3 ms·
It's an objective historical fact. The overwhelming majority of ethical and moral progression in human history coincided with the extension of private property
by defaultprimate 5y ago
It's an objective historical fact.
The overwhelming majority of ethical and moral progression in human history coincided with the extension of private property rights to more and more of the general population, and retracted when those rights were rescinded.
This occurred both because of the recognition of humanity that goes along with granting these rights, and the technological progressions enabled by allowing opportunity and innovation to occur in larger swaths of the population rather than an aristocratic hyperminority.
- lucian1900 5y agoYou're just describing class struggle and industry, not capitalism specifically. Capitalism was once revolutionary against feudalism, as the bourgeoisie replaced the nobility as the ruling class. But that hasn't been the case for centuries.
- defaultprimate 5y ago[flagged]
- lucian1900 5y agoYou're conflating the ideology capitalism uses to justify and maintain itself with its actual material reality. It's not a surprise, considering this ideology (liberalism) is fundamentally idealist and not materialist. Have you actually read Marx or Engels? You'll find a holistic understanding of capitalism and its roots, its upsides and its downsides.
- defaultprimate 5y ago[flagged]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cloudfifty 5y ago> considering Marx was a literal man child I must ask. Why, according to you, was he a "literal man child"?
- defaultprimate 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30275285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30275285
- cloudfifty 5y ago
- defaultprimate 5y agoCool, what does that have to do with the verifiable facts about who he was as a person and the role they played in his writings and philosophy?
- cloudfifty 5y ago[flagged]
- defaultprimate 5y ago[flagged]
- cloudfifty 5y ago[flagged]
- defaultprimate 5y ago[flagged]
- cloudfifty 5y ago
- defaultprimate 5y ago>Hahaha! You have to be joking? Which modern, high quality of life, non capitalist countries are less harmful to the environment? >You have no scruples at all do you? "No insight into" then you go on avoiding the point and just falsely suggesting that I said something I didn't say (treating all historical North American societies as one, which is ridiculous), what a deeply dishonest thing to write, shame on you. What was your point then? You were leveraging some native American sentiments and factually incorrect popular myths on their beliefs about property ownership to contend falsely that they had better economic systems devoid of profit motive or property. >I won't be wasting energy on replies that have zero prospect of breaking through that dogma. I can see others have tried with no success. The irony coming from someone with entirely unsourced, repeatedly demonstrably false assertions, while I have provided endless examples and sources. Sorry, not sorry for sticking to my well researched and verbosely sources principles and reasoning because random strangers on the internet regurgitate easily countered dogma from ideologues and propagandists. I can tell you exactly what evidence would look like that would change my mind about any topic I hold strong beliefs about. Meanwhile you can't even stick to one topic.