Oh, you don’t have to - we can see for ourselves that it’s working perfectly. The rich are getting richer and the contemptible poors are getting poorer - as intended.
So which part isn’t working perfectly?
I don’t know what would fix our greed and ego
Blah, blah, blah… do you apologists have anything other than your pathetic (and thoroughly debunked) “human nature” fig leaf to hide behind?
Also ask them why doesn’t most of them have any job.
Weren’t you appealing to the “human nature” fallacy just a while ago?
Is it now “human nature” to have a job, too? What are the people who don’t have jobs, Clyde? Defective, eh? Perhaps… subhuman, maybe?
Come out and say what you want to say, apologist.
because there is far more optimal wa, of making everyone’s life better by actually improving capitalism
“Improving” capitalism, eh? So the poor aren’t poor enough for your tastes, eh?
lol, text me when you feel like actually discussing the topic, because now all you’re trying to appeal to is emotions, not actual arguments. What you’re trying to do is called a demagogy. I came here to discuss the topic with people that are here for exact same reason as me, not to masturbate on my/their own ego.
this time i’ll pretend that you haven’t proven to be immature demagogist only trying to insult your opponent. If this continues, you’ll be ignored as someone who can’t say anything significant though.
Oh, you don’t have to - we can see for ourselves that it’s working perfectly. The rich are getting richer and the contemptible poors are getting poorer - as intended.
Whole my point was about the fact that we can make the rich to disappear as a class, even though it will take some time.
Blah, blah, blah… do you apologists have anything other than your pathetic (and thoroughly debunked) “human nature” fig leaf to hide behind?
And do you? Because humans are flawed, that’s fact. It’s completely fine, but untill they won’t, socialism won’t be the way socium naturally goes, therefore it will be by definition weaker than what we have now, ergo, it just won’t last. Untill you find a workaround for all such fundamental issues, your ideology continue to be a pure fantasy.
Weren’t you appealing to the “human nature” fallacy just a while ago?
Is it now “human nature” to have a job, too? What are the people who don’t have jobs, Clyde? Defective, eh? Perhaps… subhuman, maybe?
It is in human nature to be a part of society. If a grown man doesn’t have a job he’s basically an outsider. Maybe for you it will sound wild, but to have a job is to be a functional human. And given the modern day diversity and acessibility of education and jobs, i guess the guys have failed to fit in the society. It’s unfortunate and we need to think how make so there will be less people falling into this deathtrap, but i don’t see how socialism solves this problems. The homeless ones won’t become functional if they recieve a house, there should be a difficult process of their rehabilitation starting with psychological consultations for the least. They’re not subhuman, simply a poor lads in a bad situation. It’s all just not as simple as anybody would like to thik of it.
Anyway, you really haven’t thought of anythig better than to call your opponent a nazi? How unoriginal of you.
“Improving” capitalism, eh? So the poor aren’t poor enough for your tastes, eh?
you can continue to ignore what i say, and disprove the arguments you have imagined out of thick air, but i doubt you’ll convince anyone in your opinion that way, because it’s even more unoriginal demagogical move than calling your opponent a nazi. It’s calle strawman fallacy, and it just convinces everyone that your point is immature.
Yeah the guy you’re arguing with isn’t great. They should have more consideration for others ideas even if they are flawed.
That being said there are serious holes in your thinking. Mainly that capitalism doesn’t actually align with human values. Humans are not purely self-interested and rational like some economic models are based upon. Human greed is part of what makes the rich behave so badly. You’re arguing that socialism doesn’t fit as well with human nature when in reality capitalism doesn’t fit at all either. Systems that rely on infinite growth don’t even fit with the laws of physical reality.
The true answer is to build a system that aligns with both physical reality and human nature, such a system would likely be socialist in nature, though maybe not. It is hard to say. Either way it should be an engineering problem, not something to get tribal over. You could also try to change humans to fit a given system, but this hasn’t worked in the past. US and China try this all the time, bend people to fit their systems and it just doesn’t work.
Finally, a someone with somewhat actually thought through opinion, not any ideological maximalist.
My main take is that capitalism is a shitty, yet reliable system that actually works through ages. I think that pure socialism is still too revolutionary.
What you said in your second paragraph is actually how I think about it. An engineering task. And in general, your opinion is something I can agree with.
P.S. I think, when social networks like lemmy will take over the corporative ones, we could discuss about socialistic revolution. All this fediverse thing kinda shows to people that you can be both non-profit and successful at the same time. Until then, we have what we have.
My main take is that capitalism is a shitty, yet reliable system that actually works through ages.
This is false. Feudalism and mercantilism are much older systems. Capitalism has only been in most countries since the industrial revolution which still hasn’t happened in some places Capitalism is not only destroying the planet but it regularly has crisis because it doesn’t work reliably. If any of these systems were reliable then war, famine, and poverty would not exist. Some communist implementations might not work with humans, but capitalism doesn’t work with either humans or physical reality as I have said. Feudalism by comparison could at least avoid violating physical laws in it’s time. It is probably not compatible with modern technology and society though.
