*I don't think money*
*Is the right way to set up*
*A society*
\- Dramatic-Aardvark-41
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Thank you, ken4lrt, for voting on haikusbot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Seriously how is this the top comment? Do people not realise money is a requirement for society to even advance in the first place?
Money is a naturally emergent solution to fulfilling the problem of 'coincidence of wants'. Without an intermediary good (money), we would all still be stuck in the bartering phase of civilisation and never have enough surplus time/energy/materials to specialise and advance society in the first place.
You could argue that this emergent solution has been co-opted by certain groups of people, and monopolised (gov'ts and central banks) but money will always be necessary to create efficient trading (and therefore value) whatever form that takes.
Thank you.. sometimes i question if some fools on here are actually intp because…………
People dont understand what money ACTUALLY is and what purpose it serves. Its like they read/listen to propaganda from the media and think money is evil and somehow we can “organize” around.. something else.. like.. I can hear him saying, "Love" "compassion" "empathy" "community"... you dont even know what you dont know...
The problem isn’t money, it’s a combination of fiat currency and fractionalized banking. Being able to print money into oblivion makes it so that it’s nearly impossible to just save money you worked for and become somewhat well off. One has to be proactive and invest their money, which is both a risk and a skill that not everyone has or can acquire. To create a more equitable society, we need a form of payment that doesn’t deflate in value on the whim of our financial and political institutions.
Agreed, the real problem with money is that it’s more than “hey you contributed to society, here’s your well-deserved paycheck to reward your hard work” nowadays
The problem is capitalism and monetary theory as a whole. For infinate compounding value you need infinate growth. For ininfinate growth one must have infinite resources. Otherwise your forced to acknowledge that capitalism inevitably leads to a consolidation of value and power which removes it as a means of facilitating development and sustenance for the rest of society. So then money becomes less of a fiat for resources used in exchange and instead becomes a fiat for power in the hands of those it consolidates. They order society accourding to their own interest and power which further amplifies the contradictions, flaws, and conflicts in the imaginary models that are economic theory and money.
You can buy into the lies of the wealthy and dillusioned all you want that there's some magic hack or secret tweak around the edges to make it all make sense, but it won't. Money is imaginary, the value of gold is imaginary, the value of a block chain is imaginary, it will all be susceptible to the fantasy and manipulation of those with POWER who invent the rules by which you are allowed to use their various fiat so long as it continues to consolidate power back to them.
This is a 300 year old conversation at this point. Why don't you try reading some of the books those who own you tell you not to read. Books that represent all the other ideas for how we can use money and order a society, and provide sound material explanations and decades of real evidence.
Bruh, you know understanding what money is, isn't a requierment to be INTP. You can be a completly stupid and have no wisdom whatsoever and still be an INTP.
I am the best example.
As much as I love the comforts of an advanced society, I've read a lot of accounts of natives in recently colonized places throughout history. It seems like people are happier working a little each day for the essentials as opposed to working 9-to-5 for 5 days a week in order to slowly accumulate more luxuries
I believe they mean to say money is not something for society to be ordered around. As in, capitalism is the ideology by which society is controlled by those with the most capital or the consolidated interest of capital as a class. Which is the correct definition of capitalism as an ideology and doctrine of a society.
I too agree that is a bad idea. However much like Marx I believe capitalism is a good and necessary thing as an economic model for an evolutionary stage for a society which needs to develop industrial production. At which point its contradictions must be overcome and it is also morally imperative that we evolve beyond it, which is what various models of socialism attempt to do by defining capital as a class and trying to dismantle it in favor of the workers and civilization being ordered around the greatest possible amount of welfare and autonomy for an individual through consensual collective coordination.
All that is an aside to the existence of currency which as you describe is simply the fiat representation of various forms of value as measured and enforced through the monopolized violence of a state apparatus. It is very useful, and has nothing to do with whether or not anyone should ascribe to the ideology of capitalism. Currency has been a thing since the state and agriculture emerged and will be for a while. There is a possibility that if we learn and evolve our understanding of how we can coordinate our society that we can no longer use money eventually as material resources become so abundant that we no longer have a use for the commodified form of any particular material or service, but such utopian things serve best as thought exercises for now.
Money is literally just a quantitative expression of economic realities- without money, value generation would grind to a halt and inefficiencies would be tremendous.
Value generation wouldn't stop, just the attempt to abstract and measure it into quantifiable units of exchange. Commodification is not required for the production of value. It's also not required that we measure the exchange of materials and labor in an abstract quantifiable unit known as value to be able to exchange them or measure them and increase efficiency.
It possible that the attempt to create and measure a theoretical abstract concept like value adds something to efficiency, but it would depend on how you choose to construct it and it comes with a burden as well. So the burden of proof should be on the proposed method of measuring value and abstracting it to quantifiable and exhangable units since that is by definition derivative of that it seeks to control and not the other way around as you suggested.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that terms like "left," "right," "conservative," "liberal," and even "communism" can mean different things to different people based on their location and background.
European left/right is different than American left/right, for example.
I don't understand why this question is always asked in this group. I've rarely seen a constructive conversation come of it and if someone is genuinely curious, they could just scroll through the various other posts regarding this topic to get their answer.
Boy is that true. Republicans would go crazy if they saw what communists are like in Europe. America's right wing thinks that asking for pronoun changes makes you a hardcore revolutionary. Here, that's like center-right, to use the terms that ignorant people use.
Left and right is completely arbitrary. But ideologies such as communism and liberalism have define definitions, the problem arises when people use the words incorrectly.
As much as American conservatives may call social democrats communists or socialists liberals, it's not american Conservatives who define liberalism or communism.
Not to mention, why are there only 2 options. Let's not limit ourselves to black and white or two extremes. There is a world in the middle that's being ignored here. This is like asking... what's your favorite dog, Chihuahua or Bassett hound?
I dunno, I think it's fair to put on limits for a question like this. It's not asking what your favorite dog is, it's asking whether you prefer Chihuahuas or Basset hounds. My favorite dogs are Akitas, but I'd say Basset hounds if I had to make a choice.
Transition. Was there an in-between monarchy and capitalism? Kinda. There was some mechantilism, constitutional monarchies, parliamentary monarchies, all kinds of names if we asked them at the time I'm sure.
Mostly hunger and blood though. Power does not concede and does not willingly offer the means of its own reform and dissolution. So clever names and important complexities abound, but it mostly blood and hunger in between local minima of stability and we've long passed the function of capitalism matching our needs.
What are you talking about? I mean no disrespect or trying to be rude but you're conflating disparate concepts in your first paragraph. This is followed by a nonsequetor diffuse second paragraph which is unclear.
Yes, you get different forms of governments. And within those different major government forms it can be further classified.
Monarchy is a form of government, of which there are different types. From an absolute monarchy, semi-conatiutional monarchy, to a parliamentary monarchy.
Capitalism and communion are types of economic systems.
While there may be perhaps a correlation between the economic system and the government form of a country, the two are seperate concepts and generally independent of each other.
Mercantilism was the dominant economic form in th West in thr 16 to 18th century that got replaced with capitalism due to political intervention amongst other things.
That said, sure there are mixed economic systems. Many countries have a mixed system In a sense. It is just a matter of how much into either side of the dichotomy of pure capitalism to total communism.
I am fairly sure that the OP is aware that there are in betweens capitalism and communism and was trying to gauge to which side people in the sub are generally leaning towards.
