There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
User talk:OnlySortaDumb
yo dill pickle[edit]
you got a board nomination Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Philosophy subfields[edit]
FYI, I came across this unusual (perhaps unique) subfield of philosophy while reading Science News today: "philosopher of microbiology".[1] Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, that’s interesting. I knew of philosophy of biology and even read a few books on the subject. I think one of the faculty members in my department also specializes in philosophy of biology but more so specializes in moral philosophy. I didn’t suspect that sub-displines in science would have their own distinct fields. Like I knew of philosophy of physics, philosophy of cognitive science, biology, economics, etc. In that, there is barely a discipline at all for something like philosophy of chemistry. In fact, of the works I looked at, even within volumes of essays, there is always an explicit argument for why we should create a philosophy of chemistry. I didn’t suspect that philosophy of microbiology would be a distinct sub-field worthy of its own SEP page seperate from the larger Phil of Bio. Thanks for sharing! - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for speaking up[edit]
As you have just discovered in the discussion of the Nudity article, some topics cannot be addressed rationally, or even civilly, on RW. I did not LANCB, but was cast out by the mob. I did not say "nudity is never sexual" and certainly did not accuse anyone of being a perv. In the tradition of authoritarianism, some defend their preconceptions at any cost.
Your reference to life drawing is appropriate, since that is where I learned to appreciate other aspects of the human body beyond sex.
I only had a few weeks invested, so I went back to editing Wikipedia. If anyone follows the advice to look to WP for content, they will be using my work since I wrote 90% of the articles on this topic. Sadly, the article here may have begun its slide back to being the mess I found when I started, the new section "Do ya think I'm sexy?" being a bad omen.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Moderator nomination 2024[edit]
You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.
Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- If am not too late to make an acceptance, I guess I will accept it. God knows I have the time now given I am out of school and out of a job. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Essay on socialism[edit]
Hi, I came across your essay responding to the "Criticism of socialism" article. While it was deleted, you said "I am scrapping the essay to reuse the content in an APA style essay that is less 'targeted'" in the "author request". I was just wondering if this new essay has been scrapped much like the old one or if it's still being made, as I'm curious to read it. I'm still new, so I'm not sure if this was answered somewhere else. -- LunaAHHHHH 23:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t end up doing anything with it, but I ended up collecting some more relevant literature over time. With grad school and everything, I ended up deprioritizing essays I wrote outside of school, but since finishing my program I got back into it and started a blog. I was planing to write something on the concept of economic exploitation in the near future. I may decide to write something on the feasibility of socialism, and if I do I will link to it here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Profit as exploitation[edit]
Since you're both a socialist and a philosopher, I was wondering what was your opinion on the idea of capitalist profit being inherently exploitative, i.e. the whole deal of "the workers being the ones who move the production process while the profits go to the owner who didn't contribute to anything", which is something similar to Marx's theory of exploitation (somewhat simplified and generalized, I guess). Specifically, I was wondering what you think of the counter-arguments about this philosophy. I've seen people justify capitalist profits by arguing that capitalists do contribute to the production process.
The first counter-argument I heard is how capitalists contribute by financing capital, meaning they used their own money to pay for the means of production and their maintainence, therefore they should be at least in part compensated for providing these means, as production wouldn't have happened if it wasn't the capitalist's investment. While it might be unjust within current capitalism, as most workers don't have any way of owning their own means and therefore will be forced to rely on these capitalists, it doesn't necessarily mean exploitation comes from the profit itself, only from the lack of alternative options, as the capitalist is contributing to production, meaning there would be less of a need for abolishing the dynamics between owner and user of the means of production and more so of accessibility and equality of opportunity to get your own means. I believe John Roemer advocated for a system like this, although I'm not too familiar on him myself.
The second counter-argument I heard is how capitalists contribute by trading "future goods for present goods". Labour creates what's called "future goods", products which will only be finished in the future. Capitalists therefore contribute by paying workers before production has fully finished, allowing the workers to consume "present goods" instead. Profit is, therefore, the reward capitalists gain by waiting for the future goods. Similarly to the first counter-argument, this relation is still arguably exploitative due to the lack of options the worker actually has (most will choose to consume right now because they're physically prevented from waiting due to their lack of money to survive until then), but similarly, exploitation would come from the social context rather than the profit itself.
I ask because I was reading Section C.2 "Why is capitalism exploitative?" of the Anarchist FAQ and I thought it was a bit confusing, so I'm not sure if it's just me or if their counter-counter-arguments are actually just bullshit. I'm already a socialist, although it's more because of other reasons rather than exploitation per se. Maybe it would also be interesting to make a RW article about exploitation, considering how it's one way of expressing authoritarianism and we already have articles related to it as well (like slavery or labor theory of value). ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 21:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- This first post here is going to be just a generalized account of what I prefer as a theory of exploitation, and an account of how it relates to capital. I will then address the Anarchist FAQ in a following post. I apologize if this comes off as overly tangential, but I hope it is inevitably helpful all the same.
- My preferred theory for exploitation as of late, originates from the feminist philosopher Iris Young’s 1988 publication The 5 Faces of Oppression .
- Young’s (1988) definition of exploitation is described as “.. process in which the energies of the have-nots are continuously expended to maintain and augment the power, status and wealth of the haves.” (p.278). Some of what I written below has been copy-pasted from a paper I wrote for a feminist ethics seminar in grad school.
- In discussing the limitations and value of a Marxist theory of exploitation, and referencing more normative accounts relevant to the project of identifying oppression, Young (1988) states the following “The central insight expressed with the concept of exploitation, then, is that domination occurs through a steady process of the transfer of the results of the labor of some people to benefit others.” (pp. 278). The emphasis is placed upon the use of other people’s labour to extract the benefits of said labour towards a dominant class so as to maintain their political and socioeconomic power. This characterization of exploitation accounts for the maintenance and construction of class conflict within the capitalist context, and maintains the rhetorical power of Marxist critiques of capital. It does this while not being dependent on the truth of the Labour Theory of Value, which circumvents objections that wage labour is exploitative on the grounds of “debunking” said theory of value.
- The idea being that more or less there exists a dominant social group and a subordinate social group, whereas the subordinate social group does the majority of the physical labour, but the majority of the benefits of that labour overwhelming goes to the dominant group that does not engage in proportional labour in return. Contrast that with Marx’s idea of exploitation which is just the rate determined by the division between the variable cost of labour and the surplus value generated. It was never meant to be a normative evaluation, but instead a factor in the social contradictions of capital given that it is the social necessary labour time that determines the economic value of products in Marxian economic theory.
- I think with that, if we were to accept Young’s analysis, the burden of proof would be on the capitalist to demonstrate that the benefits generated by the labour of the working class is distributed equally between the two social groups, and that the capitalist class is also providing proportional physical labour in return. I don’t see how an owner of a restaurant, where all the profits are being generated towards them, is doing comparable labour to all the kitchen staff, waiting staff, and cleaning staff combined. All the employees are working to generate profits for the owner, who gets complete control in how those profits are distributed, yet they are always collectively contributing more productive physical labour in the running of this restaurant then the owner could ever provide on their lonesome.
- But regardless, if we address the whole “capital provides their own money” to start their business it is worth asking where exactly does this money come from, and is it money that everyone has equitable opportunity to obtain? The common objection is that capital is required to make capital. It is in reality very rare for someone to start from nothing and work their way up to becoming a successful capitalist, though when it does it happen these instances get highlighted because it serves a propagandistic purpose to reinforce the ideal of “The American Dream” and “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps”. The vast majority of capitalists have investments, loans, and/or inheritance they rely on to obtain the means to purchase the means of production. To be able to obtain a business loan, you need to demonstrate to the bank that you are reliable to making a return on their investment. You need good credit, and you need appreciable assets that you can leverage so they can still maintain a profit if you default on your loan. It is incredibly expensive thing to do, requiring wealth and resources that the majority of the working class do not have access to. You are almost required to be a property owner yourself to obtain more property, which is to say prior to obtaining the commercial buisness or the factory, the capitalist is already a capitalist by the Marxian sense of the term.
