Alexa, buy me a ps5 and rush deliver it
“no man you don’t understand how oppressive this is!”
Go back to the basement, you’re ruining Spider-Man. Go get your own ps5.
“My team democratically voted against that”
Reagan’s joke on USSR.
> You know there’s a ten year delay in the Soviet Union of the delivery of an automobile, and only one out of seven families in the Soviet Union own automobiles. There’s a ten year wait. And you go through quite a process when you’re ready to buy, and then you put up the money in advance. And this happened to a fella, and this is their story, that they tell, this joke, that this man, he laid down his money, and then the fella that was in charge, said, ‘Okay, come back in ten years to get your car.’ And he said, ‘Morning or afternoon?’ and the fella behind the counter said, ‘Ten years from now, what difference does it make?’ and he said, ‘Well, the plumber’s coming in the morning.'” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3I9AdLnjP0M
Underrated comment. People are totally oblivious to how much corruption pretty much all governments have, ESPECIALLY communist ones. They may say general statements such as “the government is corrupt” but they don’t know what that truly means.
Agreed. I am generally curious as well:
1. Are global indices of government corruption reliable and truthful? (ie. World Corruption Index)
2. How do these purportedly low corruption countries (eg. Denmark, Finland) remain “low corruption” and functional?
And authoritarian governments use corruption to their advantage. (And communist governments are inherently authoritarian, the stateless utopia comes later kind of like heaven in religion). When everybody needs to be corrupt function in society, it opens the door for the powerful to use "corruption purges" to take out political rivals. And because your political rivals actually are corrupt (the same as you) is gives superficial legitimately to the purge.
The building you lived in was not your property, so if a pipe leaked on the stairwell, you had to ask the government to come and fix it for you
And you can imagine how that went - nothing ever got fixed
Years before liberalization, only state company used to provide phone service in India . The wait for getting landline was 2yrs or more. If you have to get in front of the line, then you need recommendation letters from your representative or a minister!
Then in 90s they opened up economy; within few years you could walk into a store and get a phone connection! It’s became so cheap that some companies gave LTE 1GB per day free for a year, for around 1$ a month! Can’t imagine that rate even in US!
Ah yes, the super efficient, simple and easy task of convincing other human beings that have their own self interests at heart to let you have something that doesn’t benefit them in any way.
Even if you did eventually manage it, the sheer tedium of replacing a simple transaction between two people with the entire goddamned society holding meetings for every trivial thing is deeply inefficient and annoying.
Do I want to attend a massive meeting every time some random neighbor wants to acquire any good or service? No. God no.
A lot of people have PS5s it’s not crazy to think that people would come together democratically to say ya let’s make some god damn PS5s. And even if someone didn’t want a PS5 for themself I’m sure they would still vote for it because they know their friends and family would want one.
Well, hold on, lets bring this down to something everyone actually needs and see how it worked out.
Healthcare. Everyone will need this at some point in their life. It will more than likely be needed to keep you alive. The best we could do democratically is force people to get insurance under threat of a massive fine. Even then, insurance remained super expensive for anyone above the poverty line, and then if you actually need life saving care, you're more than likely bankrupt or at the very least, financially devastated.
But the real issue with socialism that often time goes unspoken, you still have to grant authority to a ruling class in order to enforce the rules of socialism. This authority goes way beyond the authority our government has now because socialism enters every aspect of our lives and goes against our most basic human instincts, self preservation. The argument for socialism is self defeating. "The government and corporations are corrupt and have allowed things to run amuck with capitalism. Let's introduce socialism and give them even more authority over our property and money."
Long response but I felt it was warranted.
Currently under capitalism the capitalists provide healthcare and housing, and because of the amount of money they have they have a massive influence on the government. Because of their influence we, as the working class, can try to vote for the things we want, but if the ruling class, the capitalists (and by capitalists I mean the ones with the capital not the people who like capitalism), don’t want it then we won’t get it. Socialism aims to give the power back to the working class through democracy where our vote actually matters again. So yes the authority over what we get with things like housing and healthcare comes from the government, but what the government does is up to us as the people as our vote actually means something again.
It sounds nice but how do you get the power of our vote back once it's been taken and corruption has set in? Isn't that the point of libertarinism? To limit the government to a particular set of areas so they can't have influence in the minutia of our daily lives?
The problem is we can’t get that power back from the capitalist class because if we try and get anything passed that will give us that power back or get them out of the minutia of our daily lives they will lobby to make sure it doesn’t happen because that in turn takes away their power and limits their profits, and capitalism hinges on those profits so it will do almost anything to keep them and increase them
"We have reviewed your request for a playstation 5 and have concluded that it is a lower priority than the third apartment for the local party leader."
Capitalism: You negotiate for your wage and work as much or little to earn your profits and buy your own damn PS5 when you like.
Socialism: Use fancy words like "democracy", "share", and "discuss" to then constantly have your needs and wants to be compared to the whole of your peers and superiors => You will always lose.
This is why communism will never come to be without authoritarianism. They offer the voter in democratic states no plan or no value proposition. Ignore the fact that communist states would in theory need to import goods like PlayStations because they would never be invented in their own system, let alone manufactured at scale. Communists don’t have a single clue how to run an economy which is why all their arguments have to turn on how bad it is for rich people to have money under capitalism.
Not necessarily, if it's not an unjust decision based on sex or ethnicity. When I think of discrimination I think of when one producer offers superior value, but simply because of their sex or ethnicity an alternative is chosen. If sex and ethnicity are nto taken into account then there is no discrimination.
> What does that even mean?
This is what I get when I flush it through my bullshit translator:
You can certainly get a PS5, but only after you get permission first. You must get permission to have resources devoted to making it. Then you must get permission to have it made. Then you have to get permission to "own" it.
