4 ms·

I don't see why we even argue about it. The calculation discussion is a begged question, where it accepts that these other ideas are desirable were it not for t

I don't see why we even argue about it. The calculation discussion is a begged question, where it accepts that these other ideas are desirable were it not for these implementation details. Reality is, they are a pretext for subordinating and oppressing people by denying their human individuality, and once you have the means to do that, does it really matter if they starve so long as you still hold the reins? Even if you are defending "capitalism," you have already accepted a definition invented by people whose object was to subvert and destroy your civilization so as to rule over the ashes. If we are going to accept that this (objectively, murderous) ideology is topical for serious discussion, registering our disgust with it and the its advocates should be included in the discourse. If only more people understood that the way they feel about conservative and even reactionary beliefs, many others feel about totalitarianism, its polite euphemisms, and its apologists.

than3 4y ago
Moto, I have to point out that line of reasoning is seriously flawed. The assumptions you make at the beginning are just that, assumptions with no rational backing. Communication is necessary to have any kind of intelligent discussion, and taking part in a discussion doesn't accept anything by mere participation. Saying so doesn't make it so, and that argumentation structure tends towards inflexible dogmatic thought and polarizing psychological spirals. At its core, in order to think you must risk being offensive, and in order to learn something you must risk being offended. Anything that interferes with that will often lead you to irrational thought and false conclusions. Additionally, being able to discuss subjects which you do not agree with, while maintaining communication in a rational way is a very good indicator of intelligence, and anyone can do this if they want to. Ideological indoctrination comes in all forms, and most importantly most of us don't have a choice about that since its inherent wherever we grew up. If you can debate the merits and downsides, in an influential way that turns someone to your view point isn't that a win? Aside from this, I agree with your sentiment, but you would have a much stronger argument if you don't give others such easy targets to discredit you. If they can't win on rational grounds, they don't have any legs to stand on. Irrationality is after all not superior in any way to rational thought, and self-interest and necessity are the mother of all invention. History has not been kind to socialism, and its been directly responsible for more death than any other form of economy in recent history.

than3 4y ago

Moto, I have to point out that line of reasoning is seriously flawed. The assumptions you make at the beginning are just that, assumptions with no rational backing. Communication is necessary to have any kind of intelligent discussion, and taking part in a discussion doesn't accept anything by mere participation. Saying so doesn't make it so, and that argumentation structure tends towards inflexible dogmatic thought and polarizing psychological spirals. At its core, in order to think you must risk being offensive, and in order to learn something you must risk being offended. Anything that interferes with that will often lead you to irrational thought and false conclusions. Additionally, being able to discuss subjects which you do not agree with, while maintaining communication in a rational way is a very good indicator of intelligence, and anyone can do this if they want to. Ideological indoctrination comes in all forms, and most importantly most of us don't have a choice about that since its inherent wherever we grew up. If you can debate the merits and downsides, in an influential way that turns someone to your view point isn't that a win? Aside from this, I agree with your sentiment, but you would have a much stronger argument if you don't give others such easy targets to discredit you. If they can't win on rational grounds, they don't have any legs to stand on. Irrationality is after all not superior in any way to rational thought, and self-interest and necessity are the mother of all invention. History has not been kind to socialism, and its been directly responsible for more death than any other form of economy in recent history.