I fail to see how private means of production and exchanging goods for currency in a market economy is the cause of Climate Change or how to create any other kind of system. Countries with publicly owned fossil fuel industries aren’t producing cleaner oil.
If the government is corrupt in such a manner then it doesn’t matter which economic system gets product from point A to point B, the corruption is the root of the problem and the solution is systemic reform.
The solution is not to allow a system where capitalists can amass wealth exceeding small nations and exert control over society,
Industry and government to do their bidding.
Elon Musk has not done ANYTHING worthy of the wealth he has. Not Tesla, not PayPal, not SpaceX; nothing.
These people are like unelected governments. I don’t see what’s so wrong about not wanting that.
The solution is not to allow a system where capitalistsANYONE can amass wealthPOWER exceeding small nations and exert control over society, Industry and government to do their bidding.
The point is that capitalism is extra bad because it is designed to do this.
The greatest crime ever committed is convincing people that capitalism is the reason they’re free. “These cell bars actually PROTECT you from the flood waters!”
It’s not designed to do that though. Limitations are applied to it in countries that aren’t ruled by the mob, like the US. Let’s not rule out social-democracy altogether here.
EDIT: The deeper I dive into the link between capitalism/socialism and corruption, the more of a mindfuck it becomes. Even if money simply didn’t exist and there just was a state that managed and distributed all goods, what’s to stop some guy who works for the state from distributing himself 5 loaves of bread instead of 2 other than a lawyer and a judge? It’s almost like greed and corruption are in some people’s nature and nothing can be done to prevent it. Things can only be done to punish it. Best case scenario you catch someone in the act but can never prevent their intention from occuring in their brain. You can never fully remove the temptation. Some are just wired differently. Whoa… dude… that’s a bummer.
IMO the nations who claimed not to be capitalists were the extra bad ones. Capitalism is just the default system in every nation, currently, its mid. Because the problems are not directly related to the economic system.
“Never believe that anti-Semitespeople like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semitespeople like this guy have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Now how do you get a corrupt political elite to turn down millions of dollars from lobbyists? They won’t vote to turn off their own money supply. They want to be millionaires, too, and they certainly don’t want to work for it.
Alright so let’s imagine you make means of production public and prevent those poor stupid masses from voting against their own interests, how do you get a corrupt political elite to not enrich their own lives using control of those public goods?
You can’t. Literally no matter what system you have, corruption is never fully preventable, but it is punishable. Neither capitalism nor socialism can prevent corruption. The separation of powers, checks and balances and solid education are the safer bet. What’s needed is anti-monopoly laws, high taxation for the wealthy and so on and so forth, applied firmly, the entire time giving the general population room to breathe. (EDIT: The issue with this is “how do you find the people who are willing to pass and apply these laws in the first place?” It almost seems like these laws need to precede those people themselves. It feels like a paradox. That’s why some people break down and resort to ideas like revolution. But even after that, how can you be sure the new leadership won’t be corrupted by power? And it goes on and on like that in circles until you realize how uncertain and “made up” everything around us is and sink into your couch and stare at a wall for an hour)
I mean, try explaining to the average person that THEY don’t get to own a home anymore and that their country will give them one and they should trust their country to never take it away, all because a bunch of deranged sociopathic oligarchs tried to buy the whole country. A lack of trust in the government is one of the things that legitimately keeps people in favor of private ownership of all kinds of things. I think the average person would prefer we just jail the billionaires instead.
I’d actually be curious to know how many “capitalism-loving social-democrats” like myself are in favor of a firm cap on an individual’s wealth, cause I know I am. And I’d set it way the fuck below a billion. But I will fight for private ownership of everything from homes to computer software to the day I die. I don’t want everything to be given to me “on a subscription” unless I’m struggling, because I know I’ll never fully be in control of the terms of that subscription.
So your problem is with humans in general. Ok. But assuming the answer isn’t “kill all humans”, socialism is less likely to cause this than capitalism because of diffusion of power.
(I’ll preface this by saying that I favor a blend of capitalism and socialism and I’m a social-democrat)
Whoa whoa whoa… Does capitalism not diffuse power by putting some of the power in the hand of private businesses? Isn’t that the whole point of it? In fact, doesn’t socialism essentially do the opposite by giving the country all the power?
