This is silly socialist sophistry. Words means things, and socialism specifically means gov't ownership of capital which necessitates authoritarian control of people's economic decisions, which inevitably degenerates into mass violence. Rothbard explains:https://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited …
-
It seems ideological, rather than pragmatic, to reject wholesale language associated with the emergent tendencies of collectives associated w/ their long-term agency (politics), while acknowledging those associated w/ short-term tx of rivalrous goods (markets / pricing).
Sure if one's mind is filled fully with ideological oxymorons and doesn't understand much of anything about actual law and practical control particular people have over things, you will think everything is just some ideological hallucination, only yours is better cuz its you.
-
-
This seems like a reactionary ad hominem, Nick, and doesn't really speak to anything I said. Happy to have a conversation. Don't feel like slinging mud.
-
There's real utility in understanding the extent to which concepts such as "the group as a whole" possess a material reality. My reading of the relevant information theory and network science seems to imply that they do. Are socialist interpretations of this accurate? Not likely.
-
But generally speaking, neither are most of the anarcho-capitalist interpretations I've observed. That's why I'm interested in getting past the ideological language into the underlying dynamics of what's actually happening when collectives form a group identity. e.g. 100 yrs war.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.