Leo’s Video on the Left Doesn’t Need a Part 2

[King Merk]

20 hours ago, Girzo said:

The thing is Jeff Bezos doesn't create that much value

Bruh?

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I never argued that people deserve to die.

But you need to have some realistic perspective about how survival works. If you cannot manage survival then nature herself will kill you.

The universe gives you no right to life. If you think you have the right to life, you are fooling yourself.

Speaking of rights, in your part 2 vid, can you please give your rebuttal to how progressives a lot of times mention how historic figures and eras in US history such as the Populist movement, the Progressive era of the 1900s, FDR and the New Deal era, the Civil rights movement, LBJ and the Great Society era, etc. were all able to successfully make such big and bold structural reforms in our country that created much greater equal rights and economic equality within our country to such radical degrees each time? 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Hardkill

[Girzo]

@Thought Art Jesus, I have studied management for 3 years at a university and now study sociology. I have worked in production and now plan to work in academia, also tried to start many of my own ventures. I am no naive leftist and well-aknowledged with how society and capitalism work.

4 hours ago, Thought Art said:

That without a CEO, founder or management over looking all the processes, goals, vision, regulations etc that the janitor, HR person etc wouldn’t have a job or stable income? 

It's all connected, every role is needed. The power doesn't has to be distributed the way it is commonly distributed now that's all I am proposing. If you think that janitor is 1000000x less valuable than CEO, then you are just dead wrong. Being a janitor doing 12 hours shifts is fucking raw survival, it's hard, and it kills your ambition, it stomps it, unless you are an exceptional human being. It's not people, it's their role. Crushed psychological well-being, social ridicule, are costs that janitor pays. That's why they deserve more equality either in working less hours (which in my worldview is way better than money), more respect, or at least knowing that no-one is exploiting them, that a CEO of a company has for example 20x cap of earnings relative to the lowest salary of his workers.

Also, people spend the same amount of time doing their tasks, janitor and boss, and life is incredibly valuable, you getting to the point in your life where you are, while keeping you alive, society has invested enormous resources to achieve that. It all comes down to how much you value human hours, I value them highly and that's a real reason we are disagreeing right now, you guys don't value human life as highly as I do, and that's okay.

4 hours ago, Thought Art said:

Ive read stories of CEO’s saving failing companies and their leadership earning companies millions of dollars, rescuing the work culture and contributing to the well being of the world.

That's anegdotal evidence. Read some scientific research, CEOs are repleacable, some companies function better without a CEO for some time, and also I am not for abolishing the role of an CEO, just capping how much value creation we ascribe to their work.

3 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

I'll tell you a harsh reality about pricing - the way it works, is by a perceived value-disparity. It really is just a matter of supply and demand. How hard is it to become a police-officer?! Or, a fire-fighter?! Through the training?! Not very hard. I mean, of course, it is hard. But, the percentage of people who'd be able to clear that would be significantly higher than the percentage of people who could become programmers or gain technical proficiency/technical expertise in something. For the latter, you have to get good grades. Which aren't that common. 

That is a fking lie, the society is so structured that many of the hardest jobs like being a firefighter or a nurse are the most discounted, the least respectable, to coerce people into staying in those professions. Exactly because they are so valuable and becoming them is hard, so they are not easily replaceable. Read some Sociology 101 instead of another book on Austrian economics. There are other hidden costs you are paying for becoming a firefighter, other than how hard the training is. Also, firefighters are often well-educated, so it misses a point.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Girzo said:

society is so structured that many of the hardest jobs like being a firefighter or a nurse are the most discounted, the least respectable, to coerce people into staying in those professions.

This is true.

However value is a much more complex thing that working a hard and needed job.

[ValiantSalvatore]

22 hours ago, Girzo said:

Because value in either of these companies is not Bezos', but thousands of workers, decades of developing infrastructure, billions worth of physical materials and fuels and millions of their clients giving them data.