I mean if, say, the government manages and distributes all homes, what’s to stop the government from behaving like a greedy corrupt private landlord and witholding housing from certain people they don’t like, since they have a monopoly on homes, basically? Imagine Trump having that power.
This happened in communist Romania. The government took my granduncle’s house, who opposed the regime. When the regime fell, he became a democratically elected social-democrat member of parliament. He got his house back eventually too, as did everyone else
The FiniteBanjo guy has a solid point here
You’re still relying on the separate powers in your country to keep each other in check, same as you would today, else you just have a “socialist” oligarchy that basically looks like the USA of today, with the Trump-aligned oligarchs hoarding everything and giving everyone else crumbs.
Not to mention you’re still relying on free and fair elections and freedom of speech to weed out those very people that want to use the socialist “monopoly” to their benefit.
Am I missing something here? I don’t feel like I am. Practically any system can be corrupt. We’ll never be fully safe.
I think things are much more complicated than just capitalism vs socialism
Anyway, probably too much scrutiny for a Lemmy debate lol If only politicians in office gave this much of a fuck
EDIT: See, it’s funny. On paper, capitalism = “you will have private ownership so the government can never fully control you” and socialism = “you will have no private ownership so a private entity can never fully control you”. And the solution is you need both so neither can ever fully control you.
Track record doesn’t show that, attempts at violently overthrowing capitalism have thus far always ended in autocracy. There are many governments with much less corruption than, for example, the USA, so idk where you pulled out “kill all humans”.
there’s more to life than making money. If you are truly empathetic and willing to change the system, you should stop blaming vague, nebulous entities like “governments” when in reality such entities are routinely used to oppress other forms of economic systems.
A system that prioritizes maximizing ever increasing profits above all else would inevitably lead to resource depletion and environmental damage, and would be inherently unsustainable.
Every system prioritizes maximizing profit/satisfaction in some form or another, every system has always inevitably lead to resource depletion. The solution here is legislative not economic.
Every system prioritizes maximizing profit/satisfaction
Wrong. Only capitalism does this. Profit motive doesn’t exist in socialist systems that place more importance on sustainable living.
If you can live within your means, there is no need for “growth” or “going to the next big thing”. No need to trample on others to achieve “success” which funnily for people whose definition of it is “making money”, is quite a shallow and sad thing to wish for.
The claim that all systems prioritize maximizing profit is dreamed up by hollow people who have to fill holes in their sad souls with unfathomable power, control, and freedom from accountability and responsibility to even feel barely satisfied for a moment.
People who are connected with the spirit of the world and have empathy don’t advocate for a system bereft of empathy and s system in which empathy is considered a weakness. A system where if you put on a mask (translation: become incorporated) then suddenly no moral obligations can stop you. You can just chant the magic words “But a business exists solely to make profit” as justifications to brush aside deplorable behavior in pursuit of wealth and power.
I think the only way you could argue capitalism “doesn’t need to exist” in a “free market” is if you have an extremely different definition of capitalism than me and the dictionary.
most who argue for capitalism only think about themselves at the expense of everybody and everything else.
Capitalism is always “lets make differences in material conditions by promulgating that only those with money are considered successful” and then stealing from that differential. It’s quite obvious how terms like “inefficiencies in the market” can mean something quite different to a CEO and to someone who is born into poverty, or worse the wrong skin colour or ethnicity.
The people who hate socialism only see freeloaders who take the fruits of their hardwork. Those who actually have empathy can understand that their success also depends on a functioning and prosperous society where parents had ample support to raise children who would grow up with a nurturing environment.
A capitalist only thinks in terms of pure profit terms. He/she would discard old people who used to work hard for the survival and benefit of society as a whole as “spent fuel”.
An oft made argument is that Capitalism is the best system so far. That just sounds like Feudalism with a recurrent reminder of monarchy and autocracy.
You don’t use the excuse that “Every system has profit motive” to follow up with “I will choose the system that rewards that behavior”. An empathetic system of reasoning would allow socialist policies while keeping free markets alive. Such a system is proven to work in countries like Denmark, Netherlands, etc.
But isn’t capitalism especially susceptible to the profit maximization trap? Capital naturally flows to where it will generate the highest return, which is necessarily where profits are maximized. The whole point of capital investment is maximal return. Without profit maximization, what’s the point of capital investment? And without capital, there’s no capitalism.
