This thread is permanently archived
what is your unironic political/economical ideology?

| i like to call myself an unironic soulist but people don't really take that seriously so i just tell that I'm a transumanist and an ancom

| Egocommunism

| It's called "I just wanna do the fucking job I like, leave me alone".

| Im an ism

| >>698284 go back to grilling

| Step on me ism

| >>698296
ey i like ya

| Ancom/transhumanist/solarpunk at least as far as labels go.

| >>698284
Basically this

| centric-right, liberalistic

| Anarchocommensalism: if it doesn't hurt anyone, it's OK to do it. For example, having sex with a sleeping person is OK if you clean everything up so there's nothing they can notice about it, don't disturb their sleep, don't infect or impregnate them,, i.e. no consequences to them.

| >>698589 That's what we call POLITICS!

| Basically communism, but with a transparent, democratically participative and kybernetically aided economy. The creators of communist ideas were far ahead of their time, but now the technology and knowledge is available and the end of capitalism as we know it is still unavoidable.

| >>698731 bruh no, just no

| i dont know what these -isms are but i just want to not die in the foreseeable future

| >>698744 as long as i can have a sustainable and fulfilling life I will be fine, tbh I really wish everyone could think that way

| >>698740
What a narrow-minded attitude.

| >>698634
No, POLITICS actively screwing someone over while they're convinced you're helping them. Totally different.
Enlighten us. How is that cybercommunism not an informatic police state nor surveillance state?

| >>698813 comunism with an economy and trasparent governament, im not narrow minded, either you are too idealistc or you just created a another system and it thats the case just say that you created a new one and give details, because the info you gave us makes you sound like an idiot
Sorry it that sounds too rude, just explain better

| >>698874 from what he have said seems like some sort of anarcho communism so i really don't get what>>698864 means by talking about "police state nor surveillance state" (maybe i just did not understand what he was trying to say)

| >>698878 just make a long text explaining it

| >>698864
>Enlighten us. How is that cybercommunism not an informatic police state nor surveillance state?
It's easy: Because it's the opposite of the informatic police and surveillance state we get in capitalism. The means of information (such as production) are owned by all people and they can democratically decide how and what for to use them.
No, it's not anarchism. There still is a state, but it organs are separated and democratically controlled.

| >>698874
>either you are too idealistc
Distinguishing between "idealists" and "pragmatists" without any argument is nothing but a cheap propaganda trick. Everyone can do this. In the end it's all about interpretative sovereignty.
>or you just created a another system and it thats the case just say that you created a new one and give details, because the info you gave us makes you sound like an idiot
You mean like >>698740 ?
Also "go in the detail" with only 500 characters... LOL

| >>698864
At the current state of things here I basically agree with you. But for me there could (and hopefully once will) be politics without that egomanic capitalists logic - e.g. by abolish the stupid capitalist system once and for all. Maybe you just lack of imagination and trapped yourself in pro-capitalist dogmas that proclaim pseudo-scienific pseudo-practical pseudo-constraints.

| >>698744 >>698751
Would you really like to keep/have a live that is only possible based on other peoples costs, and not the result of your own work?

| >>698883 oh ok, got it, i quite like it to be onest

| >>698884 you can post multiple 500 character replies, and kinda cheap that you avoid going in detain but still thinks what you are saying is right, people cant read your mind, either explain it or accept that people dont get it

>>698887 what part of sustainable you didnt read? Sounds like you got offended and is trying to discredit anaything I say, even though I never said anything of importance or debate worthy

| >>698883
Its not bad, especially as a transitional phase. But i still dont like the idea of a state or even a real economy. They are too easily corrupted, and too corrupting on peoples minds. And are hard to get rid of. I supose having it be controlled by computers and true direct democracy would be less dangerous. But still, I've become convinced that power structures are just bad for people and are the main reason humans display cruelty and apathy at all.

| >>698900 state is important because people by themselves can easely corrupt themselves and do minor selfish actions that in great quantity means general chaos

People will corrupt themselves you like it or not, its not any governaments fault, people just suck and idependent of the system you live in there will always be on fucker to ruin everything

| >The means of information are owned by all people
Gesundheit. Do tell how one'll have any control of data one can't read.
If everyone can read it, anyone can use it however. Privacy prevents prejudice.

| >>698900
The only way to have no economy is to have no transactions. Where there is a transaction, there is, however small, an economy.

| >>698954 imagine not trading and selling because its "too fragile and exploitable"
Tbh people who say no economy ussualy dont think how absurd it is to not put values and how trading and money helped to create bridges between cultures and countries, also the huge amount of quality of life improvements
Money is only as powerful as we make it to be
Greedy people are just slaves of the system who cant think past it

| >>698949
The means of "productive information" are owned by all people. All personal information is reduced to the absolute necessary minimum and anonymized maximum possible.

| >>698948
Why people are driven to selfish action in the first place though? In general its to preserve their place or to climb "higher", or some abstraction of that. And others let them get away with it because we believe it is normal. I don't mean to say that there would be no evil at all. But a society of people that are self governing in a system that rewards collective action over selfish action will be able to achieve more than one based on climbing made up power structures.

| >>698964 if you define an economy simply as "trade" than i supose we will always have some form of economy. However abstractions like money are detrimental. As is limiting the value of things through something as fickle and manipulable as "supply and demand". Its also foolish to limit basic nessecities to "commodities", when we have far surpassed the ability to provide for everyone.

| >>698973 i dont think you get it, but I will try to explain
Money is as valuable as we make it to be in a colective enviorment, wich worth more? A bottle of water or the money to buy a bottle of water? Well its obvious the answear, the phisical water, money just represents value but its not value in itself, in a society without money they would hoard phisical resources and the corruption would be just as bad, just look at history

| In the medieval times they would hoard food from the peasants and simply let them starve even though they control over all the money
Banishing money will wont solve anything

>>698972 bruh no matter the system even in communism there will be people that will want more, people are not inherently hive minded, you cant control their minds, and no system will, communist wont solve corruption, self governament wont either

| People will create alliances and see how they can exploit the self governament by hoarding as a group and creating a hierarchy, and when you see there will be an elite again.
Its not about the system, its about how there will always be bad people and the best solution for that inst endeing capitalism because any system could work if there wasnt corruption
The solutions is a good justice system that punishes people for their bad actions,

| If corruption existes before capilism, money, economy, abstraction of value, technology and etc then the problem isnt on any of those things, its so obvious but people dont take into consideration that humans are flawed and we can be very nasty to each other, communism can only work if people arent corrupt and are all hive minded but if it was like that capitalism would be perfect too.

