TheRPGSite

Pundy, I have new-found respect for you. I've always considered some of your political views suspect, but little did I know that, through your support of D&D, you were actually much closer to me politically than I ever knew! To wit, in this thread:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=365306&page=2

We have this quote, enthusiastically seconded many times:

"D&D is the ultimate right wing wet dream. A bunch of guys who are better than your average joe set out into the middle of nowhere where they murder and kill everything they come across in order to stockpile gold and elaborate magical bling. there are no taxes, no state and any poor people that get in your way get their village burned to the ground. It's like Ayn Rand on PCP."

Welcome, brother!

Actually, I find that the majority of RPG.netters seem to be wildly liberal and reactionary, so this point of view dosn't surprise me in the least. As I've said before, its what you get when your cross the Daily Kos with the furthest fringes of Liberal advocacy. But I repeat myself.

For that matter, based on much of the conversation there, I'm beginning to think that most of the RPG community as a whole is borderline whacko liberal, and damn proud of it.

Topic: ARE most gamers Liberal in the modern nutcase eat-the-rich, stop having babies to save Gaia vein, or are they just more vocal about it?

(note: There are elements of sarcasm in the above. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine what they were.)

I think it is an online phenom. I think most people on line are liberal or leaning that way. Most of those that are not tend to be libertarian. Thats the way it seems to me. So it's no wonder, to me, that the majority of rpg folk on line are liberal.

Quote from: WerekoalaActually, I find that the majority of RPG.netters seem to be wildly liberal and reactionary, so this point of view dosn't surprise me in the least. As I've said before, its what you get when your cross the Daily Kos with the furthest fringes of Liberal advocacy. But I repeat myself.

For that matter, based on much of the conversation there, I'm beginning to think that most of the RPG community as a whole is borderline whacko liberal, and damn proud of it.

Topic: ARE most gamers Liberal in the modern nutcase eat-the-rich, stop having babies to save Gaia vein, or are they just more vocal about it?

(note: There are elements of sarcasm in the above. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine what they were.)

The internet caters to the wackos from all over the spectrum, but I don't think it's heavily biased towards one particular viewpoint. That being said, RPGnet's Tangency has a noticeable left wing leaning.

Also, you have to consider that "liberal" can have a very different meaning in other countries. Here in Uruguay, a "liberal" is someone who wants free-market policies. :keke:

A) I love their idea of what a "right wing wet dream" is.
B) Have they never played in a game of D&D wherein the taxman cometh? I know I did - a lot.

SO, I'm an open Socialist, a member of the IWW, a member of RPGnet, a self-proclaimed Trotskyite, and...

... I LOVE old fashioned D&D and dungeon crawls.

So what does that mean?



(Me, I think it means that "real life" and "hobby" are two different things.)


( Naaahh.....)

Quote from: JongWKAlso, you have to consider that "liberal" can have a very different meaning in other countries. Here in Uruguay, a "liberal" is someone who wants free-market policies. :keke:

In America, referred to as the Classical Liberal - the views of which, ironically, are now associated with cold-hearted crazy right wing nut job extremists.

Quote from: Old GeezerSO, I'm an open Socialist, a member of the IWW, a member of RPGnet, a self-proclaimed Trotskyite, and...

... I LOVE old fashioned D&D and dungeon crawls.

So what does that mean?



(Me, I think it means that "real life" and "hobby" are two different things.)


( Naaahh.....)

No, it means you've been denying your true nature! You've gone as far to the left as you can to compensate for the loathing you feel when you hoard gold coins and kick beggars to the side before you burn their cattle to the ground and rape their horse!

Free yourself, brother - you've lived your life captive to a social order that denies your true calling, a lie whispered into your mind while you slept, a misguided effort to chain the savage Randian beast within!

Join us, Brother - you have nothing to lose but your chains!

Now, roll for initiative.

Quote from: JongWKAlso, you have to consider that "liberal" can have a very different meaning in other countries. Here in Uruguay, a "liberal" is someone who wants free-market policies. :keke:

That's why I specified the modern nutcase eat-the-rich, stop having babies to save Gaia leftist as opposed to clasical Liberalism.

My sense is that most RPGers who post online are anti-business social liberals. The notion that it's greedy for business to set out to make a profit seems pretty widespread. Most RPGers I've come across have a sense of entitlement about cheap or free entertainment, a tolerant attitude about pirating, and a suspicion or hostility towards the business model.

I don't know if this is a generational thing, or if RPGers are relatively poor as a group. But I know that in comparison to wargamers, RPGers are far more resentful of the people who they buy their gaming material from, and seem more alienated from mainstream political/economic culture in general.

Quote from: HaffrungMy sense is that most RPGers who post online are anti-business social liberals. The notion that it's greedy for business to set out to make a profit seems pretty widespread. Most RPGers I've come across have a sense of entitlement about cheap or free entertainment, a tolerant attitude about pirating, and a suspicion or hostility towards the business model.

I don't know if this is a generational thing, or if RPGers are relatively poor as a group. But I know that in comparison to wargamers, RPGers are far more resentful of the people who they buy their gaming material from, and seem more alienated from mainstream political/economic culture in general.

Yeah, I never got that whole "profit is evil" thing either.  As a Socialist, I see the evil is not making money, but making money off someone else's labor.  Another kark is the whole "Games are overpriced!" thing.  The value of something is what somebody is willing to pay.  If someone else is willing to buy it, the seller is pricing it right.

On a thread on this subject over at RPGnet, I responded to this attitude with

"Somebody else is willing to pay more than I am so the price stays higher than I like! Waa waa waa waa waa!"

to which someone else replied

"When the Trotskyist is making fun of you for not being able to accept the market price, you know you've made a wrong turn somewhere."

Which still makes me smile.

Quote from: WerekoalaNo, it means you've been denying your true nature! You've gone as far to the left as you can to compensate for the loathing you feel when you hoard gold coins and kick beggars to the side before you burn their cattle to the ground and rape their horse!

Free yourself, brother - you've lived your life captive to a social order that denies your true calling, a lie whispered into your mind while you slept, a misguided effort to chain the savage Randian beast within!

Join us, Brother - you have nothing to lose but your chains!

Now, roll for initiative.

:D

Quote from: WerekoalaThat's why I specified the modern nutcase eat-the-rich, stop having babies to save Gaia leftist as opposed to clasical Liberalism.

Ah, ok. We just call them radicals. ;)

Quote from: WerekoalaTopic: ARE most gamers Liberal in the modern nutcase eat-the-rich, stop having babies to save Gaia vein, or are they just more vocal about it?

(note: There are elements of sarcasm in the above. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine what they were.)

How about I determine you are an idiot.

Quote from: signoftheserpentHow about I determine you are an idiot.

Oh. Wow.  That was... profound.

Quote from: Old Geezer"Somebody else is willing to pay more than I am so the price stays higher than I like! Waa waa waa waa waa!"

to which someone else replied

"When the Trotskyist is making fun of you for not being able to accept the market price, you know you've made a wrong turn somewhere."

Which still makes me smile.

I share in your smile, sir.


:D

Quote from: signoftheserpentHow about I determine you are an idiot.

You wouldn't be the first, nor likely would you be the last. It affects me the same, either way.

I take it you have problems with people making observations and asking questions? That's very liberal of you. :haw:

Quote from: darI think it is an online phenom. I think most people on line are liberal or leaning that way.

It depends on what message boards you go to.  There are plenty of right-wing message boards and blogs out there if you look for them.

Quote from: darMost of those that are not tend to be libertarian. Thats the way it seems to me. So it's no wonder, to me, that the majority of rpg folk on line are liberal.

What sorts of message boards do you read?

You also need to remember that a lot of right-wing people learn to keep their heads down and not say anything because left-wing people can get pretty nutty and unhinged when they hear ideas that they don't like and jump straight to the ad hominem attacks and smears.  Better to just keep quiet and let them rant like loons.  I see that happen in online discussions, in social situations, and in the office.

Quote from: WerekoalaI take it you have problems with people making observations and asking questions? That's very liberal of you. :haw:

I recommend reading Thomas Sowell's book, A Conflict of Visions.  It does a pretty good job of explaining why the left has such a problem imagining anyone disagreeing with them and resort to characterizations of their enemies right out of Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain central casting.

Quote from: Old GeezerYeah, I never got that whole "profit is evil" thing either.  As a Socialist, I see the evil is not making money, but making money off someone else's labor.

What a lot of socialists and leftists don't seem to realize is that coordination, management, and organization is a form of labor, too, and that the reason why rich people invest in enterprises that employ people who don't have the money to start them themselves is in order to get a return on their investment.  

Quote from: Old GeezerAnother kark is the whole "Games are overpriced!" thing.  The value of something is what somebody is willing to pay.  If someone else is willing to buy it, the seller is pricing it right.

That's not entirely, true, either.  The value of something to the producer is determined by the cost required to produce it.  If it costs a game company more to produce a game book than they can sell it for or if people are not willing ot pay what it costs to produce, then it's not a viable business that can be sustained.  And that's why so many small game companies that produced low price books and so many hobby stores that sold games at a discount went out of business.  Many people forget that business have costs and the fact that people often can't see the effect of the labor in the product is what leads to a near universal resentment of middleman minorities (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2931421.html), even though they provide a very useful purpose in the societies that they live in.