It's a matter of who you ascribe the value to. I ascribe it to people and Earth, from which people have extracted the resources. You ascribe it it personalities and abstract companies.

If Bezos never existed there would be many other valuable things created with that value, if big companies had limits to growth, there would develop some new interesting, creative dynamics on a lower scale. We don't need competition in every field, on every scale. What makes humans unique is cooperation, and government should in my opinion do everything to support cooperation between humans.

I see existence of giga companies like Amazon as a residue of a progressing change towards their break-up or heavy, heavy regulation. They are descendants of company cities and other power-hungry forms of societal organization from the past.

Look at Alibaba and similar e-commerce plattforms, these smaller plattforms that sell via these plattform only get global value through higher level global distribution if it would not be for Alibaba/Amazon the smaller plattforms that sell there could never leverage their brand and their products and their whole supply and demand structure could collapse in that sense it is. As global markets are dominating. If there would be a more inherent value in local consumption this kind of disparaity and arugmentation would not exist, as businesses could opt for alternative marketing strategies of their products aka selling globally instead of only locally.

For sure there is value in the inital creation, yet you can't give workers and the creators money for creating the products. If they are not distributing it, buying the production goods, organiazing the material, buying engines and machines if the workers themselves are not supplying that. The inherent value of the material would be considered worthless and only their utility value is considered as a finished and raw product. Which is hypocritical in a sense, as the material itself has value. Even then if every worker would fully autonemously take the good that their are producing carving stones from a mine, producing chairs, chopping wood etc. The re-distrubition of these goods creates the value as well as cooperation and a market of possible supply and demand.To claim that only the thousands of worker have these value is false, it would still be the individual who claimed the good so to speak and has to distribute it through the facilitation of distribution value is created. The worker might be unable to sell his mineral at a given marekt and has to give it to some distributer/merchant who is able to sell the good at a different place. When I come as a business man and create with my own money a factory and production goods based on material and land that I bought, then yes I own it and have a right to distribute it. It's more the arbitariness of law itself that is an issue then and greed/power etc. I am not an expert just sharing an opinion I had marxist friends who identify as marxist and I see now more of why this is a serious issue.

Imagine working in China translating articles because european consumers are interested in quality products as well as even in their region english is a neccessary pre-requiste if I want to order as a japanese/vietnamese customer from China. For example in China I talked in english with a lot of Indian customers about their products in e-commerce. E-commerce in itself is a unique cooperation of multiple stakeholders that share value based on interst and intrinsic value of the product that they created. I am unsure what this has to do with beign power hungry, it is simply also the demand and supply created by the inviduals themselves that live in a society.

Anarchism in that sense does not really work for like see 1936 spain and their attempt to outlaw money and trade goods for goods. IIRC for example they tried to buy agricultural machines from England and faild to pay as they "outlawed" monetary value and instead wanted an equal value trade based on the inherent value of goods. For example traiding machinery for food products. That is utterly delusional that level of fairness is partially idiot compassion as everyone has interests up and down the spiral and there needs to be a monetary equivalent that has a meta-structure to create fairness like money as well as tokens for example (Spain tried). Trust me I was for this idea and thought it was genius and the current left with hate Jeff Bezos etc. Without Jeff I could never study what I study it's painstakingly cumbersomly annoying to walk into every store in a city and buy specific products. This also speeds up communication and cooperation. 

For sure cooperation is good and communication and communcal aspects, yet partially and I am no expert 1936 spain anarchism and bolchevist movements clearly showed how this sort of "marxist ideas" are abused. 

