Did I say it was the worst? No. I’m not unaware of how fucked up a system it is, saying “two things are bad” doesn’t mean “so one is fine and we shouldn’t complain ever.”
We don’t defeat capitalism by pretending it is something it isn’t is my main point.
You implied that’s the worst aspect of it you could come up with in comparing it to feudalism, claiming that it’s a better system.
We don’t defeat capitalism by pretending it is something it isn’t is my main point.
And who exactly is pretending it’s something it isn’t? Vaguely claiming it’s a better system than in the past is being misleading about what it is, if anything. What benefit is there in this insistence on giving it credit? That’s not identifying what its mechanisms are and how to approach working toward better in a dialectical way. That’s walking backward on the importance of pointing out why what we want is better than what is already there. Why would you cede ground to the capitalists and their rhetoric of a superior system? It makes no sense.
There’s no “ceding ground” being done here. There’s nothing “dialectical” about refusing to observe the reality of capitalism, it’s utility as well as its treacherous inevitable failure. If you don’t recognise what people see in it, in an honest way, you make it harder for yourself to critique it.
Capitalism is, in my opinion, an inevitable stage of history. Until we see how some other similar cultures’ socio-economics develop in the galaxy we can’t know this for sure.
Did I say it was the worst? No. I’m not unaware of how fucked up a system it is, saying “two things are bad” doesn’t mean “so one is fine and we shouldn’t complain ever.”
We don’t defeat capitalism by pretending it is something it isn’t is my main point.
You implied that’s the worst aspect of it you could come up with in comparing it to feudalism, claiming that it’s a better system.
And who exactly is pretending it’s something it isn’t? Vaguely claiming it’s a better system than in the past is being misleading about what it is, if anything. What benefit is there in this insistence on giving it credit? That’s not identifying what its mechanisms are and how to approach working toward better in a dialectical way. That’s walking backward on the importance of pointing out why what we want is better than what is already there. Why would you cede ground to the capitalists and their rhetoric of a superior system? It makes no sense.
There’s no “ceding ground” being done here. There’s nothing “dialectical” about refusing to observe the reality of capitalism, it’s utility as well as its treacherous inevitable failure. If you don’t recognise what people see in it, in an honest way, you make it harder for yourself to critique it.
Capitalism is, in my opinion, an inevitable stage of history. Until we see how some other similar cultures’ socio-economics develop in the galaxy we can’t know this for sure.