The problem isnt the society its the inherent flaws of us as a species.

| >>698991 >>698994
In our earliest history people did not behave as selfishly as you might think. The history of corruption extends back to hierarchies pre-capitalisim, which is why i want to work on removing hierachis as well as capitalisim. We have the instinct to care for each other because its benifical to our species, selfish instincts are fuled by a desire for selfpreservation within a system that demands "growth" in a hierachical sense. (C)

| >>699021
People are not just randomly evil for no reason, at least the vast majority of people. Even if it were "in our nature" to be maladaptive there is no reason we shouldn't try to move past that, however a hierarchical system like the one we live under is not going to encourage people to do so. To only consider the function of something like communism through the lens of how people behave under capitalisim or other hieracical systems is flawed.

| >>d95e08 I think socialism is going in the opposite direction of this optimism you mention, which may lead to authoritarism. Once the original motivations and coercions of capitalism disappear you need new methods to keep things getting done and control the masses. Corruption is certainly a problem everywhere, but some systems might be less corrupt than others and it would worth the effort to determine which of them are and apply them.

| >>699031 i mean you ajust telling me to that I should change the easy to corrupt system to a slightly less easy to corrupt system so in the end corruption is still the proble and capitalism has nothing to do with it

| >>699023 democracy isnt hierarcal, its governament for the people and people for the governament, its supposed to be cyclical, but some corrupt people is what keeps breaking the cycle and hell no, people form before are just as bad as nowadays and if you look at history we actually got better in therms of not letting a super currupt governament control everyone because we have a more strict morals and bete judicial systems, you are just leaping some logical hoops and so it fits

| >>699021 also funny how the most records of corruption were made in the time where humanity started to register more stuff since they were actually getting payed to do it since it became a real job

Corruption has always existed and we arent naturry inclined to be nice to eachother, we are way more neutral and made to care about our "tribe" wich would be smaller groups, just like most big apes

| >>698900
>I supose having it be controlled by computers and true direct democracy would be less dangerous.
The Problem here is: who builds, owns and operates those computers?
Also "(direct) democracy" can lead direct into mob rule. There are historical examples. Problems start, if the rulers only think and act according to their personal advantage - also if everyone rules.

| >>699033
I mean, yes, we should always be striving for something better, especially if it is within our means.

In prehistoric times people cared for the elderly and infirm, even if they didn't "contribute". Tribalism has actually been proven to be suprisingly easy to overcome under the right circumstances, and is pretty fickle to begin with. I truely dont belive that people would be cruel to each other without reason.

| >>699040 they cared for the elder becuase they could teach and were held in high regard for being able to live for long times wih wasnt normal in that time
If people can be good to bad people just because they are part of their group then people can very much be bad to someone because they are not part of their group so people can be bad for no reason, just look at bullying and racism all these issues are driven from no objective reason we are emotional creatures like any other

| >>699039
Yes, i agree that is a major problem with computers... I supose we could have some kind of self creating system, but even those can develop baises.
I also believe more decisions should be made locally, which would probably aliviate some of the issues. But no it isn't perfect. I don't think it's possible to conceive of an ideal system within the one we live now. So we just have to take it as we can.

| >>699040 you are not wrong just not taking into consideration that peoples minds are chaotic and we do a lot of dumb shit for not objective reason, you do have a point but I think its much better to punish bad people instead oc changing our very ways of living just to have the ilusion that bad people arent there or less visible to our eyes

| >>699043 i feel like you are from the opinion of "blame the sytem not the people" and Im more of "blame the people not the system"
my opnions stands from the fact that we built the system so its flaws are our fault and any problems should be analysed and solved at the moment
While you think that changing the system will make so its harder to be compromised wich is a very short sighted decision since its only a matter of time before they exploit it

| >>699042
Yes. It is more beneficial to humanity to care for each other. However within our current system people are encouraged to screw each other over. A lot of the origins of something like rascicim can be traced back to economic or religious origins. And rascicim in our current age has been kept in place by people in power wanting to keep in "tribes" because it benifits them. People fall for it because of economic/hieracical reasons.

| It better to deal with a problem on the spot instead of creating a bunch of dangerous decisions just to prevent a problem that is caused by a minority of people wich in this case would be the corrupt elite

| >>699048 not really, you thinking as if the system is controling people when in reality if people really are screwing each other more and more over because of capitalism than this would be the proof that we are inherently bad and we only care about ourselves, wich according to you is not real
And I say its peoples fault not the system, we should punish corrupt individuals instead of chaging everything to prevent such issue for a few decades

| >>699045
I know people are chaotic, but i believe the way we live now doesn't encourage people to act in a way that will benifit everyone, including themselves.

I do take an environmental approch to everything, because a lot of the science I've learned supports that position. People are individuals, but they way they express that is determined heavily by the environment. (C)

| >>699048 also no, by that logic capitalism, hard work, meritocracy and money would have to be invented by the "racists" wich is a fake, multiple nations used these systems for themselves even before contacting one another, europe and asia had their own currency even before knowing each other
These concepts are not inherently racist and are only being exploited to be, deal with the the racists and it should fine

| >>699055 you forgot, culture, religion, history, influence, their natural quirks. It only enviorment was what determined behaviour then we would have free will and everyone would be a clone of themselves wich would mean no flaws since everyone understood everyone

| Our environment even has an effect on our genes. I belive capitalisim and systems of hierarchy have had an incalculable effect on how humans behave. But i dont think its impossible to surpass that, and i think it would result in a better society for everyone.

Its not as though the system is -controlling- people, just that it's encouraging certain behaviors which are maladaptive.

| >>699058 proceeds to say that enviormente influences a big part of us from apperance to genes, behaviour and decisions

Also says that its not control its just a tendencie and behaviour encouragement

Not very consistent,and by that logic nature made us make capitalism and so nature would be the real enemy, you are ignoring human nature and calling blaing capitalism wich is a mere reflection of human nature

| >>699057
I was including those things in "environment".

I'm more saying that racist behaviors were and are encouraged by capitalisim/systems of control. Rascicim is also systematically ingrained at this point so we can't just get ride of the racists and be done with it. It just doesn't work like that.

| Again you are not wrong, you ajust ignoring the human nature and balming capitalism in a colective way instead of blaming the individuals

| >>699061 but they arent, racism existed before capitalism, capitalism was naturally developed by many ancient nations and it wasnt a product of just a racist person trying to take over the world, capitalism is a reflection of human nature as in, it is the system that the majority of people decided to live by just like a democracy

| >>699060
I don't nessecarily see how those are contradictory? I agree that capitalisim/hierarchy did come from environmental factors, many of which no longer apply to our current world, and so we should work on doing away with them, because i dont believe they will lead to the best society we are capable of achieving. Of course, it's all a lot more big and complicated and grey than I've been able to express.

| >>699061 your problem is clearly with racism but you are blaming capitalism, you are avoiding the issue and blaming your frustations on a system instead of the few bad individuals(racists are a minority out of the 7 billion humans) that are causing the actual problem, and thats kinda dissapointing because a lot of people think that way so no wonders curruption is always prevalent in history people refuse to actually sove their problem and choose to blame something else

| >>699064 they dont apply to our current world because we changed the world with capitalism
Also no shit thats what ive been telling you, its way more grey and complex than that, and taking such reckless and bold decision such as changing the way everyone lives is not the right option and that you should reevaluate your decisions so that you dont screw it up

| If the issue is racism solve racism, dont preach for a societal overhaul that will cause more conflicts complicate things even more
If the problem is inequality of resources that solve that with small but precise and calculated solutions, dont throw away all of our natural progress for a new brand that makes everything confussing

| Im not saying that I have the solution because i dont, all my "solutions" were just shallow sugestions, but what im telling is for people to stop and think how their ideas can be flawed and not work just like mine and that we should make more careful decisions instead of radical changes that could make a huge disaster if gone wrong

| >>699065
Ok, but people are products of the environment they were raised in. Its a self perpetuating cycle that is very hard to break out of on an individual level. Sure people can and should work on improving themselves, but if a system rewards you for screwing over other people change isnt really going to meaningfully happen.

