that aren't good for yourself or others. On the other hand, freedom means the freedom to do things that are good for yourself or others. Thus, freedom is best enjoyed by a moral people who will choose to do the right thing when nobody is watching, and authoritarianism is best enjoyed by immoral people who will always choose to do the wrong thing when nobody is watching so the state must always have somebody watching.
This is where I have a big problem with the thesis of the video. Individuals who control their labor, their money, own the equipment they use, and are free to use those resources however they wish willingly work together towards a common goal, and that's supposed to be socialism?
I don't agree at all. A group of individuals who have the absolute right to private property and private control of their own labor deciding to work together with others is economically capitalism.
You can say "But they're cooperating, and under capitalism you're supposed to be competing!", but this is one of the misunderstandings of the system at its best. The competition isn't necessarily just trying to get everyone else under your boot. A guild is competing for resources. It wants to get people, and it needs to present a case that's better than the other guilds, and also a case that's better than the alternatives, including hiring people as mercenaries (which could be done no matter what but was added as an official feature in 2015 in the group finder), or working alone.
I feel the same about my participation in the fediverse. Yes, I don't charge anyone to use my services and don't run advertising, and I've chosen to participate in an ecosystem where I can cooperate with other server operators to create something better than I could create myself, but I was able to start my services because I am free to have private control and ownership of capital of my own, and I'm a free individual in control of my own labor, so I purchased the capital equipment I run my services on, set up the equipment using my labor as I saw fit, and have the control over those services to run them how I wish including the decision to monetize or not.
I have a big problem with the term socialism, especially applied to things like this video tries to, applying it to a guild in a video game.
According to Marx and Engels, Socialism is the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat where an all powerful state takes over everything to try to remove the old power structures, in particular by using violence against the previously powerful. It is a temporary state in between capitalism and communism.
This idea is of course really stupid. You think you're going to hand absolute power to a group of people including the power to claim certain people are evil the power to execute people and the power to distribute resources, and it's magically going to result in a stateless, classless society? That's like a weight loss plan where you eat 4 liters of ice cream every day.
Socialism has been tried a bunch of times, and the obvious outcome always results -- mass murder of dissidents of any kind and mass suffering while the leaders get fat.
Since what is actually socialism is not desirable, we have stuff like people voluntarily working together being called socialism. You can kinda see what they're trying to do, linguistically it seems like "oh, it's social, so it's socialism!" but that's sorta dumb to the point that it seems sinister. It's like "Oh, we're called the Nazis! But don't worry, it's not like being *that* nazi" -- right. So why exactly are you choosing to name your thing after nazis if it isn't nazis? Oh, and then it turns out after you buy into their new nazi thing they sneak in a "Hitler was right!" and you're like "oh shit wait what?"
Capitalism is defined as an economic system characterized by private ownership and control of the means of production.
Under capitalism, individuals are free to acquire capital for themselves and try their best to utilize them for whatever purpose they desire. They can choose to use it to produce a good for profit, or they can choose to use it for public benefit, or they can choose to waste it. As well, human labor is a form of capital, and individuals are free to use their own labor as they see fit. They can choose to use their labor for themselves to produce something, or they can choose to sell it to someone else, or they can choose to spend it on the community, or they can choose to waste it. That's their choice, and they're free to make their own decisions in that regard.
At its best, capitalism has everyone doing what they're best at for mutual benefit. Of course, it can also be exploitative too, because freedom is dangerous; On one hand, freedom means the freedom to do things that aren't good for yourself or others. On the other hand, freedom means the freedom to do things that are good for yourself or others. Thus, freedom is best enjoyed by a moral people who will choose to do the right thing when nobody is watching, and authoritarianism is best enjoyed by immoral people who will always choose to do the wrong thing when nobody is watching so the state must always have somebody watching.
This is where I have a big problem with the thesis of the video. Individuals who control their labor, their money, own the equipment they use, and are free to use those resources however they wish willingly work together towards a common goal, and that's supposed to be socialism?
I don't agree at all. A group of individuals who have the absolute right to private property and private control of their own labor deciding to work together with others is economically capitalism.
You can say "But they're cooperating, and under capitalism you're supposed to be competing!", but this is one of the misunderstandings of the system at its best. The competition isn't necessarily just trying to get everyone else under your boot. A guild is competing for resources. It wants to get people, and it needs to present a case that's better than the other guilds, and also a case that's better than the alternatives, including hiring people as mercenaries (which could be done no matter what but was added as an official feature in 2015 in the group finder), or working alone.
I feel the same about my participation in the fediverse. Yes, I don't charge anyone to use my services and don't run advertising, and I've chosen to participate in an ecosystem where I can cooperate with other server operators to create something better than I could create myself, but I was able to start my services because I am free to have private control and ownership of capital of my own, and I'm a free individual in control of my own labor, so I purchased the capital equipment I run my services on, set up the equipment using my labor as I saw fit, and have the control over those services to run them how I wish including the decision to monetize or not.