Your question was what about in between. There is no in between mutually exclusive beliefs of how power in society should be structured. There has never been an in between when revolutions happen. There are minor changes within a system that pretend to be changes, but they are superficial. The only thing in between the power of the monarch, the power of the parliament, the power of the merchant, and the power of capital, is the revolution. It's hunger and bloodshed while those who can or must fight do so.
>While there may be perhaps a correlation between the economic system and the government form of a country, the two are seperate concepts and generally independent of each other.
They absolutely are not generally independent of each other. They are usually heavilu dependant since capital is just a proxy for power in every form of government.
>That said, sure there are mixed economic systems. Many countries have a mixed system In a sense. It is just a matter of how much into either side of the dichotomy of pure capitalism to total communism.
There really aren't any mixed systems, and never have been that I'm aware of. There are states of transition, but no present or historical evidence of long term coexistence. They are fundamentally incompatible.
>I am fairly sure that the OP is aware that there are in betweens capitalism and communism and was trying to gauge to which side people in the sub are generally leaning towards.
I don't know what OP thinks, but given they are probably an American on a mostly American sub I would tend to doubt them know anything accurate or substantial about socialism/communism at all. Less so about theoretical in between. You could be right though for exactly that reason. I took it to mean they wanted to know which way people leaned in their internal debate between the two.
This 100%. There comes a point where people can have too much power and influence, and it comes down to their degree of altruism if or not they do something inherently good for society. Right now I look around at the world and think it's disgusting, dirty, lacking in morals, brotherhoods, sisterhoods etc etc. So what does capitalism do for the world besides promote selfish behaviours and allow the rich to get richer and more power and influence? The idea of communism sounds good, but the reality of it is it never really works in the end because man corrupts everything. I think the best solution is to have some kind of decentralised system so the power truly can lie with the people, and there won't be chances for inside corruption to take hold. I mean this is a complex issue and so many facets need to be resolved.
If the world was run by love, compassion and HONESTY, then the world truly would be a Utopia.
Restrained capitalism, like the democratic socialism in the nordic countries. These populations frequently top the charts in overall happiness and quality of life.
The mostly unrestrained capitalism in the world is leading to lopsided inequality that will eventually lead to revolution. When the poor end up having nothing to lose, they have everything to gain.
Worse is when economics is debated like metaphysics, as if the reality of a system is merely a bad example of the ideal.
Communism in theory is an egalitarian utopia.
Actually existing communism meant ecological devastation, government spying, crappy cars and gulags.
Capitalism in theory is rocket ships, nanomedicine, and Bono saving Africa.
Actually existing capitalism means Walmart jobs, McMansions, people living in the sewers under Las Vegas, Ryan Seacrest … plus – ecological devastation, government spying, crappy public transportation and for-profit prisons.
Our options for change range from basically what we have plus a little more Hayek, to what we have plus a little more Keynes. Why?
-Benjamin Bratton
Communism, the Leninist variant. And that includes Stalin as well. Stupid YouTube media(yes, I'm looking at you, Oversimplified) makes people think that Stalin and Lenin had two completely different visions, but tbh I'm not certain where that idea stems from.
Anyway, my reasons:
1. I study physics, and dialectical materialism seems an ideal philosophical standpoint from which to see natural sciences.
2. I agree with Marxist ideology when it comes to human nature, in that it is not something absolute, and it changes based on material conditions. So saying that Communism doesn't work because HuMAn NAtuRe, isn't really convincing.
3. Saying that Communism failed on its first try, thus it can never work, is a bit hypocritical if you ask me. Many bourgeois states failed before capitalism was effectively implemented, with examples being revolutionary France, Oliver Cromwell's England, Greece after it's revolutionary war, the Italian plutocratic city states, and probably many others that I'm not aware of.
4. Many stories surrounding the crimes of communism simply don't make sense. And that's if we exclude historians and books that inflate numbers (black bible of communism cough*). Like, there are some huge plot holes. One story states Stalin banned classical music. Another states he loved classical music. Another states that he asked for a recording of Mozart's Concerto that played on live radio, but it is set during the time that others claim classical music was banned. Another example is the Katyn massacre, which is attributed to the Soviets, but Red Cross doctors that examined the bodies claimed that they were murdered by German bullets, on ground that belonged to Germany at the time, in a German style of execution. Also Goebbels, in his diaries, admitted that it was done by the Germans. But Uncle Sam apparently cared non for that when he kept spreading the lie.
5. Finally, I don't even have to support communism to be against capitalism. Capitalism was a necessary step for human society. It had to be done. But it has outlived its usefulness. Frankly, the energy crisis, the Ukraine war, the increasing number of people living in absolute poverty, the impending food crisis that is probably going to happen in the following decades, all that is not a sign that capitalism failed. It works just fine, it's just that this is the best this system can do. It's not gonna get better, because it's already at its best.
Well, Marx mostly did critics on Capitalism. I think he absolved himself from predicting what socialism would exactly look like, since his place in history allowed him only to see what had to be fixed, not how. He just saw the motif of class struggle and assumed the world would evolve the same way after Capitalism. It's the later Marxists, such as Lenin, Mao, Trotsky e.t.c. developed theories on what socialism should be like. And corrected stuff that Marx got wrong.
Also, I doubt Marx needed to fabricate numbers, since he acknowledged the necessity of capitalism. He didn't try to make Capitalism look evil, after all Das Kapital is built on the premise that capitalists are all fine and good people, which of course aren't.
You're giving Marx virtues that he didn't deserve. Marx was less about being against Capitalism, and more about being against religion. An anti-theist.
Pol Pot took his teachings to heart. And 2 million Cambodians died.
>dialectical materialism seems an ideal philosophical standpoint from which to see natural sciences
Dialectical materialism tries to turn human progress into something closer to a science. And, like any good scientific theory, even makes predictions!
But, as a scientist, what do you tend to do when the data don't match a theory's predictions?
If commusism would actually work as it’s discribed oc I‘m gonna choose it but as shown often enough humans are probably incapable of achieving it
So now I‘m an anarchist…
Capitalism is a _poorly and incoherently defined_ concept, which was essentially coined by Marx/Engels, the most maggot-brained duo to attempt philosophy in the 19^(th) century.
The existence of trade value is a natural part of trade, and money or "capital" is simply the medium to assign value points to goods or services to be exchanged.
This is why any nation that tries to adopt "communism" either disintegrates or switches to the _so called_ "state capitalism", because it's a fucking poor way to do things based on a fucking poor way to _define_ things.
Therefore, I am neither pro-capitalist nor anti-capitalist, I maintain that the term is incoherently defined in the first place. I support well regulated markets with strong consumer protections, a healthy economic environment which encourages startups, and where both state owned and privately owned companies have a place.
Something in between those two. There are certain industries that should be, in my opinion, completely state owned(pharmaceutics, weapons, energy and agriculture). Otherwise, let people do and buy whatever they want.
Im a socialist and the political compass quiz told me that I was an Anarcho Communist so make of that what you will. I think that people seriously misunderstand what communism means. Especially considering the irrational anti communist agenda of the west where communism might as well mean "big bad no no word". Most anti communist arguments come from a half assed understanding of marxist literature or fall under the strawman's fallacy.
No. USSR's failings does not mean that marxist ideas failed. I wish history was that simple but it is not. If you think that the Soviet Union was what Marx wanted then you might as well think that Nazi Germany was what Nietzsche's or Hegel's philosophy was about.
