@freemo Is it? Or what else has to happen first?
QT: https://qoto.org/@admitsWrongIfProven/112142265709580499
@freemo I see. Your dream of monopoly control you were silent about for a time. Maybe, some time in the future. Maybe, same chances, some time separate from us. That would be nice.
🇳🇱
@admitsWrongIfProven Monopoly? Are you saying monopolies are an indication of caring for one another? Not sure why your bringing up monopoloies out of nowhere
@freemo The opposite.
Remember BOFH. Absolute power....
@admitsWrongIfProven Yea but in a world where everyone cares about eachother, which is the axiom, how would you have a BOFH, that would be a person who doesnt have compassion no?
@freemo The BOFH is a caricature of what happens already. And our petty squabbles are naught compared to what could be.
Yea well we dont live in a world where people care about each other. So what happens "already" has no relevance to this hypothetical world where people do care about each other. In such a world, as I said, capitalism in its pure form would be ideal. You cant have the BOFH argument in such a world.
@freemo Oh.
The way you describe it, the world should be barren. Seen in the light of utilitarianism, even barring negative utilitarianism, it would be best if nothing existed, in your world.
Goethes Faust strikes again, it would be better if nothing existed :-)
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven i heard one dude say that capitalism, just like socialism, if left alone becomes a runaway process that ends up in a bad extreme. He claimed both should balance each other out. 🤓
That was me.. ive said that many times (though maybe you mean someone else). Pure ideologies never work, it isnt about runaway, they are failures the moment they exist, they just generally rarely exist. Most things dont start out pure and only fail once they get pure or approach it.
For example there is no completely pure capitalism or communism or socialism in existence today. In fact, aside from a few countries almost every country today is primarily capitalist with some socialism elements.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven hmmm.. might be, but I recall it from a video. You might have said but I don't recall.
I think he said: run-away socialism => communism, run-away capitalism => ... I forgot ... Tyranny?
I think I'm wrong on the last part.
I suppose they meant capitalism runs away to Corporatocracy.
But this is misleading as corpratism isnt really a system of government but rather represents a distribution of power. where communism is a different system than socialism... like one can argue communism is the "pure" form of socialism more easily than one can argue corpratism is the pure form of capitalism.. but we are in the weeds here.
Personally I would say all of these are cvery different things (communism is where both the means of distribution and productions are owned by government, and socialism is where just the means of production is), and almost no countries today are either of these most countries are some form of capitalism with social welfare programs, and I would argue social welfare is not a reduced form of socialism.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven hmm .. yeah that could be. Those -isms are less well-known to me. I'll lean on your knowledge there.
About socialism and communism: I get the distinction you're making, but I think the idea of that guy, centered around taking away capitalism as counteracting force, then at socialism your next logical/natural step would take you on the road to communism. I can see that happen. But, sure, socialism and communism themselves are distinct.
I guess it depends on how he was using the terms.. the terms are abused quite a bit and even officially there are conflicting definitions.
To really pick apart the statement (Which i think we agree on in principle at least) id really need to know what he means by "socialism" and how socialism cvan even exist without any capitalism in place and not just be communism by definition.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven it was a short video. I can't find it anymore. He wasn't as careful in choosing words, because it was meant as a general message. You're certainly close, and certainly more accurate.
Thanks for clarifying. 😄
Fair, yea when it comes to these terms most people arent too careful, and frankly it can be hard to be without defining it yourself since the official definitions themselves are so varied.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven it is what I meant indeed.
Sorry you meant Corporatocracy not corpratism. I mixed them up in my head accidentally.
@admitsWrongIfProven Nope, and once it is is the day capitalism would be flawless And there would no longer be a need for social programs.