I do think we could have change the world in a better way. But its where we are now. And we shouldn't just accept it as the default.

| >>699068
I don't think i have as much power as you i do haha...
I would be more on board with slow change if it weren't for the impending climate collapse.

| >>699069 its not a vicious cycle, every time we had a problem we had a time of war, then a time of peace and progress wich lead to the escalation of another problem
Its like a spiral, every turn we learn something new and get a bit of progress, breaking the cycle means breaking everything we learned, let humanity keep going with capitalism as it is what people choose to live by, eventually it will change into a new thing, radicalism is bad

| >>699071 when people notice that climate is problem, people will try to solve it, againg its better to let people fix the problem that are affecting them so that they learn the lesson, isntead of chaining down everyone to prevent issues that nobody gets
Even if we explained to everyone they would act on emotion and do it anyways, thats whay its more effective to solve problem as they escalate not before they grow

| Nature changes slowly, we evolve slowly, everything happens slowly, why should we hurry so much? I know that it sound like some old disconected budist trying to preach the young gen, but radicalism always led to negative changes in history, nazism, concentration camps, gulags, chaz, anti vaccine, relegion fantism, crusades and etc, radicalism never worked in nature and never will all it did was hinder evolution for while just like the meteor of the great extinction

| >>699074
People have noticed, but the ones who are responsible for most of climate change are not going to do anything about it. They also have enough money to influence the government more than people ever could, and enough money to influence the public through propaganda.

| >>699076
I agree that slow change is probably better. But things are rapidly collapsing. And even if they weren't, it's still unjust that we have the resources to make the world better, but we just dont. It would be nice if we could take our time, and i dont believe rapid change will happen anyways. Its also change that must happen on many fronts and in many different ways.

| >>699076
Also i think you might have heard some inccorect things about chaz if you're putting it in the same categories as those other things...

| >>699077 do you really belive that people would only notice it when the whole planet is literally burning? Have some faith, especially because we wont even be alive at that point
>>699077 while we o have the resources we cant just say screw it and rob from the rich and give to the poor it needs to be natural ans slow so people can learn, adapt and live that way

| >>699080 they failed no matter how you look at it, they didnt educate people on how to live that way, they farms wilted, they lacked many important jobs such as doctors and people who could build and create stuff, crime was rampant, their leaders were radical and behaved reckleslly when dealing wih conflict
The movement was radical as in going totally against society and being too diferent that what we have
Thats all I have to say in regards to chaz nothing more

| >>699082
I mean, it's burning already, and people are making excuses and still trying to pretend it isn't happening. Its not that I hate the people who don't believe, but its unavoidable they will always be there.

The ultra rich became rich by unfairly exploting the labor and resources of people, so honestly I think we are well within our rights to give everyone a fair share. It can be through taxation or whatever, but they are an unquestionable drain on society.

| >>699090
I feel like i need to clarify. People who don't believe in climate change have been largely manipulated by a propaganda machine that is largely funded by people who would loose out on lots of money if we change our ways. So i dont hate them or anything, i just feel like we can't really wait for them.

| >>699092 they will learn the lesson eventually or will die in ignorance, thats how it works, if climate chnage is real(wich is) they will see it happening and try their best to solve when it starts to bother them.
Unfournantly in a collective society you cant take quick decisions so if you want to think in a collective way then you have to wait for those who are beheind and dont rush in front of everyone for sake of your ideals and logic even if they are right

| Funny that im explaining how collectivism works for someone who thinks we should think more about the others and in a more cloective way

| >>699101
And a non collective society is capable of making fast decisions? I believe that has been shown to be untrue. It is that i believe in a collective society people would be motivated to make choices that actually beenfit others/themselves in a real way, and not some abstract monetary way. If you look into how billionars and people in power think about climate change and other issues, even ones that believe, it's very disheartening.

| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/20000-feet-under-the-sea/603040/
There's a part in this that touches on what i mean.

| >>699107 and you learned nothing...

| Im not dissagreeing cuz I think the opposite is right I disagree because you are to narrow minded to see the bigger picture and how your belifes dont take into consideration a lot of factors, im not gaiving you a solutions just saying that your way is wrong and you should reevaluate it, you dont need to take my path just rethink your choices darn it

| >>d95e08
If you do the same I will. I don't know if I've properly explained my position because the arguments you've given dont seem to fully match what i actually mean. I have considered my position over many years, and learning and thinking. And i think that you are discounting it because it is too far from your own and are only think of things through the lense of how they are in the present.
I am going to research and consider the historical origin of hierarchies though.

| >>699115
It is the trouble with words, especially short words sections like this. I have to boil things down too much to try to get the point across... And i am not very good at expressing myself in the first place.

| >>699115 but i never gave my opinion what are you talking about, heck And the "opinions" I gave were just some shallow ideas that need a lot of professional input to be something, just stop and think a bit, you are blaming a system that you think creates problems but said problems existed before the sytem

| The system according to you should be completely changed because you think there is a better one, and that the collective should be more into decisions, but the collective made and choose the current system, so the collective choose this verey system we use and you are sying that we should do a new system so the colective has more freedom when they are the ones that decided what they wanted

| You say that humans are more inclined to good and collectivism, yet you also say that the greedy people are using the sytem to oppress others wih individualism, but also the system was made by the colective and you want to break it because the system can be exploited by greedy individuals that are part of the collective and group themselves to be an elite, meaning the the elite is also a smaller colective

| Taking all that into consideration, the individualism stablished by the colective to sustain individuals is wrong and you think that by changing the system into a new one that promotes collectivism will stop said individualism

Did you notice how it will all just cycle back into the collective giving powers to certain individuals and then they will form their own colective elite?

| Wouldnt it be better to just deal with said individuals instead of changing the whole collective?

| Again just deal with the greedy people and society will be fine, no need for social reform, just stronger rules, and if there is the need to change something(not everything) we just change it, thats all especially because there was never a need to change everthing at once because with more slamller changes over the time we eventually reach a new point in evolution while also not running a 180 over all of our history and legacy

| >>699153
Well... I'm not sure if I meant to say these problems existed before the systems I am talking about. I've been trying to argue that greed is not hardwired into humans. Which if you look at early human civilizations (or even others that existed for longer), it probably wasnt. Because greed is not benificial.

| >>699154
I don't really think people ever activly choose to build a system in a certain way. And i will admit that in history when people have tried to build a better system, it has failed for various reasons, which I could go into why it happened. The systems that exist primarily respond to the "needs" of the time, even if they are irrational needs (such as monarchy and religion). And the continuing existance of "capitalisim".

| We have outgrown it in our ability to produce, and we should try to work to outgrow it in a sociological sense. I know it probably won't happen in any of our life times, but its something we ought to be open to talking and thinking about.

| >>699155
Idealistically weather or not humans are good or bad is not really what im thinking about. People are encouraged to be greedy under the system we have now because that's how you survive and how you get rewarded. But this behavior is suboptimal because our current system is set up in a way that funnels resources to the control of just those on top.

| >>699157
I don't know if i fully understand what you mean. If the system is such that people are not rewarded for greedy action at the expense of others, because there are no hierarchies to climb and they do need to to survive, than i dont really see how that would be likely to happen. You are thinking of it in the lenses of how people think now, when we really can't know how people would act under a different system. I don't even really know, i just think it would be better.

| >>699159
If that were possible that would be nice i supose. But a system that relies on greed will continue to encourage people to act greedy, because they believe they have to.