I think that pure socialism is still too revolutionary.
I would argue the opposite. Most socialist and communist philosophy predates the soviet union. New ideas have been added in some cases, but they still largely harken back to either Marx or Proudhon. These are not fundamentally new ideas any more. While some of them are still applicable I think we need to learn from how revolutions have gone and build newer systems taking only what worked from the old ideas and modern analysis of capitalist and other systems. Trying to make capitalism and socialism work together is like trying to make oil and water mix, it’s possible to make mayonnaise but it is difficult. Maybe we should be making alcohols instead. Something like socialist market economy that is a true socialist ideology but also has markets like capitalism and mercantilism.
I think, when social networks like lemmy will take over the corporative ones, we could discuss about socialistic revolution. All this fediverse thing kinda shows to people that you can be both non-profit and successful at the same time.
Open source anyone?
Finally, a someone with somewhat actually thought through opinion, not any ideological maximalist.
I find it weird you think ideology and pragmatism are opposites. The best ideology is pragmatic and pragmatism is itself just another ideology. Just because I don’t believe in the current ideologies doesn’t mean I don’t like ideological thinking as a concept. In engineering we talk about something called design philosophy which is about the goals of the engineer and how they intend to achieve those goals - you could very much call it opinionated. People call each other ideological to avoid actually disproving what they have to say when they themselves are trying to push a specific ideology. The only way to not have an ideology is to not have opinions or views about things. /rant
text me when you feel like actually discussing the topic
Oh, boo… the “enlightened centrist understander” is pretending to actually understand the topic at hand.
Cute.
the rich to disappear as a class
How, centrist? By “improving” the parasitic systems of exploitation that created them in the first place? What’s next? We fix climate change with a nuclear winter, perhaps?
If a grown man doesn’t have a job he’s basically an outsider.
Oh, wait, is this your grand plan to “improve” capitalism and (somehow) make the rich disappear? By swallowing the brain-rotting ideology they cooked up to camouflage their parasitism hook, line and sinker?
Great plan! They’ll never see that one coming!
but to have a job is to be a functional human.
Sooo… just for the record - your fallacious “human nature” bullshittery does include being forced to earn paychecks?
Hmmm, yes, I see your point. Much natural.
you can continue to ignore what i say,
Gee, thanks. Much appreciated. That comes in real handy when talking (or, at least, attempting to do so) to “enlightened centrist understanders” such as yourself.
You’re not going to get anywhere when you talk to people like this. You keep dismissing the human nature argument without citing any evidence. Some of what they say makes sense. Like how someone without a job or some other kind of work like being a volunteer is an outsider who doesn’t contribute to society and dosen’t recieve much support from society.
The person you are arguing with is missing something though - and that’s that capitalism is problematic because of human nature too. If humans weren’t so greedy capitalism would be less problematic. Rather than human nature being something that only causes problems for socialism it’s something that causes major issues with capitalism as capitalism doesn’t align well with human nature. Heck maybe the actual solution is to remove humans from making economic decisions at all and have computers make them instead; or perhaps even aliens.
Oh, you don’t have to - we can see for ourselves that it’s working perfectly. The rich are getting richer and the contemptible poors are getting poorer - as intended.
So which part isn’t working perfectly?
Blah, blah, blah… do you apologists have anything other than your pathetic (and thoroughly debunked) “human nature” fig leaf to hide behind?
Weren’t you appealing to the “human nature” fallacy just a while ago?
Is it now “human nature” to have a job, too? What are the people who don’t have jobs, Clyde? Defective, eh? Perhaps… subhuman, maybe?
Come out and say what you want to say, apologist.
“Improving” capitalism, eh? So the poor aren’t poor enough for your tastes, eh?
lol, text me when you feel like actually discussing the topic, because now all you’re trying to appeal to is emotions, not actual arguments. What you’re trying to do is called a demagogy. I came here to discuss the topic with people that are here for exact same reason as me, not to masturbate on my/their own ego.
this time i’ll pretend that you haven’t proven to be immature demagogist only trying to insult your opponent. If this continues, you’ll be ignored as someone who can’t say anything significant though.
Whole my point was about the fact that we can make the rich to disappear as a class, even though it will take some time.
And do you? Because humans are flawed, that’s fact. It’s completely fine, but untill they won’t, socialism won’t be the way socium naturally goes, therefore it will be by definition weaker than what we have now, ergo, it just won’t last. Untill you find a workaround for all such fundamental issues, your ideology continue to be a pure fantasy.
It is in human nature to be a part of society. If a grown man doesn’t have a job he’s basically an outsider. Maybe for you it will sound wild, but to have a job is to be a functional human. And given the modern day diversity and acessibility of education and jobs, i guess the guys have failed to fit in the society. It’s unfortunate and we need to think how make so there will be less people falling into this deathtrap, but i don’t see how socialism solves this problems. The homeless ones won’t become functional if they recieve a house, there should be a difficult process of their rehabilitation starting with psychological consultations for the least. They’re not subhuman, simply a poor lads in a bad situation. It’s all just not as simple as anybody would like to thik of it.