It is commonly stated from Marxists that people don't understand Marx I come from the direct region where Marx was born, sometimes I think when I read Wikipedia he had to write this for survival . He accurately observed the class dynamics during this time and I also dislike classism and the priviledges that elites have, yet most marxists are the elite and are utterly biased. A marxist friend told me how bias in dating her friends in the same party were. So I wonder sometimes the main issue is balance and harmony. If the "bourgouise" gives other enough ressources for themselves to become the bourgouise a lot of power and class struggles would stop to exist. There needs to be a means TO GAIN POWER AND NOT ABOLISH POWER. That is like saying stage red in spiral dynamics never existed in humanites time period and it never produced evolution. We now have the time where we could create more peaceful and harmonic means for less privileged people to gain a similar level of power, yet you can't say we are all equal in terms of competencies and predispositions. Yes human integrity and human rights as well as the biological construct of the human should be untouchable, unfortunately that is not a reality. That is why you see movements of body positivism, feminism, hyper-masculinity etc. As these power structures are out of whack. What changes it mostly is unfortunately a very very very very very broad education and that is not enough. 

I wish I had an answer I for sure know Marxism it is not I prefer Hegel anyway. I just also don't have the time to consider all of these complex positions, I am also just a kid with desires/demands and interests. Imagine beign bashed in online dating for writting you are genuiently interested in feminism. Now I am not anymore because I am beign attacked for beign interested in justice. Marxists for me are huge hypocrites. I prefer Hegelians even though I have no idea what that might mean. Also to relativize everthing and not make a clear distinction of higher and lower/earlier and later. 

It's really stupid most of these people turn to integral theory at one point for example Starhawk a famous feminists is working at an integral institute. Greens need to realize that Yellow is the option, they are massively afraid and correctly so of self-actualization as they hide like sheeps in a herd and don't develop themselves anymore in a holistic manner. They claim they are holistic, yet they are reductonistic. Especially when it comes to Marx and monetary value. Imagine I would need to trade my penciles and calculators to buy a pair of shoes on the street as monetary value stops to exist, because capital? Even in terms of estate should be abolished. With that level of reductonism? How do I trade and produce value and communicate and cooperate with others, if everything is devalued materially. 

I don't quiet understand...

Edited October 20, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[mr_engineer]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

That is a fking lie, the society is so structured that many of the hardest jobs like being a firefighter or a nurse are the most discounted, the least respectable, to coerce people into staying in those professions. Exactly because they are so valuable and becoming them is hard, so they are not easily replaceable. Read some Sociology 101 instead of another book on Austrian economics. There are other hidden costs you are paying for becoming a firefighter, other than how hard the training is. Also, firefighters are often well-educated, so it misses a point.

I could very easily make a counter-argument that a huge issue is that the emergency-services specifically are monopolized by the government. If you privatize them, maybe, they'd get more negotiating-power, because they're so needed. 

For example, employees of emergency-services that belong to the government are struggling with low pay, because they have to be cheap, because they're not for profit. But, the emergency-services that are private, that are for profit, like ERs, they're expensive! Their employees aren't struggling all that much, doctors do make six figures. 

So, you can't really have your cake and eat it too. You can't talk about low wages for emergency-workers and high costs of healthcare in the same sentence! It's a hard optimization-problem. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Leo Gura]

Healthcare workers in the US have pretty high wages. Of course they have to work really hard too. And they require a lot of schooling and training.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Tyler Robinson]

Eww. 

Actualized.org = another right wing. 

 

[Tyler Robinson]

7 hours ago, Gidiot said:

I agree with 99% of what you say Leo, but I think its a bad take to say that someone whos unproductive and "useless" doesn't generate collective value deserves to die. There is no explicit goal to life obviously, your life purpose doesnt need to involve making money or "creating value" it simply could be to help maximize love in your own way. if society says those types of people deserve to die, to me that isnt a very developed society, is the only reason parents have kids in order for them to maximize value and productivity? or like you say is it out of love? i know not every society should have the resources to meet survival needs for everyone but I if designed society I would value letting people existing whether i get value from them or not. its not my job to judge peoples worth on my benefit, if they arent hurting anyone they should have the right to exist. maybe this is too forward thinking when you still have to compete with other countries and people like a fucking chimp in a capitalist world, but the only way to transition away from that is a society that treats human life with dignity. we all have something to contribute in this life, and not everyone should be forced into wage slavery or being a business owner, a mystic is just as viable as a ceo in my eyes its clear to me that you need lazy people in life too. I mean thats how god planned it. if everyone was highly creative, successful, and productive this world would probably be a mess. people need to be able to go their own way with dignity.