Quote from: John MorrowThat's not entirely, true, either.  The value of something to the producer is determined by the cost required to produce it.  If it costs a game company more to produce a game book than they can sell it for or if people are not willing ot pay what it costs to produce, then it's not a viable business that can be sustained.  And that's why so many small game companies that produced low price books and so many hobby stores that sold games at a discount went out of business.  

Exactly what I said, really.  The "Value", or, perhaps, "Market Value", of something is what someone is willing to pay for it.  If your production costs don't enable you to sell something for what someone is willing to pay for it, and you can't cut production costs, quit.

Quote from: John Morrowthe reason why rich people invest in enterprises that employ people who don't have the money to start them themselves is in order to get a return on their investment.

Which is what I object to.  No work, no money.  Period.  If you want to help a small business, make them a loan, do not parasitically suck away the worth created by the people actually working.

But I digress.

EDIT:  Purely for information, I got my MBA in 1987 from the U of MN.  It didn't take, though.  The major effect of business school for me was to turn me into a Socialist.

But that's WAY too long a story to type, or tell without beer.

Quote from: WerekoalaTopic: ARE most gamers Liberal in the modern nutcase eat-the-rich, stop having babies to save Gaia vein, or are they just more vocal about it?

data point:  in my case, both.

Though I don't have any complaints about current prices for gaming products.  Seems like the value is very high for the dollar compared to most other entertainment products.

Quote from: SpikeOh. Wow.  That was... profound.

Indeed, in direct response to the stupidity of the quote.

Quote from: WerekoalaYou wouldn't be the first, nor likely would you be the last. It affects me the same, either way.

I take it you have problems with people making observations and asking questions? That's very liberal of you. :haw:

If the sorts of observations being made amont to the sort of right wing crap one can find in the daily mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766), then yes.

Quote from: John MorrowI recommend reading Thomas Sowell's book, A Conflict of Visions.  It does a pretty good job of explaining why the left has such a problem imagining anyone disagreeing with them and resort to characterizations of their enemies right out of Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain central casting.

or better yet, examine the behaviour and motiations of said enemies to understand just why we 'the left' have a problem with them as such.

You know, Werekoala, I sigged that quote on RPG.HU. It is at the same time utterly ridiculous and perfectly accurate. :D

I also admit to having read the thread for entertainment value. RPGNet's political dynamics is a grand example of what happens when a community becomes self-segregated to the point of delusion; in this case culminating in some ultra-leftist groupthink quite intolerant of anyone thinking differently. (A similar, but opposite clustering can be observed on the otherwise cool Knights&Knaves Alehouse, the home of Reactionary D&D players - where anything but declaring unquestioning support for Pres Bush and the American Way gets you subtly escorted out of the club.)

Captain Planet liberalism at its finest. :D

Yes, all this really proves is just how intensely incestuously out of touch with reality RPG.net gamers really are; their mass delusions about the most popular RPG in the world pretty much shows just how unbelievably blinded they are by wishing that reality was something other than what it was.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowIt depends on what message boards you go to.  There are plenty of right-wing message boards and blogs out there if you look for them.

I know, but those tend to be political from the ground up, not boards ostensibly meant for other things. Anyway, I've seen it happen over and over again, as a thing on the net becomes popular, it gets bent liberal. I think digg is the extreme example.

Quote from: John MorrorYou also need to remember that a lot of right-wing people learn to keep their heads down and not say anything because left-wing people can get pretty nutty and unhinged when they hear ideas that they don't like and jump straight to the ad hominem attacks and smears.  Better to just keep quiet and let them rant like loons.  I see that happen in online discussions, in social situations, and in the office.

Sure, you have a good point (sots, I'm looking at you). Still, I think that about the same number of liberals as conservatives (or whatever) think they are on a mission and infuse politics into every thing, even when it's utterly pointless. Seeing that the liberals tend to mob and shout down other views, well, it leads to my opinion that there are more liberals online.

Wasn't there a poll here? Didn't it come out that way on this very board?

Quote from: John MorrowYou also need to remember that a lot of right-wing people learn to keep their heads down and not say anything because left-wing people can get pretty nutty and unhinged when they hear ideas that they don't like and jump straight to the ad hominem attacks and smears.  Better to just keep quiet and let them rant like loons.  I see that happen in online discussions, in social situations, and in the office.

As a left wing person, I feel exactly the same way.  Left Pyramid because of that.

Quote from: walkerpAs a left wing person, I feel exactly the same way.  Left Pyramid because of that.

Nice to know we've got a place where we can all get together and rub elbows, or bash skulls in with baseball bats as the case may be.

I love you, man! (hugglez)

Quote from: Old GeezerWhich is what I object to.  No work, no money.  Period.  If you want to help a small business, make them a loan, do not parasitically suck away the worth created by the people actually working.

The problem is that the people wouldn't actually be working or creating worth without the investment and loans to small and new companies are quite risky and unreliable.  The better solution, which is already happening to some degree, is to minimize the cost required to start a business to encourage owner-operators.  Things like print-on-demand, drop-shipping, e-commerce sites, Ebay, and so on all greatly reduce the overhead of starting and operating a business, making the barrier to entry much lower than it once was.

Quote from: signoftheserpentor better yet, examine the behaviour and motiations of said enemies to understand just why we 'the left' have a problem with them as such.

I've done that and, frankly, that the left sees their opposition as a sort of cartoon evil that purposely wants to destroy the world always seemed a little baffling to me, yet Sowell offers a very good explanation for why that is.  Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's "the left" that has an understanding problem?  Probably not.

Quote from: walkerpAs a left wing person, I feel exactly the same way.  Left Pyramid because of that.

Yes, that absolutely happens in social situations (e.g., forums) where right-wing people feel dominant and comfortable, too.  And that also leads to the echo chamber problem.  When everyone around you has a certain political leaning, the reasonable center shifts toward that leaning and gets more and more radical until the next thing you know, some really nutty ideas start to be taken seriously as if they are reasonable because nobody on the other side is there to call them nutty.

Quote from: darI know, but those tend to be political from the ground up, not boards ostensibly meant for other things. Anyway, I've seen it happen over and over again, as a thing on the net becomes popular, it gets bent liberal. I think digg is the extreme example.

Could that simply be because conservatives aren't interested in pop culture fads?  That sounds pretty obvious to me.

Quote from: HaffrungSure, you have a good point (sots, I'm looking at you). Still, I think that about the same number of liberals as conservatives (or whatever) think they are on a mission and infuse politics into every thing, even when it's utterly pointless. Seeing that the liberals tend to mob and shout down other views, well, it leads to my opinion that there are more liberals online.

(Using "liberal" and "conservative" in the American sense here...)

Part of the issue, and the reason why I mentioned Sowell's books, is that conservatives largely simply think liberals are wrong, ignorant, or silly while liberals tend to think conservatives are malicious and evil, thus they take things far more personally and seriously.  Liberals are likely to shut down arguments that they don't like with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, and a host of other ad hominem attacks.  It's really difficult to have a meaningful conversation with someone who is frothing at the mouth over how evil you are.

Quote from: HaffrungWasn't there a poll here? Didn't it come out that way on this very board?

If I had to guess, I'd say that most conservative role-players aren't interested in navel-gazing about their hobby online.

Quote from: WerekoalaActually, I find that the majority of RPG.netters seem to be wildly liberal and reactionary...

Reactionary doesn't mean what you think it does, get a dictionary.

Double post deleted

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that the people wouldn't actually be working or creating worth without the investment and loans

Loans are a different matter from the organized theft that is stocks and dividends.

I suspect, though, that we have different baseline assumptions.  Different assumptions virtually guarantee different conclusions.

Having been on both sides over the years, let me tell you that both sides take things far too personally, mischaracterise their opponents, and fail to understand where the other side is coming from. In most places, one view or another comes to predominate, and the participants reinforce one another's view that they are misunderstood martyrs for truth, while other side is a pack of callow twits who, with fleeting exceptions, fail to uphold basic standards of reasoning. Having seen it happen time and time again, I personally find it pretty hilarious.

Quote from: John MorrowI've done that and, frankly, that the left sees their opposition as a sort of cartoon evil that purposely wants to destroy the world always seemed a little baffling to me, yet Sowell offers a very good explanation for why that is.  Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's "the left" that has an understanding problem?  Probably not.

I don't know any 'lefty' that views the right in such a way.

But then we have a government that lost 25 million people's personal details in the post; if that's not cartoon evil then I don't know what else you could call it.

Quote from: shindorimReactionary doesn't mean what you think it does, get a dictionary.

Dictionary or not, it is a good summary.

Quote from: Old GeezerLoans are a different matter from the organized theft that is stocks and dividends.

*blinkety*

    Staying out of this conversation so far, but I just have to ask.  How does the voluntary trading of shares of ownership in a commercial enterprise and the (small) payment of profits thereof=organized theft?  That got a "huh" from me.

    The idea of Pundit as a Randroid got a huge laugh.  The man's a fan of leftist, populist singers who would have given an Objectivist an aneurysm.   Pundit's just a man with an extremely low tolerance for  BS in any orthodoxy.

      Aside from his own. :D

...So, is there a good idea in this somewhere for a Sci-Fi campaign maybe??

 Robots or androids that have been programmed to think like Ayn Rand maybe?


- Ed C.

Oh ..THIS thread ? , you meant :
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=365306


Yeah that whole thread is a trainwreck heading for locking ,...if the wrong viewpoint gets posted on there.


