-
I'm no far-leftist, nor a basher of capitalism, but highlighting the gaping flaws in a system while enjoying its positive benefits, is NOT self-contradictory (which is what this post mistakenly implies)
Rhetoric that highlights flaws while ignoring benefits is highly destructive and thereby extremely harmful to millions (or in the case of socialism, to billions).
-
-
b) Depending on your definition of socialism, it doesn't always highlight flaws while ignoring benefits (most Brits would say Scandinavian governments have balanced elements of socialism while embracing capitalism's benefits)
-
and then we have
#refugee flows. Globally. Perhaps 1st order problem. -
Sure. Likely to be a massive issue in coming years/decades but how does this relate to the discussion about unbalanced rhetoric?
-
models under threat and I have no idea what are governance/ethics drivers. Totalitarian? elites preserving? - (voters) preference 'choices'
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Good point, I agree. Presenting balanced representations of pros&cons is KEY to constructive discussion. Not sure it makes them hypocrites tho. Side note: extremists raising legitimate concerns can have benefit in bringing ideas to centrists which they may nt otherwise find.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nick, don't you think that the blockchain might constitute an alternative to both bank-driven capitalism and socialism/communism? A third way I mean, a new, unexplored direction that combines private property and universal access, but with a decentralized spin
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.