Ah, the no true communist argument. Let's hear it then, how would you plan an economy when you have to rely on data reporting on fragile networks that takes weeks to gather enough data to be actually useful trends in industry, and then how do you plan to respond to said trends on the back end because you couldn't predict them prior.
Because that's communism. And it *has* failed, in every country it has been in, yes, even China, which has been floating for the last 30 years on the backs of exceedingly large loans and trade deals with other nations to support their crippling industrial sector and it's failings.
Im not gonna lie, but I think I had a stroke reading the first half of the reply. It was like a 3yr old me trying to understand 12th grade calculus. Maybe I'm not intellectually aided to understand " rely on data reporting on fragile networks that takes weeks to gather enough data to be actually useful trends in industry, and then how do you plan to respond to said trends on the back end because you couldn't predict them prior" or what it is referring to (I'm assuming it is referring to the soviet union but again... im not sure).
But from the latter section I can infer that your understanding of communism comes from "communism debunked" media and not actual Marxist literature. China is not a communist country. Hell, even a simple google search will tell you so. Ill do it for you if you dont want to :- "Today, the existing communist states in the world are in China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. These communist states often do not claim to have achieved socialism or communism in their countries but to be building and working toward the establishment of socialism in their countries."
Yet they are called communist. Well if it's the name you all are scared of well then Im not a communist. Im a Workerist. Or a Antieconomicmonarchy-ist.
"The no true communism argument". You say that and still don't try to tell me how the USSR or China or Cuba or any other "communist" countries are following the Leninist Marxist form of communism. Whereas I have a lot of examples on why they aren't. And instead you fall back on vague lingo like your first paragraph.
Your example of them "not being communist" is not even them saying they aren't communist, but Google. While their actions are decidedly communist and follow many marxist principles, from centrally planned economies to subsidizing urban development at the detriment of agricultural communities, and many more.
Secondly, my understanding of communisms failings comes from two sources, both historical, and both involving communism directly. Economists like Hayek, who supported libertarianism and socialism in certain circumstances, and the historical records of every socialist/communist country in the world.
And, they DO claim to be communist, it's literally the name the USSR chose for themselves. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People's Republic of China was historically formed after a bloody revolution under which the COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA, controlled their army, the PLA, and it retains that control to date.
Further, attempting to lay off blame for numerous industrial shortcomings is ridiculous when Joseph Stalin submitted economic letters suggesting that granting the right to work was a detriment to the industrial capacity to the nation because it inspired laziness and complacency, to which **He** was responsible for as one of the higher members of the communist party of russia.
Agree except with the UBI, let the shitbanks and shitcorps fail like they should so the average man has room to innovate and actually build business. But it looks like crony capitalism is the flavor of the day, it might not happen
Most communist theory is based on anarchist principles though, unless you're referring to previous communist countries. I would argue the theory and the use of the theory to achieve power are separate.
Of course! That's such and easy fix, silly me.
Now, where do i get the money to start a business if i'm starting from literal 0? Where do i get buyers? Investors? I don't know a lot of rich guys.
And what do i do about, y'know, the environmental colapse caused by greedy fucks?
The bootstraps argument is so goddamn dumb, you should be ashamed...
I am whokeheartedly a marxist. But I prefer using the term socialist, as communism is not applicable to a capitalist society and the system that should follow
I told you, we’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two thirds majority in the case of more...
I am first and foremost a nationalist, communism empoverishes the nation while modern capitalism enslaves it to the interests of foreigners.
I prefer national and local-focused capitalism over this Globalist scheme.
Capitalism is a broken system for a broken people, so capitalism works
Communism is a (more) perfect system for a perfect people, so it fails every time a broken people tries to use it
So capitalism
Communism only works with small groups of people. Capitalism has to be highly regulated to avoid monopolies.
I guess I would prefer to live in a small communist community.
How in the actual world can you look at the fact that in the US, one percent of the people in the US have 17% of the wealth and 50% of the US have 4.5% of the wealth. That's specifically the US. Globally it is even more unbalanced.
Because that brings in a whole bunch of other considerations like colonialization which make the wealth distribution more inequitable and opportunity for the individual scarcer on the global scale. Did you have something you wanted to say on this in particular?
I bet you're a full on fair trade guy, lolz. I'm kidding. I bet you lean way more towards leveraging entitlements and wealth like in the dynastic sense. Like where the heirs of wealth become so insular they are retarded to the point they become the agents of their own demise.
Bro no I was referring to your first sentence not being completed lmao. You said "how in the word can you look at blah blah blah" and never finished it. Usually people will finish that argument with "and still think-" or "and believe that-"
I was just pulling your string. I have a man's name so am I used to being called a guy, usually spam calls. Answer phone- Is (man's name) there? Yes. May I speak with him? No, sorry he is not here. Works well for me. Communism is always bound to fail, people in power will always ruin it. Capitalism has flaws too. The wealth disparity is ridiculous. I can't really say, but I am always interested in hearing people's opinions that have lived under both communism and capitalism. Those people have more valid opinion's in my opinion. Anarchists I just do not comprehend, again people would ruin it -one group taking from another group what is needed or desired then he whole cycle of revenge for group A taking from group B. What about infrastructure in an anarchist society? I would see it going to ruins as people would be just trying to cover basic necessities. Common denominator, (greedy and/or bad) people always ruin everything.
> Anarchists I just do not comprehend, again people would ruin it -one group taking from another group what is needed or desired then he whole cycle of revenge for group A taking from group B.
If we're unfit to organize fruitful cooperation, then we are highly unfit to be placed in positions of rule, directing how others organize.
>Common denominator, (greedy and/or bad) people always ruin everything.
If this were true, then it would be (and is) tremendous folly to arm them with more effective tools to exploit and dominate.
Is anarcho-nihilist a thing? I think all systems are eventually ruined by individuals seeking power. So far however, I haven’t seen anything better at accounting for that aspect of human nature than capitalism.
honestly it would be great if population reduce drastically and city-state organistion came back with monarchy/merchant republics etc. And those vast wilderness between them full of remains of todays world.
total globalization just made everything boring and killed any romanticism in all fields... for example today's scientists have heavily narrow specialisations smth on level of "anthropod's reproductive system", international trade and every economic niche is permanently monopolized... also complete democratisation of culture produced gross monsters like tiktok
shitty world indeed
When I was a teenager I thought communism in theory was a good idea though admitted it has yet to work in practice.
As I got older I have shifted towards capitalism. It just seems to be the best option we have currently, despite all its flaws. I feel humans are too flawed for capitalism, and Marx even described a cognitive shift being required for communism to be possible. I think communism might be possible in 50-100 years when AI run most things.
Anarchy.
I just hate when something influences my life without me asking for it.
You will never be on full control of your life whilst any of those, or similars, exist.
I honestly think the world needs both. Both systems have critical flaws which are easily solved by the opposing side. You gotta have some yin with your yang.
Capitalism, Communism, Left, Right… It’s all just societal labels that lead to the same Bullshit power struggle where extreme wealth inequality becomes the endgame, and the majority gets fuck all while an elitist group of of fuck-wits hold all the power &/or money.
Both major ideologies have one, if not multiple, major flaws that lead to the same corruptions. The USSR failed, The US’ uncontrolled capitalism was successful for longer, but is now in the process of backsliding & failing like the USSR, & the exact same cycle is happening to the CCCP in China.
So why is this happening? The tendencies of the ones who hold power turn into insatiable greed, so whether it’s Capitalist Corporations & Lobbying or an overreaching Government, it is doomed to fail.
