Editorial Rockin' hardcore old school free style and stuff

[Twinfalls]

didn't Oscar Wilde die before the Russian Revolution? He couldn't have made any point about it.

Yes, he could, and he did. Not Russia specifically by name, but that style of authoritarian state-ownership model, the concept of which was not invented by Stalin:

If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first.

(from Wilde's essay)

ie Communist Russia.

socialism is imaginary and never existed and no games were ever made under it.

Russia not being socialist != socialism being 'imaginary'. Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for an account of his experience of Barcelona under genuine socialist transformation, albeit short-lived.

As for games not never being made under socialism, I wouldn't know, given that true socialism has not taken hold of any country's political structuring in the gaming era.

However, fridges, microwaves, and large volumes of manufactured goods generally, are made under anarcho-syndicalist workers collectives in Mondragon, Spain. An industry which employs 60,000 people throughout the country, it has enjoyed serious growth, even over the past few years - not bad considering most manufacturing in the West is in decline. Check the site for the worker-ownership structure and phenomenal growth rates.

If instead we put countries on a scale of free-market to socialist I assert that the best games come from the most free-market countries.

Nice assertion. Pity it's spurious. The path that gaming has taken under Western and American capitalism isn't exactly promising either.

 

[Keldryn]

Well I think that it is safe to say that we are headed for the ill-fated classic 'gaming industry crash' which arrived from the depths of console gaming once before. At the very least a significant shift from the players who care about the games/genres they play to players who just show up to a store with $50 to spend and allow their purchasing power to be dictated by shiny pretty cover art.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration, but innovation is in pretty short supply, particularly in relation to sequels with enhanced graphics and movie licences.

We all really DO understand that the mainstream pretty much drives the industry now as it so thoroughly funds it but it's sad to have so few 'rogue' devs stray from the lowest-common to produce something truly innovative and enjoyable and most of all intelligent, fun, and playable without being simplistic and bland. This notion which devs have that leads them to believe that gamers wants/need bland, mediocre, and easy gameplay experiences should be kindly taken out back and shot in the fuckin head.

Of course, there is the fact that bland, mediocre, and easy gameplay experiences often sell millions more copies than truly innovative and intelligent games. Gaming forums on the Net are full of lamentations about how games have become mediocre and uninspiring, and that gamers want innovative and different titles, but the sales figures are often not telling the same story. I'm sure most of the people making the games would rather work on more innovative and interesting titles, and they are quite aware that the games they are working on leave a lot to be desired. But when it comes down to it, their abilities to support themselves and their families are at stake, and as it always does with business, it comes down to the bottom line. Even for the developers who really do care about their games and their customers. If their games don't sell, then they don't get to make more games.

But I think part of the problem isn't so much that mainstream gamers don't like these innovative games, it's more that they don't even know they exist. If they see a game based on a movie they've seen, they at least know something about the game. If they actually played a game like Ico, Psychonauts, Beyond Good & Evil, or Planescape Torment, they might end up loving the game. But publishers don't market those games aggressively, Wal-Mart and EB don't give those games prime shelf space, and they never get a chance.

 

[Zomg]

Do I repeat myself too much when I harp on the growth of budgets killing anything good about the game industry? Is it annoying anyone? I was about to do it again here, but I want to know if it's getting old.

 

[Keldryn]

Do I repeat myself too much when I harp on the growth of budgets killing anything good about the game industry? Is it annoying anyone? I was about to do it again here, but I want to know if it's getting old.

I don't mind.

But I do think that the game-buying public bears some responsibility. Even we "hardcore RPG fans" who presumably don't place as a high a value on stunning production values. We still demand increasingly sophisticated games, with large detailed worlds, interactive environments, large quantities of well-written dialogue, and believable AI. I'm no graphics whore by any stretch of the imagination, but just as I demand character interaction more sophisticated than "walking signposts," I want a presentation more sophisticated than a poorly-detailed 1" high spirte traversing an obviously tile-based world. Ultima VII certainly had an unprecidented level of interactivity with objects in the world, but the environment itself was still very static. You couldn't climb over a fence or hop over a narrow stream.

And building these types of games isn't cheap, even if you're not spending a huge chunk of your budget on art assets and voice acting.

That being said, the quality of a game's artwork is becoming more and more important to me. This is different than "pretty, flashy graphics" however. The more "realistic" you try to make a game look, the more you are going to notice the flaws. Five years from now, games like Halo, Half-Life 2, Final Fantasy X, and perhaps even Oblivion are going to look nearly as dated as the original Tomb Raider, Daggerfall, and Final Fantasy VIII do now. Games like Ico, Okami, Zelda: The Wind Waker, Sly Cooper, or Psychonauts are much more likely to still look quite good five years from now, because great care was taken with the game's artistic style and consistency. They aren't trying to look as gritty and realistic as possible, they are trying to evoke a particular style. I am completely guessing here, but I imagine that all of those games cost less to make than FFX or Halo. Actually, I still find Ultima VII (running on Exult with filters to smooth out those 320x200 jaggies) is still fairly pleasing on the eyes, considering it is 14 years old now.

 

[Keldryn]

Do I repeat myself too much when I harp on the growth of budgets killing anything good about the game industry? Is it annoying anyone? I was about to do it again here, but I want to know if it's getting old.

Hmm, maybe we should blame Chris Roberts. Remember when Wing Commander III cost almost $4 million to make? That was unheard of. And then, because they built actual sets this time around, Wing Commander IV's budget was somewhere in the neighborhood of $8-10 million. That was far and away the most expensive game ever created at that time. Not that Origin wasn't known for constantly pushing the technological edge. I think Ultima VII, finally released in 1992, ended up at over $1 million. That was a fairly high development cost at the time.

 

[Blacklung]

After reading that shit I just want to kill myself. As a hardcore gamer who was breast fed by Nintendo and Atari, I am sad to see that we mean nothing to market. I'm a psychology student and I understand all the stress and coping BS...but comon. We can have mainstream and the niches work together to give us and them what they need to grow, learn, and eventually get to our point of understanding of what games need.

