Vampire

joined 3 years ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

tbh that sounds like a competitive advantage for the right

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Look, can't we agree that neither country gives a shit about the working class?

I have almost the exact opposite take on China.

Shit government, surveil people, torture people, no internet-freedom.

Their huge massive redeeming feature os that they REALLY give a shit about their working class.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The top one is taken from a website called vividmaps where it's countries the USA has had some sort of conflict with

List of wars being involved in is not a list of countries being invaded and occupied, nice try though.

The bottom map is just a white map.

Garbage meme 1/5

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

and with the USSR

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

One 😂😂😂 bit is the way it even uses a purer shade of white for China.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (18 children)

See? You could have said that instead of posting falsified maps

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (40 children)

honestly the map is too unserious to merit discussion

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

There's complexity to the question:

How do we define mediæval? (I low-key hate the words mediæval and Middle Ages, partly because of Eurocentrism). There's no such thing as a "mediæval peasant" really, there were various people at various times. Let me ask: how many days a year does a proletarian work? How long is a piece of string? Now if you look at the historical debate that spawned this meme, they're actually talking about England 1200-1600.

Are we talking about necessary labour (subsistence farming), surplus labour (for the lord), or both? I kinda suspect the "150 days" claim is surplus labour done for the lord. But then you've got to fix and clean your tools, thatch your roof, gather and chop your firewood, row your own household's food, etc.

It seems the 150 day claim comes from Gregory Clark's 1986 paper 'Impatience, Poverty, and Open Field Agriculture'. And from Juliet Schor's book, but I think Clark may be her source.

If you look at Gregory Clark's 2007 paper with DOI 10.111/ehr.12528 it seems he has changed his mind. So is the "150 days" claim based on an obsolete paper from 1986? Bottom of page 17/top of page 18 he says it's clear people worked 300 days in 1860 because record keeping is good then, but there was an increase TO 300 in the years 1650-1800. Figure 6 does show some very low numbers in the years 1200-1600 (which is presumably what the meme is talking about) taken from 'British Economic Growth, 1270-1870' by Stephen Broadberry et al.

My computer's overheating, might edit this comment later.

Generally, across all historical periods, I've rarely seen estimates of anyone working less than 1300 or more than 2300 hours a year.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There's considerable academic debate back-and-forth over how much they worked.

They didn't get Saturday off: the week was Monday to Saturday. But to make up with that they had all the St. Swithin's Day and St. Brice's Day and all that stuff stereotypical mediæval peasants talk about.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Khmer Rouge seems the obvious answer

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

This shit is fairly normal tbh

It's like the tagline about "dunk on ghouls for ghoulish things"

 

Basically dress up the economics as futurism instead of tankie shit with its associations.

Marx said we should hold the means of production in common, and follow a socially beneficial plan. But a lot of audiences would roll their eyes and close their ears as soon as I said Marx.

If instead I say, "Artificial intelligence and computerised logistics are becoming so sophisticated we can think about phasing out the human element of management. We can choose democratically what we want the robots to do and they will produce it for us."

This might sound like subterfuge to some of you, but it's not actually dishonest. It's a correct way to describe a Marxian economy. I replaced the phrase "the means of production" with "the robots".

The real win here is you get around "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." People don't expect a Marxist world revolution. People don't expect the fall of capitalism. But people totally do expect robots and AI in the coming decades.

 

e.g. [@[email protected]](https://hexbear.net/u/Dirt_Owl) would mention a hexbear user on hexbear

But if I'm posting on Instance A, tagging a user with an account on Instance B, do I change the first part of the link only? Or both? What is the correct syntax please and thank you.

view more: ‹ prev next ›