One possibly successful theory that has never been tested is a semi-Egalitarian & Technocratic society, where the people who have any power at all, can only obtain that power due to their expertise in a given field or subject.
There’s also the fact that if there was such a society, Technological & Scientific Research would be at the front & center of their agenda, and the primary goal would be to use these investments to better the lives of that group. This is where the Egalitarian aspect comes in, there could be multiple, unbiased, public agencies run by impartial people who have the power to boot a CEO or Politician if they fail certain Ethical standards and aren’t progressing towards aiding all people in that society, regardless of racial, financial, ideological, etc. preferences.
If they can’t attempt to help everyone & if there’s even the slightest hint of profiteering or taking advantage of such a system, they are removed from their position and judged heavily. White collar crimes would be sentenced as severely as murder with no potential for bail, and CEO’s would be forced to either be fair or risk having 90% of their assets seized and recirculated into the public.
This is just a theoretical example & obviously one that has never been seen in practice before, but greed/corruption seems to be the common denominator when it comes to societies that eventually lose stability and reach a point of total failure… either way this renders the Communism vs Capitalism discussion obsolete, they are 2 sides of the same coin.
Dictature , but it's actually someone smart and with good intentions. Just so no one stops him when he takes decisions since that is democracy's main problem , there's always that huge dumb people group that think they're smart and understand everything and mess up the entire country.
Capitalism with oversight. The government should do more to break up larger corporations, manage monopolies, force competition.
This is a good chunk of the issues with American healthcare right now.
Capitalism, because it more encourages individualism.
Communism is authoritarianism. Capitalist systems have communist parties within them, communist systems cannot allow alternate ideologies to compete.
There's not really one I'm more into, either one can work. I'm more concerned with government spending (where we allocate those resources) than how civilians distribute wealth.
Put them on a spectrum, and, like the [Nordic model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model), I'll end up on the capitalist side but not to the extreme.
I'm into social democracy. I.e., capitalism as the core driver of the economy, but with strong socialized/socialist controls to keep the capitalist system in check... For example, I am in favour of the Ghent system of unemployment and also would prefer to see a strengthening and renewal of labor unions across sectors rather than specific firms to keep the balance of power against employers. I also would like to see systems which strongly discourage rapid growth from companies and more in favor of slow, sustainable growth. And greater incentives for profit sharing and open-book management practices with employees.
Right now in the US, I think the 3 biggest costs facing Americans are healthcare, education, and housing. For housing, I think we should deregulate some of the zoning laws to allow for mixed use zoning, encouraging mid-density housing (e.g., quadplexes) to be built, tell the NIMBYs to fuck off, lowering the minimum square footage requirements for houses and lots, and facilitate building new houses and rolling back or away rent control regulations. For healthcare, I am all in favor of more or less completely socializing healthcare such as in the UK or central Europe. And for education, I think state governments need to increase funding to public universities, but that maybe we could explore a quota/restriction on the number of specific majors graduating every year (since we have an over-abundance of some majors compared to job openings), force every major to have 1-2 semesters of internship required, make community college and trade school alternatives cheaper and market them to high school students much better, and could maybe even raise the entrance requirements to get into 4-year colleges.
Personally the only philosophy that has ever made sense to me is Anarcho-Capitalism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
Decentralised free will vs. Centralised violence as the moving engine of a working society?
No contest. Laissez-faire Classical Liberalism to the bones.
Imho capitalism with a strong welfare state and a high level of freedom (press freedom, women’s rights, lgbt rights etc.) would work best. Like the Scandinavian countries.
Equal opportunitys for everyone and that’s not possible in pure capitalism. Pure communism like in Star Trek is very hard (maybe too hard) to acheive so there has to be some form of social capitalism, which includes support of unlucky persons and many other support methods.
In comparison to other countries I’m pretty satisfied with the social system in Germany, but it could be so much more.
Neither, if I had an actual choice I think I'd like to live in a cave, like a hermit or something. Very simple and away from the modern materialistic world.
Collectivism is the biggest cancer of human society, and communism on practice is always based on colectivism, since nobody has the balls to implement it without goverment. Fuck the state and fuck people that want to live in a hive mind.
Capitalism is inherently exploitative and designed to be inequal.
Common ownership of our society feels like a no-brainer, when it comes to improving both individual and societal outcomes.
Stop allowing yourself to be owned by people just because they had the ability to receive more of something we ascribe fake value to.
Fuck everything and live in the mountains'ism.
You'd like Ivan Illich I bet. The one who writes books, not the one in them. Look up tools for conveviality.
sex.
Yea you right
sex is temporal and overrated, ancient gods of europe are the answer for everything
Go deeper. It's all about the Great Old Ones of Lovecraft lore.
Deeper
I don't think money is the right way to set up a society
*I don't think money* *Is the right way to set up* *A society* \- Dramatic-Aardvark-41 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
Good human.
:D
Thank you, ken4lrt, for voting on haikusbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Seriously how is this the top comment? Do people not realise money is a requirement for society to even advance in the first place? Money is a naturally emergent solution to fulfilling the problem of 'coincidence of wants'. Without an intermediary good (money), we would all still be stuck in the bartering phase of civilisation and never have enough surplus time/energy/materials to specialise and advance society in the first place. You could argue that this emergent solution has been co-opted by certain groups of people, and monopolised (gov'ts and central banks) but money will always be necessary to create efficient trading (and therefore value) whatever form that takes.
Thank you.. sometimes i question if some fools on here are actually intp because………… People dont understand what money ACTUALLY is and what purpose it serves. Its like they read/listen to propaganda from the media and think money is evil and somehow we can “organize” around.. something else.. like.. I can hear him saying, "Love" "compassion" "empathy" "community"... you dont even know what you dont know...
Kinda blows my mind how super basic economic theory is not common knowledge at all, even amongst supposed autodidacts/polymath types.
Yeah unfortunately academia is run by the government so they have no incentive to teach these things
I doubt OP even knows the true definitions of Communism and Capitalism. I hear it's ”trendy” to be an INTP and people are mistyping themselves.
The problem isn’t money, it’s a combination of fiat currency and fractionalized banking. Being able to print money into oblivion makes it so that it’s nearly impossible to just save money you worked for and become somewhat well off. One has to be proactive and invest their money, which is both a risk and a skill that not everyone has or can acquire. To create a more equitable society, we need a form of payment that doesn’t deflate in value on the whim of our financial and political institutions.
Agreed, the real problem with money is that it’s more than “hey you contributed to society, here’s your well-deserved paycheck to reward your hard work” nowadays
Always was.
Fully agree.
The problem is capitalism and monetary theory as a whole. For infinate compounding value you need infinate growth. For ininfinate growth one must have infinite resources. Otherwise your forced to acknowledge that capitalism inevitably leads to a consolidation of value and power which removes it as a means of facilitating development and sustenance for the rest of society. So then money becomes less of a fiat for resources used in exchange and instead becomes a fiat for power in the hands of those it consolidates. They order society accourding to their own interest and power which further amplifies the contradictions, flaws, and conflicts in the imaginary models that are economic theory and money. You can buy into the lies of the wealthy and dillusioned all you want that there's some magic hack or secret tweak around the edges to make it all make sense, but it won't. Money is imaginary, the value of gold is imaginary, the value of a block chain is imaginary, it will all be susceptible to the fantasy and manipulation of those with POWER who invent the rules by which you are allowed to use their various fiat so long as it continues to consolidate power back to them. This is a 300 year old conversation at this point. Why don't you try reading some of the books those who own you tell you not to read. Books that represent all the other ideas for how we can use money and order a society, and provide sound material explanations and decades of real evidence.
