We’ve known about this problem for a while and communism was the solution to it. But there’s an even bigger problem with communism is the lack of correct incentives.
Turns out capitalism is better than communism purely because it has the right incentives.
In most countries we have hybrid models.
> We need a new economics
Right now many parts of the US are dangerously close to extremist liberalist agendas. It’s as big of an issue (if not bigger) as the neoconservative issue back when bush jr was president.
Wouldn’t be surprised if liberalism took over and communism became the overarching thought process. We already redefined pronouns.
Please keep in mind the standard of discourse expected here. The discussion should definitely not have been able to veer all the way from sugar vs. fat to "pronouns".
(Also, "liberalist" is a terrible term for the "extremist agendas" you appear to have in mind. I refuse to let them coopt the label.)
I think it fits. Basically parent is saying capitalism caused this issue with sugar and he's right. But he's going into a dangerous repetition of history where he sees to "fix" the problem with capitalism.
What he doesn't see is that the "fix" is liberal politics and communism. That's the most extreme end of the fix.
Also as much as you hate it, identity politics is not part of being liberal. I was a liberal back in the early 2000s. Things have changed, a liberal in the early 2000s is now a moderate and the moderates are the majority. But they are also the least active.
>Moving from the conflict between capitalism and democracy to complaining about neo-pronouns is quite a jump.
Democracy does not conflict with capitalism. It's capitalism vs. communism. For democracy it's democracy vs. autocracy. Communism can still be a democracy.
Also I never said anything about neopronouns. What is even a neopronoun?
>It's pretty wild to put the "extremist agendas" of what pronouns people use anywhere near the significance of our economic and governmental systems.
It's associated. I use to be a liberal, but the definition changed and now I'm more moderate. I agree with distribution of wealth but I don't agree with pronouns which are also a liberal thing. These two things nowadays go hand in hand with the term "liberal".
Communism (per Marx) describes a stateless society. A society without a state cannot be a democracy. Communism is antidemocratic per definition.
The reason why communism describes both the economic and the political system of a society is because the two are intertwined.
> Democracy does not conflict with capitalism.
Capitalism offers various means to private entities to steer democratic vote. The two are intertwined just like all other political and economic systems.
> These two things nowadays go hand in hand with the term "liberal".
Perhaps. I don't know what your bubble currently considers to be liberal politics. I still don't see why you consider pronoun usage to be such a significant issue.
I don’t want to single out this back and forth particularly, but it reminds me of so much of the political discourse on HN, just endlessly spinning wheels.
e.g. Why can’t someone hang up portraits of both John D. Rockefeller and Mao Zedong in their room, admire them both, and still get along fine in life, maybe even achieve great successes? Regardless of any specific set of words, definitions, arguments, etc…?
>Communism (per Marx) describes a stateless society. A society without a state cannot be a democracy. Communism is antidemocratic per definition.
False, democracy does not require a state.
>Capitalism offers various means to private entities to steer democratic vote. The two are intertwined just like all other political and economic systems.
No capitalism only means this: an economic system where private individuals or corporations own and control the production and distribution of goods and services.
You can have a capitalism under a dictatorship OR a democracy.
>Perhaps. I don't know what your bubble currently considers to be liberal politics. I still don't see why you consider pronoun usage to be such a significant issue.
Bro. Liberalism nowdays means politically correct pronoun usage. If you don't know this, you're living in a bubble. Just google liberal and pronoun and you get articles like this:
I think this caught the old liberals of the 2000-2010s off guard. In that time liberalism meant something else. Nowadays those people are moderate. But there's a good number of people on HN who are still in that bubble.
We’ve known about this problem for a while and communism was the solution to it. But there’s an even bigger problem with communism is the lack of correct incentives.
Turns out capitalism is better than communism purely because it has the right incentives.
In most countries we have hybrid models.
> We need a new economics
Right now many parts of the US are dangerously close to extremist liberalist agendas. It’s as big of an issue (if not bigger) as the neoconservative issue back when bush jr was president.
Wouldn’t be surprised if liberalism took over and communism became the overarching thought process. We already redefined pronouns.