He’s being down voted because he had an uninformed and uncritical response to a valid point. Not because of a difference in opinion but because he entered a conversation with the sole intent of saying “not me”, clearly showing he didn’t even begin to engage in any way with the topic.
It is disingenuous to call it a difference in opinion.
However, conversation is good, and I appreciate your attempt at getting him to put some more thought into the topic. It’s something I need to be better at myself rather than being snippy.
In that spirit of conversation I do wanna say that I think focusing on different versions of capitalism misses the point of the topic as well. It isn’t about laissez faire vs more regulated systems. It’s that the incentives regardless of the specific system of capitalism seek to squeeze wealth out of every orifice. It’s a constant struggle between the oppressed being squeezed and the squeezers doing the squeezing.
What does this have to do with feminism and whatnot? Well you see, due to the endless squeezing, men have lost the ability to do the thing they have been told their whole life to do. Provide. This has happened at the same time as women and LGBT rights becoming more and more equal. Due to this, many right wing groups prey on men’s insecurity with their lack of ability to “provide” and blame that changing world on the fact women and queer folk are more open and equal.
As if putting women in the kitchen and queer folk in the closet will revert the economic status of those men back to the time when women were forced to be in the kitchen and queer folk were forced in the closet.
This is the topic. To say to all that “I don’t hate capitalism” is to fundamentally not understand the topic at all. Conversation is good, but to conversate we need to have a common topic and a common language to communicate ideas about that topic. A language that the person you replied to does not have as shown by his non-understanding of what was even said.
This is called a false consciousness. It’s a natural outcome to oppressive systems to take people within it and give them a language incompatible with people outside of that same false consciousness. Conversation becomes difficult because what I mean by capitalism and what he means by capitalism are fundamentally different.
Both I and the article are using the academic meaning. Meanwhile he thinks we mean like, Owning a house as capitalism.
As I said before, I need to be better at engaging people and being less snippy and just pointing and saying “your wrong and here’s why”. Meeting people where they are is my goal but I’m not quite there.
Anyways, good luck with your attempt. Sorry that I talked so much. Please take it with genuine love that I want to give it with.
Thanks for the reply. I will respond to this at some point today, just a little busy right now and don’t want you to think I just ignored your insightful response.
He’s being down voted because he had an uninformed and uncritical response to a valid point. Not because of a difference in opinion but because he entered a conversation with the sole intent of saying “not me”, clearly showing he didn’t even begin to engage in any way with the topic.
I agree with this and I should have been a little more critical in my reply to them.
It is disingenuous to call it a difference in opinion.
Apologies, this wasn’t my intention and I will try and communicate better in the future.
However, conversation is good, and I appreciate your attempt at getting him to put some more thought into the topic. It’s something I need to be better at myself rather than being snippy.
I appreciate you pointing this out and also recognising that you have room for improvement in this regard. Not too many people admit to these things.
In that spirit of conversation I do wanna say that I think focusing on different versions of capitalism misses the point of the topic as well. It isn’t about laissez faire vs more regulated systems. It’s that the incentives regardless of the specific system of capitalism seek to squeeze wealth out of every orifice. It’s a constant struggle between the oppressed being squeezed and the squeezers doing the squeezing.
What is the alternative though? As in not against learning about alternative systems. You could argue that for all of capitalisms failings it has advanced us a civilisation very quickly, whether that is a good thing or not is hard to say.
What does this have to do with feminism and whatnot? Well you see, due to the endless squeezing, men have lost the ability to do the thing they have been told their whole life to do. Provide. This has happened at the same time as women and LGBT rights becoming more and more equal. Due to this, many right wing groups prey on men’s insecurity with their lack of ability to “provide” and blame that changing world on the fact women and queer folk are more open and equal.
I agree completely with this assessment.
As if putting women in the kitchen and queer folk in the closet will revert the economic status of those men back to the time when women were forced to be in the kitchen and queer folk were forced in the closet.
It’s always been the case, not that it’s acceptable, that the media and people with power like to keep us hating each other. Class war not culture war.
This is the topic. To say to all that “I don’t hate capitalism” is to fundamentally not understand the topic at all. Conversation is good, but to conversate we need to have a common topic and a common language to communicate ideas about that topic. A language that the person you replied to does not have as shown by his non-understanding of what was even said.