- Ed C.

Wait...you mean the Cylons *don't* follow Rand as their One True Prophet?

Quote from: John MorrowYou also need to remember that a lot of right-wing people learn to keep their heads down and not say anything because left-wing people can get pretty nutty and unhinged when they hear ideas that they don't like and jump straight to the ad hominem attacks and smears.

Smears? You mean like automatically accusing other people of acting pretty nutty and unhinged and of jumping straight into ad hominem attacks? Those sort of smears?

Quote from: John MorrowIt does a pretty good job of explaining why the left has such a problem imagining anyone disagreeing with them and resort to characterizations of their enemies right out of Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain central casting.

Actually, when you encounter something like a private, mercenary company which calls itself Blackwater, uses a logo of a big, black bear foot with claws extended and is run by a guy named Erik Prince, it's kind of hard not to treat it as a Saturday morning cartoon.

"Blackwater? Didn't they fight G.I. Joe in the fifth season? You know, the one where the head bad guy turned out to be related to Wonder Woman?"

You can't make this stuff up. Well, actually, you can, but if you do everyone says you're being too blatant and on-the-nose.

Quote from: Zoran BekricActually, when you encounter something like a private, mercenary company which calls itself Blackwater, uses a logo of a big, black bear foot with claws extended and is run by a guy named Erik Prince, it's kind of hard not to treat it as a Saturday morning cartoon.

    *pause*
 
     Blackwater isn't a paintball-based military LARP?

     Uh-oh...so, um, "Convoy on Route Irish" isn't just a convention, right?

In America, the problem with conservative and liberal discussion isn't the opposing viewpoints as much as it is the extremist fringe kooks on both sides who don't understand that you can disagree and debate without it descending into the lowest common denominator of personal communication. The fringe kooks see any disagreement to their preconcieved notions to be cartoon evil, be they conservative or liberal, and it leaves the moderate majority standing alone because all the attention has shifted to the drama queens on the extreme.

I also believe that there are more opinions than there are informed opinions floating around, but then again I'm just another proletariat bohemian and the concept of actually doing some research to base your opinion on is far too elitist. :D

Quote from: John MorrowI've done that and, frankly, that the left sees their opposition as a sort of cartoon evil that purposely wants to destroy the world always seemed a little baffling to me, yet Sowell offers a very good explanation for why that is.  Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's "the left" that has an understanding problem?  Probably not.

You what's funny? In the US, the left think it's the smartest and the right thinks it has the moral high ground. In Uruguay, it's exactly the opposite. :haw:

Quote from: John MorrowYes, that absolutely happens in social situations (e.g., forums) where right-wing people feel dominant and comfortable, too.  And that also leads to the echo chamber problem.  When everyone around you has a certain political leaning, the reasonable center shifts toward that leaning and gets more and more radical until the next thing you know, some really nutty ideas start to be taken seriously as if they are reasonable because nobody on the other side is there to call them nutty.

They weren't nutty.  They are pretty standard corporate-fed conservatism (restricting corporate excess = restricting "my" freedom). The problem wasn't  any extremism but the shouting down and general fascistic behaviour.  Very similar to what we see here, though, ironically, it doesn't happen here around political topics but around gaming topics.

Quote from: shindorimReactionary doesn't mean what you think it does, get a dictionary.

By gerorge, you are correct. I blame the Demon Beer.

How come the left gets all the best sounding words?

Quote from: WerekoalaBy gerorge, you are correct. I blame the Demon Beer.

How come the left gets all the best sounding words?

They really don't....its all a confused mess.


 When I was in High School (early 1980s), I asked a American History teacher : Why was it that what is referred to as "Right-wing" in this country, gets called "left-wing" in other countries.   (at the time communists and collectivists in other countries were being referred to as right wing, whiile those that were talking like collectivists in this country were referred to as left-wing)


 She couldn't think of a good answer.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar(at the time communists and collectivists in other countries were being referred to as right wing, whiile those that were talking like collectivists in this country were referred to as left-wing)

That's because of the academia left didn't like them, they were "right-wing" and if they did like them, they were "left-wing", regardless of their actual ideology.  It was one of those black hat/white hat things for leftists.

When were communists ever called right wing?  

The origin of the term comes from which side of the king the members of the legislative assembly in pre-revolutionary France sat.

The terms vary a lot, in time and place, but their differences are generally pretty clear.  As usual, the wikipedia article breaks it down fairly nicely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHaving been on both sides over the years, let me tell you that both sides take things far too personally, mischaracterise their opponents, and fail to understand where the other side is coming from. In most places, one view or another comes to predominate, and the participants reinforce one another's view that they are misunderstood martyrs for truth, while other side is a pack of callow twits who, with fleeting exceptions, fail to uphold basic standards of reasoning. Having seen it happen time and time again, I personally find it pretty hilarious.

May I subscribe to your newsletter?  Please?

Quote from: walkerpWhen were communists ever called right wing?  

The origin of the term comes from which side of the king the members of the legislative assembly in pre-revolutionary France sat.

The terms vary a lot, in time and place, but their differences are generally pretty clear.  As usual, the wikipedia article breaks it down fairly nicely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics

In plenty of newspapers and on TV in the early 1980s to early'90s. They would say the right wing or conservative party - whebn referring to a communist government in another country ...but leave out the detail that it was socialists ior communists that they were referring to .

- Ed C.

Quote from: SamarkandHow does the voluntary trading of shares of ownership in a commercial enterprise and the (small) payment of profits thereof=organized theft?  That got a "huh" from me.

VERY brief:

It is voluntary on the part of the "owners", not the workers.

Wealth belongs to the people who actually produce it.  What corporations call "Excess Earnings" and pay out as dividends is wealth produced by the workers and taken from them.  Paying dividends means that the owners, knowingly and willingly, are paying their workers less than they know the workers are worth.

This is theft.  This is evil.

The entire stock market system is designed to do nothing but make the rich richer and the working class poorer, which is exactly what is happening by any measure.

And the old "nobody has to work for..." is just bullshit.  "Freedom to starve or have a job where the fruits of your labor are stolen from you" is no freedom.

This is a very rough, very hasty summary of Marx' "Value, Price, and Profit" (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/Marx.htm), which cost me about a week of sleepless nights after I read it.  I recommend it highly.

Quote from: John MorrowThat's because of the academia left didn't like them, they were "right-wing" and if they did like them, they were "left-wing", regardless of their actual ideology.  It was one of those black hat/white hat things for leftists.

As opposed to a black hat/white hat thing for rightists.

I don't know where YOU live, but around here it's the right that are the kneejerk "Lefties are EEBUL EEBUL EEBUL" and the leftist groups that actually, you know, THINK about things.

Me, I'm tired of "Righties" who use Leftist, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Liberal as interchangable glyphs meaning "Anything the guy on Talk Radio tells me not to like".

Of course, it MIGHT just be that Sturgeon's Second Law applies to people, too, so you only have a 10% chance of finding an intelligent person of ANY political stripe....

Nah, it's more fun to demonize and/or marginalize the opposition.  Silly me.

Quote from: WerekoalaHow come the left gets all the best sounding words?

Remember the war against Franco,
That's the kind for which each of us longs.
They may have won all the battles,
But we had all the best songs!


    -- Tom Lehrer, "Folk Song Army"

Old Geezer:

Marginal utility. ´Nuff said.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHaving been on both sides over the years, let me tell you that both sides take things far too personally, mischaracterise their opponents, and fail to understand where the other side is coming from. In most places, one view or another comes to predominate, and the participants reinforce one another's view that they are misunderstood martyrs for truth, while other side is a pack of callow twits who, with fleeting exceptions, fail to uphold basic standards of reasoning. Having seen it happen time and time again, I personally find it pretty hilarious.

Yeah, that's true, but there are some differences to the pattern even though the net result is similar.  Sowell's two categories are "constrained" and "unconstrained", which don't map exactly to right and left.  But the gist is that people who feel that their ideology can fix the world's problems tend to see their opponents as evil, because they can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to fix all of the world's problems other than they are evil.

One of the biggest parts of the problem, in my opinion, is the idea that understanding equals agreement.  It's entirely possible to understand someone else's argument and not agree with it, but often very hard for people to imagine how someone else could understand their argument but not feel the same way about it.

Quote from: Old GeezerLoans are a different matter from the organized theft that is stocks and dividends.

You are still making money for doing nothing but lending money, which has historically been considered morally questionable by many groups and is even prohibited in some religions.  There are plenty of people who consider all interest usury and there have been plenty of groups who have tried to control or even ban it.  That is, after all, how Scrooge made his money.

What makes stocks and dividends a problem, in my opinion, is the current structure of corporations and corporate management.  There are some big problems with that structure but I'm honestly at a loss to figure out a way to fix it that wouldn't make things worse.

Quote from: Old GeezerI suspect, though, that we have different baseline assumptions.  Different assumptions virtually guarantee different conclusions.

Did you read the article on Middleman Minorities?  Thomas Sowell also discusses them a bit in his book Race and Culture.  There is a strong historical resentment of people who loan money and collect interest and people who buy goods at one price and then sell them at a markup.  They are seen as getting rich without working for it (sound familiar?).  That's pretty much the same criticism of stocks and dividends.  So the question I have is what makes stocks and dividends, in particular, problematic for you?

