Yeah, exactly. Capitalism sucks. Your example is perfect. It kills the future of anyone interested in learning from the past. Learning from the past is key to a functional humanity.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but whether you live in a capitalist, socialist, communist or what ever other types of economic systems are available, you need to be intellectually honest about what types of workers the society needs to be able thrive.
How many historians do you want qualified before you would say, “maybe we should incentivise people in to things like medicine or engineering”, a hundred thousand, a million?
Of course history is important, but there’s clearly a sensible limit to how many job opportunities there are for curators, archeologists, researchers, teachers etc.
In the UK, more or less fifty percent of young people have a uni level of education but there are not fifty percent of vacant jobs that require a degree level education. It might be absolute lovely that my barista has a history degree, but they could have joined the workforce several years earlier, have dozens of thousands pounds less in debt and still had the opportunity to study history in their own time.
No system of government, with a capitalist economy or otherwise, is inherently incompatible with, or inherently supportive of people being employed by or receiving grants from national institutes for arts/sciences or other similar organizations, public or private.
If a country is lacking in that regard it’s not the fault of their economic system. It’s due to the values of the people in power. And in the case of a democracy, it’s partially due to the values of the voters as well.
In my country, public and private funding for arts and sciences without a profit motive has been on the decline for decades and I would love to see huge increases. But no matter what the system is, there are limits. Everybody can’t be an artist, scientist, or philosopher. A large portion of people are going to have to produce necessities.
Being able to chase your dreams is no guarantee you will be good enough to catch one of the limited slots, even if the number of slots is high.
If a country is lacking in that regard it’s not the fault of their economic system. It’s due to the values of the people in power. And in the case of a democracy, it’s partially due to the values of the voters as well.
This is idealism, and I don’t mean the concept of having ideals. I am referring to the branch of philosophy that believes thoughts shape matter, rather than matter shaping thoughts.
The problem here is that you seem to believe that society is driven by “great men” rather than material conditions. The issue is not because of random cultural values or politicians, but the underlying material reality as shaped by the economic system.
Don’t put words in my mouth to make me fit one of your cookie cutter fake opponents, dealing with whom seems to be the only thing your theory reading has prepared you for.
There is nothing stopping funding levels from returning to the level they once were other than the will of the people with the power to do so and the will of the people that put them there and allow them to remain. We know this because we’ve already done it, in many places with a variety of underlying systems. We did it where I live for quite a while before the last few decades of reversals.
That’s a nonsensical thing to say. Everything that’s ever been done by anyone has been done because the person(s) doing so had the will to do it. From making lunch to toppling a government.
If your world view is some kind of circular human centipede of tautological alternate definitions that doesn’t allow for any discussions that don’t accept your conclusions a priori then talking to you isn’t likely to be any more fruitful than a discussion with a Qultist or a MAGAt.
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth to argue against an imaginary person because that’s all you can do. Save that shit for the shower.
I never said there weren’t conditions that create the will. There are always conditions for everything. My condition is hungry so when I’m done typing this I’ll eat a banana because I have the will to do so.
I’ve read plenty of leftist theory. But unfortunately your reading has only prepared you to hammer anything you run across into the circles you seem to be unable to think outside of.
If any discussion with you requires one to accept your reading of theory that labels as impossible something that has already been accomplished, many times, that’s not theory, that’s dogma that ignores reality, and you’re in a cult.
Banana calls, you can have the last word. Imagine me dumbfounded and humbled by your brilliance, just like in the shower.
Yeah, exactly. Capitalism sucks. Your example is perfect. It kills the future of anyone interested in learning from the past. Learning from the past is key to a functional humanity.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but whether you live in a capitalist, socialist, communist or what ever other types of economic systems are available, you need to be intellectually honest about what types of workers the society needs to be able thrive.
How many historians do you want qualified before you would say, “maybe we should incentivise people in to things like medicine or engineering”, a hundred thousand, a million?
Of course history is important, but there’s clearly a sensible limit to how many job opportunities there are for curators, archeologists, researchers, teachers etc.
In the UK, more or less fifty percent of young people have a uni level of education but there are not fifty percent of vacant jobs that require a degree level education. It might be absolute lovely that my barista has a history degree, but they could have joined the workforce several years earlier, have dozens of thousands pounds less in debt and still had the opportunity to study history in their own time.
No system of government, with a capitalist economy or otherwise, is inherently incompatible with, or inherently supportive of people being employed by or receiving grants from national institutes for arts/sciences or other similar organizations, public or private.
If a country is lacking in that regard it’s not the fault of their economic system. It’s due to the values of the people in power. And in the case of a democracy, it’s partially due to the values of the voters as well.
In my country, public and private funding for arts and sciences without a profit motive has been on the decline for decades and I would love to see huge increases. But no matter what the system is, there are limits. Everybody can’t be an artist, scientist, or philosopher. A large portion of people are going to have to produce necessities.
Being able to chase your dreams is no guarantee you will be good enough to catch one of the limited slots, even if the number of slots is high.
This is idealism, and I don’t mean the concept of having ideals. I am referring to the branch of philosophy that believes thoughts shape matter, rather than matter shaping thoughts.
The problem here is that you seem to believe that society is driven by “great men” rather than material conditions. The issue is not because of random cultural values or politicians, but the underlying material reality as shaped by the economic system.
Reading theory would help you a lot.
That’s a lot of word salad for “nuh uh”.
Don’t put words in my mouth to make me fit one of your cookie cutter fake opponents, dealing with whom seems to be the only thing your theory reading has prepared you for.
There is nothing stopping funding levels from returning to the level they once were other than the will of the people with the power to do so and the will of the people that put them there and allow them to remain. We know this because we’ve already done it, in many places with a variety of underlying systems. We did it where I live for quite a while before the last few decades of reversals.
Relying on “the will of the people” is idealism and ignores material reality.
That’s a nonsensical thing to say. Everything that’s ever been done by anyone has been done because the person(s) doing so had the will to do it. From making lunch to toppling a government.
If your world view is some kind of circular human centipede of tautological alternate definitions that doesn’t allow for any discussions that don’t accept your conclusions a priori then talking to you isn’t likely to be any more fruitful than a discussion with a Qultist or a MAGAt.
The will did not come before the Material Conditions.
Again, reading Leftist Theory would help you quite a lot. We are on Lefty Memes, after all.
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth to argue against an imaginary person because that’s all you can do. Save that shit for the shower.
I never said there weren’t conditions that create the will. There are always conditions for everything. My condition is hungry so when I’m done typing this I’ll eat a banana because I have the will to do so.
I’ve read plenty of leftist theory. But unfortunately your reading has only prepared you to hammer anything you run across into the circles you seem to be unable to think outside of.
If any discussion with you requires one to accept your reading of theory that labels as impossible something that has already been accomplished, many times, that’s not theory, that’s dogma that ignores reality, and you’re in a cult.
Banana calls, you can have the last word. Imagine me dumbfounded and humbled by your brilliance, just like in the shower.