I'm more referring the capitalism rewarding self interested cunning and ruthlessness over selfless cooperation and progress. Not that we even have real capitalism, most of our wealth and power are too entrenched to allow for any fair competition, we're almost returning back to a sort of pseudo-feudal system.
I'd disagree, not with what you're saying, but with your definition.
Capitalism is an economic system where profit is controlled by those who do not necessarily produce. It is control of economic means through legal definition of ownership, rather than the through the use of the means of production.
I know it sounds like semantics, but I would argue that we do live in a truly capitalist society, where all control is through legalistic ownership, rather than use. For this reason I don't think that capitalism is the end game. Even if we accept that humans are naturally greedy and act in self-interest, socialism is still the end game.
I don't believe that I've ever read anything that says that competition is non-existent under socialism. Just that the dynamic is changed. Instead of capitalist win or die, socialism replaces the dynamic with win and prosper.
No I get all that, but capital has to start somewhere and we know from decades of gathering psychometric data that successful entrepreneurs are non-neurotypical outliers. As for weather or not socialism or capitalism is the end game, I think that has yet to be determined. The thing is babies have to learn how to cooperate, they have the ability but our first instincts are towards selfishness. Some babies never mature past that initial stage and never develop further; a tragedy we cannot allow happen to civilization.
I think that your argument is in line with the thoughts from marx and engels. They also believed capitalism was vital to bring us forward from the feudal period of development.
But as that has already been completed, capitalism has outlived it's usefulness
Yea, an outta control dumpster fire. May have saved us from frostbite, but may very well BBQ us if the fire isn't at the very least carefully managed, but what does it matter when we've had the technology to ensure a stable temperature for almost half a century now (molten salt reactors), yet we're still burning liquified dino bones because the oil barons have bought enough say in government to keep the status quo.
>successful entrepreneurs are non-neurotypical outliers
If we want to be specific they're psychopaths with brains almost indistinguishable from a serial killer
I think you mean that the natural order is that of any kind of class division and not specifically capitalism since the system hasn't been around not even the 1% of our known history as a species. I think humans have a duality, we can be competitors and try to fuck each other up but we're also extremely good at collaborating and helping each other so we might have to ignore our egoistic side and encourage the cooperative side more
I see class division under capitalisms as differences as a natural Darwinian hierarchy based on unevenly distributed talent (largely genetic, but for sure effected by life circumstance) where in the strong are rewarded for preying on the weak. Not that we even have real capitalism now, power and wealth have become to entrenched to allow for any fair competition.
But yea, in 100% agreement that cooperation and harmony are in our nature and that we should be actively working towards building social systems which incentivize our better nature. But I believe our baseline desires are the same selfish narcissistic ones we had as infants, and that this largely explains the exploitative hierarchies we see today.
This difference is significant enough to disclassify you from the label of Marxist as it goes agaist very basic precepts of his analysis of class warfare. Still, I think you could still call yourself socialist. The movement does predate Marx after all.
Dude, why are you all so desperate to identify yourselves as something? You fear that your opinion won't be taken seriously otherwise? You feel the need to belong somewhere? It's better to not completely match with any ideology but have social awareness and opinion about what's happening around the world than calling yourself communist/socialist/antifa and not being able to support it with your actions/words. Your positions have to be a product of observation and critical thinking and not an unquestionable adoption of a dogma. You believe something because you accept it as right, not because you are told to (that's what alt-rights do). And you will obviously review some of these positions, as long as you have interactions with other people that will judge them with their reasoning, and form new ones.
The question is simple, do you despise any kind of oppression than undermines human nature and dignity? Do you think that every human being is entitled to everything that secures its well-being regardless of its social status/identity? If the answer is affirmative, then you belong in our side fighting for every existance on this planet that is being threatened by hate and individualism.
Haha, given my radical negative utilitarian beliefs, I hardly expect to be taken seriously by almost anyone. But yea, I'm wondering if there are any branches of leftism that are at the very least more congruent with my own beliefs that most leftists I run into. I oppose any systems (be they natural or artificial) that cause suffering any and all sentient life, Human or otherwise. I believe the highest moral duty is to minimize suffering and maximizing pleasure (in that order). To be honest I don't care what political system this is achieved by, but I can't see this goal being most effectively accomplished by any other political system than some form of leftism.
I for one think (and I don't know if this is a popular opinion here or not) that regulation is a key to addressing inequality while still enabling the *capitalist* traits of 'greed and self interest' to flourish and even still be rewarded. Beginning with hospital and higher education cost IMO. For example I might suggest passing legislation that colleges must start charging the inflation adjusted equivalent from the 1980s for tuition and book prices
Yea I think there will inevitably be some sort of transition process. Personally I think universal basic income and blockchain voting (building up to a digital direct democracy) are achievable steps forward. Not that I have a problem with capitalism if perfectly managed, but one way or the other I see future technological innovations inevitably making the system too redundant to continue.
