Prove that this was a necessary condition in the first place. Places to freely trade information with other people existed before “captialism” was even a word.
Obviously anything that succeeds in a capitalist economy succeeded because of capitalism, and anything that succeeds in a not-fully-capitalist economy does so in spite of the corrupting influence of socialism.
Remember, capitalism can’t fail; it can only be failed!
Answer my original question first and you have your proof or not. If you can’t answer, there’s your proof.
Yeah, information was freely traded before the advent of capitalism, and you’re still free to walk over to your neighbor’s house and ask questions about your code, but they’re not going to be near the quality of a large scale service like SO.
Where do you expect the resources to come from to have and serve content reliably? They don’t run on hatred of capitalism, they run on money.
Prove your claim first then ask him to prove his. Even you yourself just admitted such things existed before capitalism. Therefore you concede his point. Prove your point.
They don’t run on hatred of capitalism, they run on money.
I’m pretty sure there’s a “hatred of capitalism” cable going in every Stack Overflow server rack! Don’t believe it? Well just answer my question, if you can’t, then there’s your proof
I don’t understand your negativity. How else would you write a proposal for a completely new system to be talked about, if not in an idealistic and prescriptive manner? That’s the first step to then start a discussion about it and find and fix the aspects that people expect to not work in practice.
China is successful from the capitalistic point of view, but it failed to uphold the ideals and principles of the system described in the document. The exploitation of the people is through the roof.
Edit:
To further explain my point: Communism is a flawed system that cannot exist in its idealistic form due to the excessive concentration of power in the state, leading to three potential outcomes:
The collapse of the country.
The transformation into a state capitalist system, as seen in China.
The transformation into an authoritarian regime, as seen in North Korea.
Communism is, in my opinion, a pipe dream because it proposes a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and wealth is distributed equally among all members. However, in practice, historical attempts at implementing communism have faced challenges in terms of human nature, central planning inefficiencies, and lack of incentives, leading to economic stagnation, authoritarian rule, and often the collapse of the system.
China is communist in name only, in practice they are the definition of State Capitalism. I also wouldn’t describe a dictatorship that commits genocide as a success, in any case.
China is communist in name only, in practice they are the definition of State Capitalism.
Oh, that’s great, because now you are the guy saying “that’s not communism” instead of the people attacking capitalism. Which is great because I think exactly the same!
See, East Germany or the USSR also weren’t communist, because there were no democratic elections (contrary to communist ideals), independent courts (contrary to communist ideals), free and independent media (contrary to communist ideals) or opposition parties (contrary to communist ideals).
It’s almost as if all the “communist” countries you know were not communist at all, but authoritarian.
You know there were socialist/communist success stories, right? But they were always couped and destroyed by conservatives. Noteworthy examples were the Paris Commune or the communist regions during the Occupation of the Ruhr, who resisted the military occupation of the Ruhr region of Germany by France and Belgium.
Are you mixing me up with someone else? That was my first comment in this entire thread so that’s a lot of assumptions to throw on me. Nowhere did I say there weren’t socialist/communist success stories. The person I replied to specifically singled out China as an example of a communist success, all I pointed out is that they’re neither communist nor successful.
This perverse incentive has been brought to you by…
Capitalism! ✨
Ah yes the same evil capitalism that:
Do you have a better system in mind?
Prove that this was a necessary condition in the first place. Places to freely trade information with other people existed before “captialism” was even a word.
Obviously anything that succeeds in a capitalist economy succeeded because of capitalism, and anything that succeeds in a not-fully-capitalist economy does so in spite of the corrupting influence of socialism.
Remember, capitalism can’t fail; it can only be failed!
Slash S.
Answer my original question first and you have your proof or not. If you can’t answer, there’s your proof.
Yeah, information was freely traded before the advent of capitalism, and you’re still free to walk over to your neighbor’s house and ask questions about your code, but they’re not going to be near the quality of a large scale service like SO.
Where do you expect the resources to come from to have and serve content reliably? They don’t run on hatred of capitalism, they run on money.
Prove your claim first then ask him to prove his. Even you yourself just admitted such things existed before capitalism. Therefore you concede his point. Prove your point.
I’m pretty sure there’s a “hatred of capitalism” cable going in every Stack Overflow server rack! Don’t believe it? Well just answer my question, if you can’t, then there’s your proof
In the early days of the internet, most content was not financially motivated. It was motivated by wanting to connect and a genuine altruistic feeling
A website costs money to register, develop, operate, and maintain.
Woah, money. Such a complicated concept that it only exists in capitalism!!
Damn you are grasping at straws man.
Stack overflow could only generate and moderate its content through collectivism.
That’s true, but does your answer on SO pay the bills for running and serving the content?
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/paul_cockshott_cyber_communism.md
That legitimately reads like it was written by a teenager who played a bunch of strategy games.
So much of it is “this is how it will be” in a prescriptive tone as if you can just will things into existence.
You could describe perfect capitalism in this exact manner, but obviously things don’t work in real life according to your perfect scenario.
Here’s an article to answer your second paragraph. https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/yaffed/1972/mtccs/index.htm
I don’t understand your negativity. How else would you write a proposal for a completely new system to be talked about, if not in an idealistic and prescriptive manner? That’s the first step to then start a discussion about it and find and fix the aspects that people expect to not work in practice.
I have a quiz for you; Name a single successive communist country.
Only if you can name a single successful capitalist country
Name a single country that actually implemented communism and wasn’t undermined by the West with coups, sanctions, or outright invasion.
Oh and the word you’re looking for is “successful”. “Successive” is not in any way a synonym.
China
China is successful from the capitalistic point of view, but it failed to uphold the ideals and principles of the system described in the document. The exploitation of the people is through the roof.
Edit:
To further explain my point: Communism is a flawed system that cannot exist in its idealistic form due to the excessive concentration of power in the state, leading to three potential outcomes:
Communism is, in my opinion, a pipe dream because it proposes a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and wealth is distributed equally among all members. However, in practice, historical attempts at implementing communism have faced challenges in terms of human nature, central planning inefficiencies, and lack of incentives, leading to economic stagnation, authoritarian rule, and often the collapse of the system.
China is communist in name only, in practice they are the definition of State Capitalism. I also wouldn’t describe a dictatorship that commits genocide as a success, in any case.
Oh, that’s great, because now you are the guy saying “that’s not communism” instead of the people attacking capitalism. Which is great because I think exactly the same!
See, East Germany or the USSR also weren’t communist, because there were no democratic elections (contrary to communist ideals), independent courts (contrary to communist ideals), free and independent media (contrary to communist ideals) or opposition parties (contrary to communist ideals).
It’s almost as if all the “communist” countries you know were not communist at all, but authoritarian.
You know there were socialist/communist success stories, right? But they were always couped and destroyed by conservatives. Noteworthy examples were the Paris Commune or the communist regions during the Occupation of the Ruhr, who resisted the military occupation of the Ruhr region of Germany by France and Belgium.
Are you mixing me up with someone else? That was my first comment in this entire thread so that’s a lot of assumptions to throw on me. Nowhere did I say there weren’t socialist/communist success stories. The person I replied to specifically singled out China as an example of a communist success, all I pointed out is that they’re neither communist nor successful.
Oh, sorry. My mistake. Didn’t mean to attack a wrong person.
Guess we’ll just have to try again in the west