Quote from: John MorrowSo the question I have is what makes stocks and dividends, in particular, problematic for you?

See "Value, Price, and Profit".  It's explained in full detail there and better than I can summarize.

Within the U.S., I think there is a mild conservative bias to role-players as a whole and a mild liberal bias to role-playing discussion online.  Demographically, RPG players tend to be middle-class suburban white males (slight conservative bias), tending to be college educated (slight liberal bias).  Regionally, RPGs are very strong in the Midwest and the South, though there is also a significant contingent in the coastal Northwest and Northeast.  

I don't really know enough about the scene in other countries to comment about those.  Though one should bear in mind that some who are considered modern liberal in the U.S. could well be centrist or even conservative in many other first-world countries.  

Regarding the original quote about D&D...  It's a vast exaggeration, but I do think there is a tendency for medieval fantasy and superheroes and post-apocalyptic genres to be conservative; and for science fiction and modern supernatural to be liberal.  D&D does have a strong individualist ethos.  

As for online, I think that is mainly a function of who goes online.  I don't think that there are a host of silent conservatives out there who are online and reading but not speaking up about their politics.  It's not like conservatives aren't willing to shout down and demonize their opponents when they are in the majority -- just hang out in some of the conservative online hangouts.  Now, moderate financial conservatives (as John Morrow comes across) might not be as strong in their name-calling -- but conservatives as a whole have plenty of moralizing rhetoric and demonization.

Also, a general topic check -- I thought we were talking about the political leanings of gamers.  General political discussion should be split off into "Off-Topic", right?

Quote from: Old GeezerAs opposed to a black hat/white hat thing for rightists.

Oh, they have a black hat/white hat thing, too, but my point was that the American press had come to use "right-wing" as a euphemism for "bad" and "left-wing" as a euphemism for "good", thus the oddity of calling hard-line communist governments "right-wing".  The right was simply calling the USSR "evil" at the time, a characterization that the left didn't approve of.

Quote from: Old GeezerI don't know where YOU live, but around here it's the right that are the kneejerk "Lefties are EEBUL EEBUL EEBUL" and the leftist groups that actually, you know, THINK about things.

Do you live in a predominantly right-wing area?  I live in a predominantly left-wing area.  It could simply be that the unthinking people simply default to whatever the majority around them believes.

Quote from: Old GeezerMe, I'm tired of "Righties" who use Leftist, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Liberal as interchangable glyphs meaning "Anything the guy on Talk Radio tells me not to like".

And I'm pretty tired of "Lefties" who use bigot, fascist, mindless, or ignorant as as labels for anyone who disagrees with them.  Have you ever actually listened to right-wing Talk Radio like Rush Limbaugh?

By the way, I've read FAIR's book critical of Rush Limbaugh that covered a period when I listened to his show fairly frequently, so I was familiar with a lot of the comments that they discussed.  Their complaints were about a third legitimate, a third making a mountain out of a molehill, and a third utterly misunderstanding the comment (e.g., taking a comment clearly made in jest seriously).

Quote from: Old GeezerOf course, it MIGHT just be that Sturgeon's Second Law applies to people, too, so you only have a 10% chance of finding an intelligent person of ANY political stripe....

Quite possibly.  But I don't think intelligence is the only factor involved.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, many psychopaths are incredibly intelligent and often quite rational in their thinking.

Quote from: Old GeezerNah, it's more fun to demonize and/or marginalize the opposition.  Silly me.

Yes, it can be fun, which is part of why it gets done so much.

Quote from: walkerpWhen were communists ever called right wing?

It was not uncommon, during the late Cold War and around the fall of the Soviet Union, to hear the communists in charge be called "right-wing".  You'll sometimes hear the anti-reform communist government of China referred to the same way.

Quote from: Old GeezerSee "Value, Price, and Profit".  It's explained in full detail there and better than I can summarize.

I'll see if I can find the time to read it.  As you explain it, I think I already agree at least somewhat with your characterization of the problem, though perhaps not in degree or solution.  The problem, as I see it, is eliminating the problem without creating a situation that's even worse in practice.

Quote from: jhkimAlso, a general topic check -- I thought we were talking about the political leanings of gamers.  General political discussion should be split off into "Off-Topic", right?

To be honest, I think this thread has probably been a good candidate for "Off-Topic" since the first message that started it off.

Quote from: Zoran BekricSmears? You mean like automatically accusing other people of acting pretty nutty and unhinged and of jumping straight into ad hominem attacks? Those sort of smears?

...says the person who is getting pretty nutty and unhinged. :p

Quote from: JongWKYou what's funny? In the US, the left think it's the smartest and the right thinks it has the moral high ground. In Uruguay, it's exactly the opposite. :haw:

That sounds fascinating.  Please provide some more details.

Quote from: walkerpThey weren't nutty.  They are pretty standard corporate-fed conservatism (restricting corporate excess = restricting "my" freedom).

That stuff can get pretty nutty in a political echo chamber.  There are libertarians who think, for example, that the Food and Drug Administration should be abolished and the safety of food and drugs should be assessed on a "buyer beware" basis.  There are others who feel that all public property should be abolished and people should need to pay tolls to cross land owned by other people to drive places.

Quote from: John MorrowThat stuff can get pretty nutty in a political echo chamber.  There are libertarians who think, for example, that the Food and Drug Administration should be abolished and the safety of food and drugs should be assessed on a "buyer beware" basis.  There are others who feel that all public property should be abolished and people should need to pay tolls to cross land owned by other people to drive places.

Ah, yes.  Anytime a Rightist and a Leftist want to agree, they need only talk about the extreme American Libertarians.  "The Angry Thirteen Year Olds of the Political Process".

Quote from: John MorrowI'll see if I can find the time to read it.  As you explain it, I think I already agree at least somewhat with your characterization of the problem, though perhaps not in degree or solution.  The problem, as I see it, is eliminating the problem without creating a situation that's even worse in practice.

1)  Loans aren't permanent.

Other of my assumptions:

1)  Mere efficiency of production isn't the greatest good. US Culture as a whole seems to me to be living proof that almost unlimited consumer goods does not equal hapiness.

2)  Corporations exist solely to take wealth from the working class and NEED to be abolished, or so revamped as to be totally different from what they are.  The only acceptable forms of company organization are sole proprietorship (no employees) or partnership (between ALL workers).  Damn productivity, the lives of the workers are being destroyed.  The "company store" has simply been expanded; the 'credit card' companies are now the financial end.

Again, if you don't share the assumptions, you won't share the conclusions.

QuoteLoans are a different matter from the organized theft that is stocks and dividends.

Dude, the loan is the core tool of the current neo-feudalism developing in the West today.  It is how corporations make slaves out of free citizens, and the entire credit culture is one of the most fucked up elements of economic repression in this society.  

And to top it off, yes, it is some suit making shitloads of money off some other guys labor, and no, it's not all that "temporary" when most of their victims will spend the rest of their lives frittering away their wages to a bank somewhere.

You're not looking at the bigger picture.

Quote from: Old GeezerRemember the war against Franco,
That's the kind for which each of us longs.
They may have won all the battles,
But we had all the best songs!


    -- Tom Lehrer, "Folk Song Army"

Yay Tom Lerher! :haw:

And yes, its pretty similar, innit?

I once made a joke about how maybe the reason world peace will never come is because all the songs about it are fucking lame.

Then I listened to some System of a Down.

Quote from: JongWKYou what's funny? In the US, the left think it's the smartest and the right thinks it has the moral high ground. In Uruguay, it's exactly the opposite. :haw:

That's because in the US, the republicans tend to be populists and anti-intellectuals, while the democrats tend to be elitists and self-styled intellectuals.

In Uruguay, and most of south america, its exactly the opposite. The right are the elitist oligarchs, and the left are the populists.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, the loan is the core tool of the current neo-feudalism developing in the West today.  It is how corporations make slaves out of free citizens, and the entire credit culture is one of the most fucked up elements of economic repression in this society.

The same thing was happening more than 4,000 years ago in Sumeria (http://viking.som.yale.edu/will/finciv/chapter1.htm), which is when governments first tried to regulate lending and interest.  And people have had trouble managing and getting out of debt for as long (thus the regulations).  The problem is that the absence of interest, as required by some religious codes, has the effect of greatly reducing (or for all practical purposes, eliminating) lending, especially to strangers, making it impossible for the poor to make large capital investments that they could pay off over time.

Quote from: Old Geezer1)  Loans aren't permanent.

Yes, I understand the distinction but loans can become permanent, too, if you have to keep taking them or can't pay them off.

Quote from: Old GeezerAgain, if you don't share the assumptions, you won't share the conclusions.

I agree with the basis for your position (that the obsession with efficiency and corporate structure have problems) but I think there is ample evidence that a "damn productivity" attitude and attempt to eliminate the corporate structure or replace it with something else often produce far worse results for everyone overall.  I think a safer and more practical approach is to look for remedies that fix specific problems with the efficiency obsession, corporate structures, and lending rather than trying to rip those things up by the roots and replace them with something with no history of actually working.

Quote from: Old GeezerThis is a very rough, very hasty summary of Marx' "Value, Price, and Profit" (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/Marx.htm), which cost me about a week of sleepless nights after I read it.  I recommend it highly.

I've always been of socialist leanings, but what made the whole thing very clear to me was reading Wealth of Nations, especially where Smith discusses rent, profit, and wages. It was immediately apparent that modern stockholders do not make a profit, but rather they take rent, with all the negative effects that that implies.

