Do I need to pick a side? Can I not think both have flaws that should be addressed? The criticisms aimed at capitalism by Marx are incredibly valid, his solution clearly not so much based on real world attempts.
I think if anyone is viewing this through a tinted lens it’s you. Your position is very black and white with no actual care for honestly comparing the two ideologies. You’ve made statements that show a fundamental lack of understanding of both systems and the faults you lay at these governments aren’t inherent to them being communist as I explained earlier.
Capitalism hasn’t been corrupted because the underlying values and tenants of the ideology are functioning exactly as intended. Communism is a utopian pitch with a glaring flaw in implementation that allows strongmen to form authoritarian control. Capitalism by design rewards those that can operate profitably regardless of ethics, which ensures an inherently dystopian outcome. If it’s better for business that a mass murderer like Pinochet takes power then that’s the optimal decision from a capitalist model. US involvement the Middle East and Central/South America has almost always been to benefit a US based corporation that was exploiting and extracting the natural resources of those places. A system that allows and encourages the concentration of economic power is inherently corrupt and self serving towards the elite at the top.
That last part was me describing an instance where “no true Scotsman” literally isn’t a fallacy. Words have meanings, if I call you a duck you’re still a person. If something doesn’t fit the established definition then you can’t honestly say it does.
Capitalism is absolutely not functioning as intended and has 100% been corrupted… if capitalism worked as intended, then why have companies been “bailed out” from failing naturally under capitalism? Capitalism has failed just as much as everything else has failed, and has been corrupted by the people in charge just the same. Communism doesn’t work, Capitalism doesn’t work, nothing we have right now works.
And you literally still don’t understand the concept of “no true scotsman” lmao. It is also known as the “appeal to purity”. Let me be more clear:
If someone has Scottish ancestry, is born in Scotland, naturalises to Scotland, or is born and raised within largely Scottish culture, they are Scottish. It doesn’t matter where that person was born or where they live. To say that someone cannot be Scottish unless they fit your specific definition and criteria is the exact fallacy being referenced, and you actually just doubled down on that thinking that it somehow makes you not guilty of that fallacy? Wild.
They get bailed out because corporations have the funds to capture government, which isn’t at odds with capitalism. Not sure why you think that’s betraying capitalism, the system is about controlling means of production and siphoning funds off the top, buying government is the natural result to maximize profits.
Communism as an ideology rejects unjust hierarchies so when an authoritarian takes over its directly at odds with the ideology. Capitalism embraces any hierarchy that emerges as long as it’s profitable so when capitalists corrupt governments to make it easier to make more money it’s not a betrayal of the ideology, it’s working as designed.
And since you’re too stupid to understand what I’m saying:
If you’re born in Thailand, never set foot in Scotland and never even start any process to gain citizenship then you aren’t fucking Scottish no matter how much you claim you are. I made this very clear the first time when I said the person in this example was born somewhere that’s NOT Scotland and also said they spent their entire life NOT in Scotland. So clearly they weren’t born there, have no ancestry, and aren’t trying to move there, still think they’re right when they claim to be a Scotsman?
For all your condescending snark you clearly can’t read.
Lmao you are actually incapable of good faith, probably because of how obviously angry you are hahaha
You are still trying to argue that your idealized theoretical version of communism is what needs to be accepted, but that a corrupted and condemned version of capitalism is what capitalism is inherently at its core. By your own standard, communism is equally abhorrent because of how it has been actually implemented in the past.
A company getting bailed out is not capitalism. It is socialism. A capitalist society implementing corporate socialism is a corruption of the core ideology of capitalism. I will agree that it is the end goal of corporatism, but corporatism is a corruption of capitalism.
And wow you really still don’t get the “no true scotsman” thing… I mean you probably do but once again, you are only putting bad faith forward. Since you clearly need it spelled out in detail, let me just copy this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “No true Scotsman”:
The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:[7][3][4]
not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified assertion
offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample
using rhetoric to hide the modification
Oops, you accidentally did all those things. You never retracted your assertion, you modified the assertion with further qualifiers, and tried to downplay that further qualification. You actually pulled a “no true scotsman” on a statement about someone being a scotsman. It’s so on the nose that you MUST be a troll lmao
Do I need to pick a side? Can I not think both have flaws that should be addressed? The criticisms aimed at capitalism by Marx are incredibly valid, his solution clearly not so much based on real world attempts.