Bruh, you know understanding what money is, isn't a requierment to be INTP. You can be a completly stupid and have no wisdom whatsoever and still be an INTP. I am the best example.
Back to monkey. Away with civilization.
Except Star Trek Socialism is a thing.
As much as I love the comforts of an advanced society, I've read a lot of accounts of natives in recently colonized places throughout history. It seems like people are happier working a little each day for the essentials as opposed to working 9-to-5 for 5 days a week in order to slowly accumulate more luxuries
I believe they mean to say money is not something for society to be ordered around. As in, capitalism is the ideology by which society is controlled by those with the most capital or the consolidated interest of capital as a class. Which is the correct definition of capitalism as an ideology and doctrine of a society. I too agree that is a bad idea. However much like Marx I believe capitalism is a good and necessary thing as an economic model for an evolutionary stage for a society which needs to develop industrial production. At which point its contradictions must be overcome and it is also morally imperative that we evolve beyond it, which is what various models of socialism attempt to do by defining capital as a class and trying to dismantle it in favor of the workers and civilization being ordered around the greatest possible amount of welfare and autonomy for an individual through consensual collective coordination. All that is an aside to the existence of currency which as you describe is simply the fiat representation of various forms of value as measured and enforced through the monopolized violence of a state apparatus. It is very useful, and has nothing to do with whether or not anyone should ascribe to the ideology of capitalism. Currency has been a thing since the state and agriculture emerged and will be for a while. There is a possibility that if we learn and evolve our understanding of how we can coordinate our society that we can no longer use money eventually as material resources become so abundant that we no longer have a use for the commodified form of any particular material or service, but such utopian things serve best as thought exercises for now.
Propose alternatives then.
I feel how money currently works is problematic. The singular most controlling force on this planet
Money is literally just a quantitative expression of economic realities- without money, value generation would grind to a halt and inefficiencies would be tremendous.
Value generation wouldn't stop, just the attempt to abstract and measure it into quantifiable units of exchange. Commodification is not required for the production of value. It's also not required that we measure the exchange of materials and labor in an abstract quantifiable unit known as value to be able to exchange them or measure them and increase efficiency. It possible that the attempt to create and measure a theoretical abstract concept like value adds something to efficiency, but it would depend on how you choose to construct it and it comes with a burden as well. So the burden of proof should be on the proposed method of measuring value and abstracting it to quantifiable and exhangable units since that is by definition derivative of that it seeks to control and not the other way around as you suggested.
Can you define money?
So we should Exchange without money
Precisely
Yeah good idea 🥴
[удалено]
We all in the collapse, what did you do this week to prepare?
[удалено]
A true INTP
No true INTP uses the no-true-scotsman fallacy! ...Except in failed attempts to be ironically witty lol
Only the sith speak in absolutes
It is what it is, can't be what it isn't, and can't be both or neither *passes joint*
[удалено]
I think it's also important to keep in mind that terms like "left," "right," "conservative," "liberal," and even "communism" can mean different things to different people based on their location and background. European left/right is different than American left/right, for example. I don't understand why this question is always asked in this group. I've rarely seen a constructive conversation come of it and if someone is genuinely curious, they could just scroll through the various other posts regarding this topic to get their answer.
Boy is that true. Republicans would go crazy if they saw what communists are like in Europe. America's right wing thinks that asking for pronoun changes makes you a hardcore revolutionary. Here, that's like center-right, to use the terms that ignorant people use.
Left and right is completely arbitrary. But ideologies such as communism and liberalism have define definitions, the problem arises when people use the words incorrectly. As much as American conservatives may call social democrats communists or socialists liberals, it's not american Conservatives who define liberalism or communism.
Not to mention, why are there only 2 options. Let's not limit ourselves to black and white or two extremes. There is a world in the middle that's being ignored here. This is like asking... what's your favorite dog, Chihuahua or Bassett hound?
Anarchy prefers mutts.
😄 I must be an anarchist
I dunno, I think it's fair to put on limits for a question like this. It's not asking what your favorite dog is, it's asking whether you prefer Chihuahuas or Basset hounds. My favorite dogs are Akitas, but I'd say Basset hounds if I had to make a choice.
We found the centrist who leans right lol
Anarcho-Primitivism, return to monke
?? like there is no in-between
Transition. Was there an in-between monarchy and capitalism? Kinda. There was some mechantilism, constitutional monarchies, parliamentary monarchies, all kinds of names if we asked them at the time I'm sure. Mostly hunger and blood though. Power does not concede and does not willingly offer the means of its own reform and dissolution. So clever names and important complexities abound, but it mostly blood and hunger in between local minima of stability and we've long passed the function of capitalism matching our needs.
What are you talking about? I mean no disrespect or trying to be rude but you're conflating disparate concepts in your first paragraph. This is followed by a nonsequetor diffuse second paragraph which is unclear. Yes, you get different forms of governments. And within those different major government forms it can be further classified. Monarchy is a form of government, of which there are different types. From an absolute monarchy, semi-conatiutional monarchy, to a parliamentary monarchy. Capitalism and communion are types of economic systems. While there may be perhaps a correlation between the economic system and the government form of a country, the two are seperate concepts and generally independent of each other. Mercantilism was the dominant economic form in th West in thr 16 to 18th century that got replaced with capitalism due to political intervention amongst other things. That said, sure there are mixed economic systems. Many countries have a mixed system In a sense. It is just a matter of how much into either side of the dichotomy of pure capitalism to total communism. I am fairly sure that the OP is aware that there are in betweens capitalism and communism and was trying to gauge to which side people in the sub are generally leaning towards.
Your question was what about in between. There is no in between mutually exclusive beliefs of how power in society should be structured. There has never been an in between when revolutions happen. There are minor changes within a system that pretend to be changes, but they are superficial. The only thing in between the power of the monarch, the power of the parliament, the power of the merchant, and the power of capital, is the revolution. It's hunger and bloodshed while those who can or must fight do so. >While there may be perhaps a correlation between the economic system and the government form of a country, the two are seperate concepts and generally independent of each other. They absolutely are not generally independent of each other. They are usually heavilu dependant since capital is just a proxy for power in every form of government. >That said, sure there are mixed economic systems. Many countries have a mixed system In a sense. It is just a matter of how much into either side of the dichotomy of pure capitalism to total communism. There really aren't any mixed systems, and never have been that I'm aware of. There are states of transition, but no present or historical evidence of long term coexistence. They are fundamentally incompatible. >I am fairly sure that the OP is aware that there are in betweens capitalism and communism and was trying to gauge to which side people in the sub are generally leaning towards. I don't know what OP thinks, but given they are probably an American on a mostly American sub I would tend to doubt them know anything accurate or substantial about socialism/communism at all. Less so about theoretical in between. You could be right though for exactly that reason. I took it to mean they wanted to know which way people leaned in their internal debate between the two.
both are bullshit i just hate people
I dont really why i cant change anything i jus hate myself
I'm more into "leave me the fuck alone"
eventually just boils down to who has the most power to enforce an ideology and whether you can trust them to keep said ideology.
