Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Heroic (or at least decent) Syndicate characters

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Kakost View Post

    So, basically the Syndics are the good guys already lol
    Almost everyone sees themselves as the good guy. Only a very few cultures like the USA are ever seriously asked to question whether or not they actually are the good guys. Of course the Syndicate sees themselves as the heroes. They also believe that money, approached without greed, really can solve the vast majority of human problems.

    The whole science of economics tends to support the view that money is central to a good/moral society. But then economists would say that, wouldn't they?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Astromancer View Post

      Almost everyone sees themselves as the good guy. Only a very few cultures like the USA are ever seriously asked to question whether or not they actually are the good guys. Of course the Syndicate sees themselves as the heroes. They also believe that money, approached without greed, really can solve the vast majority of human problems.

      The whole science of economics tends to support the view that money is central to a good/moral society. But then economists would say that, wouldn't they?
      Well, the nazis believed they were saving the world so... Yeah.

      By the way, you cant convince normal people to do evil deeds by praising to evil - unless the person is already a psychopath maniac, in which case it makes no difference.

      The truly scary thing however is to make "good" (normal) people commit evil acts because they are convinced to be morally justified.

      That's the root of things like the religious wars in Europe or the islamic Jihad.

      Also, we all like to imagine ourselves as the good heroes who would "punch the nazis". But the truth is that, if we lived in Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, we would NOT be the "Oscar Schindler" guy. There's a reason why he's famous - it's because his kind was RARE.

      What WE would be would be the soldiers executing the jews and poles and gypsies at the camps - or at the very least, we would be the civilians snitching our jewish neighbors knowing full well what their destinies would be.

      And that's a scary thought because it's TRUE. It's easy to think on the nazis or soviets as a terrible boogieman; it's harder to understand that they were just NORMAL humans, and that it could've been US doing those unspeakable deeds if just we were on their shoes.

      That's why ideology is dangerous, and even more dangerous it is to belive yourself to be "the good guy, fighting for the right side". Because, if you are morally right and your fight is a "just" one, it's impossible to tell to what levels you'll sink based on your moralism.

      After all, if you're fighting on behalf of Allah or Deus, or if you're fighting to save the world from the evil "jewish conspiracy" or to end the "capitalistic pigs opression", how could your acts not be morally justifiable and even DESIRABLE?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Kakost View Post
        The Syndicate strikes me as the odd child of the Union. They believe in the Free Markets as the keys of reality; such thought pattern can only flourish under an Individualist ideology.

        The Technocracy however is the terrible culmination of Colectivism at its worst, and not only that, but also absolutely Utilitarian. "For the greater good". Which is why in my view the Technocracy should be a bunch of commies - and real world technocratic ideas share a lot with socialist thought, about an "enlighntened" elite guiding the masses of inferior (or "ignorant") "mere mortals" with centralized control (as if we were a bunch of dumb children that need a "firm adult" to control).

        That condescending worldview of the Union doesnt fit with the Syndicate worldview of having the common people seeking their own desires (as opposed to the "superior gods" of the union, like any would be "small tyrant" in real life that believes to know what's better for everybody else) dictating those to them).
        The reason why the Syndicate fits in the Technocratic Union is because it's members don't believe in a purely open market. They believe that those who rise to the top should be able to do whatever they want. And that includes guiding the market. It's why their central Paradigm is “Might is Right”. I would expect the true advocates for a free market to be found in Navalon, whose economist sub-faction would be more Austrian than Keynsean.

        But if a Syndic buys into a Noblesse Oblige mindset, he can end up resembling a free marketeer. Like every other Syndic, he would still view the free market as a convenience, a way to have the economy run on autopilot without the need for constant micromanagement, until such time as he desires to direct it. But his desire to direct it would in turn tend to be a bit more constrained toward “will this help the Shareholders?”

        (Navalon's financial wizards, meanwhile, would have shifted from “Might is Right” to “A Mechanistic Cosmos” or “Creation is Innately Divine and Alive”: they would truly believe in the Invisible Hand of the Free Market, and would see it as their duty to keep the Free Market free. But that's only relevant here to the extent that Navalon as a faction independent of the Union is a Future Fate, not an established fact.)
        Last edited by Dataweaver; 06-21-2022, 05:02 PM.


        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Kakost View Post
          I would have to disagree. Capitalism is free market. Actually, the only REAL Capitalism would be Anarcho-Capitalism, which only happened for brief periods in Ireland and Iceland.
          You're mixing concepts. Despite the name being present in Anarcho-Capitalism, Capitalism itself has never been used as a descriptor for an ideology or a proposed system. The name is used in the context of the analysis of the economic system that naturally evolved in the wake of the Republican Revolutions and the Industrial Revolution.

          The idea that Capitalism is a good thing that we will only truly achieve in a completely free and stateless market economy is a definition given within the Anarcho-Capitalism ideology, which is fine by itself, but is not a technical definition in the discussion of economy and economic systems at large.

          Originally posted by Kakost View Post
          The Syndicate strikes me as the odd child of the Union. They believe in the Free Markets as the keys of reality; such thought pattern can only flourish under an Individualist ideology.
          They don't. They believe in the Market, not in it being necessarily free. So much so that they intent on controlling it.

