Well, what I called a delusion is the potential belief that capitalism is not a hierarchy, or somehow maybe a fair hierarchy. I think it is an obvious fact that capitalism needs poverty to exist. The fact how some people are rich and others are poor is capitalism working as it should. Even if you look at the Great Depression, when it happened the economy was much freer. Then Roosevelt started implementing regulations, and it (in combination with WW2) launched America into half a century of economic progress. Then, starting with Reagan, these regulations were being taken down one by one, thus freeing up the market again, and that led to the 2008 recession. These are all documented facts that you can find from even centrist sources. But even on the larger scale, America was able to stay rich because it intentionally kept other countries poor. Because you need poverty for capitalism to exist. This is a video I like that kinda breaks down the basic issue of capitalism: https://youtu.be/i-VsLNOduJA
We don’t really want no interaction with Ancaps (at least I don’t). Because we don’t see their school of thought as being in any way compatible with ours. Every single branch of Anarchism rejects capitalism. I would even say capitalism is in fact a bigger problem than the state. Perhaps the state’s main role in modern society is to maintain capitalism. So the differences between Ancaps and the rest of Anarchists are irreconcilable, as far as I can see.
If other improve faster or have more capabilities and wealth is based on it, you set the current elitist society which, even sharing the same world, gives more rights to some people than other and in most cases the less-capable people will have greater needs.
I am not sure if you understand what is utilitarianism at all. The issue here is that your idea is completely based on the “incentives” and not solving the real problem behind between the people and I try to show you that based in your consequential POV.
I am not sure what is your source to set the “needs” as artificial or subjective but as far I know, even in real experience, these can be measured perfectly. In a system where any human is not capable to fit their needs (even between theirselves) humanity doesn’t exist directly. Or maybe you are just using the word “needs” to any wish (artificial need) and not to the direct ones (which allow a human to exist at least and develop itself in equal conditions as minimum).
In addition, I am not sure if you understand what I say at all. This seems completely more and more mixed in every reply and even obscured.
Well, what I called a delusion is the potential belief that capitalism is not a hierarchy, or somehow maybe a fair hierarchy. I think it is an obvious fact that capitalism needs poverty to exist. The fact how some people are rich and others are poor is capitalism working as it should. Even if you look at the Great Depression, when it happened the economy was much freer. Then Roosevelt started implementing regulations, and it (in combination with WW2) launched America into half a century of economic progress. Then, starting with Reagan, these regulations were being taken down one by one, thus freeing up the market again, and that led to the 2008 recession. These are all documented facts that you can find from even centrist sources. But even on the larger scale, America was able to stay rich because it intentionally kept other countries poor. Because you need poverty for capitalism to exist. This is a video I like that kinda breaks down the basic issue of capitalism: https://youtu.be/i-VsLNOduJA We don’t really want no interaction with Ancaps (at least I don’t). Because we don’t see their school of thought as being in any way compatible with ours. Every single branch of Anarchism rejects capitalism. I would even say capitalism is in fact a bigger problem than the state. Perhaps the state’s main role in modern society is to maintain capitalism. So the differences between Ancaps and the rest of Anarchists are irreconcilable, as far as I can see.
Removed by mod
If other improve faster or have more capabilities and wealth is based on it, you set the current elitist society which, even sharing the same world, gives more rights to some people than other and in most cases the less-capable people will have greater needs.
I set cooperation instead of competition.
Removed by mod
I don’t agree with the last point. That is leave the things to the casuality.
If you are more capable and get more things in the end, that is not being equal with me as I would receive less (in this hypotetical case).
You should lose (wanting or not) in order to fit my needs too. In the opposite case, you should not be part of the society.
Removed by mod
I am not sure if you understand what is utilitarianism at all. The issue here is that your idea is completely based on the “incentives” and not solving the real problem behind between the people and I try to show you that based in your consequential POV.
I am not sure what is your source to set the “needs” as artificial or subjective but as far I know, even in real experience, these can be measured perfectly. In a system where any human is not capable to fit their needs (even between theirselves) humanity doesn’t exist directly. Or maybe you are just using the word “needs” to any wish (artificial need) and not to the direct ones (which allow a human to exist at least and develop itself in equal conditions as minimum).
In addition, I am not sure if you understand what I say at all. This seems completely more and more mixed in every reply and even obscured.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod