Gief ideology pls

Hi. Recently, I had a discussion about politics in real life, and I just realized I couldnt answer when I was asked about my own worldview. I was hoping you guys could help me out put a label on it, since you people read books on the subject. I dont know, could be fun?

Now, I will tell you something about my opinions.
Market vs Socialism: I seriously dont even care because yes, I am not insane to think that the market is meritocratic, it's just that I dont think state socialism cant become just taking from the more productive and giving to the less productive, taxing the more productive more and taking it for yourself, pitting the more productive and less productive proles against each other, etc.
Market can get corrupted, but so can everything.
About the Nation vs the World: I honestly couldnt care. I think immigration is in itself neutral, good if we are taking in doctors and engineers, bad if we are taking in feral fundamentalist rapists and criminals who cant read and write.
About culture: I again dont really care, but I dislike 'culture police'. I think traditional values are fine if you like it, I think these new values (anti traditional, childless, feminist, drugs+tattoos, cowardly males and ugly females) are fine too but I personally dont understand them. I feel like culture had to do a bit with war, societies needed new batch of soldiers after wars, and they solved that in one way, but these new values I dont know what they are all about, but I am fine with all of them..
About social hierarchies: Again, dont care too much. Obviously they can be awful and unjust, but I also accept parents over children, doctors over patients, officers over soldiers, I mean we have all seen the losses in the Red Army after Stalin purged half of officer corps and all available tactics were whistle and charge… some hierarchies can be beneficial, so the whole thing is really neutral to me.

And now finally: something I do care about, something I think is important, valuable.
I dont think value comes out of labor. I think technology is what matters really much. I think that efficient problem solving ability is what is most important.
I think that technology dominates the economy (fortune 500 being mostly engineers). I think that our quality of life depends on technology the most. I think that our security depends on it too. So does our law and also our politics (think of all the recent hacking, spying, etc). Even our culture, I know more people with a cellphone than those visiting museums and ballet.

And technology matters so much because fundamentally, might really is right but this doesnt have to be extremely awful as long as the mighty are balanced, and technology is a huge chunk of it. And everyone can strive towards it (and should in my opinion), and we can do it together too.
I mean, Conan summed it up in that one quote from the movie Conan (what is best in life).
Think about it: only real crime is not killing, or stealing, only characteristic of all criminals is getting caught. People listen to politicians not because of some.. social skills or charisma, but because they have missiles. Military-Industrial complex dictates public policy for obvious reasons. And small number of corporations can pass majority of laws again for this same reason.

So anyway how do I label this? And thanks for reading!

Oh another thing:
I think everything around me, every single little thing in society, is mostly there thanks to engineers. Our society owes itself 90% to the engineers. And yet, >5% of our society are engineers.

If I could do something about something, I'd try to somehow make more people into engineers. I think they are just awesome and that we should simply have more of them.. and that they are more important than the society at large thinks.

тебе нужно читать книгу.
←——-
←——-
←——-
Nobody is going to spoonfeed you, read for yourself.

у меня нет свободное время

no for real, i dont have any free time to read all the books, and what's the point of you reading them if you cant just quickly glance at what i wrote and point me in the right direction
really dont have time since its the exams period right now

someone help an autismal fellow out..

What did you mean by this?

...

Then save the time and read whenever possible, because what you describe makes you yet another idealist liberal.

Only reading can make you able to give a coherent answer, otherwise you'll give embarrassing, contradictory answers like you just did, where it is palpable that you don't know the terms you are using.

I actually am in the process of reading them, mind you.

that a clever abuser can always abuse others, no matter what
that no one is entitled to any security or rights by.. moth eaten scrolls, rotting corpses of philosophers and statesmen, holy or unholy books, etc
i think that all the laws are enforce by force (duh)
that all authority comes from force
that force is the universally understood currency, even shinier than gold
and that technology is an important chunk of it, and therefore every man should have enough of it
like when mass shooting happens for example, it only happens in gun free zones, doesnt it? doesnt matter our physical condition or sex or race or whatever, if people have a semi they can somewhat defend themselves
and we cant really reasonably expect to have any rights we cant defend ourselves
if you cant stop an angry bear, it can maul trough your human rights and laws and everything
if you cant physically swim trough the ocean, it will sink you

and finally if you cant stop an 'evil' man from exploiting you, you will be exploited
so you and I dont have rights
we only have duties
that give us rights

You are in Holla Forums so I think you know here we are mostly towards the extreme left of the political axis.