As for lending money, rather than buying in and leeching forever, I completely agree. It's one of my main beefs with the way my country (New Zealand) opened itself up to foreign investment. NZ has always been dependent on foreign capital for growth because our economy is simply too small to manage on its own. However when we opened up, in the late 80s, we didn't just allow much freer access in both directions, but allowed foreign interests to invest directly in NZ business. The result has been that rather than capital being raised through loans that  leave ownership in local hands and ultimately stop sending interest out of the country, our businesses are increasingly owned and controlled by foreign interests that have no personal stake in either the business itself or the environment in which it functions and which gets to skim of profit and take it overseas forever.

Quote from: Old GeezerThe only acceptable forms of company organization are sole proprietorship (no employees) or partnership (between ALL workers).

I'm just curious...how do you determine who gets how much of a share of those profits?  Does everyone get the same amount? Is there some kind of scale based on your effort? Success? Anything?

Oh Lord.  Marx's "Labour Theory of Value".  

    Dammit, I wish that piece of economic-theory idiocy was finally beaten to death with a shovel.  Profit is not theft!  A labourer's work is valuable, but so is the money that business owners and investors put in to provide the infrastructure that allows the labourer to be employed in the first place.  Unless the labourer owns the tools he or she works with, his or her work is worth nothing more than what his employer contracts to pay.  The dividends and profit paid to owners and stock investors is not theft from their employees.  It is both payment for and incentive to maintain the money sunk into keeping the company afloat.

    One can make arguments for increases in what a labourer should be paid.  Sometimes the going rate is too low to provide a living wage, which is where I have no problems with moderate trade unionism and minor market distortions like minimum wage laws.  But unless a car worker brings his own drill press to work or a barista owns the coffee maker at a Starbucks, the only thing they should receive is payment for time dedicated to doing their job.  

     And what's this BS about "rent" and "profit"?  I pay rent to my landlord.  He isn't exploiting me by renting instead of selling me a home.  I can't afford to own a condo.  Hence, though it is economically disadvantageous compared to ownership, I rent.  It certainly beats "not being exploited" while warming my backside on a sewer grate in a freezing Quebecois winter.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm just curious...how do you determine who gets how much of a share of those profits?  Does everyone get the same amount? Is there some kind of scale based on your effort? Success? Anything?

From each, according to their abilities.  To each, according to their needs.

Quote from: walkerpFrom each, according to their abilities.  To each, according to their needs.

And who gets to decide that?  That's where it always seems to start breaking down...

Quote from: walkerpFrom each, according to their abilities.  To each, according to their needs.

It would be wonderful, if we could only find that one thing/person to dole out properly and fairly. So far that agency has not been found. (Yes, I'm dismissing a higher power at this point).

Quote from: James J SkachI'm just curious...how do you determine who gets how much of a share of those profits?  Does everyone get the same amount? Is there some kind of scale based on your effort? Success? Anything?

Werl, that's where we come to the "still in Beta" part.  Democratically, somehow.  And even ol' Karl acknowledged that a physician's hour of labor was worth more than a ditch digger's.

Fun, innit?

Quote from: Old GeezerWerl, that's where we come to the "still in Beta" part.  Democratically, somehow.  And even ol' Karl acknowledged that a physician's hour of labor was worth more than a ditch digger's.

Fun, innit?

This is interesting, but it seems that we can agree that the root of the problem is how to determine the correct way to compensate someone for the value of the work they do.

But we, apparently, draw very different conclusions.

And I say this only because you brought up the idea that if we start from a different base, we will draw different conclusions.  So I'm trying to figure out where that root difference is...

Quote from: Old Geezer"When the Trotskyist is making fun of you for not being able to accept the market price, you know you've made a wrong turn somewhere."

Which still makes me smile.

:D That's a good one Geezer.

QuoteAh, yes. Anytime a Rightist and a Leftist want to agree, they need only talk about the extreme American Libertarians. "The Angry Thirteen Year Olds of the Political Process".

*snork*



I hant 3 forums normally, and a few others occasionally. I tend to see a liberal bias. It's not just familliar faces, either *waves to Geezer*.

I avoid the Current Events section over at TMP because I *know* it's gonna get ugly. Plus, the hubby is afraid I'll get rabid (which I would) and turn off customers (again, I would). It doesn't stop me from having fun and posting, I just have to watch what I say. I do a lot more gaming-related posts there.

I am a conservative, and I love D&D.

Quote from: John MorrowMany people forget that business have costs and the fact that people often can't see the effect of the labor in the product is what leads to a near universal resentment of middleman minorities (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2931421.html), even though they provide a very useful purpose in the societies that they live in.

I'm reading that bolded claim as a universal.

If you mean "All middlemen provide a very useful purpose to their host societies," then quite a few folks will argue, "Some middlemen do so much damage to their host societies that the damage vastly outweighs the benefits."

After reading the linked essay, I was struck by how it seemed to imply that "middleman minorities" never experience conflicts of interest.

Reasonable persons have argued and will continue to argue that "middleman minorities" are characterized by conflicts of interest.

One such scholar is at:
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:JscJWaKDvBsJ:www.federalism.ch/files/documents//Patel_FINAL%2520VERSION.pdf+%22middleman+minorities%22+%22conflict+of+interest%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a

equivalent PDF link is:
http://www.federalism.ch/files/documents//Patel_FINAL%20VERSION.pdf  

Patel concludes:

QuoteThe
community will need to emerge from its small ethnic, religious, linguistic and, importantly, class cocoons to
become a part of the larger civil society and be concerned with issues of governance in order to break the
image that it is content with bribing officials for a false sense of security.

See also Putnam's Bowling Alone, which would argue that non-assimilating minorities reduce social capital.

Quote from: darI know, but those tend to be political from the ground up, not boards ostensibly meant for other things. Anyway, I've seen it happen over and over again, as a thing on the net becomes popular, it gets bent liberal. I think digg is the extreme example.

...Seeing that the liberals tend to mob and shout down other views, well, it leads to my opinion that there are more liberals online.

I frequently email certain conservatives of middle age.  They all have small children and exhausting jobs.  They seldom reply.

By contrast, a life without children opens up a lot of time for online amusements.

Therefore people who do not care for children will tend to have more time to spend online.

Therefore--  for every one website of the church-going-soccer-moms-for-nationalist-natalism, the spay-and-neuter-yourself-for-the-environment crowd will have a thousand websites.

Quote from: shewolfI am a conservative, and I love D&D.

If I resemble this sentiment, does that make me a dittohead?

Quote from: darIt would be wonderful, if we could only find that one thing/person to dole out properly and fairly. So far that agency has not been found. (Yes, I'm dismissing a higher power at this point).

That's what the Magic Deer is for. :p

Quote from: riprockI frequently email certain conservatives of middle age.  They all have small children and exhausting jobs.  They seldom reply.

By contrast, a life without children opens up a lot of time for online amusements.

Therefore people who do not care for children will tend to have more time to spend online.

Therefore--  for every one website of the church-going-soccer-moms-for-nationalist-natalism, the spay-and-neuter-yourself-for-the-environment crowd will have a thousand websites.

This is very true.  Even if everyone is "online" it doesn't mean that everyone is online taking part in forum discussions.

Hell, I'm only here right now because the kids are napping. :D

Quote from: shewolfI am a conservative, and I love D&D.

I am supposedly a "conservative" and I love GURPS. (But I'll play D&D if the people in the group are a good bunch or friends already)


- Ed C.

Quote from: jeff37923If I resemble this sentiment, does that make me a dittohead?

Naw, it just means you know Shewolf is hot.

Quote from: riprockIf you mean "All middlemen provide a very useful purpose to their host societies," then quite a few folks will argue, "Some middlemen do so much damage to their host societies that the damage vastly outweighs the benefits."

Sowell addresses, for example, Asian middleman minorities in Africa in his book Race and Culture and part of the evidence that he offers is that in various points of history, rulers or colonial powers have tried to stop or thwart middleman minorities because of the perceived damage they were doing to the indigenous population and when they've been successful, it causes problems because the benefits offered by the middleman minority becomes apparent.  It is why, for example, Uganda wanted their Asians back after getting rid of most of them.

Quote from: riprockPatel concludes:

And when they "become a part of the larger civil society", will they retain the "life of thrift" and other skills that allow them to perform their economic role so effectively?  

Quote from: riprockSee also Putnam's Bowling Alone, which would argue that non-assimilating minorities reduce social capital.

And what benefit is an increase in social capital supposed to produce?

Quote from: James J SkachThis is interesting, but it seems that we can agree that the root of the problem is how to determine the correct way to compensate someone for the value of the work they do.

But we, apparently, draw very different conclusions.

And I say this only because you brought up the idea that if we start from a different base, we will draw different conclusions.  So I'm trying to figure out where that root difference is...

Good question.

I'll admit my reaction to "Value, Price, and Profit" was mostly emotional/philosophical.  I don't worry about problems with Marx' value system as a practical matter of economics, for the same reason that I can join the IWW and proclaim that I support "the destruction of the wage system and One Big Union" -- because we are so far from the destruction of the wage system that the light from the destruction of the wage system won't reach us for ten thousand years.