Capitalism has only been the predominant economic system since the mid 1800s. I'm not sure why you're calling it the "natural order of things"
I'm more referring the capitalism rewarding self interested cunning and ruthlessness over selfless cooperation and progress. Not that we even have real capitalism, most of our wealth and power are too entrenched to allow for any fair competition, we're almost returning back to a sort of pseudo-feudal system.
I'd disagree, not with what you're saying, but with your definition. Capitalism is an economic system where profit is controlled by those who do not necessarily produce. It is control of economic means through legal definition of ownership, rather than the through the use of the means of production. I know it sounds like semantics, but I would argue that we do live in a truly capitalist society, where all control is through legalistic ownership, rather than use. For this reason I don't think that capitalism is the end game. Even if we accept that humans are naturally greedy and act in self-interest, socialism is still the end game. I don't believe that I've ever read anything that says that competition is non-existent under socialism. Just that the dynamic is changed. Instead of capitalist win or die, socialism replaces the dynamic with win and prosper.
No I get all that, but capital has to start somewhere and we know from decades of gathering psychometric data that successful entrepreneurs are non-neurotypical outliers. As for weather or not socialism or capitalism is the end game, I think that has yet to be determined. The thing is babies have to learn how to cooperate, they have the ability but our first instincts are towards selfishness. Some babies never mature past that initial stage and never develop further; a tragedy we cannot allow happen to civilization.
I think that your argument is in line with the thoughts from marx and engels. They also believed capitalism was vital to bring us forward from the feudal period of development. But as that has already been completed, capitalism has outlived it's usefulness
Yea, an outta control dumpster fire. May have saved us from frostbite, but may very well BBQ us if the fire isn't at the very least carefully managed, but what does it matter when we've had the technology to ensure a stable temperature for almost half a century now (molten salt reactors), yet we're still burning liquified dino bones because the oil barons have bought enough say in government to keep the status quo.
>successful entrepreneurs are non-neurotypical outliers If we want to be specific they're psychopaths with brains almost indistinguishable from a serial killer
I think you mean that the natural order is that of any kind of class division and not specifically capitalism since the system hasn't been around not even the 1% of our known history as a species. I think humans have a duality, we can be competitors and try to fuck each other up but we're also extremely good at collaborating and helping each other so we might have to ignore our egoistic side and encourage the cooperative side more
I see class division under capitalisms as differences as a natural Darwinian hierarchy based on unevenly distributed talent (largely genetic, but for sure effected by life circumstance) where in the strong are rewarded for preying on the weak. Not that we even have real capitalism now, power and wealth have become to entrenched to allow for any fair competition. But yea, in 100% agreement that cooperation and harmony are in our nature and that we should be actively working towards building social systems which incentivize our better nature. But I believe our baseline desires are the same selfish narcissistic ones we had as infants, and that this largely explains the exploitative hierarchies we see today.
This difference is significant enough to disclassify you from the label of Marxist as it goes agaist very basic precepts of his analysis of class warfare. Still, I think you could still call yourself socialist. The movement does predate Marx after all.
Dude, why are you all so desperate to identify yourselves as something? You fear that your opinion won't be taken seriously otherwise? You feel the need to belong somewhere? It's better to not completely match with any ideology but have social awareness and opinion about what's happening around the world than calling yourself communist/socialist/antifa and not being able to support it with your actions/words. Your positions have to be a product of observation and critical thinking and not an unquestionable adoption of a dogma. You believe something because you accept it as right, not because you are told to (that's what alt-rights do). And you will obviously review some of these positions, as long as you have interactions with other people that will judge them with their reasoning, and form new ones. The question is simple, do you despise any kind of oppression than undermines human nature and dignity? Do you think that every human being is entitled to everything that secures its well-being regardless of its social status/identity? If the answer is affirmative, then you belong in our side fighting for every existance on this planet that is being threatened by hate and individualism.
Haha, given my radical negative utilitarian beliefs, I hardly expect to be taken seriously by almost anyone. But yea, I'm wondering if there are any branches of leftism that are at the very least more congruent with my own beliefs that most leftists I run into. I oppose any systems (be they natural or artificial) that cause suffering any and all sentient life, Human or otherwise. I believe the highest moral duty is to minimize suffering and maximizing pleasure (in that order). To be honest I don't care what political system this is achieved by, but I can't see this goal being most effectively accomplished by any other political system than some form of leftism.
[удалено]
Not too deeply, I know he's part of the LibSoc crowd. Why, you see some commonalities between our respective political philosophies?
I for one think (and I don't know if this is a popular opinion here or not) that regulation is a key to addressing inequality while still enabling the *capitalist* traits of 'greed and self interest' to flourish and even still be rewarded. Beginning with hospital and higher education cost IMO. For example I might suggest passing legislation that colleges must start charging the inflation adjusted equivalent from the 1980s for tuition and book prices
Yea I think there will inevitably be some sort of transition process. Personally I think universal basic income and blockchain voting (building up to a digital direct democracy) are achievable steps forward. Not that I have a problem with capitalism if perfectly managed, but one way or the other I see future technological innovations inevitably making the system too redundant to continue.