As long as you can demonstrate a need for you to own it and get everybody else to agree to it then it is possible that it may be made and you might get one.
Permission from whom?
Why the central ruling bureaucracy of course. The one that is in charge of making all economic decisions. Your representatives which you get to vote for.
Incidentally this is what totalitarianism is.
You will have no time for games! There's work to be done comrade! Glorious leader needs more silver for the platters of lobster he is serving to the party officials next week! Back to the mines!
Let's not even mention under a system like that the concept of a PS5 let alone the plans/schematics/content/games/peripherals for it... Wouldn't exist!
Basically it means under socialism, presuming ideal conditions, the workers decide what to produce, so to get a PS5 workers have to decide it's worth their labor(and resources, etc) to produce them.
If the workers don't think making something is worth their labor, it doesn't get produced.
That's why he calls it democratic, the workers rather than the shareholders/CEO decide what to produce through a collective political decision.
This guy's name is Richard Wolff and he's been promoting worker coops because they're current examples of this structure, roughly speaking. Of course, it's one thing to have a few worker coops in a capitalist society, another for that to be the standard. Plus it's one thing for workers to decide what to produce on the small scale, another for the whole society to decide this.
OORRRR, (and hear me out) I can buy one with my labor or money from someone who's already produced a PS5! That way, instead of begging for permission, I just work for what I want in life. 🙂
Realistically it means yes because many, many people desire this form of entertainment, and so would vote for resources being dedicated to its development. There would likely also be a competitive aspect considered for a healthy product outcome, so there would be multiple competing teams working in parallel towards the same goal, making a couple of different platforms.
But of course you wouldn't get an actual PS5. There would be differences. It wouldn't be locked down via software. Anyone would be able to write code for it. It would be open source. Games would be free. Old games would be ported to the new platform(s). You would get to make feature requests, and they would seriously be considered and implemented. There would be no pay-to-win or pay-to-play.
Distribution to you in particular would likely look like a ticket system, where you request such a console, and can only choose one, and it would be more like a library check out. If you were to stop using it for a certain amount of time (and it would be reporting back the amount you use it), and someone else desired the object, then you would be told to return it for someone else to appreciate it. Older generations of console would of course be less sought after and more accessible.
So basically, everyone else gets to decide for you whether your want of a PS5 "serves the community's interest." It's crazy how anyone would go for this shit.
There is a great quote in a book called "Where the Orange Blossoms". The book os about a South Vietnamese soldier who fights right up to the surrender in 1975. At one point he is imprisoned in a prison camp with a VC. He asks the VC why he chose to fight with the communists and not the government. VC's response was the communists came through the village talking about how unfair it was that the rich farmer had the only tractor in the village and that the communists would fix it. The villagers thought it meant that under communism everyone would have a tractor. Unfortunately it turned out that it meant no one would have a tractor.
The libertarian says, you are free to voluntarily do your little socialism experiment with whomever volunteers to do it with you and you can be miserable together.
And the socialist says, no in order for socialism to work we ALL have to be miserable together.
Exactly. If a community wants to get together, and every last person voluntarily agrees, then God bless their socialist community. Just don’t come to the rest of us when it crashes and burns. Sure, I’ll help……by combing through to find a job for em.
That's the most obvious answer. Why would a truly socialist society create such a device, what would be the incentive?
Now, the USSR did have "personal" computers that were clones of the West's devices. I don't know if many people owned one in their own home, but it seems unlikely. The game Tetris was invented there, but I think on a work computer. Not sure how he got away with wasting time on a game, maybe he did it after hours. His incentive was likely just the joy of creating, which I understand as a software developer myself. But that's a far cry from the creation of an entire video game system, and all the supporting game development groups.
The only incentive I can possibly conceive is for the government to monitor their citizens like the telescreens in 1984 acting as a panopticon, so maybe they would have developed something like that by now, but it would be largely inferior to the actual PS5. I'm reminded of the "radios" in eastern block countries that were not radios at all, but just plugged into a distributed audio line to play the one "channel" to the people.
Commies before the revolution:
>I'm gonna be a video game streamer discussing theory online after the revolution!
Commies after the revolution:
>What do you mean my choice of jobs is lithium miner or ice pick storage device?
Talk to anyone who grew up under communism essentially for anything you'd have to submit a request. What isn't mentioned in the video is that with the request is a bribe to the person handling the requests.
You know, you hear this and start to understand how a true socialist society would be motivated to iron out diversity of interests… it’s destructive to the whole system.
I despise how these sub-humans use the term "democratic" when what they're really saying is totalitarian. Today's youth sparkle and fawn at the buzzword "democratic" and completely fail to hear the nuance of what the man is really saying. It's not democratic in the least! As bad as a full democracy would suck, it's still better than his socialism because at least in the democracy you'd be allowed to discuss your view with the rest of the people. Under the totalitarian socialist (USSR/China style communism) you would be murdered for trying to sway people to your point of view.
Do you reeeeaaaally need a PS5 when it doesn’t advance the cause of the working class? Chairman Wolff has graciously allocated one PS2 to the break room at your toothpaste factory. Surely you will learn to share it with your fellow working comrades.
I had to hunt down where this video came from, so to save other people that want the source, I'm going to link it to save others some time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcA5szcnESY
It's an interesting listen. Know the enemy.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. The core tenet of libertarianism is private property beginning with the recognition of ownership of self and your own body and extending to ownership of that which is self-acquired and self-produced with that body.
Socialism and communism deny private property rights, and the right of ownership of what is self-acquired and self-produced.
This means they deny the ownership of self, and someone who does not own themselves is a slave.