I read Value, Price and Profit and realized I didn't disagree with a single word.  At which point I said to myself, "I don't disagree with any of it.  It also goes against everything I've been taught."  It took me a week or so of intense soul-searching to realize that I believed Marx was more correct.

Notice I do not say more practical.  Or more achievable, given the state of today's US.  In my opinion, Marx was right about something else, as well.

Class war was inevitable.
The class war in the US occured 1950- 2000.
It was a propaganda war.
The Proletariat lost.

Also, I'm not joking when I say getting my MBA planted the seeds that made me a Socialist.  Most of what I was taught about being a middle manager was about actively doing things that would reduce the benefits to employees to enrich the stockholders.  We were taught how to conceal illegal union-busting activities.  We were told that bait-and-switch was smart marketing, but make sure you don't get caught.

Basically, being trained as a middle manager taught me that all the bad things people think about middle managers and corporations are true.

I frankly admit many of my assumptions are emotionally evaluated.  Someone with different emotions might conclude differently.  Also, many of my assumptions start from my experience, and no two people have the same experience.

As a footnote, I'd like to point out that this discussion proves that it is indeed possible to have a discussion between opposing points on the subject of politics in an unmoderated internet forum WITHOUT it turning into a flamewar or poo flinging.

Even if we never do agree, I still want to thank you for taking the time to listen carefully and speak respectfully.

Not bad for a hapless brainwashed tool of the Capitalist class.;)

Quote from: John MorrowAnd what benefit is an increase in social capital supposed to produce?

A more satisfying life, among other things.

The original 'Bowling Alone' essay is available online.  He has some flaws (mostly failing to prove why some of his example organizations should be expected to have durable appeal) but the article is easy to Google and pretty brief.  Briefer than Value, Price, and Profit, anyway.:p

Edit: On second thought. I'm not sure. Can the Magic Deer be deposed?

Quote from: riprockTherefore--  for every one website of the church-going-soccer-moms-for-nationalist-natalism, the spay-and-neuter-yourself-for-the-environment crowd will have a thousand websites.

It's the same thing with protests.

Quote from: Old GeezerA more satisfying life, among other things.

Having talked extensively with relatives who grew up during the Great Depression and having lived in Japan, there is truth to that but it comes at a cost.  The individual must subordinate their desires for those of the community in order to be considerate of and get along with others.  It's a two edged sword.  It makes things more peaceful, predictable, and pleasant in general but it can seem like oppression if you'd prefer to go off and do something different or selfish.  This, in part, goes back to my comments about the public space being family friendly.  Based on the response I get to that idea, I don't think many people care about being considerate to others, which is what you need to get people to act as a community.

Quote from: Old GeezerThe original 'Bowling Alone' essay is available online.  He has some flaws (mostly failing to prove why some of his example organizations should be expected to have durable appeal) but the article is easy to Google and pretty brief.  Briefer than Value, Price, and Profit, anyway.:p

That's what I get for not reading to the end of the Wikipedia article, which provided a link.  

The essay, when describing quality of life issues, says, "Researchers in such fields as education, urban poverty, unemployment, the control of crime and drug abuse, and even health have discovered that successful outcomes are more likely in civically engaged communities."  But middeman minorities largely escape those problems because they are civically engaged communities.  They are simply civically engaged among themselves, rather than among the broader community around them.  And for the most part, they are not politically active.  They simply want to be left alone.  That doesn't meant that they are never malicious competitors (they can be) but the hatred directed at them is more often resentment of success than any real harm that they do to others.

Quote from: Old GeezerAs a footnote, I'd like to point out that this discussion proves that it is indeed possible to have a discussion between opposing points on the subject of politics in an unmoderated internet forum WITHOUT it turning into a flamewar or poo flinging.

Group huggles!!!!!! :haw:

Quote from: Old GeezerNaw, it just means you know Shewolf is hot.

:confused: :D

It's nice to be known!

And I agree with what you said - it IS nice to have a discussion with out the flames on the internet.

Quote from: darEdit: On second thought. I'm not sure. Can the Magic Deer be deposed?

Not based on the setting as it is in its default form. Unless you're playing with some kind of metaphysic or material outside of the setting-as-written, there is no escape from the Magic Deer.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNot based on the setting as it is in its default form. Unless you're playing with some kind of metaphysic or material outside of the setting-as-written, there is no escape from the Magic Deer.

1. Get a patsy
2. Give patsy a 'helm of invincibility'
3. Plant rumour that only a blow mighty enough to kill a god could defeat the wearer of the 'helm of invincibility'
4. Make sure patsy is a bad ruler
5. Wait for deer to show up
6. Point and laugh as the deer shows up to kick King Bad Ruler in the head
7. Feast on venison and tell your friends how the helmet didn't make the (late) King invincible, it just mirrored the killing blow onto his murderer as well
8. Take the (now vacant) throne
9. Party on without fear of the magic deer

:haw:

I find it amusing the thread gets moved to tangency and all the politics dies.

totally ruins a good thread. ;)

Never fear, shewolf!

Quote from: Old GeezerGood question.

Thanks!

Quote from: Old GeezerI'll admit my reaction to "Value, Price, and Profit" was mostly emotional/philosophical.  I don't worry about problems with Marx' value system as a practical matter of economics, for the same reason that I can join the IWW and proclaim that I support "the destruction of the wage system and One Big Union" -- because we are so far from the destruction of the wage system that the light from the destruction of the wage system won't reach us for ten thousand years.

OK - on two counts. One, it's hard for any of us, no matter how hard we try nor how much we claim, to be completely unemotional about reactions to these kinds of things. Two, because I think I'm clear on the point you make here (and later) that you see this more in philosophical terms than in pragmatic world-changing-next-week terms. Thank heavens - or I'd have to man the battlements. And I'm too tired from 2 days of gaming...

Quote from: Old GeezerI read Value, Price and Profit and realized I didn't disagree with a single word.  At which point I said to myself, "I don't disagree with any of it.  It also goes against everything I've been taught."  It took me a week or so of intense soul-searching to realize that I believed Marx was more correct.

It's been a long while since I read any Marx, so one of these days, when I have time, I'll try to wolf down Value, Price, and Profit. But what I found interesting was the last part. If it's OK with you, I'd love to hear in what ways (specifically) you found him more correct.

Quote from: Old GeezerNotice I do not say more practical.  Or more achievable, given the state of today's US.  In my opinion, Marx was right about something else, as well.

Gotcha.

Quote from: Old GeezerClass war was inevitable.
The class war in the US occured 1950- 2000.
It was a propaganda war.
The Proletariat lost.

A cold war and a class war - see, two front mistake and all that. ;)

I would be interested in more information on the nature of the war and why you think the prols lost.

Quote from: Old GeezerAlso, I'm not joking when I say getting my MBA planted the seeds that made me a Socialist.  Most of what I was taught about being a middle manager was about actively doing things that would reduce the benefits to employees to enrich the stockholders.  We were taught how to conceal illegal union-busting activities.  We were told that bait-and-switch was smart marketing, but make sure you don't get caught.

Basically, being trained as a middle manager taught me that all the bad things people think about middle managers and corporations are true.

This, to me, was the most stunning part of your response.  Where the heck did you get your MBA - that's amazing! Anyone else here have that kind of experience? I only have a few undergrad business classes from long ago, and the experience of running a business for ten years; but man, that's...well...amazing.

Quote from: Old GeezerI frankly admit many of my assumptions are emotionally evaluated.  Someone with different emotions might conclude differently.  Also, many of my assumptions start from my experience, and no two people have the same experience.

Fair enough! Pseudo will get all upset if he sees this - he doesn't believe people can agree to disagree. :haw:

Quote from: Old GeezerAs a footnote, I'd like to point out that this discussion proves that it is indeed possible to have a discussion between opposing points on the subject of politics in an unmoderated internet forum WITHOUT it turning into a flamewar or poo flinging.

Even if we never do agree, I still want to thank you for taking the time to listen carefully and speak respectfully.

I mean this when I say "My pleasure!"

Quote from: Old GeezerNot bad for a hapless brainwashed tool of the Capitalist class.;)

You know us brainwashed tools of the Capitalist class: we're trained to try harder - for our overlords. :D

Quote from: John MorrowAnd when they "become a part of the larger civil society", will they retain the "life of thrift" and other skills that allow them to perform their economic role so effectively?  

...

And what benefit is an increase in social capital supposed to produce?

A certain minimum level of social capital is necessary to avoid total civil war and social collapse.

If middleman minorities assimilate, they might retain the "life of thrift" -- but that's a separate question.

You seem to have a habit of introducing more new questions than get answered.

I had originally asked you whether the original statement was meant as a universal, but I suppose my questions don't merit the courtesy of a response.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd what benefit is an increase in social capital supposed to produce? . ..

But middeman minorities largely escape those problems because they are civically engaged communities. They are simply civically engaged among themselves, rather than among the broader community around them.

Your first is a false question because social capital is so hard to measure or indeed identify. An increase is social capital doesn't bring any 'benefits' because it is an abstract measure of a range of forms of interaction. Its whether you view those forms of interaction as good or bad thats the question.

What you've described secondly is the difference between Putnam's two types of social capital - bridging and bonding. Bridging social capital is cross-community while bonding is intra-community.

What Putnam uses it to describe is degrees of civic participation. Bowling Alone didn't really address minorities but looked at the wider social participation in the US and the reasons why, for instance levels of voting were falling along with membership of voluntary and social organisations.

