hexbear.net is on sale for auction
hexbear.net is on sale for auction
Auction: https://www.sav.com/auctions/details/7073489/hexbear.net
Not sure what will happen, but seems to be a Fediverselore event for sure
Update: post from hexbear admin on chapo.chat: https://chapo.chat/post/4468531
You're viewing part of a thread.
Capitalism isn't an ideological extreme, it isn't an ideology to begin with. Moreover, it's pretty clear you don't really understand what Communism is in theory if you say it doesn't function in reality, rather, it's more of an analysis of societal progression.
I asked you because your point doesn't make any sense to begin with, it's very close to the "I'm 14 and this is deep" idea.
Nah. Capitalism may not, in the strictest, theoretical sense, be an ideology. But it is, in actuality, an ideology. It is not simply an economic system, but rather, a complex ideological web, including an entire set of beliefs and principles about what reasonable behavior actually is. It is, however, an ideology that has a logical and economic foundation - however flawed that foundation and its operational reality may be.
My understanding of communism is fine. Not believing in the ultimate efficacy of your preferred system doesn't make me an idiot. But feel free to sling more mud, it makes you look great.
It isn't mud slinging. Capitalism is a mode of production, the broad ideology of Capitalism is Liberalism. Capitalism, as a mode of production, formed before Liberalism did. Capitalism wasn't an idea, but a system that naturally arose and became post-hoc justified by ideologies like Liberalism.
Communism is closer to an ideology, as it is a prediction for what society will eventually necessarily trend towards. It isn't about preference, it's an acknowledgement of changes in the mode of production as industry advances and human class dynamics shift.
When you describe "pure communism" as not working, what are you talking about, physically? Same with "pure Capitalism?"
physically? That's the point. you don't get "pure capitalism" or "pure comunism". But abstractly, and relevant, physically:
For communism, or public ownership of production (and often, resources in general), the issue is that it is easily hacked by individuals who seek personal advantage by seizing control of the distribution of assets - but the system relies on people not doing that. this occurs both in the large and small scales. on the kindest end, this looks like "the fireman's ball".
For capitalism, or the private ownership of production (and often, resources in general), the issue is that it's sustainability depends on "enlightened" or at least reasonable self-interest, but winning strategies often don't have those characteristics. In effect, when no public-sector oversight is present, capitalistic systems shit the bed. when public-sector oversight is present, capitalistic systems tend to remove it.
Feel free to disagree about any of this, but I don't think I'll be pursuing this conversation further. I don't think it's likely to be fruitful.
I don't know where you got the impression that in Communist systems they would be "easily hacked" by individuals siezing control, what do you think a Communist structure would look like where that would be possible? The Fireman's Ball is a hyperbolic critique, calling that the "kindest end" is silly when reality was better than The Fireman's Ball in the USSR. Socialism doesn't mean everything is perfect instantly, but Capitalism is theft made systematized. Consider reading Blackshirts and Reds for a genuine critique and not just fiction.
Moreover, you explained no advantages of Capitalism over Socialism, and are still making the error of calling Socialism "public ownership" and Capitalism "private ownership."
I understand this means a lot to you, and that you have a lot of reasons to think the way you do. Also, that communicating with others, and winning them over, means a lot to you.
My ideology also means a lot to me, and I have a lot of reasons to think the way I do. ..and I disagree with you on many things. But I don't really care too much about winning people over. I think time will do that for me. ..and this feels more like a battle of wills than a conversation but conversation is why I'm conversing.
Good luck out there.
For what it's worth, I'm confident time will prove me correct as well.
fair enough. :-)