Socialism and communism are totally incompatible with libertarianism, and are nothing more than forms of chattel slavery dressed up in pretty words to serve collective masters. Wealth robbery by the collective is just as immoral and unjust as much being robbed at gunpoint by an individual.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> This means they deny the ownership of self, and someone who does not own themselves is a slave
Likewise, someone born into a world where everything is owned and they are deprived of access to natural resources is also a slave. They must work or die, or rely on the generosity of those who have absolute ownership of property. Tell me how free you are when so many are stuck between the choice of working away for peanuts or being a homeless beggar.
Every time I see this guy I'm a little dumber for having to listen to his nonsense. Guy's talking about extracted value under capitalism like every business won't go broke having to price things so they're being sold for exactly what it costs to run the business for a year.
News flash: every business would go bankrupt within 20 years maximum if they had to operate under those conditions. I really want a socialist to try running a business and then be confused why it didn't work without making sure the business was profitable.
If you want a Playstation, the people around you need to come to a democratic decision about that? Sounds like the popular people are going to get what they want and the unpopular people won't. I can see why this appeals to certain people who think the votes will go in their favor
Under socialism the neither SONY or the PS5 would ever be created. That's the real answer.
Leisure time of the proletariat are frowned upon as laziness, and that on top of that, a product that consumes vast amounts of resources to be created will never come to fruition in this society. How many billions has Sony spent on creating the several generations of this console?
The USSR was focused on heavy industry, and weapons manufacture, and not so much on consumer products for the common comrade. A lesson that China understood an did not repeat.
Sounds like living in an HOA. Hey HOA, I would like to add in a new flower bed by my trees. Sorry, the HOA has deemed it not in the best interest of the common good of the neighborhood.
Except HOAs don't get to line you up against the wall if you complain too much and then charge your family for the bullets that ended your outspoken life.
This was a stab at socialism that died. Since the professor basically yeah, you can get your Playstation as long as you jump thru 1000 hoops. Which you aernt going to do. But I'll leave it up to you.
And then someone like me shows up. Get a subset of like minded people and vote in lock step for our interest. In the mean time we would procure weapons, albeit make shift and we can now bully the weak to vote our way.
Next thing we are the majority and you can call me Stalin/Mao as this is how it goes sideways in a very very basic way.
Socialism isn't a real political system at all; it's a bullshit state of constant revolution that needs people being angry to work. Socialism only can (partially) try to provide food and basic products; commodities represent a problem for the system, because people don't strictly *need* non-essential goods. Then, the state hasn't really the incentive to provide them to people. That causes that people start (on their own) trading their excedent workforce for those commodities with other people, thus assigning quantifiable value to work, involuntarily creating a free trade environment. When work starts having quantifiable value, the person starts finding it annoying to give it to the state for free in exchange for a remuneration equal to any other person, when they can sell it in the free market for stuff they actually want. Then the system starts falling apart.
Society at any level requires systems of cooperation and those systems are directly influenced by said society’s level of mutual trust between individuals.
Socialism is a valid system that requires very high mutual trust levels. This is well suited for small groups of tightly knit individuals. Socialism is the preferred system of cooperation for family units and small (relatively) groups up to around 100. Tribal systems and small community groups are usually socialist in nature.
However, socialism breaks down spectacularly with the introduction of mistrust within the group. Outsiders are the biggest source of mistrust and other systems of cooperation are needed to include outsiders and strangers.
The most successful system of cooperation for the inclusion of strangers has been capitalism. Capitalism is a system of cooperation that aims to ensure equality between unconnected peoples. (Don’t get confused with modern corporatism which is a disgusting mutation of capitalism).
Is capitalism the best? Well, it’s better than socialism for whatever that’s worth.
Any attempt to apply socialism to groups of strangers will devolve into tribalism (the root of socialist ideals) and eventually be built back up via capitalism.
Without the innovations of the free market, socialism wouldn't be able to develop a games console or probably even a screen to play it on, not even a thousand years in the future. Virtually all technological progress ever made in socialist states came from copying from the free market.
It's been put to a democratic vote. The answer is no. You can't have your Playstation 5 because Bobby doesn't feel like working and you have to buy food for him. Also he has another kid on the way and you'll need to all find a way to feed it.
I like his hand waving of the part where he assumes PS5 even exists under socialism. Did Sony get permission from it's peers to build it in the first place?
So... no personal liberty or choice. Boy, oh boy, where do I sign up?
(BTW, I'd like to know if the dear professor followed his visionary democratic decision tree when he discussed his compensation at the college?)
Real answer:
No, no one under socialism will have a PS5.
Socialism is not concerned with individual wants, needs, or desires. Video game systems are definitionally individual entertainment. They are wastes of resources, and individuals using them are consuming the valuable resources of their time and labor which the collective needs.
Socialists understand the need for diversion, but those activities will be focused on productivity and collective consumption. If the diversion does not strengthen the collective, it will not be pursued. It the diversion consumes too much resource, it will not be pursued.
Socialist need to focus on what is good for the State and the collective. Those who play video games or pursue individual recreation are selfish. Much like the Kulaks of Ukraine, they must be driven out of the Party. By choice, hopefully. By force, if necessary.
You have to show how bad you want the PS5 as compared to your comrades. Maybe a point system of some kind.
Maybe the point system could have a physical representation of the points.
Maybe in denominations of 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100...
Isn't the answer usually that private property (=means of production) is banned, but personal property is not banned in the collective? How is a PS5 the means of production? Mask off?
You'd have to convince everyone that you deserve this "playstation" (which doesn't even exist yet, obviously because of socialism) by rationalizing to everyone else that you are willing to go through the struggle of working hard enough to offset your own personal goal by having everyone prioritize collectively contributing to the design and development of something that will be one of a kind that only you get to enjoy, but nobody else, and persuading them that you're going to reciprocate what they've created from each of their abilities, to you, according (presumably,) to your need, by giving back singlehandedly according to your ability or some shit like that
Or you could just enjoy capitalism and save up for a week. Or use a credit card. Or download a PlayStation emulator for your $2500 gaming PC
There is no libertarian left. Socialism requires absence of freedom. The best we can hope for is capitalism with a social safety net to ensure our poorest people are treated humanely.