I would be pleased to think that mainstream will die, but no, the game market is so big and new children are born all the time and we must take them ALL into the gaming fold...but then again, maybe the old groups will grow up and start demanding more and more, those weaned on the shitty 2000+ games...of course, by then we'll all be so old and disinfranchised that it won't matter.

I'm drunk and angry, but whatever, bring me something, bring me a fallout, bring me intelligence, bring me something that will make my neurons fire as much as when I read some science article so that my hardcore gaming hobbism can be satiated to it's fullest...otherwise I don't know what I'll turn to after work.

God save us all.

 

[Keldryn]

I'm drunk and angry, but whatever, bring me something, bring me a fallout, bring me intelligence, bring me something that will make my neurons fire as much as when I read some science article so that my hardcore gaming hobbism can be satiated to it's fullest...otherwise I don't know what I'll turn to after work.

I think that a game like Fallout could be fairly successful in the mainstream. I don't think that intelligent and creative games by definition will not be successful with the "casual gamers." It's just easier to keep cranking out sequels and movie licensed games with pretty graphics, and because people keep buying them, they keep making more of them.

A lot of casual gamers have probably never even heard of Fallout. And even if they were aware of it, they might see Fallout 3 on the shelf next to Final Fantasy XIV and go with the one they "know" will be a safe bet.

For arguments' sake, we will assume that Fallout 3 is in the same league as its predecessors. If it gets the same production values as Oblivion or a Final Fantasy title, and gets the same marketing push, it could very well become a big hit. Oblivion being the best-selling Xbox 360 title so far could bring a whole new audience to Fallout 3. It may turn out to be a disappointment, but we shouldn't assume that Fallout 3 will just be an Elder Scrolls game with guns and mutants. I don't really see Bethesda going for that same massive-but-kind-of-soulless world approach.

 

[LlamaGod]

I don't really see Bethesda going for that same massive-but-kind-of-soulless world approach.

nevermind thats all of their games they've ever made.

 

[Gwendo]

Get real. People work to get profits. A wider audience = more sales.

Very few work only for sport.

 

[LlamaGod]

You still make money regardless. People are just greedy whores.

 

[Balor]

Metallix, can you please translate this?
http://kranx.com/comment/reply/139/1021

It's very interesting post that has to do with definition of 'Hardcore' and 'Casual' players.

To summarize:

Casual players want just to complete the game with least amount of effort and maximum amount of fun.

Hardcore gamers don't just complete the game once this way - they continue to play the game by imposing certain limitations on yourself for added challenge, or setting new goals (Like "Complete Ja2 in one month w/o any reloads whatsoever").

So, a game that supports first play style the most is a game aimed at casual player, and second - a game made for hardcores.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

that style of authoritarian state-ownership model

Unless you have a free market, someone needs to use force to get people to do what they would otherwise not do.

Russia not being socialist != socialism being 'imaginary'. Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for an account of his experience of Barcelona under genuine socialist transformation, albeit short-lived.

It was the Spanish Civil War, so there were armies of people with guns slaughtering each other, and even on the Republican side it was a mix of anarcho-syndicalists, democratic socialists (like Orwell), Trotskyists, and Stalinists (who beat out the others for control). I don't think it could be considered representative of how a peace-time society would function, and I don't see why anyone would want to use it as a positive example of one. And rather than an "homage" I'd prefer an analysis, like The Anarcho-Statists of Spain.

As for games not never being made under socialism, I wouldn't know, given that true socialism has not taken hold of any country's political structuring in the gaming era.

So it doesn't exist.

However, fridges, microwaves, and large volumes of manufactured goods generally, are made under anarcho-syndicalist workers collectives in Mondragon, Spain. An industry which employs 60,000 people throughout the country, it has enjoyed serious growth, even over the past few years - not bad considering most manufacturing in the West is in decline. Check the site for the worker-ownership structure and phenomenal growth rates.

Spain may have the Socialist party in government now, but it still has a market economy (it's tied with Japan as the 30th most free economy out of 127). The existence of a company that has different goals and organization doesn't make it not capitalistic, any more than Whole Foods which is run by libertarian (albeit a rather fuzzy-headed one).

Nice assertion. Pity it's spurious. The path that gaming has taken under Western and American capitalism isn't exactly promising either.

Not promising to you or me in comparison to the past because we prefer old style of games, but most people aren't like us. And there are still smaller developers like Spidersoft and plenty of freeware. If there's nothing better than X, then by definition X is the best there is. You can complain all you want about how capitalism has resulted in lots of unoriginal sequels and a focus on graphics, but until I see evidence that making the economy less free can result in something better, I'm going to laugh at you.

 

[MacBone]

Reviews, for the most part, were the only thing Fallout had after it's release. There was no fanfare when Interplay released it commercially, because no one knew it came out except a few gaming magazines.

I played Fallout for the very first time last summer, but the first I heard of the game was in the spring of '97. I was working at my college radio station at the time, and we had these humongous Fallout boxes in the studio. I'm talking four times the size of a regular box. Someone had to be spending advertising dollars on that game if my school's radio station had ten or twelve promo boxes of the game. (They were all empty, but I wondered if Interplay had shipped the actual game with those cartons).

 

[Twinfalls]

that style of authoritarian state-ownership model

Unless you have a free market, someone needs to use force to get people to do what they would otherwise not do.

What do you suppose 'laws' in a 'free market' system are? Something other than 'use of force'? What makes you think the 'use of force' in a socialist system would be something other than democratically founded laws?

Russia not being socialist != socialism being 'imaginary'. Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for an account of his experience of Barcelona under genuine socialist transformation, albeit short-lived.

It was the Spanish Civil War, so there were armies of people with guns slaughtering each other, and even on the Republican side it was a mix of anarcho-syndicalists, democratic socialists (like Orwell), Trotskyists, and Stalinists (who beat out the others for control). I don't think it could be considered representative of how a peace-time society would function, and I don't see why anyone would want to use it as a positive example of one. And rather than an "homage" I'd prefer an analysis, like The Anarcho-Statists of Spain.