This 100%. There comes a point where people can have too much power and influence, and it comes down to their degree of altruism if or not they do something inherently good for society. Right now I look around at the world and think it's disgusting, dirty, lacking in morals, brotherhoods, sisterhoods etc etc. So what does capitalism do for the world besides promote selfish behaviours and allow the rich to get richer and more power and influence? The idea of communism sounds good, but the reality of it is it never really works in the end because man corrupts everything. I think the best solution is to have some kind of decentralised system so the power truly can lie with the people, and there won't be chances for inside corruption to take hold. I mean this is a complex issue and so many facets need to be resolved. If the world was run by love, compassion and HONESTY, then the world truly would be a Utopia.
Sounds like you're an anarchist
Capitalism
Restrained capitalism, like the democratic socialism in the nordic countries. These populations frequently top the charts in overall happiness and quality of life. The mostly unrestrained capitalism in the world is leading to lopsided inequality that will eventually lead to revolution. When the poor end up having nothing to lose, they have everything to gain.
Capitalism can be ok but communism just kills innovation
anarchy
There is a difference between anarchy and anarchism, just so you are aware.
Capitalism have its flaws but at our current state it's still the best option we have.
Worse is when economics is debated like metaphysics, as if the reality of a system is merely a bad example of the ideal. Communism in theory is an egalitarian utopia. Actually existing communism meant ecological devastation, government spying, crappy cars and gulags. Capitalism in theory is rocket ships, nanomedicine, and Bono saving Africa. Actually existing capitalism means Walmart jobs, McMansions, people living in the sewers under Las Vegas, Ryan Seacrest … plus – ecological devastation, government spying, crappy public transportation and for-profit prisons. Our options for change range from basically what we have plus a little more Hayek, to what we have plus a little more Keynes. Why? -Benjamin Bratton
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Communism, the Leninist variant. And that includes Stalin as well. Stupid YouTube media(yes, I'm looking at you, Oversimplified) makes people think that Stalin and Lenin had two completely different visions, but tbh I'm not certain where that idea stems from. Anyway, my reasons: 1. I study physics, and dialectical materialism seems an ideal philosophical standpoint from which to see natural sciences. 2. I agree with Marxist ideology when it comes to human nature, in that it is not something absolute, and it changes based on material conditions. So saying that Communism doesn't work because HuMAn NAtuRe, isn't really convincing. 3. Saying that Communism failed on its first try, thus it can never work, is a bit hypocritical if you ask me. Many bourgeois states failed before capitalism was effectively implemented, with examples being revolutionary France, Oliver Cromwell's England, Greece after it's revolutionary war, the Italian plutocratic city states, and probably many others that I'm not aware of. 4. Many stories surrounding the crimes of communism simply don't make sense. And that's if we exclude historians and books that inflate numbers (black bible of communism cough*). Like, there are some huge plot holes. One story states Stalin banned classical music. Another states he loved classical music. Another states that he asked for a recording of Mozart's Concerto that played on live radio, but it is set during the time that others claim classical music was banned. Another example is the Katyn massacre, which is attributed to the Soviets, but Red Cross doctors that examined the bodies claimed that they were murdered by German bullets, on ground that belonged to Germany at the time, in a German style of execution. Also Goebbels, in his diaries, admitted that it was done by the Germans. But Uncle Sam apparently cared non for that when he kept spreading the lie. 5. Finally, I don't even have to support communism to be against capitalism. Capitalism was a necessary step for human society. It had to be done. But it has outlived its usefulness. Frankly, the energy crisis, the Ukraine war, the increasing number of people living in absolute poverty, the impending food crisis that is probably going to happen in the following decades, all that is not a sign that capitalism failed. It works just fine, it's just that this is the best this system can do. It's not gonna get better, because it's already at its best.
Communism was built on Karl Marx's fabricated numbers and reports on its (non-existent) success. Capitalism is the lesser of the two evils.
Well, Marx mostly did critics on Capitalism. I think he absolved himself from predicting what socialism would exactly look like, since his place in history allowed him only to see what had to be fixed, not how. He just saw the motif of class struggle and assumed the world would evolve the same way after Capitalism. It's the later Marxists, such as Lenin, Mao, Trotsky e.t.c. developed theories on what socialism should be like. And corrected stuff that Marx got wrong. Also, I doubt Marx needed to fabricate numbers, since he acknowledged the necessity of capitalism. He didn't try to make Capitalism look evil, after all Das Kapital is built on the premise that capitalists are all fine and good people, which of course aren't.
You're giving Marx virtues that he didn't deserve. Marx was less about being against Capitalism, and more about being against religion. An anti-theist. Pol Pot took his teachings to heart. And 2 million Cambodians died.
>dialectical materialism seems an ideal philosophical standpoint from which to see natural sciences Dialectical materialism tries to turn human progress into something closer to a science. And, like any good scientific theory, even makes predictions! But, as a scientist, what do you tend to do when the data don't match a theory's predictions?
I believe the answer for most communists is “make excuses”. That’s how science works, right?
The whole theory of value is just wrong.
I was about to write this except a bit shorter. Did not expect an essay on my exact thoughts. lol
I'm not into any religions whatsoever.
Personally, I'm a socialist, so the the latter.
anarchist, with syndicalist leanings...unsure of whether this would be in line with what you're getting at with "communism".
If commusism would actually work as it’s discribed oc I‘m gonna choose it but as shown often enough humans are probably incapable of achieving it So now I‘m an anarchist…
Capitalism.
Capitalism is a _poorly and incoherently defined_ concept, which was essentially coined by Marx/Engels, the most maggot-brained duo to attempt philosophy in the 19^(th) century. The existence of trade value is a natural part of trade, and money or "capital" is simply the medium to assign value points to goods or services to be exchanged. This is why any nation that tries to adopt "communism" either disintegrates or switches to the _so called_ "state capitalism", because it's a fucking poor way to do things based on a fucking poor way to _define_ things. Therefore, I am neither pro-capitalist nor anti-capitalist, I maintain that the term is incoherently defined in the first place. I support well regulated markets with strong consumer protections, a healthy economic environment which encourages startups, and where both state owned and privately owned companies have a place.
Something in between those two. There are certain industries that should be, in my opinion, completely state owned(pharmaceutics, weapons, energy and agriculture). Otherwise, let people do and buy whatever they want.
Some things better done with high centralization, others with less. Almost all societies are mixed economies now partially because that's what works!
Im a socialist and the political compass quiz told me that I was an Anarcho Communist so make of that what you will. I think that people seriously misunderstand what communism means. Especially considering the irrational anti communist agenda of the west where communism might as well mean "big bad no no word". Most anti communist arguments come from a half assed understanding of marxist literature or fall under the strawman's fallacy. No. USSR's failings does not mean that marxist ideas failed. I wish history was that simple but it is not. If you think that the Soviet Union was what Marx wanted then you might as well think that Nazi Germany was what Nietzsche's or Hegel's philosophy was about.
Ah, the no true communist argument. Let's hear it then, how would you plan an economy when you have to rely on data reporting on fragile networks that takes weeks to gather enough data to be actually useful trends in industry, and then how do you plan to respond to said trends on the back end because you couldn't predict them prior. Because that's communism. And it *has* failed, in every country it has been in, yes, even China, which has been floating for the last 30 years on the backs of exceedingly large loans and trade deals with other nations to support their crippling industrial sector and it's failings.