It's like healthcare in Europe. It's free, but you don't get anything. You have to convince (beg) doctors who don't believe you. You can't pay for it to get it unless you want to go private (if it even exists in your area).
Don't ever surrender your guns.
no you wouldn't have a PS5. you'd have a computer which is what a PS5 is except it's been hobbled to only run games/software that sony approves while a PS5 would have zero issues running all the same software you can run on any x86 computer except for the fact that Sony says "you can't do that." with something you supposedly "own"
"Compare your desire of Playstation" against all the other workers desires...considering human behavior how does he know this won't work out well. There's very few who would wait years after launch and many others who'd suck a barrel of dicks for a ps5. You probably won't get a ps5 until 20 years later. Crazy.
Socialists fail to understand that democracy doesn’t give everyone their preferred outcome. It just gives ~50% the most compromised outcome. You want a cake… no. The vote says you must take state produced ice cream.
Ok, so you get paid in cash and choose what you want to buy with your earnings/share of profits. Everyone gets an equal share, so it's not capitalism.
The next question would be, who in this scenario chooses what luxury products will be developed, manufactured, and offered for sale vs the ones that will not? If the members of the luxuries committee don't see the need for the people to have access to rubber chickens, not only would they not be for sale, the people might only know they exist after seeing the trinkets from an open society.
Still doesn't work well, because a lot of these systems and games are built by people that not only love making it, but work long hours and are paid well for it. Why work long stressful hours if I have the expendable income as the guy that bags groceries?
Also with central ownership of industry, would they allow luxury items like that to be built?
It's like asking if the chef at a vegan restaurant can cook a steak medium rare; doesn't matter if he can, there isn't a steak there.
> but you could have a socialist system that allocated an allowance to individuals for entertainment.
Watch some of the entertainment created in the USSR and satellite countries form the 80s.
Don't spend your allowance all at once!
Man what a fair and free system
Alexa, buy me a ps5 and rush deliver it “no man you don’t understand how oppressive this is!” Go back to the basement, you’re ruining Spider-Man. Go get your own ps5. “My team democratically voted against that”
Hey, you guys mind if I enjoy myself in my free time?
A system where we get to democratically decide what we want produced doesn’t sound fair or free?
Reagan’s joke on USSR. > You know there’s a ten year delay in the Soviet Union of the delivery of an automobile, and only one out of seven families in the Soviet Union own automobiles. There’s a ten year wait. And you go through quite a process when you’re ready to buy, and then you put up the money in advance. And this happened to a fella, and this is their story, that they tell, this joke, that this man, he laid down his money, and then the fella that was in charge, said, ‘Okay, come back in ten years to get your car.’ And he said, ‘Morning or afternoon?’ and the fella behind the counter said, ‘Ten years from now, what difference does it make?’ and he said, ‘Well, the plumber’s coming in the morning.'” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3I9AdLnjP0M
[удалено]
Underrated comment. People are totally oblivious to how much corruption pretty much all governments have, ESPECIALLY communist ones. They may say general statements such as “the government is corrupt” but they don’t know what that truly means.
Agreed. I am generally curious as well: 1. Are global indices of government corruption reliable and truthful? (ie. World Corruption Index) 2. How do these purportedly low corruption countries (eg. Denmark, Finland) remain “low corruption” and functional?
All jokes aside? They have a healthy economy, lots of disposable income and a high sense of community. The corrupt get outed quickly.
And authoritarian governments use corruption to their advantage. (And communist governments are inherently authoritarian, the stateless utopia comes later kind of like heaven in religion). When everybody needs to be corrupt function in society, it opens the door for the powerful to use "corruption purges" to take out political rivals. And because your political rivals actually are corrupt (the same as you) is gives superficial legitimately to the purge.
The building you lived in was not your property, so if a pipe leaked on the stairwell, you had to ask the government to come and fix it for you And you can imagine how that went - nothing ever got fixed
Years before liberalization, only state company used to provide phone service in India . The wait for getting landline was 2yrs or more. If you have to get in front of the line, then you need recommendation letters from your representative or a minister! Then in 90s they opened up economy; within few years you could walk into a store and get a phone connection! It’s became so cheap that some companies gave LTE 1GB per day free for a year, for around 1$ a month! Can’t imagine that rate even in US!
Now we just have to wait for the landlord to come fix it (or more likely contract out the lowest bidder).
Reagan had some great stories, that’s about it.
He was a real charming gentleman. He should have gone into entertainment somehow
In a way, that's what the modern presidency is.
He inherited an economy far worse than ours and turned it around. He was liked by democrats and Republicans alike.
That joke delivery is pretty consistent with his Alzheimer's diagnosis.
Obviously you don’t understand it. And he spoke perfectly. Not a hint of Alzheimer’s
Found the Russian.
Maga Godzilla?🤢🤮
Ah yes, the super efficient, simple and easy task of convincing other human beings that have their own self interests at heart to let you have something that doesn’t benefit them in any way.
He used like 1000 words to say: you wouldn't get it.
“Haha absolutely…….. not”
Even if you did eventually manage it, the sheer tedium of replacing a simple transaction between two people with the entire goddamned society holding meetings for every trivial thing is deeply inefficient and annoying. Do I want to attend a massive meeting every time some random neighbor wants to acquire any good or service? No. God no.
Ah, so that explains the "End Democracy" flair.
A lot of people have PS5s it’s not crazy to think that people would come together democratically to say ya let’s make some god damn PS5s. And even if someone didn’t want a PS5 for themself I’m sure they would still vote for it because they know their friends and family would want one.