Well we got rid of official hereditary monarchy(in most places), and people generally think that was a pretty good thing. I also gennerally think our history is full of all sorts of missteps and tradgedy which we should not be looking to repeat, and should probably be working to activly correct.

| >>699346
Capitalism is not inherently greedy when will you realise that? greed is whole other thing that should be faced by itself, if capitalism was greed then most people wpuld be greedy wich isnt the case

We naturally outgrew monarchy because people started to desire for democracy, with some revolutions but in a overall natural way where most people(the collective) decided to do it

| >>699345 if even you are not sure then how can you say that its better? Why go for such work of social reform for a chance to get better? Its much safer to expand on what we have then radicaly shift to another system that we are not sure it will work, thats not thinking for tje collective thats forcing ideals onto the collective to make then do what you want, even if the intendtions are good forcing people is wrong
Hitler cared for germany but his actions were radical and forceful

| And the only way to change into anew system is to destroy the previous one, how will ypu make that change? Are you willing to shed blood? People wont just accept such a change and there will be counter revolutions, why do you think system changes never worked? You will have to kill to make those changes
Thats why slow but precise changes ate better than quick radical shifts. Thats how people do it naturaly

| And to expand on a example hitler only choose to discrimimate the other races and religions because he needed to radicalise people so they wouldnt revolt on him, then he could do all he wanted to change the rules and deny the debts and ww1 treaties to mitigate the crisis and "restore germany to its former glory" he did all that to change to system and it worked but at what cost? Millions of lives

| Ussr just made the gulags and killed every revolitionary of their own peopulation, no matter how you look at it they all had to kill for societal reform, romans also did that, many smaller examples exist, human behaviour is not something you can just control like that for the greater good, let people naturally evolve and develop, radical shifts only cause more trouble for society and hinders natural evolution

| >>699376
Weather or not you want to call it capitalisim, and go by the idealistic deffinition of that word, our current system provably funnels resources to the control to people who are able to exploit others, to the detriment of everyone. This is a system that rewards greed, because the goal is "profit", even to the detriment of others. Profit is not synonymous with happiness or progress, and there are a million horrible examples of this.

| >>699383
I agree Hitler did what he did to maintain power. That's what I've been trying to say, having a society which encourages people to seek power over others is a bad thing and we should work to find a way to prevent it from happening as much. Weather its communism or something else. Also i dont think anything Hitler did "worked" to change anything...

| >>699384
I am not at all a fan of the USSR because they maintained a state power structure, and killed people to maintain it, but If you want to talk about the deaths of the USSR as a counterpoint, then we should also consider all preventable deaths under modern "capitalisim". https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/wh75hilyrtgy-644x855.jpg
(There are sources on this image, i point it out because its hard to see)

| >>699384
The world is already shifting quickly, regardless of if we are ready for it. The internet has had a massive impact on how people think and how quickly we are able to share ideas. Automation is also on the horizon and lots of people will be out of work and destitute if we don't do something. Capitalism and systems of control dont exactly encourage evolution from what I've seen...

| >>699380
And no, as much as I wish it would, an immediate revolution on the scale that is nessecary wont work and is not possible. Within my life there are steps i think people could take to ease the transition. Universal basic income. Ranked choice voting. A better education system that is set up to actually teach people, not just get them ready for a work force. Tax funds going to community support. Ending lobbying. These are things which will ease the burden on people.

| >>699418
Also there have been successful revolutions, and semi successful socialist states. Its just half the time the US attacks them because they are percived as a threat to its own system. Which is why it has to be a world wide shift. Which is... really difficult. And has never happened befor, but in all of our history we have not had the ability to communicate, and the ability to fufil everyone's needs, in the way we do now.

| >>699420 and it wont happen, unless there is another world war, if you really cared about people you wouldnt want any of that but it seems like you want to change everything just to be right. That mindset is what leads to power hunger and greed, greed is linked to profit in most cases but profit isnt linked to greed. Humans are more complex than that yet you ignore that to nake it fit your ideals, you dont care aboit the world, you just want live in your own utopia

| You want a better world but you are not willing to rethink your own goals and even how to reach said goal, this show ls a great lack of patience and recklesness, if you wanted to better the world you would be willing to hear everyone and see their problems so you could actually solve them, not destroy their lives and all they know to stablish a new governament that might work but will just make thinks confusing

| >>699491
No, another World War is what we will get if we keep things going like we do now.

| >>699491
I'm not sure how you can say capitalisim isn't based around greed. If you look at capitalisim, it's pretty clearly observable that it's a system that rewards greed and explotation.

| >>699491
Its silly for you to think that I havent listened to people and considered their problems. Its litterally how I've come to the conclusions I've come to. There's a commonality in the suffering of the world, and the behaviors that we would chalk up to people being "inheriently" "evil". Which is what I've been trying to express. Of course there will (probably) always be suffering. And there is suffering caused by things outside of capitalisim and control (sort of).

| >>699494
I also have barely touched on how i realistically think said goal would actually be best achieved, and why a revolution will probably be inevitable/good. I've mostly been talking in idealistic termes, because i am an idealist, and if you think thats a dangerous scary thing to be, then you might want to ask yourself why. If you want me to discuss actual "plans" and materialistic "predictions" we can do that.

| And yes I do want to live in a utopia. And the type of utopia i want is just not possible under capitalisim or state control.

Its probably true. I really hope not because nukes though. And i think we should try to do what we can to prevent it.

| i used to think capitalism was big ebil but as i started working i realised it's mostly a system in which people provide for their own selves based on their usefulness>>699556

| >>699576
Funny since i used to think what you think, and then i started working and learning more and i changed my mind. It would be ok if it actually worked like that, but its pretty observable that it doesn't. It only rewards certain types of labor and "sucsess", even when those things are actually detrimental, and even when the possibility and quality of human achivment is beyond what could be achieved in the system we have now.

| >>699588 it does work like that tho, you are looking at the greedy elite wich is minority and assuming that the whole system was made for them when in reality they are just bad people that shouldnt be in their positions and achived it by cheating, they are not being rewarded by the system, they broke the system to get rewarded
Its like wanting to delete and redo and intire game because there are hackers in it, ban the hakers not the game devs

| Your utopia isnt what we need nor what we deserve, its just what YOU want and what You think we want but you are just making things more complex and more convoluted while dodging the main issue wich is bad people being in power, no matter the system they will always find a way to break it, so we should deal with them

| >>699567
>Its probably true. I really hope not because nukes though. And i think we should try to do what we can to prevent it.
It's not really the question what to do. If you dig to the roots, the most logical thing is overthrowing capitalism. The only but also big question is how.

| >>699695
people aren't really acting freely on their own. The system has an impact on how people behave. Changing the system also changes peoples behavior.

| >>699750 no, if you dig the roots the most logical thing is to get rid of bad people. Stop being delusional, and get to the actual problem

| >>699755 then why arent you controled by the system? Are you a special person or something? How entiteled of you to assume you that you are the one who sees the truth

| >>699691
How is a system set up to generate "profit" rewarding people who generate the most profit not functioning as it's supposed to.

Yes, ok, i agree we should remove "bad" people from power. However they are going to be replaced by more "bad" people. This is the reality of systems of control.

| >>699758
Yes, i was and still am controlled by this system, i have greedy, cruel and selfish behaviors. And i consider myself pretty slow minded, so i do think everyone is capable of understanding it and each other in their own way. A systematic approch is more consistent with how our reality currently functions.

i really dont know why you think i think i have the ability to overturn the government or force people to do what i say.

| >>699760
Actually, slow minded is the wrong concept. i don't focus.