This means we more or less agree that the vast majority of problems in society are born out of the way we organize production and distribution, the economic organizational structure.


You say that technology is the motor of society essentially correct? In this case you have a vested interest in maximizing technological progress. So ask yourself what is hindering this.

Obviously our answer will be capitalism.

But why tho?

Soviets rampantly kickstarted their heavy industry with central planning.
Cant deny Americans with their market capitalism innovating and revolutionizing all kinds of technology.
Hell even fascists made unimaginable advances, especially with jet engine.

So the profit motive can work. So can central top down planning. I dont think that's it.
I really want to figure out what exactly is it, and just focus on that.
Market can go to shit when monopolized by a few people and strangle everyone else, but central planning can also be a disaster when central planners are shit, so I dont really think it's the capitalism/socialism, since both can either work or be destructive.

Can you make it more obvious that you know nothing about the subject?

I don't want to sound offensive, but this is a really reductive way of looking at things.

Yes true many societies were able to produce technological progress, but you should ask yourself how and how effectively.

im not an idealist liberal because i disagree with everything they do with passion:

take their immigration, it solves nothing, does nothing, it just makes things worse, they are not taking in doctors and engineers but illiterate ferals and empowering right wing
take their recent """march for science""", their non-scientific disturbance of peace and quiet produced zero scientific works, solved zero problems, cured zero diseases, it did fucking nothing but watering down of the word
and I seriously do not understand western liberal democratic society either, when one half of the people claim they had more freedoms in the past (right wingers and their past golden age), and other half claims its unfair and bad and oppressive (mostly idpol freakshows complaining about spooks they cant prove to save their lives)


fine, let me play the devil's advocate:
western market economy is perfectly fine as it is, I mean people have internet access, but the problem is that most of the traffic on the internet is used for porn and videogames, instead of anything productive
the poor are poor because they are unproductive, not because they are exploited
we have underwater basket weaving courses at universities instead of things of actual value in the private sector

the rich are getting richer because they are finding ways to be even more productive
while the poor are getting poorer because they all have all the means to be productive, but they prefer to be annoying complainers that produce zero worth, zero value, that deserved much worse than they already have, and society would really be better off if we just genocided the poor

now im not being sarcastic from here, its just that i think most people in the west are perfectly personally responsible for their fates, the west isnt some sort of ball and chain parody where people do manual labor to barely survive
i think the engineers of our society are enabling everyone else to take the path of least resistance, to roll downhill, so that's what most are doing

we need a… union of essential people (where engineers would be overrepresented)
these are truly the workers being exploited (because they do all the work)
and it is in the interest of this (few) essential members of society to secede and liberate themselves of the oppression of the rest of society, which provides them nothing, which is parasitic towards them

Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin if you're in the mood for a taste of Anarchy, same with What is Property by Proudhon, and maybe some books by Bakunin

Alright, you want a ready made conclusion, we'll give you a ready made conclusion! I didn't even read what you said below in full, I kind of skimmed it! Just say that you believe in free associations of producers (informal, people come and go as they please, etc.), government by network of face-to-face assemblies, and production for use coordinated through a planning app (if asked further, say that it works through linear optimization of in-kind supply and demand info to minimize the difference between what's demanded and what's available). Just mull it over - you won't come up with a better solution in the modern era.
Okay, and who makes that technology? Value, best understood, is ability to direct violence of some sort, either through the explicit threats of direct action that is debt or the more subtle mechanism of starvation by destitution.
Skimming it, you seem like a Bill Maher-tier liberal, social democracy-lite because even Bernie was too far left. Flag related, you seem to have dropped your fedora! Alternatively, you could put on a rose, but that's just a proof of how much of a joke Sanders-type people are around here.