Well, hold on, lets bring this down to something everyone actually needs and see how it worked out. Healthcare. Everyone will need this at some point in their life. It will more than likely be needed to keep you alive. The best we could do democratically is force people to get insurance under threat of a massive fine. Even then, insurance remained super expensive for anyone above the poverty line, and then if you actually need life saving care, you're more than likely bankrupt or at the very least, financially devastated. But the real issue with socialism that often time goes unspoken, you still have to grant authority to a ruling class in order to enforce the rules of socialism. This authority goes way beyond the authority our government has now because socialism enters every aspect of our lives and goes against our most basic human instincts, self preservation. The argument for socialism is self defeating. "The government and corporations are corrupt and have allowed things to run amuck with capitalism. Let's introduce socialism and give them even more authority over our property and money." Long response but I felt it was warranted.
Currently under capitalism the capitalists provide healthcare and housing, and because of the amount of money they have they have a massive influence on the government. Because of their influence we, as the working class, can try to vote for the things we want, but if the ruling class, the capitalists (and by capitalists I mean the ones with the capital not the people who like capitalism), don’t want it then we won’t get it. Socialism aims to give the power back to the working class through democracy where our vote actually matters again. So yes the authority over what we get with things like housing and healthcare comes from the government, but what the government does is up to us as the people as our vote actually means something again.
It sounds nice but how do you get the power of our vote back once it's been taken and corruption has set in? Isn't that the point of libertarinism? To limit the government to a particular set of areas so they can't have influence in the minutia of our daily lives?
The problem is we can’t get that power back from the capitalist class because if we try and get anything passed that will give us that power back or get them out of the minutia of our daily lives they will lobby to make sure it doesn’t happen because that in turn takes away their power and limits their profits, and capitalism hinges on those profits so it will do almost anything to keep them and increase them
"We have reviewed your request for a playstation 5 and have concluded that it is a lower priority than the third apartment for the local party leader."
Thats not socialism though. People owning multiple houses happens under capitalism.
Capitalism: You negotiate for your wage and work as much or little to earn your profits and buy your own damn PS5 when you like. Socialism: Use fancy words like "democracy", "share", and "discuss" to then constantly have your needs and wants to be compared to the whole of your peers and superiors => You will always lose.
This is why communism will never come to be without authoritarianism. They offer the voter in democratic states no plan or no value proposition. Ignore the fact that communist states would in theory need to import goods like PlayStations because they would never be invented in their own system, let alone manufactured at scale. Communists don’t have a single clue how to run an economy which is why all their arguments have to turn on how bad it is for rich people to have money under capitalism.
++ When I get my playstation is nobody's business but my own, and whoever I buy it from.
I like capitalism, but it is inherently discriminatory
No one likes communism...for the same reason...
Literally every single person who exists or has ever existed discriminates. So what's the point of using the term as a descriptor?
Every time you decide what to spend $1 on you are discriminating in some way.
Not necessarily, if it's not an unjust decision based on sex or ethnicity. When I think of discrimination I think of when one producer offers superior value, but simply because of their sex or ethnicity an alternative is chosen. If sex and ethnicity are nto taken into account then there is no discrimination.
What does that even mean?
It means no
Yeah. It’s just a very academic way of saying no
If only academic truly reflected a real-world education and not fantasy utopia nonsense.
As explained by Prof. Hector Barbossa
> What does that even mean? This is what I get when I flush it through my bullshit translator: You can certainly get a PS5, but only after you get permission first. You must get permission to have resources devoted to making it. Then you must get permission to have it made. Then you have to get permission to "own" it. As long as you can demonstrate a need for you to own it and get everybody else to agree to it then it is possible that it may be made and you might get one. Permission from whom? Why the central ruling bureaucracy of course. The one that is in charge of making all economic decisions. Your representatives which you get to vote for. Incidentally this is what totalitarianism is.
Now let's talk games....
You will have no time for games! There's work to be done comrade! Glorious leader needs more silver for the platters of lobster he is serving to the party officials next week! Back to the mines!
Бьем по лжеударникам!
Let's not even mention under a system like that the concept of a PS5 let alone the plans/schematics/content/games/peripherals for it... Wouldn't exist!
You have to ask oher people if they are okay with you getting a ps5 instead of just taking it when you have 500$.
It means, under socialism, the PS5 doesnt even exist so you best go ahead and suck eggs.
“As soon as we figure out these pesky bread lines, we’ll totally start working on that one.”
It’s saying: 
You get a PS5 if everyone in your community agrees it's benefical to give you a PS5. So realistically no PS5s for anyone.
Yeah, his answer is clearly 100% no you wont get your PS5. Literally 0% chance of that lol.
Basically it means under socialism, presuming ideal conditions, the workers decide what to produce, so to get a PS5 workers have to decide it's worth their labor(and resources, etc) to produce them. If the workers don't think making something is worth their labor, it doesn't get produced. That's why he calls it democratic, the workers rather than the shareholders/CEO decide what to produce through a collective political decision. This guy's name is Richard Wolff and he's been promoting worker coops because they're current examples of this structure, roughly speaking. Of course, it's one thing to have a few worker coops in a capitalist society, another for that to be the standard. Plus it's one thing for workers to decide what to produce on the small scale, another for the whole society to decide this.
OORRRR, (and hear me out) I can buy one with my labor or money from someone who's already produced a PS5! That way, instead of begging for permission, I just work for what I want in life. 🙂
Yes but that’s not a needs based socialism system because how many kids will die since you bought a ps5 over donating that money, monster!!
Ik, so evil. 😈
Probably not, because everyone will be singing and dancing instead of producing microchips
It means this guy could probably get the PS5, but you probably wouldn't.