What 'analysis'? That essay simply seeks to establish that Anarchists killed people and did bad stuff in pursuit of their goals. That it is politically motivated is fairly clear from its loaded title, 'Anarcho-statists'.

As you point out yourself, it was a war as well as a revolution. The essay makes no attempt whatsoever to assess whether socialist principles managed to function to any extent during the course of the revolution. It is therefore not relevant to this discussion.

I could similarly say to you "hey, about a bazillion people have been killed in the name of Capitalism. Therefore, Capitalism has never worked and could never work", if I was so inclined to make dumb, spurious arguments.

I suspect you have not read Catalonia, for you would have known the passages I am referring to - the elements of functioning socialism which Orwell experiences (and which he declares as 'something worth fighting for') are distinct from the war-time circumstances surrounding them.

As for games not never being made under socialism, I wouldn't know, given that true socialism has not taken hold of any country's political structuring in the gaming era.

So it doesn't exist.

What "doesn't exist"? You made a spurious assertion that because 'no games have been made under socialism' then you've somehow 'won' the argument, that one cannot even propose a way forward.

What do you suppose is driving the indie gaming scene? Money and profits? Or something else? Ask Vault Dweller why he's making his game - is it for the profit?

Spain may have the Socialist party in government now, but it still has a market economy (it's tied with Japan as the 30th most free economy out of 127). The existence of a company that has different goals and organization doesn't make it not capitalistic, any more than Whole Foods which is run by libertarian (albeit a rather fuzzy-headed one).

I thought you had read what I told you earlier - here it is for the last time, please take note:

Governments calling themselves 'socialist' do not make them neccessarily so.

The Basque region's worker's collectives have been around since the 1950s, they've just grown phenomenally since then. Yes, they are operating within a capitalist market, but they illustrate that an organisation which has done away with the labour/capital divide can perform just as well if not better than the capitalist model.

Nice assertion. Pity it's spurious. The path that gaming has taken under Western and American capitalism isn't exactly promising either.

Not promising to you or me in comparison to the past because we prefer old style of games, but most people aren't like us. And there are still smaller developers like Spidersoft and plenty of freeware. If there's nothing better than X, then by definition X is the best there is.

Right, so the present decline in games is the 'for the best, in the best of all possible worlds', and there are no structural causes behind it. Great, deep analysis you have going there.

but until I see evidence that making the economy less free

You do realise that "less free" is your own, highly subjective, and manifestly ignorant characterisation, don't you?

I'm going to laugh at you.

Glad you're amused.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

What do you suppose 'laws' in a 'free market' system are? Something other than 'use of force'? What makes you think the 'use of force' in a socialist system would be something other than democratically founded laws?

Yes. Laws are backed by force. The more laws, rules, regulations and other inhibitions of freedom, the more force the government must use.

What 'analysis'? That essay simply seeks to establish that Anarchists killed people and did bad stuff in pursuit of their goals. That it is politically motivated is fairly clear from its loaded title, 'Anarcho-statists'.

I think the best reply to this is the preface

In "Looking Back on the Spanish War," George Orwell writes, "I have little direct evidence about the atrocities in the Spanish civil war. I know that some were committed by the Republicans, and far more (they are still continuing) by the Fascists. But what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." The same remark applies with equal force to much of the recent debate about the behavior of the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. Seeing that it was very difficult to unravel the truth behind the conflicting accounts and citations, I decided to look at the evidence for myself. The following essay is the product of my investigations. Quotations may sometimes seem overlong, because I avoided cutting them whenever possible to eliminate any suspicion of creative editing

The conclusion reached by Caplan is independent of whether or not it is an analysis.

As you point out yourself, it was a war as well as a revolution. The essay makes no attempt whatsoever to assess whether socialist principles managed to function to any extent during the course of the revolution. It is therefore not relevant to this discussion.

I don't think it can be considered representative of how any system would operate during peace-time, because it wasn't peace-time. It does go into detail to the extent to which socialist principles were implemented and how succesful they were. The author is an economist, so I would have been shocked if he did not discuss changes in prices, production, profits, labor participation and so forth.

I could similarly say to you "hey, about a bazillion people have been killed in the name of Capitalism. Therefore, Capitalism has never worked and could never work", if I was so inclined to make dumb, spurious arguments.

Who was killed in the name of capitalism? We have plenty of examples of peace-time market economies, and they work much better than any alternative. If you're saying 100% capitalism, no mixed economy, absolute freedom (possibly anarcho-capitalism, which I am not a proponent of, unlike Caplan) I would agree that it has never been tried. That is why I prefer to distinguish between more and less free economies. Would you agree that the more free economies work better than the less free ones?

I suspect you have not read Catalonia, for you would have known the passages I am referring to - the elements of functioning socialism which Orwell experiences (and which he declares as 'something worth fighting for') are distinct from the war-time circumstances surrounding them.

No I haven't read it. As the Orwell quote noted by Caplan indicates, that is one person's experience and he had very limited information. I don't care how enthusiastic Orwell was for the socialist utopia that he expected, plenty of people have fought and died for horrible systems and the situation as it was sucked as even anarcho-syndicalists acknowledged, saying things like

while small, insolvent workshops were left to struggle as best they could, the collectivization of profitable enterprises was leading to 'nothing other than the creation of two classes; the new rich and the eternal poor. We refuse the idea that there should be rich and poor collectives. And that is the real problem of collectivization.

What "doesn't exist"? You made a spurious assertion that because 'no games have been made under socialism' then you've somehow 'won' the argument, that one cannot even propose a way forward.

You said real socialism has never taken hold of any political system, so we have nothing but fantasies to discuss how things would be under it. I prefer to forget "true" capitalism and socialism and discuss the degree to which systems are capitalist or socialist. The more capitalist ones beat the pants off the more socialist ones, and games are simply one of the most obvious examples in which that is the case.

What do you suppose is driving the indie gaming scene? Money and profits? Or something else? Ask Vault Dweller why he's making his game - is it for the profit?

Capitalism has never been all about money (if it was we'd never spend any money, never leave work and starve to death). Each person is free to make the decisions that they believe will do what economists call "maximizing their utility". When Vault Dweller's game is released, I will consider it a product of capitalism.