          As every Convention, they believe that their Enlightenment ultimately positions them to control the world for its betterment. They are all in with the notion of guiding the masses as invisible Philosopher-Kings. And they definitely do interfere with the Market not just out of loyalty, but for their own projects and goals.


          #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs
          #AutismPride
          She/her pronouns

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Astromancer View Post

            Almost everyone sees themselves as the good guy. Only a very few cultures like the USA are ever seriously asked to question whether or not they actually are the good guys. Of course the Syndicate sees themselves as the heroes. They also believe that money, approached without greed, really can solve the vast majority of human problems.
            The Syndicate is the “greed is good” crowd. A big part of their Focus is the primacy of competition — the notion that the open market is driven by greed; and that that's a good thing, because it also drives innovation, which ends up improving everyone's lives:
            Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind.

            Gordon Gekko, Wall Street
            The last thing they believe is that money without greed can solve problems.

            The bad ones lean too heavily into the “competition is good” attitude, taking it to the extreme of the ends justifying the means: if you come out on top, that's all that matters; if you had to lie, cheat, and steal to get to the top, you still got to the top. The more heroic Syndics point out that building yourself up by tearing everyone else down will come back to bite you; so ultimately, it's in your best interest to look out for others, too.


            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
              You're mixing concepts. Despite the name being present in Anarcho-Capitalism, Capitalism itself has never been used as a descriptor for an ideology or a proposed system. The name is used in the context of the analysis of the economic system that naturally evolved in the wake of the Republican Revolutions and the Industrial Revolution.

              The idea that Capitalism is a good thing that we will only truly achieve in a completely free and stateless market economy is a definition given within the Anarcho-Capitalism ideology, which is fine by itself, but is not a technical definition in the discussion of economy and economic systems at large.
              Well, the world "Capitalism" was made up by Marx as an insult. The correct term would be "Free Markets". And sure, free markets is a concept, not an ideology.

              Still, as a concept, you dont get a free market if you have interference; if there's interference, it's not free.

              So you never had ANY economy that had true free markets. You had laissez-faire, or a "light hand" on the markets, or "more-faire".

              Anarcho-capitalism is indeed an ideology, but it's just the logical conclusion that you cannot have a truly free market while States exist, because a State will always interfere in the markets (even if only for taxation).

              Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
              They don't. They believe in the Market, not in it being necessarily free. So much so that they intent on controlling it.

              As every Convention, they believe that their Enlightenment ultimately positions them to control the world for its betterment. They are all in with the notion of guiding the masses as invisible Philosopher-Kings. And they definitely do interfere with the Market not just out of loyalty, but for their own projects and goals.
              I hate people who believe themselves to be Enlightned sages who knows all the answers including what's best for others better than themselves.

              And yet I LOVE the Technocracy, my absolutely favorite faction in the WoD - how's that possible.

              Those magnificent bastards.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Kakost View Post
                Well, the world "Capitalism" was made up by Marx as an insult. The correct term would be "Free Markets". And sure, free markets is a concept, not an ideology.
                Not correct.

                Here's the thing, "Capitalism" and "Free Market" aren't the same concept and do not mean each other. Yes, Marx coined the term in a derogatory manner and wouldn't probably approve of a Free Market, but they're still distinct things. The term Big Bang was also coined in a derogatory fashion, yet it is the only name we have for the described event, that changes nothing about what it came to mean.

                Capitalism was coined to describe an existing phenomenon, this phenomenon being an emergent economic system, not any particular aspect or theory on this system. It was used in the theoretical discussion, which is not the same thing. And Marx in particular was not focused on discussing Free Market at all, as it was hardly a thing outside theory at the time.

                The term Free Market also has a history of use in several contexts: while Anarcho-Capitalism is recognized as having the extremest view on the concept, it has no monopoly of it, and it is a component in several theoretical and ideological constructs all across the spectrum.

                You have a right to define the terms as you want for yourself, but you don't own them. They have usage and application outside your ideology, and no meaningful discussion can exist if you simply, continuously refuse to accept language as others use it.

                Originally posted by Kakost View Post
                Anarcho-capitalism is indeed an ideology, but it's just the logical conclusion that you cannot have a truly free market while States exist, because a State will always interfere in the markets (even if only for taxation).
                So would say an Anarcho-Capitalism.

                The problem here is that you refuse to find common ground on language, instead stubbornly attaching to ideological concepts and the accompanying opinions. Technical definitions do not exist to forward an interpretation, they exist to foster mutual understanding of what is being talked about.

                When you constantly throw away the definitions everyone uses to insist only on your own view, the only thing you accomplish is to alienate yourself as only people that already agree with you will give you any credit, while others will just be unable to have a meaningful conversation even to consider your ideas.

                Originally posted by Kakost View Post
                I hate people who believe themselves to be Enlightned sages who knows all the answers including what's best for others better than themselves.

                And yet I LOVE the Technocracy, my absolutely favorite faction in the WoD - how's that possible.

                Those magnificent bastards.
                I share the sentiment, although I'm not exclusively tied to them.


                #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs
                #AutismPride
                She/her pronouns

                Comment

                Working...
                X