5 ms·
I guess, I do appreciate you responding. I just get frustrated when folks refuse to look at the downsides of a chosen path, regardless of that path (capitalism
by diob 5y ago
I guess, I do appreciate you responding. I just get frustrated when folks refuse to look at the downsides of a chosen path, regardless of that path (capitalism or whatever). Everything in practice is different from theory / idealism. That doesn't mean it isn't the thing, it just means that's reality.
But refusing to acknowledge that means we can't fix it. It implies we just need to lean more into capitalism (or whatever we want to call USA's goings ons) to fix it, when that's what got us here in the first place.
- Natsu 5y agoI think there's a nomenclature problem there, people who advocate for capitalism are arguing for more freedom (e.g. against interventions like this), so it sounds to them like it would if someone said "don't pee on the electric fence" and someone replied "we already have that rule, but people are peeing on it anyway and it's causing terrible wounds" and then they go "what? that's literally what we're saying not to do." Then you can see why "well, it still happens anyway even in a system where that's a rule" leaves you kinda talking past each other.
- diob 5y agoI don't know I'm trying to explain it in basic terms. Capitalism favors whoever owns capital. Rules are an unavoidable part of participating in society, and thus it can follow that rules will tend to favor who owns capital. Basically, it seems to me like capitalists throw up their hands and do the "no true scotsman" whenever something doesn't follow their theoretical thinking. Which honestly is exactly what you're doing. Oh, this doesn't track? Well, that's because it's not capitalism, we have a nomenclature problem. So just throw out the thing that we don't like? Like it or not, capitalists, socialists, communists, etc. etc. all have to contend with the reality of their systems.