I thought you had read what I told you earlier - here it is for the last time, please take note:

Governments calling themselves 'socialist' do not make them neccessarily so.

But if we restrict our discussion to "true socialism" we have no real examples. So instead why not discuss degrees of capitalism vs. socialism.

The Basque region's worker's collectives have been around since the 1950s, they've just grown phenomenally since then. Yes, they are operating within a capitalist market, but they illustrate that an organisation which has done away with the labour/capital divide can perform just as well if not better than the capitalist model.

Good for them and hooray for a capitalist system that permits them to do things their own way.

Right, so the present decline in games is the 'for the best, in the best of all possible worlds', and there are no structural causes behind it. Great, deep analysis you have going there.

To a whole lot of people, games aren't in decline, they just keep getting better and better. You and I aren't those people, but no one's forcing us to buy those games. The reason for this change in games is a change in the tastes of consumers. I can no more claim it is illegitimate to serve the demands of those who want AWESOME GRAPHICS than I would think it is wrong to provide me with a well told story.

You do realise that "less free" is your own, highly subjective, and manifestly ignorant characterisation, don't you?

If you don't like the Fraser list, provide your own. I'd still prefer the Fraser list over yours as it goes into the factors that resulted in the scores.

Glad you're amused.

I'm glad we're all glad.

 

[Twinfalls]

Yes. Laws are backed by force. The more laws, rules, regulations and other inhibitions of freedom, the more force the government must use.

As meaningless a response as this is to my question and point, I will assume you are just saying 'the less regulation of private ownership, the more free the system'.

The sheer nonsense of this can be illustrated simpy by asking you whether you would be more free if your sole electricity supply, telephone connection, water supply, grocery supply, and the house you live in, all belonged to the one company, and you were forced to pay through your fucking nose for any of it.

No. No you would not be 'more free'. Capitalism requires laws and regulations to prevent consolidation of ownership that threatens the existing order. It fails to do so adequately because of inherent contradictions and tensions. That's why competition regulators are never adequately equipped to keep up with abuse of market power and global consolidation.

I think the best reply to this is the preface

What? So he says 'I looked at the evidence'. So what? Fox News calls itself 'Fair and Balanced'. Do you cite that when defending an accusation that they are not? And remember - we are not arguing about whether the Anarchists committed atrocities. Perhaps they did, by the bucketload. That is a complete red herring with nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, such as it is.

It does go into detail to the extent to which socialist principles were implemented and how succesful they were. The author is an economist, so I would have been shocked if he did not discuss changes in prices, production, profits, labor participation and so forth.

It does not. It cites anecdotal examples of misfunction. It does so in an inchoate manner, and with no attempt whatsoever at a scientific approach - ie an examination of the extent to which the examples cited are representative, reliable, what countering evidence there might be, etc. As an undergraduate piece it would get a C for research, and an outright fail for its manifest bias.

As the work of a 'professor' it is an indictment.

His credibility is rendered even worse when looking at his site on which the piece is published, which demonstrates that he is a fraud and a fuckwit. He is quite obviously some kind of corporatist, with the usual veil of libertarianism and academic pretensions to hide his reactionary statism. A cursory examination of his 'Anarchist FAQ' reveals a laughable attempt to define anarchy as simpy being 'anti-government'. Even more ridiculous is his attempt to include amongst Anarchists those who might support what is called 'Anarcho-capitalism', a most stupid contradiction in terms and a transparent propaganda label for what essentially means 'no regulation of corporations'.

Hey, you should check out 'addition subtraction', a great new arithmetic theory. They're teaching it over in Room 101.

Who was killed in the name of capitalism?

!

What do you suppose the Vietnam War was all about? Need I go on?

Would you agree that the more free economies work better than the less free ones?

Yes, but I do not agree with your definition of 'more free'. The 'more free' capitalist economies are those with more regulation of market power, and more essential services in common ownership.

The more capitalist ones beat the pants off the more socialist ones, and games are simply one of the most obvious examples in which that is the case.

Right, which is why the best rpgs nowadays are all coming from EA and the US, and the worst ones from Europe.

Right, so the present decline in games is the 'for the best, in the best of all possible worlds', and there are no structural causes behind it. Great, deep analysis you have going there.

To a whole lot of people, games aren't in decline, they just keep getting better and better. You and I aren't those people, but no one's forcing us to buy those games. The reason for this change in games is a change in the tastes of consumers. I can no more claim it is illegitimate to serve the demands of those who want AWESOME GRAPHICS than I would think it is wrong to provide me with a well told story.

Riight. So nobody can say gaming standards are in decline, or improving, or indeed make any critical evaluation of anything at all - because everything is just what the market wants. Oh, but whoops - that means that you can no longer say:

The more capitalist ones beat the pants off the more socialist ones, and games are simply one of the most obvious examples in which that is the case.

Tell me, how is it that you are able to evaluate games in such a way, when you assert that nothing can be evaluated critically, since everything is simply what the market wants, ie the best possible?

I really can't be bothered to go over the rest of your comments. I am merely open to the possibilities of alternative socio-economic orderings. You however, seem completely dogmatic in your view that might makes right, that ownership of all resources by a very few - the fewer the better - is somehow the best structure for human society. There's not much more point in arguing about it.

If you don't like the Fraser list, provide your own. I'd still prefer the Fraser list over yours as it goes into the factors that resulted in the scores.

I prefer the McLeod list. You are familiar with that, of course. Well, take a look at what it demonstrates, using Horvan-Siedler matrices of benefit analysis, regarding the relative freedom quotients of politico-economic derivative systems, and get back to me.

 

[Azarkon]

In capitalism, freedom is its own worst enemy. Given complete freedom, the natural thing for a company to do is to take over and enslave the market to its whim - crushing all competition through control of the means of production. That's why there are laws against monopoly, even in the most "free" economies of the world.

Freedom is never free.

That said, practical forms of socialism simply replace big business with big government. Neither are conducive to "artistic" games.

 

[kingcomrade]

What do you suppose the Vietnam War was all about?