Also i haven't really described the type of utopia i think people are capable of achiving, and is likely to happen. Of course there are a lot of possible outcomes. I'd just like it if the future was good and not ruined by war and climate collapse.

| >>699759 if more bad people appear, wich obviouly will happen,we take then down again, thats stupid, why are you assuming that changing the system will somehow make it impossible to get corrupted? Thats so idealistic and close minded, its like those people that think violente games create violence
By your logic greed only existed when capitalism came to be, wich is not true

| >>699763 you aknologe your flaws but still doesnt see how they affect your own way of thinking, you literraly telling me that you just want to change everthing to create your own utopia and you dont see how thats invasive and wrong, marx wanted his utopia, hitler wanted his utopia, Romans wanted it, napoleon did too, and you dont notice how you are in the same mindset, its fucked up dude

| >>699768
Ok, please explain to me why you think "bad people" exist in the first place.
Also for fucks sake, I've been using capitalisim as an easy example of all systems of control. You keep getting hung up on this historical point. I'm not just talking about capitalisim. And also history is more complicated than you think it is, it's not easy to just blanketly compair these things, especially to apply them to the modern age.

| >>699775
And our modern age is rapidly changing weather you want it to or not. Post-scarcity is within our reach, but it will be disastrously uneven if systems of control are allowed to continue.
If we change the system to something wich no longer rewards "corruption" than the ammount of "corruption" will go down. Its good for you if you're having a fine time under the current system, but lots and lots and lots of people are really not, and the planet is also not.

| >>699769
Obviously I'm flawed, and obviously my flaws and desires color how i see the world. Its the same for every person in the world. I try to improve myself, but if i were to live in the way that I think would be truely "vituous" i and my family would probably starve to death, because we need money to survive. If you ask me to reflect than you must do so yourself. Why do you think some people are just naturally bad? What does it even mean to be "bad"?

| >>699769
Those who you mention wanted control, in various ways, which is litterally the oposite of what i want. I ultimatly don't want anyone to be in control of anyone else, that is the whole point. There are also historical figures who are considered "good" who also wanted control, and gained it. Its just that they happened to win.

| >>699768
Also about the video game thing... I don't think video games -cause- violence. But its a bit more complicated than that. You should look into how the military uses video games and movies as recruitment aids.

| >>699768
Also what do you want to do about the people that will suffer every time a new "bad person" is able to take control? And those that will be hurt as they take control? And what do you plan to do with these "bad people"? Do you think your plan of how to keep the world "stable" will result in ultimatly less suffering than a "revolution"?

| >>699775 bad people exist because humans are complex creatures, I never assumed people are bad, I just said there will always be bad people, and thats a fact, as why they are bad? Then it becomes a whole another talk, that cant be just dulled by saying that capitalism makes people bad, thats just a stupid assumption that is blinded by bias and ignorance

| >>699776 all systems "reward" corruption because any system can be exploited, stop thinking that changing the system will end corruption, thats just an ignorant and utopic way of thinking that doesnt take reality into account

| >>699777 how do you not know what a bad person is? I never said that some people are inherently bad, my whole point is that people are more neutral in certain aspects, and stop faking ignorance, you know very well what I mean by bad person, greedy, disrespectful, selfish, etc those are the people that corrupt the system that you choose to simply say its corrupt when it just some assholes being greedy

| >>699781 not even gonna debate about that, just know that nobody uses games for military propaganda anymore, get with the times

| >>699793 well if we deal with the bad people that exploits the system these people will naturally be able to either be compensated or rise by themselves, you are literally not thinking if you dont realise that

| You are so clouded by your own utopia that you ignore reality and refuses to think how the world works, grow up, society will be fine as long as we deal with bad people, the only problem is that people like you keep diverting others from the real issue, instead of dealing with the bad individuals you choose to blame the intire world, we dont need a revolution we need more justice and education, so go study and grow up, life isnt a movie

| And please read what you wrote here so you can see yourself in a mirror

| >>699826
Yeah they've moved on to having esports teams.
My point was mostly that it happened at all. I also can't really find anything that says they've stopped. I just dont think you are paying attention if you think media doesn't have an effect on people, the point of almost all media is to have an effect on people. If that isnt what you meant, I'm sorry, it's usually what people mean when they bring up the violent games thing and its a real big peeve of mine.

| >>699822
The conversation as to why people are "bad" is very relevant and what I've been trying to express. You think that any system would be courruptable, but you are only considering this from the point of veiw of how things are now, and how people act now. It does not have to be this way. People are not "bad" for no reason. Greed and selfishness are expressions of self preservation within a system that rewards those things.

| My point with asking you "what is badness?" is to try to point out that it's an extremely maliable concept, and can be changed depending on context, as can the idea of "goodness". (And ive seen some pretty wack definitions of what people consider "bad".) People have to be greedy and selfish to survive with the way things are now, or at least turn a blind eye to selfishness.

| But its based on an idea of scarcity that is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and is outright manufactured in some cases. We could probably be closer to a post scarcity society if we stoped doing all the extra bullshit that capitalisim has lead us to create. There is so much labor (by labor i also mean things like thought, and creativity) and resources wasted in the name of "profit", that I would frankly consider it unjustifiable.

| The same was/is true of monarchies and organized religion of course, before you jump down my throat about capitalisim again. This isn't going to be changed by just removing the "bad" people, by not changing the existence of power structures (in the form of various things) you create a dynamic in which both positions see each other as a threat in some way, leading to actions being taken in the name of self preservation, which are more likely to be self serving.

| I am being extremely vauge because this is extremely complicated and difficult for someone like me to explain in words.
Part of the problem with having a vertical power structure is also that it implies something is "more good" than something else. Which when you consider it is an even more maliable and difficult concept to define than "bad".

| You've been dismissing what I've had to say as utopian and fanciful this entire time in an extremely condescending way, when most of what i think is based around observable reality, which you keep just denying when I've offered to provide examples. And I've been doing my best to discuss what you keep talking about, but you and i keep going in circles.

| And, honestly these are arguments i have heard before, and many of the ones you've made, at least as far as I understand, i dont really consider relevant for various reasons which I've tried to explain, but apparently done a shit job of. Like I've said, I've barely touched on what i think are actionable plans to improve people's lives in the short term (as in our lifetimes+50 years, realistically), that would ease the inevitable transition away from our current system.

| UBI, ranked choice voting, encouraging more local action and involvement, a better education system, a not disgustingly corrupted justice system (which was corrupted by the influence of money and religion), removing religion, money, and politics from each other in general, giving more support to local governing bodies while encouraging people to get involved, reducing the existence of personal baise in positions of power. I'd be happy to also talk about these.

| But you can't seem to even acknowledge the very real systemic problem, which is observable if you actually pay attention to how things work and why people do "bad" things. And it's going to continue standing in the way of most social change in the name of "profit" and control.

If you want more real world examples of why capitalisim/systems of control are unjust and inefficent by their very nature, I'd be happy to give you some.

| If you want to discuss more on the nature of evil and its origins in relation to and also outside of systems of power I'd also be happy to do that. If you dont want to engage in discussions of how we can improve the world for everyone and are fine with a "fine" society, that's fine for you. Go grill or whatever.

| From what I've learned and observed the real utopian thinking is expecting things can just continue as they are and everything will be and is "fine".

| I'm gonna post some examples of what i mean anyways. You can look or not, if you do, and you want to give me some actual examples of what you mean, then i will do my best to understand.