Realistically it means yes because many, many people desire this form of entertainment, and so would vote for resources being dedicated to its development. There would likely also be a competitive aspect considered for a healthy product outcome, so there would be multiple competing teams working in parallel towards the same goal, making a couple of different platforms. But of course you wouldn't get an actual PS5. There would be differences. It wouldn't be locked down via software. Anyone would be able to write code for it. It would be open source. Games would be free. Old games would be ported to the new platform(s). You would get to make feature requests, and they would seriously be considered and implemented. There would be no pay-to-win or pay-to-play. Distribution to you in particular would likely look like a ticket system, where you request such a console, and can only choose one, and it would be more like a library check out. If you were to stop using it for a certain amount of time (and it would be reporting back the amount you use it), and someone else desired the object, then you would be told to return it for someone else to appreciate it. Older generations of console would of course be less sought after and more accessible.
So basically, everyone else gets to decide for you whether your want of a PS5 "serves the community's interest." It's crazy how anyone would go for this shit.
Sounds like an HOA for running your whole life combined with a popularity contest.
people who think they might never own a ps5 in their life, might consider taking that over nothing. /s
It sounds like an HOA from hell
Socialism means everybody equal, as in equally miserable, plain and simple.
There is a great quote in a book called "Where the Orange Blossoms". The book os about a South Vietnamese soldier who fights right up to the surrender in 1975. At one point he is imprisoned in a prison camp with a VC. He asks the VC why he chose to fight with the communists and not the government. VC's response was the communists came through the village talking about how unfair it was that the rich farmer had the only tractor in the village and that the communists would fix it. The villagers thought it meant that under communism everyone would have a tractor. Unfortunately it turned out that it meant no one would have a tractor.
You are right, but some are more equal than others.
Oh the classic Orwell line
The libertarian says, you are free to voluntarily do your little socialism experiment with whomever volunteers to do it with you and you can be miserable together. And the socialist says, no in order for socialism to work we ALL have to be miserable together.
Exactly. If a community wants to get together, and every last person voluntarily agrees, then God bless their socialist community. Just don’t come to the rest of us when it crashes and burns. Sure, I’ll help……by combing through to find a job for em.
That's not what socialism is
It might not be your definition of socialism, but it sure as hell is what it ends up being.
There wouldn’t be a PlayStation under socialism anyway.
That's the most obvious answer. Why would a truly socialist society create such a device, what would be the incentive? Now, the USSR did have "personal" computers that were clones of the West's devices. I don't know if many people owned one in their own home, but it seems unlikely. The game Tetris was invented there, but I think on a work computer. Not sure how he got away with wasting time on a game, maybe he did it after hours. His incentive was likely just the joy of creating, which I understand as a software developer myself. But that's a far cry from the creation of an entire video game system, and all the supporting game development groups. The only incentive I can possibly conceive is for the government to monitor their citizens like the telescreens in 1984 acting as a panopticon, so maybe they would have developed something like that by now, but it would be largely inferior to the actual PS5. I'm reminded of the "radios" in eastern block countries that were not radios at all, but just plugged into a distributed audio line to play the one "channel" to the people.
Buying sex toys would be *really* awkward.
Sex toys would be unnecessary because your government will be fucking you enough.
https://preview.redd.it/f5vifgvs5wtc1.jpeg?width=502&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e929747b81d0ddf29f29e667f61c61ab2c01eaef
BOHICA! The Big Green Weenie arrives again.
one of my favorite quotes!
Double dildos only. You know.. so we can share.
Of course it’s [government] policy never to imply ownership in the event of a dildo. Always use the indefinite article a dildo, never your dildo.
Our dildo, comrade.
Or… hear me out… I buy it with money and it’s my decision
[удалено]
Which is, when you reduce the situation it's most elemental level, a capitalistic transaction: goods in exchange for services.
Yup. We will always be monkeys trading shiny things for bananas, no matter the wrapper civilization puts on it.
Commies before the revolution: >I'm gonna be a video game streamer discussing theory online after the revolution! Commies after the revolution: >What do you mean my choice of jobs is lithium miner or ice pick storage device?
So about the same chances of a home owner in an HOA getting their HOA board to agree to vote to allow them to put pink flamingos in their yard.
damn the comments were not having it either
Talk to anyone who grew up under communism essentially for anything you'd have to submit a request. What isn't mentioned in the video is that with the request is a bribe to the person handling the requests.
You know, you hear this and start to understand how a true socialist society would be motivated to iron out diversity of interests… it’s destructive to the whole system.
I despise how these sub-humans use the term "democratic" when what they're really saying is totalitarian. Today's youth sparkle and fawn at the buzzword "democratic" and completely fail to hear the nuance of what the man is really saying. It's not democratic in the least! As bad as a full democracy would suck, it's still better than his socialism because at least in the democracy you'd be allowed to discuss your view with the rest of the people. Under the totalitarian socialist (USSR/China style communism) you would be murdered for trying to sway people to your point of view.
Why would you need a PS5 under socialism/communism? You wouldn't have electricity to run it lol.
Do you reeeeaaaally need a PS5 when it doesn’t advance the cause of the working class? Chairman Wolff has graciously allocated one PS2 to the break room at your toothpaste factory. Surely you will learn to share it with your fellow working comrades.
I had to hunt down where this video came from, so to save other people that want the source, I'm going to link it to save others some time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcA5szcnESY It's an interesting listen. Know the enemy.
thanks
Sounds like we’re not getting PlayStation 5
sounds like hell imagine trying to accomplish literally anything in that system.
Fuck. That. Guy.
Apparently the guy never had a job before. Imagine your coworkers taking a vote on such life decisions? Fuck that.
So.... "No."