What? America's involvement in Vietnam was a game of nation-states a la WW1 to check the growth of Soviet allies/vassals/whatever. Nobody was trying to spread capitalism.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I thought we went to vietnam because the zionist jews in the white house were running low on gold and needed to capute Ho Chi Minh's secret mines.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

'Nam was a preemptive war against Exitium but it failed miserably.

 

[glasnost]

That said, practical forms of socialism simply replace big business with big government. Neither are conducive to "artistic" games.

People mustn't get hung up on an external interpretation of the word 'socialism'; in so doing you miss the entire point of Wilde's essay. If the word 'socialism' bothers you, drop it. It changes nothing in his argument. The article is also worth reading for his addressing the problem of art and 'the public', who for the most part cripple the artist. Oscar Wilde articulates this with much more style and grace than me; again, it's really worth a read.

He's not calling for a socialistic economy, he's calling for an end to economy as such, period.

The long term goal is a self-perpetuating energy-generating mechanized infrastructure (a beautiful turn of phrase) which ensures that the the basic energy needs of each person are provided for. Thus there is no need to generate an income to provide for one's needs--the infrastructure attends to them. Man no longer needs to work for a living, he has only to live as he sees fit, to do as he sees fit. Most importantly, to create as he sees fit, freed from concepts antithetical to art like 'utility', 'commodity', and 'profitability'.

This means he is free to actualize himself as an individual, through art, science, philosophy, whatever he wills. Because it is in doing these things, and not in 'earning a living', that he is truly free to be himself.

Wilde's gripe is that under current systems only a few are free to do this. And many that are free to pursure their individual interests still are limited by the ever present demand to generate an income to subsidize their energy requirements. This is a limit that does not need to be, nor should it be.

With such an infrastructure in place government and economy become largely irrelevant. The function of 'government' as such would then entail seeing to the perpetuation of the automated infrastructure, as much as needed, and to ensure that each individual is being serviced by it. Those who govern no longer function as lawgiver/enforcer and more as repairman/mailman. They do not , in fact, govern in any of the ways that our myriad goverments do today.

The interim goal of what Wilde called 'socialism' is the organization of society to direct its industrial and scientific efforts towards the creation of this energy-generating infrastructure. Free online bandwidth, engines no longer dependent on petrolium products, each new advance along these lines moves us closer to the realization of the vision. But this 'focusing' of society is only the transitory stage.

Like I said at the beginning, it's wildeyed idealism. Wilde's wish is for anyone, not just the few in our present day who are free to divorce themselves from society (or at least, are free to engage with it completely on their own terms) to be able to pursure their art, their reading, their thinking in any place, to be able to actualize themselves as individuals, to pursure their 'talent' free from any constraints, whether they be goverment, market, or whatever other binding structure you wish to posit.

I'm not sure how someone can be against this. Cynical about the possibility of such a vision ever being realized, perhaps, but not against.

Personally, I don't see it happening. Which means the best one can hope for is to seperate oneself as much as possible from 'industry', as such. and it's why someone like say, Adam Cadre, is free to be himself in his games more than say, Harvey Smith.

 

[Azarkon]

Utopias are exactly what their names imply, which is the reason people don't like discussing them - there's nothing to discuss, since they're the equivalent of paradises on earth - yeah, we all want to live in them. That's the point.

With that said, I'm not about to support the status quo simply because I think Wilde's ideas are unworkable in modern society. So in that sense you're right: capitalism is not conducive to the creation of art, and the society that is conducive to such activities is exactly as Wilde outlined. Out of the practical choices we have available to us today, capitalism is about as good as we're going to get. But the future - who knows?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

As meaningless a response as this is to my question and point, I will assume you are just saying 'the less regulation of private ownership, the more free the system'.

The sheer nonsense of this can be illustrated simpy by asking you whether you would be more free if your sole electricity supply, telephone connection, water supply, grocery supply, and the house you live in, all belonged to the one company, and you were forced to pay through your fucking nose for any of it.

No. No you would not be 'more free'. Capitalism requires laws and regulations to prevent consolidation of ownership that threatens the existing order. It fails to do so adequately because of inherent contradictions and tensions. That's why competition regulators are never adequately equipped to keep up with abuse of market power and global consolidation.

Monopolies like that do not occur in a free-market. Monopolies are created by the government. I've posted this before, but here is the Myth of Natural Monopoly. A company that tries to abuse its position by charging high prices or giving lousy service is going to attract competitors to enter the field and draw away customers. That is what happened in the past for the things done today by one company, and it was government intervention that caused things to change.

What? So he says 'I looked at the evidence'. So what? Fox News calls itself 'Fair and Balanced'. Do you cite that when defending an accusation that they are not? And remember - we are not arguing about whether the Anarchists committed atrocities. Perhaps they did, by the bucketload. That is a complete red herring with nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, such as it is.

The point of the quote was that Orwell's writings are quite distinct from his. The former is not intended to be an analysis. But if you just shout "bias" when someone doesn't agree with you, it's hard to get anywhere. Instead point out where he goes wrong. You are right that we are not discussing atrocities, but unfortunately Caplan already wrote that before I had the chance to tell him not to bother.

It cites anecdotal examples of misfunction. It does so in an inchoate manner, and with no attempt whatsoever at a scientific approach - ie an examination of the extent to which the examples cited are representative, reliable, what countering evidence there might be, etc.

While the present essay uses Fraser as a source, there is always a concern in a work of oral history that the experiences of the (necessarily small) number of people interviewed may not be representative.

Do you consider the following examples to be "anecdotes"?:

It is worth noting that Spain was still in the midst of the Great Depression, with overall Spanish industrial production in 1935 about 13% below the 1929 level. Production in July of 1936 was itself about 18% below the January 1936 level, so the existence of unused capacity is no surprise.[36]...
It is impossible to understand the economics of the Spanish Civil War without realizing that in 1936, Spain remained in the midst of the international Great Depression. If Spanish industrial production in 1929 is set equal to 100, then in 1935 it remained at a stagnant 86.9 in spite of six years' worth of population growth. In Catalonia, if one indexes industrial production in January 1936 at 100, one finds that by July of 1936 output was lower still at 82. In short, production at the start of the revolution was an additional 18% below the depression-level output of January 1936. Unemployment by all accounts was correspondingly high.[104]...