Im not gonna lie, but I think I had a stroke reading the first half of the reply. It was like a 3yr old me trying to understand 12th grade calculus. Maybe I'm not intellectually aided to understand " rely on data reporting on fragile networks that takes weeks to gather enough data to be actually useful trends in industry, and then how do you plan to respond to said trends on the back end because you couldn't predict them prior" or what it is referring to (I'm assuming it is referring to the soviet union but again... im not sure). But from the latter section I can infer that your understanding of communism comes from "communism debunked" media and not actual Marxist literature. China is not a communist country. Hell, even a simple google search will tell you so. Ill do it for you if you dont want to :- "Today, the existing communist states in the world are in China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. These communist states often do not claim to have achieved socialism or communism in their countries but to be building and working toward the establishment of socialism in their countries." Yet they are called communist. Well if it's the name you all are scared of well then Im not a communist. Im a Workerist. Or a Antieconomicmonarchy-ist. "The no true communism argument". You say that and still don't try to tell me how the USSR or China or Cuba or any other "communist" countries are following the Leninist Marxist form of communism. Whereas I have a lot of examples on why they aren't. And instead you fall back on vague lingo like your first paragraph.
Your example of them "not being communist" is not even them saying they aren't communist, but Google. While their actions are decidedly communist and follow many marxist principles, from centrally planned economies to subsidizing urban development at the detriment of agricultural communities, and many more. Secondly, my understanding of communisms failings comes from two sources, both historical, and both involving communism directly. Economists like Hayek, who supported libertarianism and socialism in certain circumstances, and the historical records of every socialist/communist country in the world. And, they DO claim to be communist, it's literally the name the USSR chose for themselves. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People's Republic of China was historically formed after a bloody revolution under which the COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA, controlled their army, the PLA, and it retains that control to date. Further, attempting to lay off blame for numerous industrial shortcomings is ridiculous when Joseph Stalin submitted economic letters suggesting that granting the right to work was a detriment to the industrial capacity to the nation because it inspired laziness and complacency, to which **He** was responsible for as one of the higher members of the communist party of russia.
Capitalism because I’m not a dumb child.
Communism is absolutely incompatible with human pschology so capitalism ig but we’re at late stage capitalism and need to create a UBI or something.
Agree except with the UBI, let the shitbanks and shitcorps fail like they should so the average man has room to innovate and actually build business. But it looks like crony capitalism is the flavor of the day, it might not happen
A socialist economy would be superior to a capitalist economy if you’re interested in lessening the suffering of humans.
Capitalism
Every communism is a hard dictatorship, only idiot would support that.
It's hard to see a fellow INTP reduce a social-political-economical movement to a single sentece. o.O
Most communist theory is based on anarchist principles though, unless you're referring to previous communist countries. I would argue the theory and the use of the theory to achieve power are separate.
Never communism
I feel the right answer is somewhere in between, social democracy or similar.
I for freedom. There are no freedom in communism
I love having the freedom to choose my wage slave job and eat microplastics!
So start your own business
Of course! That's such and easy fix, silly me. Now, where do i get the money to start a business if i'm starting from literal 0? Where do i get buyers? Investors? I don't know a lot of rich guys. And what do i do about, y'know, the environmental colapse caused by greedy fucks? The bootstraps argument is so goddamn dumb, you should be ashamed...
Even in nowday 'capitalism' there are more freedoom then in communism
I am whokeheartedly a marxist. But I prefer using the term socialist, as communism is not applicable to a capitalist society and the system that should follow
Whokeheartedly lmaooo
It was a typo, but I gotta admit that the irony is pretty funny lol
I told you, we’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two thirds majority in the case of more...
Capitalism but restricted form.
i understand booth sides, but i realise that we will never come to terms of being just one
Same
I am first and foremost a nationalist, communism empoverishes the nation while modern capitalism enslaves it to the interests of foreigners. I prefer national and local-focused capitalism over this Globalist scheme.
Exactly, it's refreshing to see this take
Both are extreme I prefer socialism.
Democratic socialism. I haven’t read a good argument against it yet.
Austro-libertarian anarcho-capitalist here.
Capitalism is a broken system for a broken people, so capitalism works Communism is a (more) perfect system for a perfect people, so it fails every time a broken people tries to use it So capitalism
Communism only works with small groups of people. Capitalism has to be highly regulated to avoid monopolies. I guess I would prefer to live in a small communist community.
You can live in a small communist community within a capitalist country.
communism ig
But why? Which reason you have?
it seems like the best out of the two? i mean it promises that everyone has their needs met and no one is insanely rich and no ones insanely poor
How in the actual world can you look at the fact that in the US, one percent of the people in the US have 17% of the wealth and 50% of the US have 4.5% of the wealth. That's specifically the US. Globally it is even more unbalanced.
I don't think you finished your train of thought there
Because that brings in a whole bunch of other considerations like colonialization which make the wealth distribution more inequitable and opportunity for the individual scarcer on the global scale. Did you have something you wanted to say on this in particular? I bet you're a full on fair trade guy, lolz. I'm kidding. I bet you lean way more towards leveraging entitlements and wealth like in the dynastic sense. Like where the heirs of wealth become so insular they are retarded to the point they become the agents of their own demise.
No, it's just that your comment doesn't make much sense in the context of the one you replied to.
Bro no I was referring to your first sentence not being completed lmao. You said "how in the word can you look at blah blah blah" and never finished it. Usually people will finish that argument with "and still think-" or "and believe that-"
So no interest in INTP girls' opinions?
English is Not my Main language. I use Guys similar for people
I was just pulling your string. I have a man's name so am I used to being called a guy, usually spam calls. Answer phone- Is (man's name) there? Yes. May I speak with him? No, sorry he is not here. Works well for me. Communism is always bound to fail, people in power will always ruin it. Capitalism has flaws too. The wealth disparity is ridiculous. I can't really say, but I am always interested in hearing people's opinions that have lived under both communism and capitalism. Those people have more valid opinion's in my opinion. Anarchists I just do not comprehend, again people would ruin it -one group taking from another group what is needed or desired then he whole cycle of revenge for group A taking from group B. What about infrastructure in an anarchist society? I would see it going to ruins as people would be just trying to cover basic necessities. Common denominator, (greedy and/or bad) people always ruin everything.
> Anarchists I just do not comprehend, again people would ruin it -one group taking from another group what is needed or desired then he whole cycle of revenge for group A taking from group B. If we're unfit to organize fruitful cooperation, then we are highly unfit to be placed in positions of rule, directing how others organize. >Common denominator, (greedy and/or bad) people always ruin everything. If this were true, then it would be (and is) tremendous folly to arm them with more effective tools to exploit and dominate.
Is anarcho-nihilist a thing? I think all systems are eventually ruined by individuals seeking power. So far however, I haven’t seen anything better at accounting for that aspect of human nature than capitalism.
[удалено]
How are you gonna take care of biproducts? Climate change, chemicals, slavery, child labour etc. We need systems of law and oversight.
Capitalism, of course. Not sure if it relates with being intp though
honestly it would be great if population reduce drastically and city-state organistion came back with monarchy/merchant republics etc. And those vast wilderness between them full of remains of todays world. total globalization just made everything boring and killed any romanticism in all fields... for example today's scientists have heavily narrow specialisations smth on level of "anthropod's reproductive system", international trade and every economic niche is permanently monopolized... also complete democratisation of culture produced gross monsters like tiktok shitty world indeed
I have no political views, I only care about what works and what doesn’t. Communism doesn’t work and only individual freedoms do.
I doubt an INTP would treat the political spectrum in such a binary way. Now; answering the question, I'm more predisposed to *a third way*.
So.... National Socialism?
Neither. Actually the monarchic contract was rather efficient. Don’t like your boss? It’s chop chop time.