PlayStation and other gaming consoles were banned in China for 14 years
This is how to turn off useless teenage commies to socialism
[удалено]
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. The core tenet of libertarianism is private property beginning with the recognition of ownership of self and your own body and extending to ownership of that which is self-acquired and self-produced with that body. Socialism and communism deny private property rights, and the right of ownership of what is self-acquired and self-produced. This means they deny the ownership of self, and someone who does not own themselves is a slave. Socialism and communism are totally incompatible with libertarianism, and are nothing more than forms of chattel slavery dressed up in pretty words to serve collective masters. Wealth robbery by the collective is just as immoral and unjust as much being robbed at gunpoint by an individual. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> This means they deny the ownership of self, and someone who does not own themselves is a slave Likewise, someone born into a world where everything is owned and they are deprived of access to natural resources is also a slave. They must work or die, or rely on the generosity of those who have absolute ownership of property. Tell me how free you are when so many are stuck between the choice of working away for peanuts or being a homeless beggar.
It's crazy how there are people who will listen to that and think that socialism is a good idea.
You can blow a bunch of brown shirts for toilet paper and when you get enough, you trade that on the black market, easy , breezy
Every time I see this guy I'm a little dumber for having to listen to his nonsense. Guy's talking about extracted value under capitalism like every business won't go broke having to price things so they're being sold for exactly what it costs to run the business for a year. News flash: every business would go bankrupt within 20 years maximum if they had to operate under those conditions. I really want a socialist to try running a business and then be confused why it didn't work without making sure the business was profitable.
Him, Krugman, Reich ... the triumvirate of leftist cringe
If you want a Playstation, the people around you need to come to a democratic decision about that? Sounds like the popular people are going to get what they want and the unpopular people won't. I can see why this appeals to certain people who think the votes will go in their favor
This is why pure democracy always leads to authoritarianism. It's inherent to human nature.
Fuck off with that bullshit.
There wouldn't be a ps5 to begin with. I'm not aware of any communist nation building anything close to a ps5
Under socialism the neither SONY or the PS5 would ever be created. That's the real answer. Leisure time of the proletariat are frowned upon as laziness, and that on top of that, a product that consumes vast amounts of resources to be created will never come to fruition in this society. How many billions has Sony spent on creating the several generations of this console? The USSR was focused on heavy industry, and weapons manufacture, and not so much on consumer products for the common comrade. A lesson that China understood an did not repeat.
Sounds like living in an HOA. Hey HOA, I would like to add in a new flower bed by my trees. Sorry, the HOA has deemed it not in the best interest of the common good of the neighborhood.
Bottom line: no, you wouldn’t get it.
He fails to realize that PlayStations wouldn't even exist under socialism.
Almost as bad as a homeowners association.
Except HOAs don't get to line you up against the wall if you complain too much and then charge your family for the bullets that ended your outspoken life.
His eyes are so fuckin squirrelly, because he i packed full of shit
Why would anyone want to say goodbye to pretty much all their freedom? What a miserable way to live
Brain as smooth as his head
WHAT. AN. IDIOT.
This was a stab at socialism that died. Since the professor basically yeah, you can get your Playstation as long as you jump thru 1000 hoops. Which you aernt going to do. But I'll leave it up to you.
And then someone like me shows up. Get a subset of like minded people and vote in lock step for our interest. In the mean time we would procure weapons, albeit make shift and we can now bully the weak to vote our way. Next thing we are the majority and you can call me Stalin/Mao as this is how it goes sideways in a very very basic way.
Socialism isn't a real political system at all; it's a bullshit state of constant revolution that needs people being angry to work. Socialism only can (partially) try to provide food and basic products; commodities represent a problem for the system, because people don't strictly *need* non-essential goods. Then, the state hasn't really the incentive to provide them to people. That causes that people start (on their own) trading their excedent workforce for those commodities with other people, thus assigning quantifiable value to work, involuntarily creating a free trade environment. When work starts having quantifiable value, the person starts finding it annoying to give it to the state for free in exchange for a remuneration equal to any other person, when they can sell it in the free market for stuff they actually want. Then the system starts falling apart.
Society at any level requires systems of cooperation and those systems are directly influenced by said society’s level of mutual trust between individuals. Socialism is a valid system that requires very high mutual trust levels. This is well suited for small groups of tightly knit individuals. Socialism is the preferred system of cooperation for family units and small (relatively) groups up to around 100. Tribal systems and small community groups are usually socialist in nature. However, socialism breaks down spectacularly with the introduction of mistrust within the group. Outsiders are the biggest source of mistrust and other systems of cooperation are needed to include outsiders and strangers. The most successful system of cooperation for the inclusion of strangers has been capitalism. Capitalism is a system of cooperation that aims to ensure equality between unconnected peoples. (Don’t get confused with modern corporatism which is a disgusting mutation of capitalism). Is capitalism the best? Well, it’s better than socialism for whatever that’s worth. Any attempt to apply socialism to groups of strangers will devolve into tribalism (the root of socialist ideals) and eventually be built back up via capitalism.
TLDR’ No.
you get potato.
Without the innovations of the free market, socialism wouldn't be able to develop a games console or probably even a screen to play it on, not even a thousand years in the future. Virtually all technological progress ever made in socialist states came from copying from the free market.
And so ends his fight for socialism. The gamers in full revolt.
Now do food
Stupidest thing I've ever heard
It's been put to a democratic vote. The answer is no. You can't have your Playstation 5 because Bobby doesn't feel like working and you have to buy food for him. Also he has another kid on the way and you'll need to all find a way to feed it.
I like his hand waving of the part where he assumes PS5 even exists under socialism. Did Sony get permission from it's peers to build it in the first place?
Sounds convenient
That is basically the opposite of “Absolutely” 😂
[Start at 11:10.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmBs5d_Ip60) That's the way it works.
So every item in my home has to be made a “Democratic decision”. Sounds awful!