Monetary contraction is thus the first symptom to look for; but by any measure, it did not occur. Spain devalued the peseta (a move which makes it much easier to avoid deflation) to 79.5% of parity in 1930, and continued to devalue it until by 1935 the gold content of the peseta was a mere 55.3% of par. Looking at combined savings bank deposits (a standard component in most measures of money supply provided by Thomas), it can be seen that the peseta quantity of deposits constantly increased over the period for which data is available: from 1847 million pesetas in 1928, to 4116 million pesetas in 1934. Similarly, the number of pesetas it took to buy one British pound (N.B. The Bank of London was noted for its swift devaluation.) increased from 25.22 in January of 1930 to 36.00 in January of 1936. In short, there was a large decline in the international value of the peseta, reflecting large money supply increases uncharacteristic of other countries during this era. A final clue which confirms the fact of high money supply growth in Spain is that Madrid in 1936 was estimated to have one of the largest gold reserves in the world - precisely what one would expect in a nation which had repeatedly cut the gold content of the peseta in order to remove any institutional constraints on rapid money supply growth.[108]

If the standard monetary explanation fails to explain the Spanish depression, what other factors might be involved? The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Spanish labor unions, of which the CNT was foremost, through their intransigent militancy and activism, succeeded in raising real wages approximately 20% from 1929 to 1936.[109] Tortella and Palafox's calculations reveal a 20.5% real wage increase in mining, a 17.6% increase in metallurgy, a 19.9% increase in textiles (22.3% for women), and a 23.7% increase in agriculture (35% increase for women) over the 1929-1936 period. In their ignorance of and emotional hostility to classical economic theory, the trade- unionists probably did not realize that the necessary consequence of pushing real wages so far above the market level would be massive unemployment; but massive unemployment was indeed the result. The mounting hostility to employers, sabotage, and so on undoubtedly decreased the expected marginal productivity of labor, leaving the prevailing union wage scale even farther above the market-clearing level...

In consequence, in spite of massive money supply growth and conscription, Catalonian unemployment (complete and partial, Fraser notes) increased from an index of 100 in January- June 1936 to 135.7 in December 1936, and fell slightly to 123.6 in June 1937, and 120.1 in November 1937.[119]...

Thomas indexes Catalonian industrial production to equal 100 in January 1936. Production fluctuated between 100 and 94 until July 1936 when the revolution broke out. Production plummeted to 82, but in the midst of chaos, transfer of control, and fighting with Nationalists, this is understandable. What is not understandable is that production never rose above the July 1936 level for as long as the war lasted. It fell to 64 in August, recovered slightly to 73 in September, and then fluctuated between 71 and 53 until April of 1938. In the last months of Republican control in Catalonia, facing imminent Nationalist invasion, production dropped even more, fluctuating between 41 and 31 until the collection of economic statistics ceased.

The rural sector, in contrast, had much more mixed performance. The agricultural statistics, which Thomas states were gathered under a Communist agriculture ministry, indicate that 1937 output was 21 percent below 1936 output in Catalonia; 20 percent greater Aragon, 16 percent greater in the Central Zone, and 8 percent lower in Levante. (The figures were adjusted to account for the capture of farmland by the Nationalists.) Collectivization was most widespread in Aragon, but existed everywhere to some extent. Apologists for the Anarchist collectives find the 20 percent output increase in Aragon to be stunning evidence for the value of their institutions...

When the workers actually had control, output declined 30 to 40 percent below its previous depressed level....

During the war, the Spanish government found the temptation to fund itself with the printing press irresistible. This can easily be seen by looking at the exchange rate with the pound: in January of 1936, it only took 36 pesetas to buy 1 pound; by January of 1937, it took 115; by January of 1938, 219, and by January of 1939, it took a full 488 pesetas to buy a single pound...

Thomas' numbers indicate that if wholesale prices are indexed to equal 100 in 1913, then they stood at 168.8 in January of 1936, 174.7 in July of 1936 when the war started, 209.6 in December 1936, 389.1 in December of 1937, and 564.7 in December of 1938...

In April, women demonstrated in the streets against the cost of living, which had just risen a further 13 per cent on top of the increases that had already added nearly two thirds to the index since the start of the war."[127]...

Women in the factory continued to receive wages between 15 per cent and 20 per cent lower than men, and manual workers less than technicians."[137]...

Dismiss research as innacurate if you want, but don't claim there isn't any and it is all anecdotal. There are certainly plenty of anecdotes, which I found informative and helpful in understanding the situation. If you want to point out what was misleading and in what way, do so.

His credibility is rendered even worse when looking at his site on which the piece is published, which demonstrates that he is a fraud and a fuckwit. He is quite obviously some kind of corporatist, with the usual veil of libertarianism and academic pretensions to hide his reactionary statism. A cursory examination of his 'Anarchist FAQ' reveals a laughable attempt to define anarchy as simpy being 'anti-government'. Even more ridiculous is his attempt to include amongst Anarchists those who might support what is called 'Anarcho-capitalism', a most stupid contradiction in terms and a transparent propaganda label for what essentially means 'no regulation of corporations'.

I consider socialist anarchism to be a contradiction in terms and I dissagree with them, but I would try to have a better rebuttal to something someone who holds those beliefs writes than "He holds political beliefs contrary to mine so he's biased and a fraud and fuckwit".

Hey, you should check out 'addition subtraction', a great new arithmetic theory. They're teaching it over in Room 101.

This is rather off-topic, but addition and subtraction could be lumped into one operation. Addition is subtraction of a negative and subtraction is addition of a negative. That's why so many mathematical formulas can consist of addition of variables while in some circumstances one would subtract (a variable would be negative).

What do you suppose the Vietnam War was all about? Need I go on?

It was a nationalist uprising against a colonial power that turned into a civil war. I don't consider those that died in the civil war between Vietnam and Cambodia to be the result of communism, but I do consider many of those that died in their respective countries before and afterward to be the result of the communist system.

