Autism, exploitation and Capitalism

[kandrathe]

Just simple logic alone would dictate that anyone who was praised in that monstrosity of a country, would themselves be pretty damn:
A) Evil or
B) Real stupid

Presumably, then, if Lenin said that Erasmus was a great humanistic philosopher, we would then conclude that Erasmus was either evil or real stupid? This is an obvious fallacy.

-Jester

Everything that Lenin said or did, was either evil or a lie.

Let me give you a short list of those that the USSR celebrated, in my time there and before, not couting Russians of course:

1. Marx and Engels
2. Mao before the early 70s
3. Luxenburg
4. Hitler before 1941. Not really celebrated, but admired and respected.
5. Angela Davis
6. Ho Chi Minh
7. Jimmy Carter (no, I'm not joking)
8. Fidel Castro, favorite lapdog of the Politburo.

I'm sure I'm forgetting many, but I did say it will be a short list.

See, the reality is that communism is built on a gigantic lie and propagated through propaganda and indoctrination, especially of the young. This is why it is important to eliminate illiteracy, as reading was the best method to spread the propaganda. I trust absolutely NOTHING that a communist says, because without lies, he has nothing.

I strongly suggest reading Victor Suvorov's "Aquarium" and some of his other, especially autobiographical works. He was a captain or major I believe (been many years since I read them) in the GRU and defected to GB in the late 70s.

My grandfather before he died, told me many things. He was a KGB major.
I KNOW that Suvorov's autobiographic books are factual.

You sheltered Western liberals understand NOTHING at all about how the world outside of your little bubbles works. The Matrix is very difficult to break out of.

Thanks,

I will add it to my reading list...

https://www.amazon.com/Aquarium-Viktor-S...0241115450

I heard of a good one the other day on NPR.

Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist's Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations

Thomas Friedman is a political economist writing a column for the NYT Washington bureau. Still, he's not really a leftist, but more centrist point of view. This book is a look at the intersection of what he see's as the 2007 inflection point of three M's exponential curves. Moore's law, Market (globalization), and Mother nature.

Let me reflect a bit on your premise though, "...anyone who was praised in that monstrosity of a country, would themselves be pretty damn: A) Evil or B) Real stupid ."

I do appreciate your perspective, although due to your personal proximity, and suffering, you probably have acquired some bias. Allow me to propose a reason liberals in the US seem out of touch --> LEFT TURN -- How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind -- Tim Groseclose, UCLA, Ph.D.

But, there is an echo chamber here in the US media. It's extremely hard to find much factual enlightenment among the excess of heat generation in our media.

So, let me tie this all into Autism, and exploitation. I think we can ignore capitalism(or communism), as it is in this case merely the process by which labor is transformed into "output" (or wealth). The original post was (IMHO) incorrectly tying a developmental difference in brain type, to the plight of exploitation of all people. To me, the future ideal condition is where we are rewarded for our free contribution to the society. However, we should not be punished ( by homelessness, and starvation) for being unable to find a meaningful way to participate. In other words, "failure" in our system has life threatening consequences. This requires a clear definition of an egalitarian free market, but one that serves all of society, at least minimally (see my prior suggestion of UBI). The exploitation that I see occurring in all systems is the intentional devaluation of labor (in this case). Capitalists, and communists alike also devalue property in order to exploit them as well. The key being the real understanding of "wealth" valuation, generation and its means of distribution.

In all expressions so far of communist command economies, people are theoretically only paid what they need. The same "wage" as everyone else, but hardly ever "what they are worth". The concept I use for people on the Autism Spectrum is twice exceptional (two sides of the coins). Consider, Christian Andersen at Lundbeck. It is his difference the has found its exceptional use. If only we could be universally concerned with helping everyone find their niche in society without fear of "failure". I believe this is the appeal that communism has for the misinformed. In that, for every worker, their assigned job depending on their ability. But, often regardless of their aspirations.

In our "capitalist" free market, people are paid the minimal wage they negotiate, and also seldom what they are worth. Most enterprises have minimum, and maximum thresholds by "job class". If you are below the minimum for your job class, there is sometimes a catch-up "bonus", often not. If you are "over-paid" according to your job class, you often will hit a wall for advancement in that enterprise, requiring a change of job class, or a renegotiation, usually with a new enterprise. For the "IT" people I've hired and managed in the past, I've kept myself apprised of our local job market rates and kept my employees at or slightly above, because I don't want wage to be the reason for their leaving. One trouble I see is that few of us are very skilled at knowing our own worth, or being able to negotiate effectively for that wage. So, for the "autism spectrum" person, this is also true, but probably no more true than for 90% of other "bad at negotiating" wage earners.

Mostly I see workers in a free market economy, attempt to get employment at the places they wouldn't object to working, then usually accept the first wage offered. Or, they reject the offer and continue looking until they get a better offer or after a few, settle for the lower price. Potentially, a UBI would alter this equation. A person may feel they have the freedom to take more entrepreneurial risks, or reject more offers without the threat of losing their means of sustaining their basic needs. I have met and spoken to many very wealthy people (<1%'ers), and most don't have issues with a fairer distribution of wealth, so long as it comes with free market freedoms, and upholds our egalitarian principles.