In Praise of Idleness (1/3)

[TheOldBeef]

this video is an abomination

[fafenfufer1]

In Europe Russel was known AS English degenerate bolshevik. COMPARING NIETSZCHE WITH RUSSEL IS INSULT FOR NORMANL HUMAN BRAIN. LIKE DIAMOND AND DOGSHIT. NIETSZCHE, THE GREATEST AFTER 3 GREEKS (Sokrates, Aristotelos, Plato) COMPARING WITH BOLSHEVIK HOMO, MARXIST ENGLISH SCUMBAG. Yes! Only fag, bolshevik, englishman or combination of all three can do it!!!

[UncleFred34]

@fafenfufer1 Bertrand Russell hated the Bolsheviks and was critical of Marx before the Soviet Union ever existed. You however, will most likely not take this into account because you appear to be a troll.

[lapwiz]

@fafenfufer1 I seriously doubt you ever read any philosophy in your life. Who's comparing Russel with Nietzsche (which you can't even spell it right)?

Socrates never wrote anything, and all we know of him is from Plato's accounts. For all we know he never even existed, but was created by Plato as the personification of philosophical inquiry.

What stances exactly Russel held that in your view were either demolished by, or in direct conflict with those of FN?

Philosophy is not a contest.

[lapwiz]

@lapwiz PS, You've also misspelled Bertrand's last name. It is Russell , not Russel.

[lapwiz]

@fafenfufer1 Define normal?

Was Nietzsche "normal" in your view?

What, in your view, was his greatest contribution to critical thought and why?

What specific Russel's ideas you disagree with and why were they flawed?

Truth and falsehood remain the same regardless of who say it.

2+2=4 If Russel or Nietzsche say it, get it Einstein?

[lapwiz]

@fafenfufer1 Let's just assume, for the sake of this exercise, that your; homophobic, racist, fascist, and politically/"philosophically" prejudiced statement has merit. Where does Marx, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Russell diverge in opinion. Please enlighten me, if you will, on the precise reason why Russell's ideas conflict with those of the other thinkers you've mentioned.

While you're at it...Where is God?

Did Nietzsche kill him, or did the JEWS done it?

Define a Bolshevk

[youngThrashbarg]

Reader sounds almost like Frank Zappa.

[jmitnick210]

Out of curiosity, what's the story of the twelve beggars from Naples that Russell mentions? Is there one?

[1969lincolnosiris]

I wonder who would be more likely to be "idle"?

Someone who was handed MILLIONS at birth, or someone born without a penny and fatherless?

Judge not, lest YE be judged with TWICE the prejudice.

[superhamzah85]

I don't believe in work.

I believe in passion.

[TERb8]

thankQ for these posts, and the transcript link.

it is quite pathetic that these profound words have for the most part, fallen on deaf ears.

[kredit787]

Thinking is not doing nothing.

[robopsychology]

Very interesting...

I really enjoy how clearly Russel presents his arguments... You can see that he wishes to be understood, he wishes to communicate - not only with his peer professors/philosophers, but with everyone... The complete opposite of lets say Lacan...

[Romansteel13]

@robopsychology

"The complete opposite of lets say Lacan..."

Can't believe you would even justify his existence by recanting his putrid name.

Paraphrasing here.

A self-conscious charlatan - Chomsky on Lacan.

[38dragoon38]

Why-oh-why-oh-why! do so many Americans think that having a music track in the background of a monologue makes it somehow better or more interesting?!?! Is this a consequence of the modern fashion of students using portable music devices during lessons and lectures at school and college? Dear poster: BERTRAND RUSSELL'S IDEAS DO NOT NEED A TRENDY MTV STYLE BACKGROUND MUSIC TRACK IN ORDER TO MAKE IT MORE INTERESTING! Now go and tidy your room!

[ja524309]

@38dragoon38 Because this totally sounds like something you would find on MTV <= No?

[MissMoogles]

@38dragoon38 I don't understand why people put background music in monologues, either. If I wanted to listen to music while listening to a monologue, I can just listen my own music while listening to a monologue. In certain points, the music distracts and takes away from the speech...

[WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1]

I which anarchism was feasible. I which work didn't exist. That just isn't reality.

[38dragoon38]

@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 Fuck me! What job do you do? I hope it doesn't involve having to write to people.

[WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1]

@38dragoon38

Admitedly I fail to understand what that means.

Therefore I will tell you that I an Olympic gold medallist, a best-selling novelist, a billionaire philanthropist, an industrial and media tycoon, an actor scheduled to be the next Bond and a world leader with a voice on the Security Council.

all bullshit of course*

right now, im an irrelevant pleb

[38dragoon38]

@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 Apologies Mr Knight. I thought you may have been one of our gobby American cousins and so momentaily suspended my manners (through necessity). Please forgive me.

[WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1]

@38dragoon38

Don't mention it; you are of course, forgiven

Regards

[watayapupuya]

@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 You "which",ha? well,which is it?

[MyMelancholyDodo]

Bertrand Russell should have been Prime Minister!

[hondansxable]

Russell was bit too statist on economics

Ron Paul 2012

[Someideasandstuff]

@hondansxable Unfortunately, Ron Paul doesn't understand the inherent flaw of unregulated capitalism(long term), the consolidation of wealth by the few, mainly thru mergers/acquisitions coupled with market saturation.

[newperve]

@Someideasandstuff The problem is that the consolidation of wealth happened faster under highly regulated capitalism. In fact regulation by it's nature is wealth concentrating because wealth allows more ability to control what regulations are passed. The idea that the free market concentrates wealth is a baseless myth.

[Someideasandstuff]

@newperve no, due in part to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth. This would happen even if you removed regulation entirely

.

[newperve]

@Someideasandstuff Except that economies of scale have NEVER led to a monopoly. Shut up with your idiotic theories and actually consult reality. In fact regulations are the only reason why firms are as big as they are. Diseconomies of scale would make firms much smaller without government intervention.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

I agree with someideasandstuff.

Furthermore, your smaller firms would likely drive up the cost of production significantly; better to own as much of the production process as possible. As John D. Rockefeller might have said, "pay a profit to no one."

(This is also one reason why privatization tends to drive up costs for consumers; suddenly people have to pay a profit on top of costs. It's also why there is a tendency towards condensation of capital and large firms.)

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Why would smaller firms dirve up the cost of production? You can't just make shit like that up and think I'll get you get away with it. The reason why privatisation often (although not always) increases costs is that people are paying the full costs, and yes that includes the cost of capital and the cost of risk which is profit. Pretending that an investment is risk free allows it to be done without paying profit, but that's not getting it cheaper, it's just ignoring a cost.

[Someideasandstuff]

@newperve I never said anything about monopoly. It's a general and overarching principle. Quit being a fool. And getting rid of air, water, and land regulation is a great idea if you're an idiot who doesn't understand why they were created in the first place

.

[newperve]

@Someideasandstuff If you don't think that economics of scale lead to monopoly then you must believe that they're limited. if they're limited then how do they lead to concentration of wealth? How would they lead to concentration of wealth anyone when anyone who saves can invest? You have not the slightest knowledge of economics and yet you call me a fool. Most regulation was created to benefit the rich and powerful and you're the idiot if you don't know that.

[Someideasandstuff]

@newperve Those videos of Stefan on your page confirm your lunacy. Regarding the concentration of wealth, it's not a zero sum game, so it is inherently limited. The concentration of wealth will always be reflected in a tiny percent of the overall population, it is not static, and it doesn't rely on monopoly

.

Let me guess, you think Peter Schiff is brilliant? LOL. Poor Australia

.

[newperve]

@Someideasandstuff Calling someone a lunatic when you haven't even suggested a logical reason why hey're wrong is moronic. I notice you haven't even tried to explain why there would be concentration of wealth or how it could happen if anyone who saves is free to invest. Naming people I admire and trying to imply they demonstrate my ignorance just shows you don't have any arguments.

[Someideasandstuff]

@newperve I can't help you if you don't understand economies of scale theory nor the lack of comprehension of my previous comment. You also seem to be quite clueless regarding the history of water and air regulation in the US. The people you admire is a reflection of this

.