Yes, but I do not agree with your definition of 'more free'. The 'more free' capitalist economies are those with more regulation of market power, and more essential services in common ownership.

Is that how you define "more free", or is it a result, or are there more factors?

Right, which is why the best rpgs nowadays are all coming from EA and the US, and the worst ones from Europe.

I thought Europe tended to get mocked for falling short, with the exception of Gothic (and some people still say it's an adventure or action RPG). The bulk of the customers seem to differ with you in taste, and as I said earlier I can't declare their tastes illegitimate.

Riight. So nobody can say gaming standards are in decline, or improving, or indeed make any critical evaluation of anything at all - because everything is just what the market wants.

Each person can state their subjective opinion, which will remain just that: a subjective opinion.

Tell me, how is it that you are able to evaluate games in such a way, when you assert that nothing can be evaluated critically, since everything is simply what the market wants, ie the best possible?

You weren't able to give me an example of one produced under socialism, so socialism already has its pants beaten without an evaluation necessary. When North Korea starts making games everyone would kill to play I'll rethink my statement.

I really can't be bothered to go over the rest of your comments. I am merely open to the possibilities of alternative socio-economic orderings. You however, seem completely dogmatic in your view that might makes right, that ownership of all resources by a very few - the fewer the better - is somehow the best structure for human society. There's not much more point in arguing about it.

You didn't seem open at all. I actually do not care about the number of companies or the distribution of anything. I place value on freedom, but when talking with others who do not (in certain areas at least) I try to restrict discussion to consequences of policies. So if you want to talk wages, prices, hours and so on, do so.

I prefer the McLeod list. You are familiar with that, of course. Well, take a look at what it demonstrates, using Horvan-Siedler matrices of benefit analysis, regarding the relative freedom quotients of politico-economic derivative systems, and get back to me.

Could you provide links? A google search for Horvan-Siedler gets no results, as does one on Wikipedia. Wikipedia in "indicies of freedom" has ones from Freedom House, Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation, Fraser Institute and Reporters Without Borders. The two in the middle are on economic freedom, and the Fraser list goes much more in depth. It also uses a more similar definition of "freedom" to mine (the other lumps government interventions it likes with freedom), but if you prefer the one by WSJ/Heritage we can talk about that one.

glasnost: There are an infinite amount of human desires, and they can never all be satisfied. Just about nobody in America dies of malnutrition unless they're anorexic or bulemic, but people still work to buy things they want, like videogames.

 

[Twinfalls]

This is getting tiresome.

Monopolies like that do not occur in a free-market. Monopolies are created by the government. I've posted this before, but here is the Myth of Natural Monopoly. A company that tries to abuse its position by charging high prices or giving lousy service is going to attract competitors to enter the field and draw away customers. That is what happened in the past for the things done today by one company, and it was government intervention that caused things to change.

Sure, you can quote Friedman et al saying 'no regulation is the best' and 'monopolies don't exist'. Whatever. This would mean all the competition regulators all over the world are redundant and useless. Well, you're a big fan of the market determining what's right. And the market has spoken - people want competition regulation. They have voted in those regulators, they want them kept - even expanded.

So there you have it, you're wrong, DiLorenzio is wrong - by your very own rules.

But if you just shout "bias" when someone doesn't agree with you, it's hard to get anywhere. Instead point out where he goes wrong.

If you ignore what someone has written in your response, it's hard to get anywhere. I have pointed out why he is those things, I have identified the broad failings in his method.

whole heap of shit from Caplan essay

Of what relevance is all that economic data to this discussion? You have yourself noted it was wartime, and on that basis you claim whatever socialism was functioning was irrelevant as it was within a wartime environment and therefore extra-ordinary. How does this logic not apply equally, and indeed more so, to any economic data in the same circumstances? Stop dredging up shit with numbers in it in the hope of making your argument look well-founded, and stick with the topic.

Hey, you should check out 'addition subtraction', a great new arithmetic theory. They're teaching it over in Room 101.

This is rather off-topic, but addition and subtraction could be lumped into one operation. Addition is subtraction of a negative and subtraction is addition of a negative.

Don't be daft. So you know grade 1 arithmetic concepts. Well done. You know very well what's being conveyed here - yet you are suggesting that either the word 'subtraction' or 'addition' is redundant. But the market has spoken - ordinary communication makes both words useful in more easily conveying a distinct meaning without using the concept of negatives - which is why we have them.

What do you suppose the Vietnam War was all about? Need I go on?

It was a nationalist uprising against a colonial power that turned into a civil war. I don't consider those that died in the civil war between Vietnam and Cambodia to be the result of communism, but I do consider many of those that died in their respective countries before and afterward to be the result of the communist system.

The US intervention in Vietnam was due to fear of a 'domino effect'. That it was not merely communism and potential USSR allies, but more importantly closed markets, which drove the intervention is supported by analysis of US policy towards South America. To say that 'no-one has ever died in the name of capitalism' is profoundly absurd. By the way, do you suppose the bombing of Cambodia had anything to do with the deaths resulting directly, and subsequently from it? Or with Pol Pot's regime rising to power? No, I'd expect you do not.

s that how you define "more free", or is it a result, or are there more factors?

I define 'more free' economies as those featuring the higher aggregate of 'lesser disparity in wealth levels among its human citizens', 'greater overall happiness levels among its human citizens', and 'greater ability of human citizens to exercise individual choice without unlawfully restricting others.'

Riight. So nobody can say gaming standards are in decline, or improving, or indeed make any critical evaluation of anything at all - because everything is just what the market wants.

Each person can state their subjective opinion, which will remain just that: a subjective opinion.

Okay, which negates the following response by you, given nothing can be critically evaluated:

You weren't able to give me an example of one produced under socialism, so socialism already has its pants beaten without an evaluation necessary. When North Korea starts making games everyone would kill to play I'll rethink my statement.

What stupid fucking rubbish. Demonstrate to me that North Korea fits the socialist model as put forward by Wilde - which was the topic of discussion.