This is the best take on the thread so far 

 

 

[Tyler Robinson]

On 10/19/2022 at 3:17 PM, Godhead said:

I'd worry about that when we get close to actually having a fair society. It doesn't seem like, the U.S for example. is anywhere near that. Who gets to decide what is fair? Society, Politicians, etc. fairness is a fluid concept that shifts and changes with society. "Who gets to decide" implies that there is no perfect answer. Correct, there isn't. But there are certainly societies that have created greater equality and "fairness" than others. We don't need perfect answers, we just need better ones. 

This was awesome. Yes we need better and fairer societies. There's where high quality resides. 

It's not about success or survival. It's about fairness and high quality. 

Leo is engaging in typical self bias as we all know. Don't take him seriously. 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Tyler Robinson

[Tyler Robinson]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But you need to have some realistic perspective about how survival works. If you cannot manage survival then nature herself will kill you.

If you don't allow people to engage in some critical reasoning before taking in your beliefs, you're failing. 

You can't expect us to be dumb idiots and watching you on a screen and simply ingesting everything you put in our mouths. There's going to be backlash and fair critique. Assuming otherwise is foolish. 

You're a fool who tries to act smart. Like they say stupid-smart. 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Tyler Robinson

[meta_male]

This whole thread is a perfect example of leftist ego backlash 

[Tyler Robinson]

4 minutes ago, meta_male said:

This whole thread is a perfect example of leftist ego backlash 

Actually both exist online. If you started a thread on right wing beliefs, you will find support for that as well. In fact you will find more support for that to be honest. 

Most people who talk about leftist points on this forum do so in disparaging ways. If you want proof, then look at the Stage Green Example mega-thread. 

It's almost like saying anti-feminists are feminists just because they are talking about feminism. 

It's not about talking about a particular topic. It's what message you want to drive home. 

[Optimized Life]

On 19/10/2022 at 11:18 AM, Girzo said:

Not much. The thing is Jeff Bezos doesn't create that much value

I haven't researched enough into him, but I call b.s

To suggest that someone like Jeff Bezos who devoted his life to the company doesn't provide value sounds completely ludicrous. 

I bet you still enjoy your amazon prime?

Edited October 20, 2022 by Optimized Life

[Girzo]

@Optimized Life yes, he doesn't generate that much value as Leo has said when taking him as example, because:

1. Based on the trajectory of our society something Amazon-like would have been created either way, with or without Bezos. He didn't innovate, just applied what already was there. Similar companies sprang around the world in similar timeframe. We have Allegro in my country, yes I use it, yes I don't care about it's existence. No, sellers are not thanking heavens everyday that they have this platform to sell on, it eats their margins horribly, so much they most often have their own shop websites with the same products and prices. Also it's mostly cheap chinese shit that I don't think should be made in the first place, it's a part of how capitalism wastes resources.

2. You are all ascribing him either the value of the work of his employees, I mean all the employees, not only the front-line, OR you mistake value that he creates with value he has power over through leveraging his creativity and his position. To make a one billion company you have to siphon at least 980 million dollars worth of value from society. To make a $200b company, you have to siphon like 99,9% of that value. And that fucking 99,9% could have been used and can be still used to achieve other goals now. 

I have nothing against Bezos personally. He is the same as other tech industry billionaires. It's discussion about role he plays and it's real value to society. I see majority of value in the people, their output and their potential, and I am not sold on Leo's argument from the video about CEOs being million times more valuable to society.

Money and power =/= value

Wise use of money and power, yes that's a lot of value, but I don't see either Bezos or Musk to be exceptionally wise or loving in their use of their position. So I think there's a lot of people that could replace them, so they are not that valuable, they are in a valuable position, but this position is mostly results of our current system, it's inner dynamics and not ingenuity of these particular individuals.