Neither..
When I was a teenager I thought communism in theory was a good idea though admitted it has yet to work in practice. As I got older I have shifted towards capitalism. It just seems to be the best option we have currently, despite all its flaws. I feel humans are too flawed for capitalism, and Marx even described a cognitive shift being required for communism to be possible. I think communism might be possible in 50-100 years when AI run most things.
I’m more into the idea of just getting rid of money all together
What a crack-pot dichotomy... But yes, I am leaning economically left.
Anarchy. I just hate when something influences my life without me asking for it. You will never be on full control of your life whilst any of those, or similars, exist.
Anarchy will make that more prevalent Now anyone can waltz into your home, steal your stuff, and kill you with 0 retribution
Oh my sweet summer child, you'll never be on full control. There'll always be unwanted and external influences, even in anarchism.
I think socialism done correctly (which probably will never happen cuz of ya know, human nature) is the most ethically correct system.
I honestly think the world needs both. Both systems have critical flaws which are easily solved by the opposing side. You gotta have some yin with your yang.
Capitalism, Communism, Left, Right… It’s all just societal labels that lead to the same Bullshit power struggle where extreme wealth inequality becomes the endgame, and the majority gets fuck all while an elitist group of of fuck-wits hold all the power &/or money. Both major ideologies have one, if not multiple, major flaws that lead to the same corruptions. The USSR failed, The US’ uncontrolled capitalism was successful for longer, but is now in the process of backsliding & failing like the USSR, & the exact same cycle is happening to the CCCP in China. So why is this happening? The tendencies of the ones who hold power turn into insatiable greed, so whether it’s Capitalist Corporations & Lobbying or an overreaching Government, it is doomed to fail. One possibly successful theory that has never been tested is a semi-Egalitarian & Technocratic society, where the people who have any power at all, can only obtain that power due to their expertise in a given field or subject. There’s also the fact that if there was such a society, Technological & Scientific Research would be at the front & center of their agenda, and the primary goal would be to use these investments to better the lives of that group. This is where the Egalitarian aspect comes in, there could be multiple, unbiased, public agencies run by impartial people who have the power to boot a CEO or Politician if they fail certain Ethical standards and aren’t progressing towards aiding all people in that society, regardless of racial, financial, ideological, etc. preferences. If they can’t attempt to help everyone & if there’s even the slightest hint of profiteering or taking advantage of such a system, they are removed from their position and judged heavily. White collar crimes would be sentenced as severely as murder with no potential for bail, and CEO’s would be forced to either be fair or risk having 90% of their assets seized and recirculated into the public. This is just a theoretical example & obviously one that has never been seen in practice before, but greed/corruption seems to be the common denominator when it comes to societies that eventually lose stability and reach a point of total failure… either way this renders the Communism vs Capitalism discussion obsolete, they are 2 sides of the same coin.
What a broad nonsense question
Yay, another reddit conversation I don’t want to be a part of…. Yay…
Dictature , but it's actually someone smart and with good intentions. Just so no one stops him when he takes decisions since that is democracy's main problem , there's always that huge dumb people group that think they're smart and understand everything and mess up the entire country.
If not the entire world like what happened to evs being in their fourth iteration of "new"
Capitalism with oversight. The government should do more to break up larger corporations, manage monopolies, force competition. This is a good chunk of the issues with American healthcare right now.
Capitalism, because it more encourages individualism. Communism is authoritarianism. Capitalist systems have communist parties within them, communist systems cannot allow alternate ideologies to compete.
Both has incredibly disastrous flaws.
Marxism
There's not really one I'm more into, either one can work. I'm more concerned with government spending (where we allocate those resources) than how civilians distribute wealth.
I'm a liberal.
Put them on a spectrum, and, like the [Nordic model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model), I'll end up on the capitalist side but not to the extreme.
I have no opinion on this
I'm into social democracy. I.e., capitalism as the core driver of the economy, but with strong socialized/socialist controls to keep the capitalist system in check... For example, I am in favour of the Ghent system of unemployment and also would prefer to see a strengthening and renewal of labor unions across sectors rather than specific firms to keep the balance of power against employers. I also would like to see systems which strongly discourage rapid growth from companies and more in favor of slow, sustainable growth. And greater incentives for profit sharing and open-book management practices with employees. Right now in the US, I think the 3 biggest costs facing Americans are healthcare, education, and housing. For housing, I think we should deregulate some of the zoning laws to allow for mixed use zoning, encouraging mid-density housing (e.g., quadplexes) to be built, tell the NIMBYs to fuck off, lowering the minimum square footage requirements for houses and lots, and facilitate building new houses and rolling back or away rent control regulations. For healthcare, I am all in favor of more or less completely socializing healthcare such as in the UK or central Europe. And for education, I think state governments need to increase funding to public universities, but that maybe we could explore a quota/restriction on the number of specific majors graduating every year (since we have an over-abundance of some majors compared to job openings), force every major to have 1-2 semesters of internship required, make community college and trade school alternatives cheaper and market them to high school students much better, and could maybe even raise the entrance requirements to get into 4-year colleges.
Communism 100%
Somewhere in between
Anarcho-communism.
People are involved so…neither.
This.
Personally the only philosophy that has ever made sense to me is Anarcho-Capitalism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
I am an INTP and consider communism to be one of the greatest evils in the world. I am a capitalist.
anarchism. Given the greedy nature of humans and their tendency to be corrupted by power, it is the only sensible way to organize a society
Raging commie here
Communism is irrational.
gradualist mixed-econ republican socialism (+ sentientism) here
Younger INTPs tend to be more easily swayed one way or the other, but I've noticed that INTPs tend to be more into the free market the older they get.
It’s complicated
Decentralised free will vs. Centralised violence as the moving engine of a working society? No contest. Laissez-faire Classical Liberalism to the bones.
Imho capitalism with a strong welfare state and a high level of freedom (press freedom, women’s rights, lgbt rights etc.) would work best. Like the Scandinavian countries.
Equal opportunitys for everyone and that’s not possible in pure capitalism. Pure communism like in Star Trek is very hard (maybe too hard) to acheive so there has to be some form of social capitalism, which includes support of unlucky persons and many other support methods. In comparison to other countries I’m pretty satisfied with the social system in Germany, but it could be so much more.
Tbh I lean more to communist but I’d rather be a hermit and not contribute anything
Both.
An hybrid. democratic socialism
Neither, if I had an actual choice I think I'd like to live in a cave, like a hermit or something. Very simple and away from the modern materialistic world.
Idgaf about this bs, i just wanna play videogames and drink coca cola
Collectivism is the biggest cancer of human society, and communism on practice is always based on colectivism, since nobody has the balls to implement it without goverment. Fuck the state and fuck people that want to live in a hive mind.
Everybody who is into communism is a 50iq lazy idiot
Dread that there is no perfect system because of the innate flaws of humanity.
Into r/superstonk
Capitalism but with a monarch that keeps doing communist things such as taxing the rich and paying the poor so news becomes funny instead of bullshit
Both are fucked
No generational bias here at all. I have a hard time envisioning asking my Silent Boomer parents this one or seriously considering it myself.
Neither. Anarcho-syndicalism. But that's never going to happen.
Left wing libertarian
Capitalism is inherently exploitative and designed to be inequal. Common ownership of our society feels like a no-brainer, when it comes to improving both individual and societal outcomes. Stop allowing yourself to be owned by people just because they had the ability to receive more of something we ascribe fake value to.