Senseless waste in the name of preserving profit/control: https://youtu.be/TBGbDvqBQA8

The flaws of capitalisim: https://youtu.be/EM7BgrddY18

Profit motives cause crises: https://youtu.be/zGcKURD_osM

Systems of control cannot deal with anything outside the "norm": https://youtu.be/Ewhn45odBr8

| If you want i can give more, or discuss differnet things in depth. Ill admit my main areas of thought are to do with things like media, the production of art and copyright.

| Also, sorry most of my examples are about capitalisim specifically, because lots of people are directly harmed by that system. Those are just what i have immediatly on hand, i can look for more general examples if you want.

| Ok im gonna say it again and I hope you get it, the system was corrupted by people, not because it was a system in it self, case closed and thats it.
Im not syaing that changes are bad, im saying that radical changes are bad, all the thing you showed are not wrong, the is that YOU are wrong, you take all that evidence and use it to fulfil your disire of an utopia, you have a bunch of confirmation bias and you should really rethink your ideals. Thats all I mean.

| People are products of their environment, and our current environment has a lot of problems. The environment was the result of a complicated past of scarcity and prejeduce and the percived nessecity of control. This is literally the truth, and i guess its not possible for me to convince you of this. i will be more on the look out for specific conforomation bais. I supose. I guess all i can ask is that you consider doing the same.

| One more for the road i guess.


| >>699879 i mean you not just just not taking that at the same time it was created with control in mind, We are the control, we made society to fit our confort and that everything is an artificial bubble from nature, and that the enviorment we created was not made to be corrupted, it Was corrupted by people who think its ok to step on others, and thats the thing you should evaluate, the system is not corrupt, people are, we have to deal with people not our life style

| A system made by people was corrupted by people, and that there is no way at all to avoid that unless you kill and enslave everyone thay goes a bit out of line. You cant control how bad and good people are unless you control people. You are being a apologist of what you want to end because its for your utopia, and I just want you to realise that

| If capitalism cant control people because "the enviorment it creates" then why can your utopia exploit the same? Where is the "free will" of the people on that? And dont use the "greater good" card because it is bullshit and has always been an excuse for hipocracy and only lead to more corruption

| To sum it all up, enviormente takes a tool on people but not as much as you think since we have free will, we are imperfect and infinetly complex so the only way to make everyone follow your mindset is to be next hitler, there will always be corrruption and times of conflict, and there is some hipocracy to your utopia that tries to exploit what capitalism supposedly does to people but for the greater good.

| Oh btw im really liking this discussion, even if it can be summed to us just repeating the same arguements, I think that areally viable way to analyse and review our arguements, since everytime we repeat ourselves its slightly different than before so we increase the nuance and the complexity over time and eventually some conlcusions, im sure we bothe learned a lot of stuff and I hope you feel as fulfiled as I do

| I'm left leaning but I try to keep an open mind on stuff. I have some post scarcity views or maybe techno democratic socialism bollocks?

| My ideology is Libertarian Communism

| >>699985
Im sorry, i ended up going on a whole ass rant again to try to properly explain where I'm coming from. Still don't think i did a good job, and i don't feel like dividing it in chunks, so here's a pastebin link. https://pastebin.com/vPygAAZQ

It is helpful to discuss these things though. Even if i have issues and troubles with discussions with words.

| >>700013
I like the techno democracy stuff, especially as a tool for transition. If we have to have a centralized governing body, I'd prefer it to not have people in direct power. We could have a system where people (ranked choice) vote for policies and societal action. I do think there are massive problems with this ideas, and steps which could be taken mitigate these problems, and then it becomes a question of how much is worth it or not.

| >>700025 i do get you poont and your intetion is not necessearly wrong, just missguided,look at how hipocrate it is to want to control people even if its for your vision of what is best, I recommend rereadin this whole discussion from the start and see how it evolved, its very fascinating

| >>700028
It is very facisnating. I guess i just still dont know if if properly expressed my point. the arguments you make could apply to some people who talk about the nessecity of the end of capitalisim, and even of all systems of control. I think part of the problem is that i started from square 100 of what i thinkā€¦ and that I've been jumping between levels of the theoretical in a way that has probably confused my point. But i don't really know any other way to express myself.

| >>700028
This is so long, i dont blame you if you dont read it honestly. I was trying to better understand and respond to your points, more so in the second half.


| Here's a couple more examples of systemic troubles

This link has sound adds that auto play, just a heads up.


Why do a revolution: https://youtu.be/m-2xv5Yfehs

| >>699063
>but they arent
of course they are!
>racism existed before capitalism
nah, not really. Racist ideologies are based on social-darwinism, which came up when darwin found out about evolutional mechanisms.
>capitalism was naturally developed by many ancient nations
there are no "ancient nations". The idea of a nation is much newer then ancient societies.
>and it wasnt a product of just a racist person trying to take over the world
I honestly never heard about this thesis.

| >>699063
>capitalism is a reflection of human nature as in, it is the system that the majority of people decided to live by just like a democracy
It seems that you did not understood how much the idea of a "human nature" you proclaim conflicts the idea of free will you also proclaim. Either there is a human nature and nothing is decided by people or people decided how to organize themselves and there is no human nature. Both things can hardly coexist.

| >>700253 man just think a little bit about your statement and the logic beheind it
>>700254 i think your brain is too limited to see how free will and instinct have play in our minds

| >>700256
Ah, so you're escaping to esoterics, like pro-capitalists always do. Ofc you're the chosen one, who has access to supernatural truths, and anyone else is just too limited to see it. You just behave exactly like you blame others to Pro-capitalist:
"Uh, Marx and Engels are too predictional"
Also pro capitalist:
"Capitalism is the End of History"
And then talking about the "logic beheind it"...

| >>700292 have you ever read a book about psycology? Or talked to someone that knows something on that field? People have stuff like basic instincts, intuition, emotions, personal taste, etc, people are a mix of free will and their own instinctual self, its more subjective and complex than that but its not really rocket science, there is nothing wrong with saying that we have free will and instincts because we are that way, we are contradictions

| >>700292 also really funny how you talk as if you have a super moral high ground while shaming a whole political spectrum as if they are inferior, sounds like a politicak fanatic trying to convince someone by screaming how "evil and wrong" they are while failing to provide your own point and just being rude and failing to sound intelligent

| >>700294
>we are contradictions
Oh yes let me spit some newspeak esoterics too:
>War is Peace
>Freedom is Slavery
>Ignorance is Strength

| >>700295
>also really funny how you talk as if you have a super moral high ground
Ah, yes suddenly I'm the evil snooty prick here. A gentle reminder:
>i think your brain is too limited to see how free will and instinct have play in our minds

| >>700295
>haming a whole political spectrum as if they are inferior
They are. Or can you explain what happened to most of the once "god chosen" nobles and clerics from the feudal era? I have an explanation: They became outdated and were removed and now their lame excuses like "The ways of the Lord are inscrutable" and "sinful humanity must repent" And the same will happen to your capitalist schemers with their "human nature" and "free will" contradiction

| It would be nice if we could truly have "free will" but with the way things are now, and have been for much of our existence, i dont think its truly possible. There are a lot of things we need to get rid of, and environmental factors that need to be overcome befor we can properly have and use "free will", to the extent that people like to pretend we do.