No, it isn’t especially susceptible, not every nation on earth is corrupt and treats their citizens like dirt. Corruption and economic system are independent factors. The whole point of capitalism is private property and exchange mediums exist, as a way to promote competition and efficiency. Problems arise when monopolies form, which is equally true for socialism, therefor a democratically well regulated capitalism is capable of producing optimal satisfaction.
No, it isn’t especially susceptible, not every nation on earth is corrupt and treats their citizens like dirt.
Profit maximization isn’t only something corrupt businesses do. Every capitalist business on the planet seeks to generate a profit. That’s the whole point. Any business that fails to generate a profit isn’t a business for very long. Some businesses are perhaps content with maintaining a certain level of profitability without seeking to aggressively grow their profits, but those companies stay small. For companies to grow, they must prioritize profit growth. And that’s true of every for-profit company in any country, anywhere in the world. And this is especially true where private capital investment is involved. Investors invest their money in businesses they think will generate the highest possible profit, so that they can get the highest possible return on their capital investment. That’s the whole point of investing. And again that’s true in every country.
You haven’t connected the dots that profit leads to evil, so you demanding I accept profit-seeking as a fact accomplishes nothing. Companies do prioritize growth, that is why people and governments have to regulate them and prevent or reverse monopolies, I literally pointed that out in my last comment.
I don’t think they’re evil, necessarily. People and businesses aren’t necessarily acting out of malice, they’re just responding to the incentives that the system naturally creates. Private capital investment and ownership naturally leads to prioritizing maximum profits.
But there is an alternative, and it’s not merely theoretical. It exists, right now, in essentially every economy on the planet: non-profit organizations. I’m not talking about charities, I’m talking about organizations that produce products and services for consumers, that they sell to generate revenue. The difference is, they only seek to generate enough revenue to cover their expenses. They’re not trying to generate a profit, which is of course a surplus after expenses have been subtracted from revenue. They can do this because they don’t have traditional capitalist owners, who want the company to have a surplus at the end of the year so they can take it and put it in their own pockets. Instead they are owned by a community, or a government, or the consumers themselves.
Under this structure, the incentives change. For instance, I get my electricity from a non-profit, member owned cooperative. They sell me electricity, and I pay them for the electricity that I use, but they don’t generate a profit. The money I pay them goes to covering the costs of producing and distributing the electricity (I should point out that non-profit cooperatives do often produce a surplus, but they are legally obligated to put any surplus they do generate back into the organization by increasing the quality and/or quantity of the products and services they provide to their customers. Some cooperatives will even redistribute any surplus they generate back to their members in the form of rebates or dividends at the end of the year). Obviously, I and my fellow members of the electricity cooperative want our electricity bills to be as low as possible, so there’s no reason for us to increase the amount of money we charge ourselves for the electricity we use to try and generate a surplus at the end of the year.
“Never believe that anti-Semitespeople like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semitespeople like this guy have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Never believe that anti-Semites people like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly <-- This is where you are right now in the quote.
It’s (currently) the foundation of modern logistics and power production need to provide food and power to millions up to hundreds of millions of people.
Yeah but the people at the top overconsume in every nation, and the more corrupt that nation the more they consume regardless of whether their flag is red or blue, meaning the problem comes from corruption not from the economic system. So either oppose every nation or oppose corruption, but when I see people talk about “destroying capitalism” on the fediverse it usually just boils down to them supporting autocracies.
I think the issue with capitalism and environmental degradation moreso comes from that fact that capitalism requires evermore resources for evermore economic growth.
The problem is optimizing things for a small subset of people.
The large majority of the people will eventually revolt, however the longer that time takes to come the more they will have been addled and weakened by the few.
Almost like the root cause of one of them is maybe the other one… Nah couldn’t be.
I fail to see how private means of production and exchanging goods for currency in a market economy is the cause of Climate Change or how to create any other kind of system. Countries with publicly owned fossil fuel industries aren’t producing cleaner oil.
When profit is the motive, and it costs less to lobby and bribe than it does to actually be cleaner, things stay dirty.
If the government is corrupt in such a manner then it doesn’t matter which economic system gets product from point A to point B, the corruption is the root of the problem and the solution is systemic reform.
