vadimberman

Thank you!

I will need the entire client code though. Let's switch to email - the one you logged on with is OK, right?

EDIT: sent.

> However, you've concluded that because the author described a problem with capitalism but not the equivalent problem with communism, the author must be a marxist.

How? Why? Where?

I am merely saying that since the opposing ideology makes the same statement, the claim that it's a "myth of capitalism" makes no sense.

The moon landing can actually provide a great example. Take the "moon landing hoax" conspiracies. One of the first counter-claims is, if it were really a hoax, wouldn't the Soviets shout about it from the rooftops?

In our example, claiming that the American workers work more than Medieval serfs would be an excellent point for the Soviet propaganda. But since they didn't, and since in my school, the capitalism (otherwise hated) was taught as a step forward, the reduction of working hours clearly isn't a "capitalism's enduring myth".

My main issue, like I said many times by now, is why bring -isms to the study in the first place? Publish the figures, bring more sources from all over the world, make conclusions, THEN try to explain why it emerged. But no, that's not what the article says.

Seriously, does the word "Communism" work like a magic incantation that makes people ignore everything else?

>> we are asked to imagine

> not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".

Just read the article.

It could be possible theoretically if not the context of the article. "We are asked to imagine" and so on.

But even if it were the case, the fact that the same idea was commonplace in the USSR means that it's not inherently connected to capitalism.

And, obviously, I am still wondering why people decided it was about capitalism vs. Communism.

I absolutely agree.

Plus, the meaningfulness of the task sometimes is beyond economic; many people code in crazy hours because they love the job. I doubt it was the same with miners 500 years ago.

But all these nuances aren't even looked at in the paper.

> your apparent argument that anyone criticising capitalism can only be a Soviet-era state-supporting "communist"

That would be a highly creative way of summarising my post.

My problem with the paper was that it started what was supposed to be a historical research with a slogan-like claim that a particular ideology propagated it (literally the first sentence).

As in, there was no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, or lack of evidence, but evil dudes came and lied to us all.

I countered that I witnessed firsthand how the competing ideology was "propagating" the same "myth", which, simply put, makes the author's assertion a sheer nonsense.

It's wonderful that there is someone with mind as unclouded by propaganda to enlighten me and improve my limited world view.

Did you find any figures or arguments in the original paper that I overlooked? Like, Chinese peasants, German peasants, etc.

Ugh. The paper reeks of political agenda. The very first sentence is:

> One of capitalism's most durable myths is that it has reduced human toil.

What about the Communism? Why would they spread this durable myth? Because I remember hearing the same story in the Soviet school.

The paper does not make a real effort trying to consider different evidence and honestly investigate the subject. Most of the sources are related to the UK (specifically, England) with a couple referring to the US in XIX century. How do we know how much the Dutch, German, French, Russian peasants worked, let alone those in the rice-growing Asia? Finally, how about trying to research 1600s and 1700s in North America to compare apples with apples?

Even in her own paper, the results appear a bit, ahem, uneven:

> 1988 - Manufacturing workers, U.K.: 1856 hours

> 1400-1600 - Farmer-miner, adult male, U.K.: 1980 hours > Calculated from Ian Blanchard's estimate of 180 days per year. Assumes 11-hour day

Yes, it's 180 days, but 11 hours each. Did she actually try working 11 hours on a backbreaking menial job? Does she actually believe that 11 hours being a miner in 1500s is the same as 11 hours in the office or even a modern assembly line?

It depends on the kind of panspermia.

If it's about generic organic molecules then the DNA is a local construct. If it's about microorganisms, then it's different.

Sounds like a part publicity (NYT was invited), part employment fair for the Bezos' ventures. He can talk to the candidates, observe how they behave, and at the same time intrigue them with the prospects of working for him.

Amazingly, the article does not mention what the presentations were about.