[newperve]

@Someideasandstuff Again you haven't even suggested a reason why you MIGHT be right on economics of scale.  Of course given that as I've said twice anyone can invest in large scale firms the wealth wouldn't neccesarily be concentrated ANYWAY so your point is moot. You love claiming people are wrong, but so far you haven't even hinted at a reason to believe you. You just heard somewhere that economics of scale leads to concentrations of wealth, and believed it without ever thinking about it.

[GnomesAmok]

@newperve

Regulation was created to benefit the rich and powerful?

[newperve]

@GnomesAmok Why do you think there are so many regulations that make it harder for those with relatively little capital to compete? Why do you think so much paperwork is required to do things? Because rich, powerful people control and/or own big firms that have big projects which do not require proportionately big effort to file the paperwork. This should not be news, Friedmann noted this back in the seventies.

[Antiks72]

Productivity has skyrocketed, and we the people are poorer than ever. It's time for a general strike, kids.

[tagaEskinita]

working is for saps. never done me any good.

[xxdiogenescynicxx]

Exactly.

[timberwulfzero]

Excellent upload. We desperately need to lower production and productivity.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero You're joking right?

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

A re-organization of labour, and more efficient design, would mean a reduction in overall work and production - why is this a bad thing?

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Yeah that's increasing productivity moron, not lowering it.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

Output per worker would decrease, hence decreasing productivity. You're really rude, bro.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Why should I be polite when you haven't even bothered to learn what basic terms mean before sprouting off? Don't you understand that implementing your ideas would cause the deaths of millions? No of course you don't because you're so ignorant you don't even know what "productivity" means.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

A basic description of productivity is, "a measure of output from a production process, per unit of input." This is congruent with my previous statement.

The implementation of capitalism has also killed many by design, inaction, and open conflict. As did the glorious revolution in the 1600s, and countless other massive upheavals in history. You must have a short memory for history, my friend.

The question is, "can capitalism meet the growing demands of the Human population, as is?"

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero A worker is not a unit moron, a worker hour is. God how is it the people who know least about economics feel like they can waste the most of my time educating them on it? My memory of history is fine, the reason I can't recall the free market killing lots of people is because it doesn't. Socialism however does. And capitalism has been meeting the growing demands of the human population for centuries to the extent it is allowed to by government.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

Where have I stated that workers are a "unit" of production?

It's interesting how you've shifted the language away from capitalism and towards "free market." Of course, an abstraction cannot commit atrocities, however, people acting under the influence of the profit motivation most certainly can.

Furthermore, no artificial separation can be made between capitalist states and private corporations; the high degree of collusion between the two makes such a distinction impossible.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Ok now you're too stupid to understand what YOU wrote. I changed the language because many people call state capitalism "capitalism" and state capitalism has indeed killed a lot of people. I was actually trying to be clear, which you were not. People certainly can commit atrocities, but the free market does not reward that behaviour the State does. Of course you can seperate private corporations and the State, just get rid of the state, nothing "artifiicial" about it.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

Here I am thinking that the primary motivator of capitalism is profit; so why not collude, conspire, and coerce? Why not take full advantage of every opportunity in order to maximize profits? Isn't this what we see happening in the real world?

Friend, tell me how does someone "just get rid" of the state? I'd be very interested in your insight on this matter.

I await your kind tutelage.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Well you don't coerce because if you do people fight back and fighting is expensive. Notice how the Iraq war is a monetary loser, even though they've stolen one of the most oil-rich nations in the world? The only reason it can happen is because it doesn't have to make a profit. Yet people like you want to remove the discipline of from everything. Historically this has caused nothing but slaughter. There you've been tutored.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

Actually, Iraq is only a monetary loser for the USA government and people, not for private corporations. As I said before, the level of collusion between government and corporations is extremely profitable; wars are no different.

Foreign capital in Iraq are making off like a bunch of bandits not only from government contracts, but also the rebuilding, and privatization of local infrastructure and services.