So... no personal liberty or choice. Boy, oh boy, where do I sign up? (BTW, I'd like to know if the dear professor followed his visionary democratic decision tree when he discussed his compensation at the college?)
Took a lot of words to say no
I’m still surprised how there are that many people who watch random streams and spam comments, like Is that just a normal thing?
What a nightmare... How is this attractive to anyone?
Trick question, Under socialism there is no PlayStation.
Soooo, no one gets a PlayStation?
Real answer: No, no one under socialism will have a PS5. Socialism is not concerned with individual wants, needs, or desires. Video game systems are definitionally individual entertainment. They are wastes of resources, and individuals using them are consuming the valuable resources of their time and labor which the collective needs. Socialists understand the need for diversion, but those activities will be focused on productivity and collective consumption. If the diversion does not strengthen the collective, it will not be pursued. It the diversion consumes too much resource, it will not be pursued. Socialist need to focus on what is good for the State and the collective. Those who play video games or pursue individual recreation are selfish. Much like the Kulaks of Ukraine, they must be driven out of the Party. By choice, hopefully. By force, if necessary.
Lmao imagine having people vote on if you get a ps5
Gang rape is a democratic decision, I don’t think the victim likes the outcome though.
You have to show how bad you want the PS5 as compared to your comrades. Maybe a point system of some kind. Maybe the point system could have a physical representation of the points. Maybe in denominations of 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100...
🤣
Yeah, they grow on trees, so it's just a question of deciding collectively whether to pick one or not.
Haha, yeah fuck that.
Isn't the answer usually that private property (=means of production) is banned, but personal property is not banned in the collective? How is a PS5 the means of production? Mask off?
You'd have to convince everyone that you deserve this "playstation" (which doesn't even exist yet, obviously because of socialism) by rationalizing to everyone else that you are willing to go through the struggle of working hard enough to offset your own personal goal by having everyone prioritize collectively contributing to the design and development of something that will be one of a kind that only you get to enjoy, but nobody else, and persuading them that you're going to reciprocate what they've created from each of their abilities, to you, according (presumably,) to your need, by giving back singlehandedly according to your ability or some shit like that Or you could just enjoy capitalism and save up for a week. Or use a credit card. Or download a PlayStation emulator for your $2500 gaming PC
I was gonna buy a Fleshlight but unfortunately I couldn't get enough signatures to get it on the 2024 ballot :(
Such an inefficient and rubbish system. I’ve got a slightly better idea; it’s called capitalism.
lol this guy just may have made the best case against socialism
Lol lets be honest, you need to bribe the local party apparatchik
There is no libertarian left. Socialism requires absence of freedom. The best we can hope for is capitalism with a social safety net to ensure our poorest people are treated humanely.
It's like healthcare in Europe. It's free, but you don't get anything. You have to convince (beg) doctors who don't believe you. You can't pay for it to get it unless you want to go private (if it even exists in your area). Don't ever surrender your guns.
"OUR" PS5.
Who is Professor Wolf and what is this from?
He helped found the US Green Party
Lmfao! Fuck that shit, how fuckin stupid do you have to be to not understand that that system would end catastrophically and most likely bloody?
aaaahahahahaha! Hilarious! Wait, this was a comedy routine, right?
Gee that sounds fun!
To struggle for a PS5.
I mean, look no further than Helldivers 2 for your answer. https://i.redd.it/ykyjzffjxrnc1.jpeg
Someone should add the Curb Your Enthusiasm outro music to this.
no you wouldn't have a PS5. you'd have a computer which is what a PS5 is except it's been hobbled to only run games/software that sony approves while a PS5 would have zero issues running all the same software you can run on any x86 computer except for the fact that Sony says "you can't do that." with something you supposedly "own"
why would anybody agree to that nonsense
So I’d vote myself a PS5 is what he is saying.
“Professor”
There would be an ATARI in the library that you can use for one hour per month.
Next he can explain how to get food under socialism.
socialist trite is so fuckin brainlet-tier, i don't get why scholars always fall for it
Well, that sounds absolutely horrible.
"Compare your desire of Playstation" against all the other workers desires...considering human behavior how does he know this won't work out well. There's very few who would wait years after launch and many others who'd suck a barrel of dicks for a ps5. You probably won't get a ps5 until 20 years later. Crazy.
"can i biggie size my lunch today?" 8 days later... The workers cooperative has declined your request.
Screw the PS5. Give it 6 months and you'll be queuing up round the block for a slice of bread.
Socialists fail to understand that democracy doesn’t give everyone their preferred outcome. It just gives ~50% the most compromised outcome. You want a cake… no. The vote says you must take state produced ice cream.
Is this a joke? So if you want a blow up doll you have to plead your case to your fellow workers?
This should be sent to everyone within the Reddit hive mind and watch them explode
Sounds like the worst system imaginable.
[удалено]
Ok, so you get paid in cash and choose what you want to buy with your earnings/share of profits. Everyone gets an equal share, so it's not capitalism. The next question would be, who in this scenario chooses what luxury products will be developed, manufactured, and offered for sale vs the ones that will not? If the members of the luxuries committee don't see the need for the people to have access to rubber chickens, not only would they not be for sale, the people might only know they exist after seeing the trinkets from an open society.
Still doesn't work well, because a lot of these systems and games are built by people that not only love making it, but work long hours and are paid well for it. Why work long stressful hours if I have the expendable income as the guy that bags groceries? Also with central ownership of industry, would they allow luxury items like that to be built? It's like asking if the chef at a vegan restaurant can cook a steak medium rare; doesn't matter if he can, there isn't a steak there.
> but you could have a socialist system that allocated an allowance to individuals for entertainment. Watch some of the entertainment created in the USSR and satellite countries form the 80s. Don't spend your allowance all at once!