Embed Notice

@Vincarsi

My issue with this whole debate is that I was calling out a real problem with the real economic system I am affected by in reality that calls itself capitalism,

Again there is no such thing as a “system called capitalism”… capitalism is a tenant, a small component in a complex system with countless components. Its more accurate to say you are identifying real problems in a complex system of government. One of its many tenants includes capitalism among them.

The important aspect of my initial response, which directly address the context without going onto a tangent at that time, was that your system of government being shitty has nothing to do with it having a principle of capitalism among its principles, but rather other factors dealing with complex and subtle elements.

and you jumped in to defend the hypothetical version

No that came later as people had various clap backs at my input, and then we down the rabit hole into discussions that expanded on various ideas and explored them. This was not the case for my initial response. But ultimately diverging into this deeper dive shouldnt be problematic in anyway. That said, you could always have asked me to politely disengage and I would have been more than happy to honor that. You did not, we continued

that can’t exist in a pure form so it’s irrelevant to my critiques

No tenants can exist in pure form, as no tentants are systems… Communism, socialism, corpacracy, capitalism… any tenant you list are just singular ideas, not a single one of them can exist as pure systems of covernement because not a single one of them is a system of government on their own. We do however have tons of examples of system of governments that include some combination of those ideas within their system.

So yea, it cant exist in a pure form, neither can anything else, that doesnt make it irrelevant to your critiques, it just makes your critiques poorly formed (in my view, others may find them well formed). You absolutely could have critiqued it in a way that would have been entierly relevant to any critiques, its just to do so you’d have to stop insisting it was a whole system and recognize it was only an ideal that can be used as a principle in some systems.

and deflects the point.

It doesnt deflect the point, it does however require you to refine the point to incorporate the new information I am present. A re-framing of your point to the new information very well could have had a more valuable and fruitful discussion (in fact a few others were able to do that more successfully IMO)

I want to engage with people about the reality we’re facing and discuss potential solutions, not have my energy wasted on pedantry.

Exactly, which is precisely my goal as well. Which is why it is so important i push you to stop making dogmatic idealized arguments and recognized the complex nuance of these systems so we can do just this, discuss real potential solutions rather than wasting time on pedantry.

@niclas @aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom