One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
I think this is a bit reductive of what socialism is as well as what it opposes. The problem with capitalist states isn't principally that they have markets, but that the rich control society. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat -- the concrete goal of socialism -- is democracy, which includes being rid of that control. Perhaps China is compromised, perhaps it is not, but we shouldn't pin it on them dealing in trade like it cosmically taints them with anticommunist sin. It would be more like they played with fire to further their goals and failed to contain the fire, that being if we assume it is true they are compromised.
In that sense, if we accept "capitalism" to mean "using markets" (which I don't think is right but w/e) then it would be more appropriate to say that socialism opposes liberalism, the political-economic paradigm in which owning markets means owning everything else by extension.
I find this answer really refreshing. depressing, yes, but real yes. I'm afraid I cannot further the point in any meaningful way though. Other than perhaps ask the question, can alternate systems be successful with capitalism still on the map? Personally I am sure that capitalism will be the ruin of Western Society, though I am unsure what the next step is, toward freedom.
That's makes sense. Let me ask, and I don't mean to be difficult.. but- must the solution be communism? In other words, if the goal is economic liberation for the proletariat, is communism the only way to that end?
Would I be accused of opening a big ass can of worms (generally speaking) were I to mention the oligarchy? Are they the canary in the coal mine, so to speak? The evidencers of neofeudalism?
One saying I relate to is, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." In what ways does communism or it's adjacent philosophies violate this? and how would you resolve it?
deleted by creator
I think this is a bit reductive of what socialism is as well as what it opposes. The problem with capitalist states isn't principally that they have markets, but that the rich control society. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat -- the concrete goal of socialism -- is democracy, which includes being rid of that control. Perhaps China is compromised, perhaps it is not, but we shouldn't pin it on them dealing in trade like it cosmically taints them with anticommunist sin. It would be more like they played with fire to further their goals and failed to contain the fire, that being if we assume it is true they are compromised.
In that sense, if we accept "capitalism" to mean "using markets" (which I don't think is right but w/e) then it would be more appropriate to say that socialism opposes liberalism, the political-economic paradigm in which owning markets means owning everything else by extension.
I find this answer really refreshing. depressing, yes, but real yes. I'm afraid I cannot further the point in any meaningful way though. Other than perhaps ask the question, can alternate systems be successful with capitalism still on the map? Personally I am sure that capitalism will be the ruin of Western Society, though I am unsure what the next step is, toward freedom.
deleted by creator
That's makes sense. Let me ask, and I don't mean to be difficult.. but- must the solution be communism? In other words, if the goal is economic liberation for the proletariat, is communism the only way to that end?
deleted by creator
Would I be accused of opening a big ass can of worms (generally speaking) were I to mention the oligarchy? Are they the canary in the coal mine, so to speak? The evidencers of neofeudalism?
deleted by creator
undefined> while a few thousand people have consolidated 90% of the wealth.
Infuriating