Is anyone actually convinced by the practical impossibility of infinite growth? I’m not saying the argument is wrong, but you all know how pig-headed liberals are when confronted with materialism. I had nominally intelligent, well-educated people bring up “who’ll pay insurance and pension funds?” when I was trying to explain the concept of surplus value.
I struggle to fathom what impact insurance and pension payments are supposed to have on this argument. Will there be extra matter emerging from a wormhole in spacetime if Earth’s physical resources are insufficient to respect human contracts? Should we start from their 1099 forms and then deduce the mass and volume of our planet?
I don’t recall how exactly it started, if I had to guess I’d say I made a remark impying all employers are exploiters. I tried to explain the concept of the surplus value in the simplest terms. I explained the simplest model, they said the worker doesn’t actually sell the product and that there’s other factors involved. I explained that logistics, selling etc are also labour and that I’m only talking on a simplistic model, that it can be expanded. They brought up an individual, a friend who happens to be a bourgeois leech, said he works hard (he does). I explained that his managership and ownership are essentially different hats, and that he could employ people to do the job, not work a second, and still go home with money. They mentioned insurances and shit.
I got flustered. I had faith in the intelligence of these people, and they just said that. I don’t remember how it went later, but it got into the subject of risk. I said proles risk far more, life and limb, while capitalists risk comfort and ranking. One of them claimed he had many friends who lost everything they had, presumably he meant start-ups, he knew a lot of those. I guess I made a flippant remark because it got heates and we had to just arguing to cool off.
At what point does this barrage of minutiae stop being honest questions and become sealioning? I can’t tell. It’s a cringy memory for me all around but if nothing else it was an experience.
One of them claimed he had many friends who lost everything they had, presumably he meant start-ups, he knew a lot of those.
You’ve got to wonder how people can still believe in capitalism when they give direct or semi-direct experience of so many new businesses going under. At this point, I like to get them in my side by pointing out how big capitalists have market advantages, which makes it so difficult for ordinary people to become rich by working hard.
As you say, you’ve got to question the intellectual honesty because they’ll often agree but then go off on one about minimum wage being the real barrier or something equally asinine.
Is anyone actually convinced by the practical impossibility of infinite growth? I’m not saying the argument is wrong, but you all know how pig-headed liberals are when confronted with materialism. I had nominally intelligent, well-educated people bring up “who’ll pay insurance and pension funds?” when I was trying to explain the concept of surplus value.
I struggle to fathom what impact insurance and pension payments are supposed to have on this argument. Will there be extra matter emerging from a wormhole in spacetime if Earth’s physical resources are insufficient to respect human contracts? Should we start from their 1099 forms and then deduce the mass and volume of our planet?
I don’t recall how exactly it started, if I had to guess I’d say I made a remark impying all employers are exploiters. I tried to explain the concept of the surplus value in the simplest terms. I explained the simplest model, they said the worker doesn’t actually sell the product and that there’s other factors involved. I explained that logistics, selling etc are also labour and that I’m only talking on a simplistic model, that it can be expanded. They brought up an individual, a friend who happens to be a bourgeois leech, said he works hard (he does). I explained that his managership and ownership are essentially different hats, and that he could employ people to do the job, not work a second, and still go home with money. They mentioned insurances and shit.
I got flustered. I had faith in the intelligence of these people, and they just said that. I don’t remember how it went later, but it got into the subject of risk. I said proles risk far more, life and limb, while capitalists risk comfort and ranking. One of them claimed he had many friends who lost everything they had, presumably he meant start-ups, he knew a lot of those. I guess I made a flippant remark because it got heates and we had to just arguing to cool off.
At what point does this barrage of minutiae stop being honest questions and become sealioning? I can’t tell. It’s a cringy memory for me all around but if nothing else it was an experience.
You’ve got to wonder how people can still believe in capitalism when they give direct or semi-direct experience of so many new businesses going under. At this point, I like to get them in my side by pointing out how big capitalists have market advantages, which makes it so difficult for ordinary people to become rich by working hard.
As you say, you’ve got to question the intellectual honesty because they’ll often agree but then go off on one about minimum wage being the real barrier or something equally asinine.