| >>700297 you started to act rude, im ignorant to ignorant peopel so shut the fuck up
And yeah you brain is not capable of understanding that concept as you clearly didnt even bother to think about it for a while and started to lump it with stupid phrases that are clearly real contradictions

| >>700307 by your logic peole had free will in the past but now dont, wich means that if we "give back" their free will they will use to remove it again. Wich means your logic is very much not effective in the long run

| >>700298 well these ideals are what they used to explain paranormal stuff, keep peole secure and safe, unite the population etc.
There is no correct political spectrum because they are more like 2 forces constantly pushing back one another

| We have the past stuck right wingers that want to preserve the traditions and hold the morals while the rebelious and chaotic left wingers want to change and revolt against eveything
So we have a radically pulling force and a radically pushing force
They nilify each other and help society to advance at a moderate pacing wich is very much good since radicalism only leads to disasters, dictstorships and more wide spread conflict

| >>700315
I'm trying to agree with you that humans do have/are capable of free will. But are also so influenced by our environment, which is also changed by human action, it's really hard to actually draw any line between the two. Changing the environment will change "human nature" and change the nature of "freewill". Our current environment is provably detrimental, so we should change it.

| >>700320
Humans can certainly work on improving themselves, and being "better". But my ultimate point through most of this is that it's hard to change to be "better" when your environment is structured in a way that prevents it, or doesn't reward it. For numerous reasons. While others are allowed to have control over others we cannot expect people to act as their best self. I am being extremely general and vauge because its very complicated.

| >>700321 dude who are you? Hell, define you, like are seriously, hoe can you have ideals and say that you are right if you dont even belive that you are you? What lack of reason and security do have to make you think that you cant be you because capitalism? Like, im not trying to be rude, im actually being serious, how insecure of your own existence and of life as whole to doubt your own free will and of your species as a whole?
No wonder I see people calling others an NPC

| You define you, and your instincs define you, there are two sides of the minds, a more rational and a more primal one, we have bothe and while one side is affected to to the enviorment the other can be whatever you want as long as you THINK, because its rational, people who dont have free will dont think, you saying that you or other people cant have free will because capitalism and blaming your own mental laziness on capitalism
If you wanna be free, THINK!

| >>700324 >>700325
Alright look. I've been trying to be nice. I've been trying to explain myself so many times. I'll keep it to capitalisim, because that seems to be the hang up, even though it goes beyond just capitalism and i find people who keep their anylisis to just labor relations and the conditions of capitalisim and not stuff outside that to be kinda annoying.

| >>700340
The system of capitalisim exists to produce "profit" we can argue about what exactly "profit" is, and i would say its a form of control, but ill try being nice and just say that profit is i dunno... growth or something...

| >>700341
Sure, i can free my mind and be an individual and all that, and i do my best to. However, i (unfortunaly) have a pysical body, which requires sustenance and shelter, how do I get those things? Realistically i have to rely on other people for those things. Which is not a bad thing. I know individualist brain rot is strong, but when people work together we are provably capable of achiving more.

| >>700342
And when people use and exploit others for their own end, everyone suffers, probably even the people "on top" because they now have a precarious position to defend and have probably slowed the progress of everyone around them, knowingly or not. So where did this instinct to exploit others come from if it isn't benifical? and if we all (mostly) understand on some level that working together is more productive than why don't we?

| Well historically i would guess that it originated from the trauma of not being able to understand things like natural disasters and instances of scarcity. I'm mostly guessing, but tbh i care way less about history because i am more concerned with the present and the future. So I'll try to give a present very charitable example, the real world is full of examples 1000 times worse than this stupid story i made up:

| My stupid story i made up to try to explain how the mindset of "bad" actions in capitalisim is a result of the conditions of capitalisim

I've tried to give this imaginary bisness owner the nicest most generous mindset, especially at the begining, that i could, because im trying so hard to prove a point.

| People do horrible things because of profit motives, if you think that is just because individual people are greedy, you are litterally not paying attention to how things work in the real world. Funneling profit into the hands of those at the top is litterally the function of capitalisim.

| If you want to pretend it is a meritocracy so it's fine if those on top get the most, this is litterally, provably not the case, there is no one deffinition of "best" so even if we could somehow achieve a meritocracy, it would be stupid anyways. Which I've already discussed, if you're hung up on it again, i can try to give more examples.

| But the world is so complicated and I've already glossed over so much, just in that stupid story that i still feel like you won't get it... Which is fine i guess... just please, every time you see something that you would consider evil, especially the actions of a company, just keep thinking beyond "some people are just bad"

If you want to talk about how my stupid imaginary coffee shop story might happen under "communism" or what ever, i can also do that.

| >>700348 you know, i your analysis was pretty good, but your forgot something very basic, wich is "limit" if your character really was a good person then they would know their limit, greed people arent bad because they want stuff, theyr bad because they dont know when they have enough, most people feel content to be able to fullfil their basic necessities and have some more to get extras like some enterteinment and etc, even rich people have a limit

| The greedy corrupt elite has no limit, they want more and more to no end, not because capitalism, its a compulsive behavior that ussually has to do with trauma and other negative things, these people are mentally ill and lack both the notion of limit and empathy, diferent than most people, most peole know and have the ability to feel bad and know their limits
Your freedom ends where the freedom of the other starts

| So thats why I say that profit is not evil, its like a rock, you can use to craft, to play to hunt, but if you want you can use it to kill someone, and people who are unable to see when they should stop using said rock will become the power hungry and use it to the point of indirect self harm, thats what the "evil elite" is, people who cant see the when they should stop to want profit

| Most peole know are happy with having enough to have a house, nice food and some fun, with rich peole ussually having wierder definitions of fun, but even then the rich are always into some depression or shit there is a reason not every person is as greedy as some bad people out there, even if they live in a enviorment that encourages profit they deep down know that feeling sastisfied is more fullfiling

| >>700353
where is the limit supposed to come from within capitalisim? Growth must be shared and must be controlled (as long as we live in a material reality). Most people say they have lines they wouldn't cross, but given enough push they can justify evil behaviors, and given the conditions of capitalisim, we are all forced to make evil choices. This is what people mean by "no ethical consumption under capitalisim".

| Its also true that depending on the context an "evil behavior" could be seen as a good one.This happens all the time in capitalisim, where "profit" is used as a justification to do evil things.

| I think a lot of ultra wealthy people actually believe they are helping people, they (from what I've read) often consider themselves uniquely equipped to use their money to change the world for the better. But one person, or even a small group of persons is not suited to deciding the flow of resources.For an example here is a video about Bill Gates: https://youtu.be/ZSnXI93lY-0
If you want the part, most relevent to what i mean, it starts around 9 min in, rest is context

| I also think that the mindset of the ultra wealthy could be compaired to cultleaders. Often in cults, the leaders will take drastic action to keep their members under control. Though this is something I want to think more about.