The people foot the bill while the wealthy make a killing.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Oh for god's sake moron, what does what you said imply? Well exactly what I said, in fact. Coercion isn't profitable, even when you get to steal a decent percentage of the world's oil. It is only made possible by the fact that the state provides coercion at below cost. Under a free market how would any of this happen? It wouldn't yet you've somehow convinced yourself that the market leads to violence and looting, in direct contravention of the facts.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

The implication of what I'm saying is that powerful individuals and corporations won't willingly abandon the state; it's too profitable, and lets them keep their hands "clean" while supplying weapons and plundering the wealth of nations. I will say this as clearly as I can: large capitalists like the state.

So, by all means, destroy the state in Australia and we'll see how long it'll take NATO to come in and "stabilize*" your country. (*bomb and carve up.)

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Dude they could barely take Somalia and that's when they had money. Of course the powerful individuals and corporations will abandon the state, just as soon as we show that it's no longer a free pass to unaccountability. As soon as the corporations realise that the state is delviering them less and less and more and more has to be done to get them to deliver it, they'll abandon it. When Obama screwed over every company that issues bonds to pay back the UAW that became obvious.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

This thread is becoming tiresome;

Lets say that you destroy the state, with at least its limited democracy, for a corporate fiefdom; unaccountable, bureaucratic, and un-elected. Corporations will hire new sophists to replace politicians, construct, or hire, private armies to protect their holdings, and exercise complete control the legal system; they might even form cartels to increase their strength and size.

Sounds like a state without the middlemen; direct corporate control.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero No let's not say that I destroy the state for a corporate fiefdom dickhead because there is zero evidence that anything like that would happen. Sophists are no a substitute for the power of the state. Anarchy is not corporate fiefdoms it is the absence of a monopoly of coercion without which the worst of the corporations wither and die. As for complete control over the legal system how would that be accomplished in polycentric law? It's not yet you still want a monopoly.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

Those with money will likely end up running the show under capitalism, with or without the state; the end.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Yeah I love it how a simple statement of what is likely without any reference to facts, history or even what facts or history confirm or deny the statement is enough for you. Seriously you expect me to believe that "those with money" will end up running the show when historically that didn't happen in any of the anarchies I can remember.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

That's probably because there aren't any modern anarchist nations.

Money is social influence; it makes people do things because they need it to live by buying commodities on the market. Therefore, people with lots of money can compel other people do things; this seems coercive. I can't explain this in simpler terms.

So, what about a lack of states will transmute these capitalists into clean, virtuous, law-abiding folk who'd never use their personal fortunes for nefarious purposes?

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Right so the multiple historical examples don't count because they're not modern. How convenient. Monry cannot compel because you can always say no and trade with others. If it seems coercive that you actually have to trade for what you want that's your problem. And no they're not going to suddenly become virtuous without the state, nobody is, they're just going to have to pay for the costs of their evil, making it generally unprofitable.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

Historical examples are meaningless precisely because they did not operate under a capitalist mode of production. Our ancient ancestors lived communally and without a state; so what?

The only thing most people have to trade is their capacity to work. The capitalist class, on the other hand, expropriates wealth from many people at the same time by virtue of property ownership. This doesn't seem asymmetrical to you?

(ie. Isn't a person entitled to the sweat of their brow?)

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Their capacity to work is NOT the only thing most people have to trade, at least not in Australia, I understand that in the US moronic monetary policy has caused everyone to overleverage but here we actually have savings. What is asymetrical about I can walk away and so can you? The claim that capitalists "expropriate" because you don't like a trade is kinda silly. You are entitled to whatever you can produce with your own tools and effort or trade for.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

A brief search reveals that the average Australian saving rate is hovering at the negative side of zero (treasury.gov.au).

The majority of workers cannot simply "walk away" from employment. In Canada, for instance, most families are only two paychecks away from being in serious financial trouble for instance.

This is part of the reason why the capitalist class has such sway over society, even if actual production of value is clearly the realm of the working class.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Yeah does that count say, real estate? Because a hell of a lot of people own their own homes at least partially and very few if any have negative equity. If workers genuinely can't walk away from employment that's strange considering that they earn way more than workers in say, 1900 who generally could. In any case your definition of "value" is strange. Without capital the working class create bugger all.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

Saving rate represents cold, hard cash, not assets. Still, according to the statistics, an impressive 55% of low-income Australians own their own home.