- This relates to how exploitation is a means of oppression because it keeps the dominant group in a position of a social hierarchy that allows them to coercively restrict the autonomy of a subordinate social group, and regularly appreciate the ability to command members of that group and expect obedience. It also gives them greater power to influence public policy, lobby governments, control valuable resources and determine how they are distributed, etc. Intersect that with patriarchy and white supremacy, you get a majority of white and male property owners who have a disproportionate power to shape society to disadvantage women and other minorities, especially those who are non-white.
- Young (1988) emphasizes this in the exploitation of women by men in the unequal distribution of domestic labour, and the racialized forms of exploitation that result and maintain an over-representation of non-white people in precarious, low-paying, and “menial” work. (pp. 278 - 280). Not to mention the girth of undocumented migrant labour under work conditions that would be otherwise illegal enabled by the coercive threat of deportation.
- All of these examples are examples of economic exploitation, and it isn’t hard to intuit how the dynamic of private property as defined by Marx enables such exploitation to begin with. It seems an inevitable result, even if the capitalists themselves do not have malicious intentions. If we wish to live in a world where no social group is being oppressed, then we would wish to live in a world that isn’t capitalist (assuming that is possible to begin with).
- The argument about “future goods for present goods” doesn’t really hold up imo, because the total compensation never inevitably comes to match that of the total value that gets generated by the activities of the workers. Even if we reject the LTV, the total profit generated will always be magnitudes more than the cost of labour (or your business fails). Those profits cannot be generated without the continuous activity of the working class. McDonalds would loose billions if all their workers decided to tomorrow to cease working. It is not a proportional compensation to the worker to paid prior to the generation of their contribution to the future product, if inevitably their contribution to the profits will be several magnitudes greater than what they will ever earn by hourly wages (assuming they do the job as expected).
This sort of “future goods for present goods” arguably works as an argument to justify sweatshop labour as unexploitative if we totally ignore the discrepancy between wages and generated income for the business.
- These are just my initial thoughts, I apologize if it was a bit unfocused. I am not entirely certain I understand that second counter-argument is meant to communicate. I will follow up with a post on the anarchist FAQ shortly. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. Young's theory of exploitation does seem like a more convincing theory in comparison to the other ones that rely on things such as the labour theory of value. Maybe I'll check her publication later, although it also depends on how "advanced" it is philosophically for me to understand.
- As for the future goods for present goods argument, I believe the argument is supposed to play on the "time preference" of everyone. Some people would rather spend 150$ right now instead of spending 200$ a month later, for example. Therefore, the transaction that happens when the worker sells their labour is that they will be effectively selling the future products of their labour to the capitalist (let's say this is the 200$) and the capitalist will instead pay 150$ for the worker to consume right now. It's in a way similar to interest in that the worker receives an amount of money and they eventually pay it back at a higher price.
- I'm not sure how convincing the argument is, considering how the current capitalist system certainly doesn't give any real options to the worker not to consume in the present as I stated before, but assuming it did without the need to abolish capitalism, e.g. by introducing some sort of generous UBI system, then the major problem of exploitation would cease to exist as people would simply choose to sell their labour according to their real time preferences instead of their "time needs" like it is currently, meaning it would be the "consensual exchange where both parties benefit" that libertarians love to preach about the free market.
- I still would rather go beyond something like a capitalist UBI for other reasons, mostly because of the burden it would probably be to actually fund this UBI in the first place as well as the existence of class struggle which would probably not end with its introduction, but it would still create a form of "non-exploitative capitalism", meaning it wouldn't require socialism to end exploitation, assuming the "future/present goods" argument to be correct. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 14:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)