This is called a false consciousness. It’s a natural outcome to oppressive systems to take people within it and give them a language incompatible with people outside of that same false consciousness. Conversation becomes difficult because what I mean by capitalism and what he means by capitalism are fundamentally different.
Both I and the article are using the academic meaning. Meanwhile he thinks we mean like, Owning a house as capitalism.
I guess this leads to the question above, what would another system look like and how would we get there.
As I said before, I need to be better at engaging people and being less snippy and just pointing and saying “your wrong and here’s why”. Meeting people where they are is my goal but I’m not quite there.
I don’t know! You have responded to me in an engaging manner and gave me food for thought and way I can communicate better online.
Anyways, good luck with your attempt. Sorry that I talked so much. Please take it with genuine love that I want to give it with.
I have ADHD, I am an expert at talking too much. 😉
Appreciate the reply. I should really learn how to do the quote thing your doing so my reply can be more accurately interpreted.
Anyways, I want to focus on your question. The obvious answer is communism, socialism, ect. A concept alot of people don’t understand is that Marxist theory does not see capitalism as this evil thing that has invaded our lives, but as a natural progression of human economic development. Marx says that the formation of a communist society must first progress through capitalism and industrialization as the benefits of those systems set the stage that makes communism even feasible.
The part that gets people confused is that outside of theory and in real life, never has a industrialized capitalist society progressed to communism. Instead all attempts were pre industrial feudal or near feudal revolutions who attempted to leap frog over capitalism straight to industrial communism.
This history has resulted in many many different forms of communist thought. Maoist, leninists, trotskyist, stalinists, and so on. But we are not talking about those. I want to hard focus in on Marxism as just a foundational idea, because holy shit you have no clue how influential Marx was to like, our understanding of sociology and economics.
That is all to say, I do not have a silver bullet answer for you on “which system” and “what exactly that looks like”. There’s a lot of different possibilities, and as we get increasingly into late stage capitalism, our ideas about communism change to meet the world we know. Marx didn’t know what a fucking Uber eats was ya know lol.
The best answer I have for you is to genuinely and with an open mind free of pre considered notions (as best you can for that impossible task) try and read The Communist Manifesto. I guarantee it’s not the book you think it is.
However please also temper expectations. It’s a foundational text. Talking about some base concepts. It will not hand you a silver bullet but Instead will just fill you with the feeling that we can do better than what we currently are. I am going to put a quote from disco Elysium, wonderful game, in here about the feeling of understanding this and what it can do to you.
“0.000% of Communism has been built. Evil child-murdering billionaires still rule the world with a shit-eating grin. All he has managed to do is make himself sad. He is starting to suspect Kras Mazov (game stand in for Karl Marx) fucked him over personally with his socio-economic theory. It has, however, made him into a very, very smart boy with something like a university degree in Truth. Instead of building Communism, he now builds a precise model of this grotesque, duplicitous world.”
Again I am quite busy so a reply will take me some time, just wanted to let you know again.
As for the quotes. You can use “>” without the quotation marks. Followed by a space and the text you’re quoting. For more you can search the internet for Markdown syntax. You can do italics and bold and lots more.
He’s being down voted because he had an uninformed and uncritical response to a valid point. Not because of a difference in opinion but because he entered a conversation with the sole intent of saying “not me”, clearly showing he didn’t even begin to engage in any way with the topic.
It is disingenuous to call it a difference in opinion.
However, conversation is good, and I appreciate your attempt at getting him to put some more thought into the topic. It’s something I need to be better at myself rather than being snippy.
In that spirit of conversation I do wanna say that I think focusing on different versions of capitalism misses the point of the topic as well. It isn’t about laissez faire vs more regulated systems. It’s that the incentives regardless of the specific system of capitalism seek to squeeze wealth out of every orifice. It’s a constant struggle between the oppressed being squeezed and the squeezers doing the squeezing.
What does this have to do with feminism and whatnot? Well you see, due to the endless squeezing, men have lost the ability to do the thing they have been told their whole life to do. Provide. This has happened at the same time as women and LGBT rights becoming more and more equal. Due to this, many right wing groups prey on men’s insecurity with their lack of ability to “provide” and blame that changing world on the fact women and queer folk are more open and equal.