Your personal incredulity non-withstanding, the fact remains that saving rates are low, and debt is high among workers. (Combined with high unemployment, and depressed wages in the market.)

Working class created capital; emphasis on "working". I somehow doubt that you'd see a lot of capitalists on construction sites or shop floors.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Savings rate is not that useful for determining who actually has something other than their capacity to produce to trade. It is strange that people with incomes far higher than people who did save significantly somehow can't accumulate the savings to walk away. Nothing to do with "personal incredulity", just that you can't blame simple capitalism. And the working class sold labor to those that created capital nothing more. They didn't do what was needed to create it.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

The cost of living increases at a rate higher than wage increases; wages have remained essentially stagnant in Canada since the 1970s. That people now swim in debt isn't some great surprise.

Historically, the working class has come from displaced people moving to the cities; Mexican farmers after NAFTA is a modern example; unable to compete with industrial agriculture, they are forced into wage labour.

Consider how early capitalists amassed their capital; it ain't pretty.

[newperve]

@timberwulfzero Ok, so you're going to start dodging the issue again, fine. So median incomes are about what they were in the 1970s in North America, so what? That's still a hell of a lot more than they were in 1900 and people saved then. Early capitalists mostly lent their capital from landowners I believe, together with some savings of their own. While the way the landowners got the capital in the first place wasn't pretty but there's nothing ugly about signing a mortgage.

[timberwulfzero]

@newperve

I'm not dodging anything; the cost of living has increased since the 1900s. More people lived in rural areas; they had the means to produce their own food and tended to own their own property. The shift to urban living is no small detail to be glossed over.

The suggestion that people should save more would be a disaster as it would decrease consumption, thus demand, thus production, and thus employment. (and so on.)

There is something ugly about genocide, slavery, and theft though.

[lapwiz]

Just say no...to working for wages , that is.

[lapwiz]

Russell was simply brilliant!

[TheLeftLibertarian]

Thanks for this great upload! I wish more people had this attitude.

[vktrsx]

You're welcome. I share your wish. One of the biggest fallacies of the Right is the notion that, without the profit motive, people would become lazy slackers. It's nonsense, obviously: people will always produce what they need. It may very well be true that they would no longer spend time above and beyond that to produce the luxury items that only the wealthy enjoy (a situation that the "$1 = 1 vote" system skews capitalist economies toward); I suspect that's what the Right really fears.

[DoelGr]

@vktrsx without the profit motive people will indeed become lazy slackers see at the public sector of whatever country you are from,or resources will be screwd or your bright monarch-leader and his friends and his friends friends will enjoy everything and u again will get nothing,althought i agree that people should work less,its better for their health,mind,relasionships,atti­dute etc...

[unfad1ng]

@vktrsx

bullshit

[lapwiz]

The elite wish to keep Russell's ideas deep underground. God knows what would happen if the working man would realise what awsome power they have.

[samsonlovesyou]

On the contrary, I think we 'all' know what would happen if the working man realised. :-)

[arzoyan]

@lapwiz The absolute truth is the interdependence of life, the entanglement of all and everything in the language of quantum physics. Capitalism is the historic process of PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP OF ALIENATION,EXPLOITATION AND SUFFERING OF HUMANITY in a modality of commodity production with the sole motive of profit . A WORLD MARKET MECHANISM of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY,, DISTORTION AND DESTRUCTION. The emergent realisation of limits and obsolete nature of Capitalism is on.

[lapwiz]

@arzoyan And your point is?

[lapwiz]

@arzoyan We've have been aware of that fact for 200 years. Still, the lie is yet to be completely uncovered. How long will it take for the truth to overwhelm the vulgar propaganda that still exists to maintain the fragile grasp of power the elites still have, is anyone's guess. My guess is, I will live to see it unfold, and I'm a very willing participator in the unfolding of it.

[johnpotter26]

@lapwiz You're watching this on youtube...

[lapwiz]

@johnpotter26 And your point is?