The trauma and illness reverberates through the whole system, and effects people in tiny ways on a daily level. It is an injury of a thousand tiny cuts, and not a singular injury, which is what makes it so difficult to talk about.

| I would agree that "profit" is a tool. Depending on your deffinition. If you mean growth as motivation, i would agree that is a good thing, as long as there are limits. But capitalisim as it exists provides no motivation or structure for those limits.
The point is mostly that a system of "profit" is not a very efficient system. Functionally, "communism", as defined by "workers owning the means of production", is a good -step- i think.

| >>700375 this just proves my moint that walthy people usually dont have it togheter mentally speaking

| If the resources of the world are controlled by everyone (Which by right they ought to be, since everyone in the world has a hand in producing resources), or even just if every person's basic needs were met, than there will be far less motivation or (vertical) structure to support people exploiting each other. And these resources can be used more efficiently, because those that are working with them probably have the best idea about how to use them. To put it super super bluntly.

| >>700379
I mean... I would probably agree, even though i think its kinda reductive to just end it there...

| >>700381 well its a conclusions, and tbh the journey is better then the conclusion in it self

| >>700377 >>700380 the problem with communism is that everyone has to be a hard worker, dont think for themselves, be willing to share everything, not have any private property even the smallest of scale, not have ambition to do more because it would just be a pain for others and give more work, no espcialisation since it elitises work and makes one seem more valuable, and a bunch of other things.

| Communism literally holds society back and is stagnates progress for the sake of equality, people should not be equal on all aspects because we are individuals and because of that the system crumbles sinco not every is willing to work just make one thing and nothing more, you cant progress with communist, and you have to take peoples freedom and force them to do what they dont want

| Like tbh, capitalism isnt perfect but really covers he most basic of foundations for a healty society, thats why I dont want to change it radicaly, it think that if we chnaged rules(not the system) to fit the needs of humanity we will eventually reach a new system that becomes eveb better, and thats why I mean by "capitalism is the representation of human nature" its solid but flawed and with small chnages over time it evolves into soemthing better just like DNA

| >>700384
Maybe under forms of authoritarian "communisim", or the communisim that exists in propaganda, that is the case. Thinking about it I do not understand the link between "people own and control what they produce, while people take what they need and give what they can" to, everyone will be forced to work and be "equal" in a way that would hold back society. Our current society holds people back by requiring they contribute to a "profit" that is controlled by someone else.

| I also do want to point out that i think people would work happier if they were entitled to "own" what they produce.

I would agree that communisim is not a perfect system, but i also dont think we can properly understand what an ideal system would look like while we are still under this current one.

| >>700388
The problem is that in order to change the rules of our current system enough to get something that matches the potental of our material world, you might as well just call it something else at that point. Its also an unfortunate fact that those who are in positions of power are not likely to give them up peacfully, or at the rate that would allow us to properly mitigate climate change or many other social ills.

| I kinda hate this video for the ML vibes and the simping for Stalin, Lenin, the USSR, and even Marx, and the kinda condescending tone, but it does do an alright job debunking some of the myths of communisim if you're curious.

| >>700398 thats the point, when it reaches a point that these small change turned society into something that isnt capitalism we will call it something else, i dont wanna be stuck in capitalism forever, i want society to constantly but slowly evolve, like all things do in nature hey slowly change and adapt to fit their need, just like dna capitalism is the current natuaral system and as time passes it and we try to suit our needs it will become something else

| Also no way we will have capitalism forever, if we ever reach a point that most jobs are replaced with machines, how will people work to earn money and profit? We would have to change a few fundamental rules of capitalism, thats even why some fear a new industrial revolution and that is why we will eventually change capitalism into something else over time, it just wont be fast

| >>700403
Right, the issue i think is that some are super stuck on capitalisim, either because its what they've always known, or they directly benifit and they don't want to let that go. (Its an understandable feeling, but it isn't benifical) that in many ways though, is the concern of most "revolutionaries" even. If we hold onto elements of our society past their "relevance" just because they have "always existed" we won't progress, and will continue to suffer for no reason...

| >>700409 nah, the concern is needless, we are not under a forced dictatorship or anything similar, we will reach a point where either we evolve or die anyways, and when the time comes either do the changes we need or society falls, and I dont think the non elite majority will allow that we all just die

| >>700412
I hope you're right and continue to be right. It would be nice if that were the case.


| There is a lot ism meme ideologies that probably would never survive irl in here lol.

| I can easily exchange money for water. I cannot so easily exchange water for money. If that's not enough, money can be used for other things---for which using water would be more difficult. Money is a useful abstraction. Like arithmetic. The argument that it's not `real' is false, because it doesn't matter whether it's real. Numbers aren't real in just the same way. They aren't amounts, they only represent amount.

| Efilism

| Hydraulic despotism

| >>700317
>the past stuck right wingers that want to preserve the traditions and hold the morals
>the rebelious and chaotic left wingers want to change and revolt against eveything
>So we have a radically pulling force and a radically pushing force
>They nilify each other and help society to advance at a moderate pacing wich is very much good since radicalism only leads to disasters, dictstorships and more wide spread conflict
Do you even realize how biased this portrayal is?

| >>701800 biased on what?

| >>700317
In my point of view those "past stuck right wingers" don't want to preserve anything. They want to roll back civilization into barbarism. They also don't hold any morals, but legitimize their immorality instead and spread chaos.
And left wingers on the other hand aren't inherently or in general "chaotic" or just "against everything".

That's even communicated through most current right wingers propaganda: they fear and hate an organized and morally superior left.

| >>701807 you do realize that dumping a whole political spectrum into a generalized bad position that ignores all the history and ideas whithout even showing any semblance of empathy while calling the other side more civil is exteemely biased?

| ...and see themselves as "rebellious" chaotic force against an imagined hegemonic leftist order.
Also this "extreme left and extreme right are both equally evil" (horseshoe-) theory is pretty outdated and was originally created by right-wingers to let them appear as "the centre" and legitimize their reactionist and imperialist politics.

| >>701808
Historically progression is always left on the long term. Even the most radical right movements of today partially agree on achievements that were introduced by once left groups. The right is nothing but a brake block to the development of human civilization. If they always would have had the last word, we would still live like animals. The 1st generation of rightists were humans that refused to speak, while the 2nd generation already used language for their idocy.

| Wft this isnt about who says the last word, both are just as good and just as bad with extreemism on both sides bing bad, woth the mixture of ideas and ideals that constantly push eachother back and forth is what allows society to progress at a moderate pace that doesnt harm peoples life styles, and thats the reason why extreemism is not necessary to change an already ever changing world

| How can you ignore all that and call it right wing propaganda?

| >>701813
Because your extremism theory is not suitable in practice.
A simple example:
- People beeing called evil left-extremist because their're against death penalty.
- Right-extremists only want death penalty according to their more or less arbitrary ideologies.
- And the totally reasonable centre would supporting death penalty then, but of course only if it is reasonable.
The Problem: It's a question of informational/political supremacy which includes the right-extremists point

| >>701958 do you even know what an extremist is?
Having an opinion on death penalty isn't extremism, people who take bad actions with cultish or mob like behaviour are extremist, terrorist are extremist, such as kkk, antifa rioters, the islamic terrorist and the like.
People who do violence for their their ideals or who feel that they should take someone's freedom to make the world work the way they want.

| Also your bias against right wing is showing and your favoritism to left wing is too dense, I sugest to at least try to see both sides as flawed human products and not just see one side as tottaly good and the other tottaly evil.

| yankos yankos yanky yank yanks

| >>701978
There is a massive qualitative and even more important a quantitative difference between the groups you mentioned. You also shouldn't ignore that extremists are often massively supported by "moderate" politicians, especially if it's about geopolitics but sometimes also in order of internal divide and conquer strategies. The worst of all extremists are those who make people believe they're the centre. And this is something the right does more often/successful than the left.

| >>702136 now you are just projecting.

| >>08b12e oh god no...

Total number of posts: 246, last modified on: Fri Jan 1 00:00:00 1601674838

This thread is permanently archived