The solution is not to allow a system where capitalists can amass wealth exceeding small nations and exert control over society, Industry and government to do their bidding.
Elon Musk has not done ANYTHING worthy of the wealth he has. Not Tesla, not PayPal, not SpaceX; nothing.
These people are like unelected governments. I don’t see what’s so wrong about not wanting that.
FTFY
Yeah, I mean you’re technically right.
The point is that capitalism is extra bad because it is designed to do this.
The greatest crime ever committed is convincing people that capitalism is the reason they’re free. “These cell bars actually PROTECT you from the flood waters!”
It’s not designed to do that though. Limitations are applied to it in countries that aren’t ruled by the mob, like the US. Let’s not rule out social-democracy altogether here.
EDIT: The deeper I dive into the link between capitalism/socialism and corruption, the more of a mindfuck it becomes. Even if money simply didn’t exist and there just was a state that managed and distributed all goods, what’s to stop some guy who works for the state from distributing himself 5 loaves of bread instead of 2 other than a lawyer and a judge? It’s almost like greed and corruption are in some people’s nature and nothing can be done to prevent it. Things can only be done to punish it. Best case scenario you catch someone in the act but can never prevent their intention from occuring in their brain. You can never fully remove the temptation. Some are just wired differently. Whoa… dude… that’s a bummer.
IMO the nations who claimed not to be capitalists were the extra bad ones. Capitalism is just the default system in every nation, currently, its mid. Because the problems are not directly related to the economic system.
“Never believe that
anti-Semitespeople like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. Theanti-Semitespeople like this guy have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”Jean-Paul Sartre
Bingo.
Now how do you get a corrupt political elite to turn down millions of dollars from lobbyists? They won’t vote to turn off their own money supply. They want to be millionaires, too, and they certainly don’t want to work for it.
Alright so let’s imagine you make means of production public and prevent those poor stupid masses from voting against their own interests, how do you get a corrupt political elite to not enrich their own lives using control of those public goods?
You can’t. Literally no matter what system you have, corruption is never fully preventable, but it is punishable. Neither capitalism nor socialism can prevent corruption. The separation of powers, checks and balances and solid education are the safer bet. What’s needed is anti-monopoly laws, high taxation for the wealthy and so on and so forth, applied firmly, the entire time giving the general population room to breathe. (EDIT: The issue with this is “how do you find the people who are willing to pass and apply these laws in the first place?” It almost seems like these laws need to precede those people themselves. It feels like a paradox. That’s why some people break down and resort to ideas like revolution. But even after that, how can you be sure the new leadership won’t be corrupted by power? And it goes on and on like that in circles until you realize how uncertain and “made up” everything around us is and sink into your couch and stare at a wall for an hour)
I mean, try explaining to the average person that THEY don’t get to own a home anymore and that their country will give them one and they should trust their country to never take it away, all because a bunch of deranged sociopathic oligarchs tried to buy the whole country. A lack of trust in the government is one of the things that legitimately keeps people in favor of private ownership of all kinds of things. I think the average person would prefer we just jail the billionaires instead.
I’d actually be curious to know how many “capitalism-loving social-democrats” like myself are in favor of a firm cap on an individual’s wealth, cause I know I am. And I’d set it way the fuck below a billion. But I will fight for private ownership of everything from homes to computer software to the day I die. I don’t want everything to be given to me “on a subscription” unless I’m struggling, because I know I’ll never fully be in control of the terms of that subscription.
So your problem is with humans in general. Ok. But assuming the answer isn’t “kill all humans”, socialism is less likely to cause this than capitalism because of diffusion of power.
(I’ll preface this by saying that I favor a blend of capitalism and socialism and I’m a social-democrat)
Whoa whoa whoa… Does capitalism not diffuse power by putting some of the power in the hand of private businesses? Isn’t that the whole point of it? In fact, doesn’t socialism essentially do the opposite by giving the country all the power?
I mean if, say, the government manages and distributes all homes, what’s to stop the government from behaving like a greedy corrupt private landlord and witholding housing from certain people they don’t like, since they have a monopoly on homes, basically? Imagine Trump having that power.