I'm presently printing a new design, it's new fan blades for my little personal clip-on fan. Unlike the original design which is a pretty standard 3-blade design you'd expect on any fan you buy from a store, this one is based on a (signficantly smaller) Noctua case fan. My goal is to get more airflow with less noise.
(Hmmm, after putting this in here realized I had the blades going the wrong way, so I redesigned it significantly)
(Hmmm, after putting this in here realized I had the blades going the wrong way, so I redesigned it significantly)
The journalists who write these articles I don't believe have actually tried to use ChatGPT to write code for them in any real context, because they'd quickly realize how limited it actually is.
@frameworkcomputer Just saw the video about your 16" model. I don't know when it'll be, but you'll be hearing from me when it's time for a new PC.
That's a good point. By the time the boomers reached adulthood, the system was already collapsing. It definitely had some really good times, but boomers were born after 1948 by definition, so they were only 20 by 1968, and while there was a short period of prosperity after that, it wasn't all that long. There was a worldwide multi-year recession in 1973 and continuous massive economic issues from then onward, so there are a shocking number of parallels with what happened to the millennials.
Found the zoomer.
Anyway, joking aside, my point isn't really changed anything by who raised the millennials. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and if as a group we aren't doing anything any better, if we're not acting any differently, then we aren't in traffic we are traffic and we are part of the problem. And we are a massive part of the problem. Governments elected by boomers have balanced budgets. No government elected by millennials has balanced budgets.
Anyway, joking aside, my point isn't really changed anything by who raised the millennials. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and if as a group we aren't doing anything any better, if we're not acting any differently, then we aren't in traffic we are traffic and we are part of the problem. And we are a massive part of the problem. Governments elected by boomers have balanced budgets. No government elected by millennials has balanced budgets.
To be fair to the boomers, the exact same thing is being done by the millennials. There's a reason why 75% of the federal debt came to be since the millennials reached voting age, and it's not because they demand austerity and responsible stewardship of the nation's finances.
"I'm actually a guy named frank who gets paid per answer. Please don't tell anyone they have my family"
I asked an ai how to programatically hide the legend on a thing, and it said "thing.showlegend = false" which was hilariously stupid since that thing didn't even call it a legend.
Censorship should be owned by everyone who participates, and nobody has a monopoly on it.
AI and robotics are quite conservative, and that's it's weakness.
Even now, AI is impressive but once you get off the beaten path it quickly shows it's limitations, it can give you something that's already been found, but higher level reasoning, creativity, and dealing with stuff it was never trained on show quickly the limits of even the best AI. It's a very well built demo, but anyone who has ever worked in the real world knows how well built demos don't automatically produce good real world results.
Robotics have multiple issues. You get the robotics you build, for the purposes you build those robots for. Anyone who has tried to use AI for troubleshooting quickly realizes that it only knows what it's been told, so it isn't terribly useful once things aren't as expected. It's also quite rigid, so while well read it often has problems letting go of ideas it likes. Besides that, humans are still more dexterous than general purpose robots and stronger than most of them too. There's a reason why so much industrial work is still done by humans despite machines being good enough for much of the work for decades. Humans are more flexible in numerous ways.
The dream of a society where nobody works has been on the menu for quite a few years. I remember seeing an article from the 1960s that could have been written in 2023, but while authors can dream and produce with nothing else, at some point somebody somewhere actually needs to accomplish something so you have to stop dreaming and actually do. Then all the constraints of the real world reveal such tools to be useful and important, but not all encompassing. The limitations of our tools don't seem to matter in abstract, but in practice they are the most important thing.
Even now, AI is impressive but once you get off the beaten path it quickly shows it's limitations, it can give you something that's already been found, but higher level reasoning, creativity, and dealing with stuff it was never trained on show quickly the limits of even the best AI. It's a very well built demo, but anyone who has ever worked in the real world knows how well built demos don't automatically produce good real world results.
Robotics have multiple issues. You get the robotics you build, for the purposes you build those robots for. Anyone who has tried to use AI for troubleshooting quickly realizes that it only knows what it's been told, so it isn't terribly useful once things aren't as expected. It's also quite rigid, so while well read it often has problems letting go of ideas it likes. Besides that, humans are still more dexterous than general purpose robots and stronger than most of them too. There's a reason why so much industrial work is still done by humans despite machines being good enough for much of the work for decades. Humans are more flexible in numerous ways.
The dream of a society where nobody works has been on the menu for quite a few years. I remember seeing an article from the 1960s that could have been written in 2023, but while authors can dream and produce with nothing else, at some point somebody somewhere actually needs to accomplish something so you have to stop dreaming and actually do. Then all the constraints of the real world reveal such tools to be useful and important, but not all encompassing. The limitations of our tools don't seem to matter in abstract, but in practice they are the most important thing.