 

[Tyler Robinson]

4 minutes ago, Girzo said:

@Optimized Life yes, he doesn't generate that much value as Leo has said when taking him as example, because:

1. Based on the trajectory of our society something Amazon-like would have been created either way, with or without Bezos. He didn't innovate, just applied what already was there. Similar companies sprang around the world in similar timeframe. We have Allegro in my country, yes I use it, yes I don't care about it's existence. No, sellers are not thanking heavens everyday that they have this platform to sell on, it eats their margins horribly, so much they most often have their own shop websites with the same products and prices. Also it's mostly cheap chinese shit that I don't think should be made in the first place, it's a part of how capitalism wastes resources.

2. You are all ascribing him either the value of the work of his employees, I mean all the employees, not only the front-line, OR you mistake value that he creates with value he has power over through leveraging his creativity and his position. To make a one billion company you have to siphon at least 980 million dollars worth of value from society. To make a $200b company, you have to siphon like 99,9% of that value. And that fucking 99,9% could have been used and can be still used to achieve other goals now. 

I have nothing against Bezos personally. He is the same as other tech industry billionaires. It's discussion about role he plays and it's real value to society. I see majority of value in the people, their output and their potential, and I am not sold on Leo's argument from the video about CEOs being million times more valuable to society.

Money and power =/= value

Wise use of money and power, yes that's a lot of value, but I don't see either Bezos or Musk to be exceptionally wise or loving in their use of their position. So I think there's a lot of people that could replace them, so they are not that valuable, they are in a valuable position, but this position is mostly results of our current system, it's inner dynamics and not ingenuity of these particular individuals.

 

Your position is terrific. Lot of clarity. Great. 

[meta_male]

@Tyler Robinson  I agree, the right would react the same and you'd probably see an example of their backlash on the forum too if he brought out a video on their BS. I just don't see the point in watching Leo's video and then using his forum to say a second part isn't necessary. Where are all those altruistic leftists caring about whether it could be useful for anyone but themselves?

Just shows a second part is necessary af.

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Money and power =/= value

This is where most of your disagreement lies with people. People who disagreed with you are using the word 'value' in a totally different way than you. When they say value they refer to economic value. They don't use it "how it should be" , but "how it is" now.

So most of the disagreement here was about description vs presciption.

Edited October 20, 2022 by zurew

[Tyler Robinson]

Just now, meta_male said:

@Tyler Robinson  I agree, the right would react the same and you'd probably see an example of their backlash on the forum too if he brought out a video on their BS. I just don't see the point in watching Leo's video and then using his forum to say a second part isn't necessary. Where are all those altruistic leftists caring about whether it could be useful for anyone but themselves?

Just shows a second part is necessary af.

At this point watching any political video is lame and useless. The entire structure whether right or left leaning is infested with self bias. 

The left says what benefits them and their identity agenda whereas the right assumes their own survival will be threatened if they followed progressive takes. 

It's just self bias on both ends. Choosing any side is basically deciding who the lesser devil is. But either way you're still choosing a devil. 

I don't know why that kind of a video was necessary. Even a short post would have communicated the same point. 

The Left says the right is Demonic or backward. The Right says the Left is Excessive. This battle will never end 

The saddest part is that people will never get to pick and choose what really matters to them. For example if someone didn't want to close their shop during the pandemic, they have no choice but to follow the norm by their local government or authority. 

At the end of the day all politics and political opinions and rules are baseless because they don't serve an individual's well-being. You might lose your house and nobody will care. Did any politician ever knock on your door and asked you what you wanted? 

All Politics is like a reality TV show you watch with popcorn. It doesn't impact your home. What impacts is the general quality of life in a place. And that is decided by the level of consciousness of the community that you are a part of and how protective that community is. End.. 

[meta_male]

@Tyler Robinson  Damn well said ?