Capitalism was a necessary step in the development of socialism. It wasn’t a mistake, it’s just run its course. Just a technicality I know and I shouldn’t overanalyze but I felt it was worth stating
We were never going to transition directly from feudal society to socialism, the peasant class could not organize in those conditions to rise up against their opressor. Capitalism developed the material conditions necessary for a truly liberatory revolution rather than a passing over of keys from one ruler to another.
Yes capitalism is responsible for truly horrific things, that is why it needs to be dismantled and replaced. However, it also concentrated the working class into closer quarters and developed the machinary necessary to move past scarcity.
Sure yeah maybe we could have transitioned from hunter gatherer society to socialist agrarianism and never developed the power structures we see today but that didn’t happen for a reason. Agriculture solved the food problem of hunter gatherer societies, feudalism solved the military problem of early agrarian societies that left them vulnerable, capitalism solved the technological development problem of feudalist societies that caused them to stagnate and socialism will solve the resource problem that causes capitalist societies to constantly murder eachother and themselves. Note all of these social structures caused the problems that necessitated the next reorganization of society.
Also, telling someone who isn’t already socialist/communist/anarchist that capitalism was a mistake will seem rediculous if they live a comfortable life.
Except the peasant classes did rise up many times, and were repeatedly betrayed by the petit bourgeois and pushed back down in order to establish capitalism more fully.
Plus, lots of the benefits of capitalism that people felt were really using imperialism and colonialism to import benefits and export suffering - not an actual increase in overall comfort or “good”.
Classical Marxist historical materialism is, honestly a load of bunk.
But nothing is actually necessary. It depends on what you want to achieve.
The speed of innovation might have gotten a big impulse by capitalism; I’m not sure if we’d technologically be where we are now otherwise. Of course one could argue that we do not need tech in its current form, which is fair.
But nothing is actually necessary. It depends on what you want to achieve.
Food, water, shelter, sustainability, those are necessary (as are human rights and an equal, equitable, and just society), commodifying the necessities of existence and survival of the human race to make a handful of people massive amounts of money and power never has been, and never will be, necessary.
The speed of innovation might have gotten a big impulse by capitalism
Truth is you’ve been brainwashed, by capitalism to think it is a good, necessary, and even natural thing, when in truth it has existed for the tiniest blips in human history (and in its short existence has cost, and continues to cost tens of millions of lives annually, not to mention the health of the planet, and that of the remaining working class), and you’ve been taken in by an appeal to tradition, rather than truth or reality, to ensure you don’t start considering what is outside of the box, or system, you’ve been trapped in since birth.
Wow wow, easy now haha. I don’t think capitalism is good or necessary (although if things in general happen, it’s part of nature in some way).
I only think it might have sped up innovation, which is also not per se good or bad. But there are probably more possible drivers / factors to that. I know for example that in a communist approach, innovation can be driven by giving the best performing team the lead on architectural decisions. Which is interesting.
My main point was though that nothing is necessary. I fully support human rights, but on a philosophical level they are not necessary. We just want them to be important, we call them necessary.
Capitalism was a necessary step in the development of socialism. It wasn’t a mistake, it’s just run its course. Just a technicality I know and I shouldn’t overanalyze but I felt it was worth stating
That’s like saying “everything happens for a reason” to someone whose whole family has just been murdered.
No. Capitalism was never necessary.
We were never going to transition directly from feudal society to socialism, the peasant class could not organize in those conditions to rise up against their opressor. Capitalism developed the material conditions necessary for a truly liberatory revolution rather than a passing over of keys from one ruler to another.
Yes capitalism is responsible for truly horrific things, that is why it needs to be dismantled and replaced. However, it also concentrated the working class into closer quarters and developed the machinary necessary to move past scarcity.
Sure yeah maybe we could have transitioned from hunter gatherer society to socialist agrarianism and never developed the power structures we see today but that didn’t happen for a reason. Agriculture solved the food problem of hunter gatherer societies, feudalism solved the military problem of early agrarian societies that left them vulnerable, capitalism solved the technological development problem of feudalist societies that caused them to stagnate and socialism will solve the resource problem that causes capitalist societies to constantly murder eachother and themselves. Note all of these social structures caused the problems that necessitated the next reorganization of society.
Also, telling someone who isn’t already socialist/communist/anarchist that capitalism was a mistake will seem rediculous if they live a comfortable life.
Except the peasant classes did rise up many times, and were repeatedly betrayed by the petit bourgeois and pushed back down in order to establish capitalism more fully.
Plus, lots of the benefits of capitalism that people felt were really using imperialism and colonialism to import benefits and export suffering - not an actual increase in overall comfort or “good”.
Classical Marxist historical materialism is, honestly a load of bunk.
Yeah, but you’re talking to an authoritarian, so lots of people being hurt for the benefit of the few is always “necessary”
But nothing is actually necessary. It depends on what you want to achieve.
The speed of innovation might have gotten a big impulse by capitalism; I’m not sure if we’d technologically be where we are now otherwise. Of course one could argue that we do not need tech in its current form, which is fair.
Food, water, shelter, sustainability, those are necessary (as are human rights and an equal, equitable, and just society), commodifying the necessities of existence and survival of the human race to make a handful of people massive amounts of money and power never has been, and never will be, necessary.
Lmmfao
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/08/how-capitalism-stifles-innovation
Lmmfao again, thanks
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/18/fully-automated-luxury-communism-robots-employment
Truth is you’ve been brainwashed, by capitalism to think it is a good, necessary, and even natural thing, when in truth it has existed for the tiniest blips in human history (and in its short existence has cost, and continues to cost tens of millions of lives annually, not to mention the health of the planet, and that of the remaining working class), and you’ve been taken in by an appeal to tradition, rather than truth or reality, to ensure you don’t start considering what is outside of the box, or system, you’ve been trapped in since birth.
And evidently, it’s worked.
Wow wow, easy now haha. I don’t think capitalism is good or necessary (although if things in general happen, it’s part of nature in some way).
I only think it might have sped up innovation, which is also not per se good or bad. But there are probably more possible drivers / factors to that. I know for example that in a communist approach, innovation can be driven by giving the best performing team the lead on architectural decisions. Which is interesting.
My main point was though that nothing is necessary. I fully support human rights, but on a philosophical level they are not necessary. We just want them to be important, we call them necessary.