Recently, which is what Riprock is referring to, he has also done work identifying that diverse communities do cause individuals to 'hunker down' and become less connected with their surrounding community - what isn't clear from his article is if this applies to both forms of social capital (i.e. do minorities have less social capital than they would in country of origin even with 'high levels' of bonding capital). I'd also question Riprock's statement that its non-assimilating minorities that cause this. IIRC Putnam is quite clear he feels it is a possible consequence of diversity overall not of assimilation (the samples that scored highest on his scale were the smallest and most homogenous). Finally bridging capital has to work both ways - communities with high levels of bonding capital may be like that because the dominant community does not offer opportunities to develop bridging capital. In the UK for instance despite often media scares on the supposed insularity of minorities, most ethnic minorities have at least one white person they self-describe as friend or associate while most white people have none from a minority.

As to the benefit of high levels of social capital, I don't think its on a good-bad scale of lots-none. Like anything having an excess, or the wrong type of any other capital can cause problems. I may have a trillion zimbabewan dollars but that doesn't give me much to buy. Similarly Putnam first developed his theories studying mafia is southern Italy. Communities influenced by the mafia (in all its forms) have high levels of social capital but its very much of the bonding type with low levels of bridging capital meaning the communities remain isolated from wider civic participation enabling the mafia to exert influence.

The quote that started this clusterfuck was from Mr Analytical, a self-confessed right-winger. Possibly he was even smiling a bit when he wrote it.

Still, I'm glad to see another thread talking about RPG.net. Never enough of them here, right?

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyThe quote that started this clusterfuck was from Mr Analytical, a self-confessed right-winger. Possibly he was even smiling a bit when he wrote it.

Still, I'm glad to see another thread talking about RPG.net. Never enough of them here, right?

Ned

Well, this being the first serious mention of RPG.net since page one, thanks for constantly griping about another website. Could we all stop it now?

Reading the whole damn thread first: Your friend and companion in not looking like a doofus.

Dear God, read the WHOLE THREAD? My two and four and four year old kids have got more political insight than you pinheads!

Ned

Quote from: Old GeezerSO, I'm an open Socialist, a member of the IWW, a member of RPGnet, a self-proclaimed Trotskyite, and...

... I LOVE old fashioned D&D and dungeon crawls.

So what does that mean?

It means you can enjoy escapist fiction without condoning every single principle of the societies it depicts. I think absolute monarchy is a terrible system but I'm totally up for fighting on the side of Good King CheeseLich in a fantasy game.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's because in the US, the republicans tend to be populists and anti-intellectuals, while the democrats tend to be elitists and self-styled intellectuals.

It's worth noting that this wasn't always the case in the U.S. It coincides with the migration of the dixiecrats from the Democratic to the Republican party that began in the early 60s.

Quote from: John MorrowSowell addresses, for example, Asian middleman minorities in Africa in his book Race and Culture and part of the evidence that he offers is that in various points of history, rulers or colonial powers have tried to stop or thwart middleman minorities because of the perceived damage they were doing to the indigenous population and when they've been successful, it causes problems because the benefits offered by the middleman minority becomes apparent.  It is why, for example, Uganda wanted their Asians back after getting rid of most of them.

It's a truism in struggling Africa countries that once the Arabs leave, things are heading downhill fast.

Quote from: riprockA certain minimum level of social capital is necessary to avoid total civil war and social collapse.

While I think that's a silly way to describe it, I'll agree.

Quote from: riprockIf middleman minorities assimilate, they might retain the "life of thrift" -- but that's a separate question.

It's separate but significant.  If they assimilate and lose their ability to perform their middleman function, then society loses their services.

Quote from: riprockI had originally asked you whether the original statement was meant as a universal, but I suppose my questions don't merit the courtesy of a response.

I don't know if it's 100% universal or not.  I think it's true most of the time, though.

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyStill, I'm glad to see another thread talking about RPG.net. Never enough of them here, right?

It was actually about the SUBJECT of the thread, and I'd say its mostly drifted from being TbP  oriented and into interesting territory.

Don't let that stop you, though. You go riiiight ahead (pat, pat).

Not only that, but I actually got a smiley from Old Geezer. You hear me? A frickin' SMILEY! That alone makes the thread worthwhile.

Quote from: James J SkachIf it's OK with you, I'd love to hear in what ways (specifically) you found him more correct.

Gurgh.  This is one of those questions that I answer either in 30 words, or 30,000, I fear.  I'll do my best.

ESSENTIALLY, I realized that I agreed with his essential argument that the entire basis of dividend-Capitalism is knowingly paying your workers less than you know their labor is worth.  And that that is, quite simply, morally wrong.

The hard part ever since has been 'so what the hell do I do about it'.  See previous comment about 'the light from abolition of the wage system'.

Why do I think the Proles lost?  By EVERY measure I've ever seen, the rich are getting richer and the working class continue to get boned harder.  The wealth gap increases as working families scramble merely to stay afloat.  Workers take the most incredible abuse from their bosses ("I expect 60 hour weeks!"  "I want BLOOD!") and they hunker down and endure instead of throwing their coffee cups at their bosses and walking out.  Workers are gathered together and told their wages are being cut even as CEOs get bonuses, and union membership is at the lowest percentage in well over a century.  If Jimmy Hoffa had not existed, it would have been necessary for Capital to invent him -- but he is LONG dead.  You can kill any idea of universal health care in the US just by putting the word 'Socialized' in front of it, despite the fact that the typical American Prole couldn't define 'Socialist' if you put a gun to his head.

That's a few reasons.

My MBA -- University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management, 1987.

See, the FIRST thing they taught us was "this is how to tell someone is lying with statistics" and "this is how to tell when somebody is lying to establish plausable deniability and this is how to derive their actual meaning".

Then they proceeded to do these things.  So I figured, "If THAT guy is lying to establish plausable deniability, and you are doing the EXACT SAME SORTS OF THINGS... then all my professors are lying to establish plausable deniability."  For instance, they never ACTUALLY advocated "These measures are illegal union busting and you should use them".  But they DID discuss them, and DID discuss how rarely they are found out, and how rarely anyone is punished....

"You might say so, but I couldn't possibly comment."

Here's the most blatent example"

In the early 1980s Compaq had a known problem with their power supplies.  They blew out in about nine months.

Compaq told everyone that they'd developed a new power supply and were replacing the old ones under warranty and that the new power supply didn't have that problem.

In point of fact, they were just installing old-model power supplies and figuring that people would be upgrading to 286 computers before the second supply blew out and that nobody would ever know.

We were told that that was a "smart marketing strategy".

Fortunately a classmate of mine had his BA in Theology and expressed his outrage more coherently than I could.

But although openly lying to the customers is the most extreme example of what my MBA experience was like, the rest is different only in degree, not kind.

Quote from: Old GeezerGurgh.  This is one of those questions that I answer either in 30 words, or 30,000, I fear.  I'll do my best.

ESSENTIALLY, I realized that I agreed with his essential argument that the entire basis of dividend-Capitalism is knowingly paying your workers less than you know their labor is worth.  And that that is, quite simply, morally wrong.

The hard part ever since has been 'so what the hell do I do about it'.  See previous comment about 'the light from abolition of the wage system'.

Thanks, man. I should read it and then get back to you. It's pointless for you to try to explain it more, and I'm sorry I put you on the spot about it. But you did a nice job in few words.

Quote from: Old GeezerWhy do I think the Proles lost?  By EVERY measure I've ever seen, the rich are getting richer and the working class continue to get boned harder.  The wealth gap increases as working families scramble merely to stay afloat.  Workers take the most incredible abuse from their bosses ("I expect 60 hour weeks!"  "I want BLOOD!") and they hunker down and endure instead of throwing their coffee cups at their bosses and walking out.  Workers are gathered together and told their wages are being cut even as CEOs get bonuses, and union membership is at the lowest percentage in well over a century.  If Jimmy Hoffa had not existed, it would have been necessary for Capital to invent him -- but he is LONG dead.  You can kill any idea of universal health care in the US just by putting the word 'Socialized' in front of it, despite the fact that the typical American Prole couldn't define 'Socialist' if you put a gun to his head.

That's a few reasons.

Interesting.  Thanks!

Quote from: Old GeezerMy MBA -- University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management, 1987.

See, the FIRST thing they taught us was "this is how to tell someone is lying with statistics" and "this is how to tell when somebody is lying to establish plausable deniability and this is how to derive their actual meaning".

Then they proceeded to do these things.  So I figured, "If THAT guy is lying to establish plausable deniability, and you are doing the EXACT SAME SORTS OF THINGS... then all my professors are lying to establish plausable deniability."  For instance, they never ACTUALLY advocated "These measures are illegal union busting and you should use them".  But they DID discuss them, and DID discuss how rarely they are found out, and how rarely anyone is punished....

"You might say so, but I couldn't possibly comment."

Here's the most blatent example"

In the early 1980s Compaq had a known problem with their power supplies.  They blew out in about nine months.

Compaq told everyone that they'd developed a new power supply and were replacing the old ones under warranty and that the new power supply didn't have that problem.

In point of fact, they were just installing old-model power supplies and figuring that people would be upgrading to 286 computers before the second supply blew out and that nobody would ever know.

We were told that that was a "smart marketing strategy".

Fortunately a classmate of mine had his BA in Theology and expressed his outrage more coherently than I could.

