2 ms·

I feel like this is reductionism, failing to permit any duality. Perhaps some day non-capitalism means might eventually create entirely separate possibilities.

I feel like this is reductionism, failing to permit any duality. Perhaps some day non-capitalism means might eventually create entirely separate possibilities. But these here examples of non-capitalist ways of living are meaningful & significant to me, to these peoe, today, and i tend to accept their claims of legitemacy. To disregard some people's deliberate attempts at living otherwise for their lack of complete purity in doing so seems beyond the point. Maybe some day we can build alternate modes, where all ends are satisfied internally. But being able to host & share, to cooperate together in alternate modes with one another seems like the defining behavior & characteristic that is essential, to me, that is defining. It's enough. It's valid. Lets test the extremes. What about a hyperadvanced group of oligarchs, owned an advanced automated industrial world, & competed among themselves under capitalism. But provided food & shelter & surplus to the rest of humanity to live under? There's a vestigial capitalism working at some level, but the mass of humanity operates at some other level. To me it feels like the lived perceieved experience of an individual is what counts. We dont have to chase back the entire dependency tree; something new that happens will almost certainly be evolutionary, less revolutionary/apart. Im ok if we want to introduce the idea of a continuum, but i dont feel like some interaction with capitalist production negates the validity. (Also, thanks for the interesting, quote heavy comment!)

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Nice reply, thank you. I agree with you when you say > To me it feels like the lived perceieved experience of an individual is what counts. but I think we differ on the impact, in your scenario, on perceived experience is of these "hyperadvanced group of oligarchs, owned an advanced automated industrial world, & competed among themselves under capitalism". While the scenario would certainly allow for a certain kind of freedom and choice, in the backdrop, a system that could allow only a range of choices would still be calling the shots. Perhaps that would still be sufficient for many people ... it might even be sufficient for me. It's certainly the sort of gamble that the Chinese system seems to be trying to take. But one of the inevitable consequences of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, and the freedom to challenge that might be considered an important part of "the perceived experience" of people living in such a system.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Nice reply, thank you. I agree with you when you say > To me it feels like the lived perceieved experience of an individual is what counts. but I think we differ on the impact, in your scenario, on perceived experience is of these "hyperadvanced group of oligarchs, owned an advanced automated industrial world, & competed among themselves under capitalism". While the scenario would certainly allow for a certain kind of freedom and choice, in the backdrop, a system that could allow only a range of choices would still be calling the shots. Perhaps that would still be sufficient for many people ... it might even be sufficient for me. It's certainly the sort of gamble that the Chinese system seems to be trying to take. But one of the inevitable consequences of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, and the freedom to challenge that might be considered an important part of "the perceived experience" of people living in such a system.