This happened in communist Romania. The government took my granduncle’s house, who opposed the regime. When the regime fell, he became a democratically elected social-democrat member of parliament. He got his house back eventually too, as did everyone else
The FiniteBanjo guy has a solid point here
You’re still relying on the separate powers in your country to keep each other in check, same as you would today, else you just have a “socialist” oligarchy that basically looks like the USA of today, with the Trump-aligned oligarchs hoarding everything and giving everyone else crumbs.
Not to mention you’re still relying on free and fair elections and freedom of speech to weed out those very people that want to use the socialist “monopoly” to their benefit.
Am I missing something here? I don’t feel like I am. Practically any system can be corrupt. We’ll never be fully safe.
I think things are much more complicated than just capitalism vs socialism
Anyway, probably too much scrutiny for a Lemmy debate lol If only politicians in office gave this much of a fuck
EDIT: See, it’s funny. On paper, capitalism = “you will have private ownership so the government can never fully control you” and socialism = “you will have no private ownership so a private entity can never fully control you”. And the solution is you need both so neither can ever fully control you.
Track record doesn’t show that, attempts at violently overthrowing capitalism have thus far always ended in autocracy. There are many governments with much less corruption than, for example, the USA, so idk where you pulled out “kill all humans”.
like the spanish anarcho-socialists, that got killed by nazis - it ended in autocracy
You’re not wrong.
there’s more to life than making money. If you are truly empathetic and willing to change the system, you should stop blaming vague, nebulous entities like “governments” when in reality such entities are routinely used to oppress other forms of economic systems.
A system that prioritizes maximizing ever increasing profits above all else would inevitably lead to resource depletion and environmental damage, and would be inherently unsustainable.
Every system prioritizes maximizing profit/satisfaction in some form or another, every system has always inevitably lead to resource depletion. The solution here is legislative not economic.
Wrong. Only capitalism does this. Profit motive doesn’t exist in socialist systems that place more importance on sustainable living.
If you can live within your means, there is no need for “growth” or “going to the next big thing”. No need to trample on others to achieve “success” which funnily for people whose definition of it is “making money”, is quite a shallow and sad thing to wish for.
The claim that all systems prioritize maximizing profit is dreamed up by hollow people who have to fill holes in their sad souls with unfathomable power, control, and freedom from accountability and responsibility to even feel barely satisfied for a moment.
People who are connected with the spirit of the world and have empathy don’t advocate for a system bereft of empathy and s system in which empathy is considered a weakness. A system where if you put on a mask (translation: become incorporated) then suddenly no moral obligations can stop you. You can just chant the magic words “But a business exists solely to make profit” as justifications to brush aside deplorable behavior in pursuit of wealth and power.
In every “Socialist” system that has ever existed, profit motive has existed.
so you agree that we don’t need capitalism for businesses to exist? And that socialist policies do work and can co-exist with a free market?
I think the only way you could argue capitalism “doesn’t need to exist” in a “free market” is if you have an extremely different definition of capitalism than me and the dictionary.
most who argue for capitalism only think about themselves at the expense of everybody and everything else.
Capitalism is always “lets make differences in material conditions by promulgating that only those with money are considered successful” and then stealing from that differential. It’s quite obvious how terms like “inefficiencies in the market” can mean something quite different to a CEO and to someone who is born into poverty, or worse the wrong skin colour or ethnicity.
The people who hate socialism only see freeloaders who take the fruits of their hardwork. Those who actually have empathy can understand that their success also depends on a functioning and prosperous society where parents had ample support to raise children who would grow up with a nurturing environment.
A capitalist only thinks in terms of pure profit terms. He/she would discard old people who used to work hard for the survival and benefit of society as a whole as “spent fuel”.
An oft made argument is that Capitalism is the best system so far. That just sounds like Feudalism with a recurrent reminder of monarchy and autocracy.
You don’t use the excuse that “Every system has profit motive” to follow up with “I will choose the system that rewards that behavior”. An empathetic system of reasoning would allow socialist policies while keeping free markets alive. Such a system is proven to work in countries like Denmark, Netherlands, etc.
But isn’t capitalism especially susceptible to the profit maximization trap? Capital naturally flows to where it will generate the highest return, which is necessarily where profits are maximized. The whole point of capital investment is maximal return. Without profit maximization, what’s the point of capital investment? And without capital, there’s no capitalism.