But although openly lying to the customers is the most extreme example of what my MBA experience was like, the rest is different only in degree, not kind.

That is, as I said, amazing.  Now that I think about it, I remember when the Enron thing was blowing wide open, and it looked like shit like it was going to be all over the place, there was some discussion about these very things.  That is, I remember hearing/reading (I should try and find the source) that people were, rightly so, questioning what the fuck was going on with the ethics in business and this led to calling into question what was being taught about the subject. And they were tracing it back to business education from the mid eighties on.

Thanks again!

Quote from: WerekoalaNot only that, but I actually got a smiley from Old Geezer. You hear me? A frickin' SMILEY!

Hey, it was funny.  You deserved it.


(If you try to be a Socialist in 21st-century America, it helps a lot to have a self-deprecating sense of humor.

In fact, I'd guess a lot of bad shit would go away if more people had a self-deprecating sense of humor.)

Quote from: James J SkachThanks again!

You're welcome.

Honestly, I know what you mean about the 'echo chamber'; I rarely discuss my opinions except among 'the bretheren' just because of being tired of being shouted at/mocked as I said above.  

Even if you end up deciding I'm still wrong, at least you were willing to actually listen.

Makes a big difference.

Quote from: Old GeezerYou're welcome.

Honestly, I know what you mean about the 'echo chamber'; I rarely discuss my opinions except among 'the bretheren' just because of being tired of being shouted at/mocked as I said above.  

Even if you end up deciding I'm still wrong, at least you were willing to actually listen.

Makes a big difference.

I know I wasn't part of the discussion there, and please, don't take this as mocking, but the real problem I have with your philosophy is the


"I know we're light years from having a solution and I'm cool with that"


mentality you bring.*  

The system we have now works. It works now, it has worked in the past. Is it exploitive? That is debateable, and then the topic needs to shift to is it unavoidable exploitive or is it merely the current iteration?  Identifying something you don't like, that you want to change? I'm all for that. But come to me with real, feasable solutions, not some idea that some distant future generation will somehow work it all out.

Other than that I think I'm avoiding this debate in general... its long since ceased to be about what 'You' think, and become about what other, more famous, people have thought and written down.  Morrow has posted a dozen links alone, while you, Geezer, have given us both an essay and the entire, collected, works of Marx in subtituition for your own reasoning.   While appeals to authority are traditional I can only feel they get in the way of fresh insight and perspective. We've got 6 billion brains available to work out the problems of the world, why keep running to the same few dozen or so 'answer men'?

Meh. I should delete that last bit as useless wailing in the wilderness, but its how I feel about this sort of debate: Endless regurgitation of favorite talking points from other people.

*obviously  a paraphrase and not a direct quote.

Quote from: SpikeMorrow has posted a dozen links alone, while you, Geezer, have given us both an essay and the entire, collected, works of Marx in subtituition for your own reasoning.   While appeals to authority are traditional I can only feel they get in the way of fresh insight and perspective.

I posted links to articles that say things better than I could ever hope to.  It's not so much an appeal to authority as a desire to point you at someone who is more skilled at making the point than I am.

Quote from: John MorrowI posted links to articles that say things better than I could ever hope to.  It's not so much an appeal to authority as a desire to point you at someone who is more skilled at making the point than I am.

What he said.

Also, it's NOT "I'm cool with that."  But I do have to bear in mind that I'm not going to live to see the society I truly desire; I am working for the generations yet unborn.

Plus, trying to "change it all right away" simply isn't going to work.  That's where the fungobat factions on all sides come in.  It just does not work that way.

Oh, sure, I understand that everyone is looking for a more eloquent version of their points.  Well, everyone except me, I guess. ;)

The problem is eventually it stops being Geezer arguing against Morrow and becomes Geezers old dead dude arguing against Morrow's Former Liberals... and from there how long until we just cut Geezer and Morrow out of the equation at all?

See: I'd be happy to argue with 'Old Geezer' on the applicability of his/your philosophy and what I think are the fundamental flaws with it, but until I read and digest the works of Marx and the essay, I can't do that, because for the most part all I have of Geezer's Trotskyism is that he's content to fight the millenial war against capitolist oppression of the masses, a la Marx and "value, profit and whatever...", which apparently was ghost written on behalf of his/your soul.

But Marx is dead, and I don't have a line on the author of the essay to debate his points with him.  

Sorry if I'm a bit curt and unresearched, I'm halfway to hypothermia right now....:deflated:

Quote from: Old GeezerHey, it was funny.  You deserved it.
(If you try to be a Socialist in 21st-century America, it helps a lot to have a self-deprecating sense of humor.
In fact, I'd guess a lot of bad shit would go away if more people had a self-deprecating sense of humor.)

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I've come to like you quite a bit. I THINK we butted heads over on TbP before I got sent to Gulag, but I think that was a factor of not having time to get to know you before I shot my mouth off. I do that, in case you haven't noticed. But I CAN learn, with time.

That said, hopefully you've found I was hardly the (insert favorite slander/nugget of truth here) that everyone over there thought I was. Or at least, if I still am, its a well-deserved reputation. ;)

Plus, I totally respect you for this:

Quote from: Old GeezerAlso, it's NOT "I'm cool with that."  But I do have to bear in mind that I'm not going to live to see the society I truly desire; I am working for the generations yet unborn.

Even if I  don't agree with what you're working towards.

See? No poo-flinging required. Amazing, innit?

Quote from: SpikeSee: I'd be happy to argue with 'Old Geezer' on the applicability of his/your philosophy and what I think are the fundamental flaws with it, but until I read and digest the works of Marx and the essay, I can't do that, because for the most part all I have of Geezer's Trotskyism is that he's content to fight the millenial war against capitolist oppression of the masses, a la Marx and "value, profit and whatever...", which apparently was ghost written on behalf of his/your soul.

And this is "don't take this as mocking"?

And I am working to a better future.  I just feel the Fabians are right.

And the fact that explaining myself by referencing someone else annoys you merely adds a frisson of sweetness.

Your tears of rage and indignation are delicious to me.

Quote from: Old GeezerAlso, it's NOT "I'm cool with that."  But I do have to bear in mind that I'm not going to live to see the society I truly desire; I am working for the generations yet unborn.

Some food for thought. (http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html)

Quote from: Old GeezerPlus, trying to "change it all right away" simply isn't going to work.  That's where the fungobat factions on all sides come in.  It just does not work that way.

Of course the nice thing about an agenda of reform and slow change is that if you take a wrong turn, it gives you time to correct.

Quote from: KoltarWhen I was in High School (early 1980s), I asked a American History teacher : Why was it that what is referred to as "Right-wing" in this country, gets called "left-wing" in other countries.   (at the time communists and collectivists in other countries were being referred to as right wing, whiile those that were talking like collectivists in this country were referred to as left-wing)


 She couldn't think of a good answer.

It's because the terms are relative, not absolute.

As walkerp pointed out, the terms left-wing and right-wing originated in where the various deputies chose to sit in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791. Those who favoured preserving the monarchy sat on the right side of the chamber, those who favoured a republic or even a direct participatory democracy sat on the left.

Thus, according to the original definitions, the right-wing supports Monarchy, either absolute with the "divine right of kings" (the Royalists) or constitutional (the Feuillants), and aristocratic privilege. The left-wing supports a republic and, generally, a free market. As far as I'm aware, no-one gives the terms those specific meanings anymore.

That's because the terms are relative to whatever has been the recent status quo -- and by "recent" I mean about the last thirty-forty years. Those who like the way things used to be and think recent changes have gone too far and need to be undone are right-wing; those who don't like the way things used to be and think recent changes haven't gone far enough and more needs to change are left-wing.

Obviously, then, whether an individual or group is right- or left-wing will depend on what the current political situation is where they live and what changes have occurred there in the past couple of decades.

If you're living in a country that's had a communist government for the past fifty years, then those who like that and want it to continue are right-wingers, while those who want to change it are left-wingers. Alternately, if you're living in a capitalist democracy, those who like that and want it to continue are right-wingers, while those who want to change it are left-wingers.

Also the things that right-wingers want to preserve or restore and which left-wingers want to change or eliminate depends on the traditions and history of the place. Support of the Queen is common among British right-wingers, but not among American right-wingers. Support for the "right to bear arms" is common among American right-wingers, but support for gun control is common among Australian right-wingers. It's all relative to the time and place.

It's also why, as the saying goes, all you need to change a liberal into a conservative is thirty years -- and it's not because they changed any of their positions.

Quote from: Old GeezerAnd this is "don't take this as mocking"?

And I am working to a better future.  I just feel the Fabians are right.

And the fact that explaining myself by referencing someone else annoys you merely adds a frisson of sweetness.

Your tears of rage and indignation are delicious to me.

?



EDIT:::

Sorry, that was unclear.  

First line: So, why do you think I was mocking you?

Second line: So, you are working towards a nebulous future instead of just hoping for a nebulous future. Sorry, I like to deal in concretes.  We seem to be of different mindsets here. For humor, I'm tempted to ask your astrological sign...

Third line: Eh. If that is what gets you off.

Fourth line: Assumption.  But again, if that is what gets you off.

It makes me want to hold a Marxism 101 tutorial. Geezer, if you can track it down I recommend a book called The Economic Theory of the Working Class by Geoffrey Kay. It may help clarify some points.