I prefer the McLeod list. You are familiar with that, of course. Well, take a look at what it demonstrates, using Horvan-Siedler matrices of benefit analysis, regarding the relative freedom quotients of politico-economic derivative systems, and get back to me.

Could you provide links? A google search for Horvan-Siedler gets no results, as does one on Wikipedia. Wikipedia in "indicies of freedom" has ones from Freedom House, Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation, Fraser Institute and Reporters Without Borders. The two in the middle are on economic freedom, and the Fraser list goes much more in depth. It also uses a more similar definition of "freedom" to mine (the other lumps government interventions it likes with freedom), but if you prefer the one by WSJ/Heritage we can talk about that one.

I can't, because there is no such thing - I made it up. It was a jibe to your strange reply, in which you mention something called the 'Fraser List', without telling me what the hell it was, in lieu of an actual response viz:

You do realise that "less free" is your own, highly subjective, and manifestly ignorant characterisation, don't you?

If you don't like the Fraser list, provide your own. I'd still prefer the Fraser list over yours as it goes into the factors that resulted in the scores.

As I said, I'm tiring of this. Is there much point to continuing?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Sure, you can quote Friedman et al saying 'no regulation is the best' and 'monopolies don't exist'.

I haven't quoted Friedman at all. And while David Friedman would agree with you, his more famous father Milton would not go so far.

Whatever. This would mean all the competition regulators all over the world are redundant and useless.

As indeed they are. All real monopolies are created by the government.

Well, you're a big fan of the market determining what's right. And the market has spoken - people want competition regulation. They have voted in those regulators, they want them kept - even expanded.

ELECTIONS ARE NOT LIKE NORMAL MARKETS! Please read some public choice economics on the difference. You should be able to think of some important ones off the top of your head even without doing so, but I'd reccomend reading some anyway.

So there you have it, you're wrong, DiLorenzio is wrong - by your very own rules.

I would insult you, but I don't believe you actually believe that statement.

If you ignore what someone has written in your response, it's hard to get anywhere. I have pointed out why he is those things, I have identified the broad failings in his method.

What broad failings? You said he was biased and that it was all anecdotal, which I showed it was not.

Of what relevance is all that economic data to this discussion? You have yourself noted it was wartime, and on that basis you claim whatever socialism was functioning was irrelevant as it was within a wartime environment and therefore extra-ordinary. How does this logic not apply equally, and indeed more so, to any economic data in the same circumstances? Stop dredging up shit with numbers in it in the hope of making your argument look well-founded, and stick with the topic.

The relevance was because you claimed it was all anecdote with no research. You are right that I do not believe that situation can be considered very representative of anarcho-syndicalism as there was a war and they were only one faction on the Republican side and didn't consider their goals realized. Caplan was writing about that historical situation and can't very well go back in time to change things to make a better "natural experiment" as they are sometimes called. The problem we have is that every time a government declares its system socialist and fucks everything up you can claim it isn't "real socialism", but your one example is neither representative nor appealing. There has never been a government that matches my libertarian ideal, so I settle for approximations that we can compare. Otherwise we'd be arguing about whose dreamland is more awesome.

The US intervention in Vietnam was due to fear of a 'domino effect'. That it was not merely communism and potential USSR allies, but more importantly closed markets, which drove the intervention is supported by analysis of US policy towards South America. To say that 'no-one has ever died in the name of capitalism' is profoundly absurd. By the way, do you suppose the bombing of Cambodia had anything to do with the deaths resulting directly, and subsequently from it? Or with Pol Pot's regime rising to power? No, I'd expect you do not.

Could you clarify your "closed markets" comment? Like I said before, I seperate war deaths from peace deaths when laying blame to a governmental system. Although communist governments split into Soviet, Sinic (which came to be allied with the U.S in certain situations) and Albanian factions, they all remained communist so deaths resulting from conflicts between them should be considered the result of geopolitical strategic rivalry. Since the U.S supported communists that it could consider "our bastard son-of-a-bitch" I can't consider resulting deaths to be for "capitalism" especially considering that President Johnson would hardly have considered himself a paragon of capitalism. I don't know whether Pol Pot would have come to power if there had been no intervention in Cambodia. Perhaps it would have been nice to have had him, Gen. Lon Nol and Prince Sihanouk vote on the bombings to see which side felt they benefitted from them, but we can't do that.

I define 'more free' economies as those featuring the higher aggregate of 'lesser disparity in wealth levels among its human citizens', 'greater overall happiness levels among its human citizens', and 'greater ability of human citizens to exercise individual choice without unlawfully restricting others.'

The third one comes closest to my understanding, but that "unlawful" caveat is pretty ambiguous. If it is declared lawful to restrict others in some way, does that change the definition of "free"? As for the first two, if there were a computer run society of equally impoverished slaves that were all heavily drugged with anti-depressants (I don't know a good objective way of showing happiness, so here it's renderedt physically impossible), would they be "free"? I could possibly see some very strange person arguing that would be "good", but not "free" if it is to mean anything like the ordinary definition.

Okay, which negates the following response by you, given nothing can be critically evaluated:

You weren't able to give me an example of one produced under socialism, so socialism already has its pants beaten without an evaluation necessary. When North Korea starts making games everyone would kill to play I'll rethink my statement.

What stupid fucking rubbish. Demonstrate to me that North Korea fits the socialist model as put forward by Wilde - which was the topic of discussion.

Wilde and I could logically both be wrong if North Korea outperforms both of our preferred examples. If Joe told me that game A is better than game B and Jack says the reverse there is no objective way to determine who is right because they are subjective opinions. However, if Jeff says that game C is better than both but it doesn't even exist, I am going to say he is flat-out wrong. You need to come up with something that can be compared.

I can't, because there is no such thing - I made it up. It was a jibe to your strange reply, in which you mention something called the 'Fraser List', without telling me what the hell it was

I linked to it earlier. Here it is. You probably just want the first chapter, which is here. If you prefer the WSJ/Heritage one it's here.

As I said, I'm tiring of this. Is there much point to continuing?

I'd say yes. You are free to make up your own mind.