Anyway, you really haven’t thought of anythig better than to call your opponent a nazi? How unoriginal of you.
you can continue to ignore what i say, and disprove the arguments you have imagined out of thick air, but i doubt you’ll convince anyone in your opinion that way, because it’s even more unoriginal demagogical move than calling your opponent a nazi. It’s calle strawman fallacy, and it just convinces everyone that your point is immature.
Wish you a good evening.
Yeah the guy you’re arguing with isn’t great. They should have more consideration for others ideas even if they are flawed.
That being said there are serious holes in your thinking. Mainly that capitalism doesn’t actually align with human values. Humans are not purely self-interested and rational like some economic models are based upon. Human greed is part of what makes the rich behave so badly. You’re arguing that socialism doesn’t fit as well with human nature when in reality capitalism doesn’t fit at all either. Systems that rely on infinite growth don’t even fit with the laws of physical reality.
The true answer is to build a system that aligns with both physical reality and human nature, such a system would likely be socialist in nature, though maybe not. It is hard to say. Either way it should be an engineering problem, not something to get tribal over. You could also try to change humans to fit a given system, but this hasn’t worked in the past. US and China try this all the time, bend people to fit their systems and it just doesn’t work.
Finally, a someone with somewhat actually thought through opinion, not any ideological maximalist.
My main take is that capitalism is a shitty, yet reliable system that actually works through ages. I think that pure socialism is still too revolutionary.
What you said in your second paragraph is actually how I think about it. An engineering task. And in general, your opinion is something I can agree with.
P.S. I think, when social networks like lemmy will take over the corporative ones, we could discuss about socialistic revolution. All this fediverse thing kinda shows to people that you can be both non-profit and successful at the same time. Until then, we have what we have.
This is false. Feudalism and mercantilism are much older systems. Capitalism has only been in most countries since the industrial revolution which still hasn’t happened in some places Capitalism is not only destroying the planet but it regularly has crisis because it doesn’t work reliably. If any of these systems were reliable then war, famine, and poverty would not exist. Some communist implementations might not work with humans, but capitalism doesn’t work with either humans or physical reality as I have said. Feudalism by comparison could at least avoid violating physical laws in it’s time. It is probably not compatible with modern technology and society though.
I would argue the opposite. Most socialist and communist philosophy predates the soviet union. New ideas have been added in some cases, but they still largely harken back to either Marx or Proudhon. These are not fundamentally new ideas any more. While some of them are still applicable I think we need to learn from how revolutions have gone and build newer systems taking only what worked from the old ideas and modern analysis of capitalist and other systems. Trying to make capitalism and socialism work together is like trying to make oil and water mix, it’s possible to make mayonnaise but it is difficult. Maybe we should be making alcohols instead. Something like socialist market economy that is a true socialist ideology but also has markets like capitalism and mercantilism.
Open source anyone?
I find it weird you think ideology and pragmatism are opposites. The best ideology is pragmatic and pragmatism is itself just another ideology. Just because I don’t believe in the current ideologies doesn’t mean I don’t like ideological thinking as a concept. In engineering we talk about something called design philosophy which is about the goals of the engineer and how they intend to achieve those goals - you could very much call it opinionated. People call each other ideological to avoid actually disproving what they have to say when they themselves are trying to push a specific ideology. The only way to not have an ideology is to not have opinions or views about things. /rant
Oh, boo… the “enlightened centrist understander” is pretending to actually understand the topic at hand.
Cute.
How, centrist? By “improving” the parasitic systems of exploitation that created them in the first place? What’s next? We fix climate change with a nuclear winter, perhaps?
Oh, wait, is this your grand plan to “improve” capitalism and (somehow) make the rich disappear? By swallowing the brain-rotting ideology they cooked up to camouflage their parasitism hook, line and sinker?
Great plan! They’ll never see that one coming!
Sooo… just for the record - your fallacious “human nature” bullshittery does include being forced to earn paychecks?
Hmmm, yes, I see your point. Much natural.
Gee, thanks. Much appreciated. That comes in real handy when talking (or, at least, attempting to do so) to “enlightened centrist understanders” such as yourself.
You’re not going to get anywhere when you talk to people like this. You keep dismissing the human nature argument without citing any evidence. Some of what they say makes sense. Like how someone without a job or some other kind of work like being a volunteer is an outsider who doesn’t contribute to society and dosen’t recieve much support from society.
The person you are arguing with is missing something though - and that’s that capitalism is problematic because of human nature too. If humans weren’t so greedy capitalism would be less problematic. Rather than human nature being something that only causes problems for socialism it’s something that causes major issues with capitalism as capitalism doesn’t align well with human nature. Heck maybe the actual solution is to remove humans from making economic decisions at all and have computers make them instead; or perhaps even aliens.