When we say that you're an idealist liberal, that's actually redundant. All we need to say is that you're a liberal, because all liberalism, be it what's called conservatism today (originally known as "liberal conservativism"), libertarianism (originally called "economic liberalism" - "libertarian" was first used to describe anarcho-communists, very different crowd), and liberals (originally known as "social liberals"). Why are your ideas "idealist"? Well, what is the alternative to idealism? Materialism! Forget about rights - those are all bullshit. Forget about the social contract - that is bullshit. Forget about the concept of debt - that does actually have a material basis behind it and deserves a lot of analysis (read "Debt: The First 5000 Years" if you want to go into that, great book which I highly recommend), but its morality is bullshit.
And that's where you're wrong. There's a mathematical proof with repeated simulations to back it up in the book "Classical Econophysics" to support the statement of "markets naturally tend towards a power distribution of wealth as seen in the real world". It is systematic. If you had only STEM people and society somehow functioned with them alone (it probably wouldn't, not that I have anything against them - I'm in college to be an applied mathematician), you would still end up with the same distribution every time with the same frequency as gas molecules reaching thermodynamic equilibrium according to a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution - every single time.
Furthermore, even if that was not true, you're deriving an "ought" from an "is", which is a big no-no even according to the Enlightenment philosopher most fundamental to empiricism and therefore the scientific method, David Hume, and on just as solid grounds as the rest of his work.
Finally, look at who forms the ranks of the 1% outside of those few techies. It's the financiers, the VCs, and a good portion of the richest are the born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-mouth crowd like Trump! If your proposition was really true, wouldn't engineers already be much, much more valuable than they are now? Tsk tsk.

Holla Forums BTFO

At this point I think we have different definitions of productiveness and exploitation. You really honestly think that a CEO is working a thousand times more productively than a common office slave? Do you really think a shareholder is working as hard as an indebted farmer?


Sure, if you base life value exclusively around monetary gains. People should not be allowed to do anything else than products or services to be sold.
In fact universities should be closed and reopened as obedient workers training centers.


I can't be bothered to make an argument for this, it's just a rephrasing of "everyone is lazy except billionaires" bullshit. If you're lazy with your arguing I don't see why I should be any less.


these are truly the workers being exploited (because they do all the work)
and it is in the interest of this (few) essential members of society to secede and liberate themselves of the oppression of the rest of society, which provides them nothing, which is parasitic towards them

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahhh AH! I needed a laugh today. God… my father is an electronic engineer and I'm a couple of exams away from becoming one myself and this is the most stupid thing I've seen in years.

Misconception. All the food you eat, the clothes you wear and all the buildings you see are made by manual labourers. An engineer is nothing without thousands of construction workers, miners and farmers. Electricity is of upmost important and is done by manual labourers. Everything is digital and programmed by programmers on circuits made by manual labourers.
To think that society runs on designs and calculations is ludicrous and plays right into the hands of the capitalist ideology, thinking that "the inventors" are the most important thing in society. Inventors are just an actor in larger society. I would even argue that they arent the most important actors. The workers who maintain society, the farmers, plumbers, roadworkers etc, they are the most important. They are the foundation upon which we can build higher.

this

The whole CEO pay thing has never made sense to me. If it's just the position of CEO, then it doesn't matter who is sitting in the chair and the pay is arbitrary. If it's the person, then it shouldn't matter what position they're in, because of they're naturally that amazing they should be pulling down equally high pay whether they're in the mail room or the president's chair.

Well, ever heard of that "knowledge is power" saying? It is quite literally medieval (written by a few different philosophers in the middle ages), and this is what it means, when it comes to CEOs and economy:

First of all, value doesnt come out of labor. Take farming as a stereotypical example: invest ton of labor into farming and you will get some value in return, but invest a tiny bit of labor and knowledge (such as fertilizers, pesticide, irrigation, soil enrichment, mechanization, etc) and you would get even more value, even if you put less labor.
Second thing is that things do not have an objective value to humans, or that humans are not perfectly rational actors. Example: have two millionaires, one relaxing on a lake and the other one in the middle of a huge desert. Try selling them both water. One will tell you to fuck off, the other one will pay millions for that one bottle of water not to die.

CEO is like a general multiplier of labor, kinda like knowledge. So CEO's paycheck is the sum of all his knowledge. Knowledge of what to invest in, knowledge of logistics and where and when to allocate critical resources, knowledge of supply and demand of a certain market, knowledge of this, knowledge of that…

Another example, true story too:
Locust scientist noticed that every 27 years, a swarm of certain species locusts shows up in Brasil and eats all of some crop, forgot which one, lets call it wheat..
Anyway, no one noticed this locust phenomena but this one locust scientist. Instead of writing academic journal about it, he just bought a ton of wheat in Brasil just before the locust swarmed the wheat region.
Now his investment, which was near worthless a week before, made him a millionaire. And he did very little physical manual labor.
KNOWLEDGE

you don't deserve an answer, just get off of this board and end yourself

no u / 10

have you not seen the first line in that reply?