No, it isn’t especially susceptible, not every nation on earth is corrupt and treats their citizens like dirt. Corruption and economic system are independent factors. The whole point of capitalism is private property and exchange mediums exist, as a way to promote competition and efficiency. Problems arise when monopolies form, which is equally true for socialism, therefor a democratically well regulated capitalism is capable of producing optimal satisfaction.
Profit maximization isn’t only something corrupt businesses do. Every capitalist business on the planet seeks to generate a profit. That’s the whole point. Any business that fails to generate a profit isn’t a business for very long. Some businesses are perhaps content with maintaining a certain level of profitability without seeking to aggressively grow their profits, but those companies stay small. For companies to grow, they must prioritize profit growth. And that’s true of every for-profit company in any country, anywhere in the world. And this is especially true where private capital investment is involved. Investors invest their money in businesses they think will generate the highest possible profit, so that they can get the highest possible return on their capital investment. That’s the whole point of investing. And again that’s true in every country.
You haven’t connected the dots that profit leads to evil, so you demanding I accept profit-seeking as a fact accomplishes nothing. Companies do prioritize growth, that is why people and governments have to regulate them and prevent or reverse monopolies, I literally pointed that out in my last comment.
I don’t think they’re evil, necessarily. People and businesses aren’t necessarily acting out of malice, they’re just responding to the incentives that the system naturally creates. Private capital investment and ownership naturally leads to prioritizing maximum profits.
But there is an alternative, and it’s not merely theoretical. It exists, right now, in essentially every economy on the planet: non-profit organizations. I’m not talking about charities, I’m talking about organizations that produce products and services for consumers, that they sell to generate revenue. The difference is, they only seek to generate enough revenue to cover their expenses. They’re not trying to generate a profit, which is of course a surplus after expenses have been subtracted from revenue. They can do this because they don’t have traditional capitalist owners, who want the company to have a surplus at the end of the year so they can take it and put it in their own pockets. Instead they are owned by a community, or a government, or the consumers themselves.
Under this structure, the incentives change. For instance, I get my electricity from a non-profit, member owned cooperative. They sell me electricity, and I pay them for the electricity that I use, but they don’t generate a profit. The money I pay them goes to covering the costs of producing and distributing the electricity (I should point out that non-profit cooperatives do often produce a surplus, but they are legally obligated to put any surplus they do generate back into the organization by increasing the quality and/or quantity of the products and services they provide to their customers. Some cooperatives will even redistribute any surplus they generate back to their members in the form of rebates or dividends at the end of the year). Obviously, I and my fellow members of the electricity cooperative want our electricity bills to be as low as possible, so there’s no reason for us to increase the amount of money we charge ourselves for the electricity we use to try and generate a surplus at the end of the year.
“Never believe that
anti-Semitespeople like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. Theanti-Semitespeople like this guy have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”Jean-Paul Sartre
Thanks friend. I’m stealing this.
Please do. I am so sick and tired of people like this guy influencing discourse via absurd arguments. I think it’s time for us to start fighting back.
Yes! I’ve put it in my notes app…
So much Gish galloping and bad faith arguments, I’m fed up.
deleted by creator
Nice jerk circle, but I made an argument and you made an ad hominem, I think Sartre would be ashamed of you.
Never believe that
anti-Semitespeople like this guy are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly <-- This is where you are right now in the quote.hey uh i got uh a uh question uh whos buying the fuckin oil and incentivizing selling the oil
Nations.
It’s (currently) the foundation of modern logistics and power production need to provide food and power to millions up to hundreds of millions of people.
Isn’t it one less set of people at the top overconsuming? (Politicians v. Politicians & oil barons)
Yeah but the people at the top overconsume in every nation, and the more corrupt that nation the more they consume regardless of whether their flag is red or blue, meaning the problem comes from corruption not from the economic system. So either oppose every nation or oppose corruption, but when I see people talk about “destroying capitalism” on the fediverse it usually just boils down to them supporting autocracies.
I think the issue with capitalism and environmental degradation moreso comes from that fact that capitalism requires evermore resources for evermore economic growth.
The problem is optimizing things for a small subset of people.
The large majority of the people will eventually revolt, however the longer that time takes to come the more they will have been addled and weakened by the few.
No, that’s not a problem specific to capitalism.
which other system demands that the line go up at any cost?
All of them. Which doesn’t?
ah okay you’re trolling, have fun
Removed by mod