I think if anyone is viewing this through a tinted lens it’s you. Your position is very black and white with no actual care for honestly comparing the two ideologies. You’ve made statements that show a fundamental lack of understanding of both systems and the faults you lay at these governments aren’t inherent to them being communist as I explained earlier.
Capitalism hasn’t been corrupted because the underlying values and tenants of the ideology are functioning exactly as intended. Communism is a utopian pitch with a glaring flaw in implementation that allows strongmen to form authoritarian control. Capitalism by design rewards those that can operate profitably regardless of ethics, which ensures an inherently dystopian outcome. If it’s better for business that a mass murderer like Pinochet takes power then that’s the optimal decision from a capitalist model. US involvement the Middle East and Central/South America has almost always been to benefit a US based corporation that was exploiting and extracting the natural resources of those places. A system that allows and encourages the concentration of economic power is inherently corrupt and self serving towards the elite at the top.
That last part was me describing an instance where “no true Scotsman” literally isn’t a fallacy. Words have meanings, if I call you a duck you’re still a person. If something doesn’t fit the established definition then you can’t honestly say it does.
Capitalism is absolutely not functioning as intended and has 100% been corrupted… if capitalism worked as intended, then why have companies been “bailed out” from failing naturally under capitalism? Capitalism has failed just as much as everything else has failed, and has been corrupted by the people in charge just the same. Communism doesn’t work, Capitalism doesn’t work, nothing we have right now works.
And you literally still don’t understand the concept of “no true scotsman” lmao. It is also known as the “appeal to purity”. Let me be more clear:
If someone has Scottish ancestry, is born in Scotland, naturalises to Scotland, or is born and raised within largely Scottish culture, they are Scottish. It doesn’t matter where that person was born or where they live. To say that someone cannot be Scottish unless they fit your specific definition and criteria is the exact fallacy being referenced, and you actually just doubled down on that thinking that it somehow makes you not guilty of that fallacy? Wild.
They get bailed out because corporations have the funds to capture government, which isn’t at odds with capitalism. Not sure why you think that’s betraying capitalism, the system is about controlling means of production and siphoning funds off the top, buying government is the natural result to maximize profits.
Communism as an ideology rejects unjust hierarchies so when an authoritarian takes over its directly at odds with the ideology. Capitalism embraces any hierarchy that emerges as long as it’s profitable so when capitalists corrupt governments to make it easier to make more money it’s not a betrayal of the ideology, it’s working as designed.
And since you’re too stupid to understand what I’m saying:
If you’re born in Thailand, never set foot in Scotland and never even start any process to gain citizenship then you aren’t fucking Scottish no matter how much you claim you are. I made this very clear the first time when I said the person in this example was born somewhere that’s NOT Scotland and also said they spent their entire life NOT in Scotland. So clearly they weren’t born there, have no ancestry, and aren’t trying to move there, still think they’re right when they claim to be a Scotsman?
For all your condescending snark you clearly can’t read.
Lmao you are actually incapable of good faith, probably because of how obviously angry you are hahaha
You are still trying to argue that your idealized theoretical version of communism is what needs to be accepted, but that a corrupted and condemned version of capitalism is what capitalism is inherently at its core. By your own standard, communism is equally abhorrent because of how it has been actually implemented in the past.
A company getting bailed out is not capitalism. It is socialism. A capitalist society implementing corporate socialism is a corruption of the core ideology of capitalism. I will agree that it is the end goal of corporatism, but corporatism is a corruption of capitalism.
And wow you really still don’t get the “no true scotsman” thing… I mean you probably do but once again, you are only putting bad faith forward. Since you clearly need it spelled out in detail, let me just copy this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “No true Scotsman”:
Oops, you accidentally did all those things. You never retracted your assertion, you modified the assertion with further qualifiers, and tried to downplay that further qualification. You actually pulled a “no true scotsman” on a statement about someone being a scotsman. It’s so on the nose that you MUST be a troll lmao