As if putting women in the kitchen and queer folk in the closet will revert the economic status of those men back to the time when women were forced to be in the kitchen and queer folk were forced in the closet.
This is the topic. To say to all that “I don’t hate capitalism” is to fundamentally not understand the topic at all. Conversation is good, but to conversate we need to have a common topic and a common language to communicate ideas about that topic. A language that the person you replied to does not have as shown by his non-understanding of what was even said.
This is called a false consciousness. It’s a natural outcome to oppressive systems to take people within it and give them a language incompatible with people outside of that same false consciousness. Conversation becomes difficult because what I mean by capitalism and what he means by capitalism are fundamentally different.
Both I and the article are using the academic meaning. Meanwhile he thinks we mean like, Owning a house as capitalism.
As I said before, I need to be better at engaging people and being less snippy and just pointing and saying “your wrong and here’s why”. Meeting people where they are is my goal but I’m not quite there.
Anyways, good luck with your attempt. Sorry that I talked so much. Please take it with genuine love that I want to give it with.
Thanks for the reply. I will respond to this at some point today, just a little busy right now and don’t want you to think I just ignored your insightful response.
Take your time. Ill be here, willing to talk the best I can.
I agree with this and I should have been a little more critical in my reply to them.
Apologies, this wasn’t my intention and I will try and communicate better in the future.
I appreciate you pointing this out and also recognising that you have room for improvement in this regard. Not too many people admit to these things.
What is the alternative though? As in not against learning about alternative systems. You could argue that for all of capitalisms failings it has advanced us a civilisation very quickly, whether that is a good thing or not is hard to say.
I agree completely with this assessment.
It’s always been the case, not that it’s acceptable, that the media and people with power like to keep us hating each other. Class war not culture war.
I guess this leads to the question above, what would another system look like and how would we get there.
I don’t know! You have responded to me in an engaging manner and gave me food for thought and way I can communicate better online.
I have ADHD, I am an expert at talking too much. 😉
Appreciate the reply. I should really learn how to do the quote thing your doing so my reply can be more accurately interpreted.
Anyways, I want to focus on your question. The obvious answer is communism, socialism, ect. A concept alot of people don’t understand is that Marxist theory does not see capitalism as this evil thing that has invaded our lives, but as a natural progression of human economic development. Marx says that the formation of a communist society must first progress through capitalism and industrialization as the benefits of those systems set the stage that makes communism even feasible.
The part that gets people confused is that outside of theory and in real life, never has a industrialized capitalist society progressed to communism. Instead all attempts were pre industrial feudal or near feudal revolutions who attempted to leap frog over capitalism straight to industrial communism.
This history has resulted in many many different forms of communist thought. Maoist, leninists, trotskyist, stalinists, and so on. But we are not talking about those. I want to hard focus in on Marxism as just a foundational idea, because holy shit you have no clue how influential Marx was to like, our understanding of sociology and economics.
That is all to say, I do not have a silver bullet answer for you on “which system” and “what exactly that looks like”. There’s a lot of different possibilities, and as we get increasingly into late stage capitalism, our ideas about communism change to meet the world we know. Marx didn’t know what a fucking Uber eats was ya know lol.
The best answer I have for you is to genuinely and with an open mind free of pre considered notions (as best you can for that impossible task) try and read The Communist Manifesto. I guarantee it’s not the book you think it is.
However please also temper expectations. It’s a foundational text. Talking about some base concepts. It will not hand you a silver bullet but Instead will just fill you with the feeling that we can do better than what we currently are. I am going to put a quote from disco Elysium, wonderful game, in here about the feeling of understanding this and what it can do to you.
“0.000% of Communism has been built. Evil child-murdering billionaires still rule the world with a shit-eating grin. All he has managed to do is make himself sad. He is starting to suspect Kras Mazov (game stand in for Karl Marx) fucked him over personally with his socio-economic theory. It has, however, made him into a very, very smart boy with something like a university degree in Truth. Instead of building Communism, he now builds a precise model of this grotesque, duplicitous world.”
Again I am quite busy so a reply will take me some time, just wanted to let you know again.
As for the quotes. You can use “>” without the quotation marks. Followed by a space and the text you’re quoting. For more you can search the internet for Markdown syntax. You can do italics and bold and lots more.
Much appreciated for the tutorial. I will try to use that going forward. Once again, take your time. I will be here.