bastion

Always welcome. Sharing the good things is a part of the fun.

this might be ringing in late, but consider a large USB disk with Ventoy on it. you can just drop multiple ISOs on it, and then select which one you want you boot from right at boot time.

this will give you the ability to easily try multiple distros without too much commitment.

Ah. I do not think of capitalism (nor communism) as a base, but rather as an emergent activity of the (more foundational than economic structure) human mind and societal organism.

this is because regardless of the presence or absence of capitalism and communism, the human mind exists. The human mind and the underlying physical, emotional, mental, and holistic needs are more foundational than the economic system we employ.

I don't think I'm conflating them. I simply think the humans are the foundation, not the economic system.

fair enough. :-)

57 upvotes and zero downvotes.

based.

I can't take him.. ..e said e's not dead!

Capitalism is a natural phenomenon, not an idea.

I disagree. Capitalism is both a natural phenomenon (in the sense that all thoughts that are put into action, and all behaviors, collective and individual, are natural phenomena) and an ideology (in the sense that it is an actively-developed conceptual framework which addresses, poorly or not, the underlying need for the organized distribution of human energy and labor).

As to what you're saying regarding capitalism and socialism, I don't disagree. I don't think it's necessary to spell out the class and power dynamics, but ok.

now, how would you say the above concepts regarding capitalism and communism concisely?

Your definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society.

No, it does not fail to do so, it simply doesn't attempt to do so, because that's pretty well-trodden ground. Whether or not that treading leads to an actual path forward is pretty debatable.

So, I tire of the argument. But I don't think that communism is any more viable or functional a system then capitalism. I do understand that there's a concept that capitalism must eventually give way to socialism - but I do not agree.

I do, however, think that the ideals of socialism and communism are ultimately reflective of a true underlying need that capitalism does not address, just as I think that socialism doesn't address true underlying needs that capitalism does.

In my opinion, the way forward, though, does involve meeting the needs seen by both capitalists and socialists, through done kind of collectivist sovereignty, and explicit social contracts.

edit: and, here I am, continuing the conversation. sigh :-)

I understand this means a lot to you, and that you have a lot of reasons to think the way you do. Also, that communicating with others, and winning them over, means a lot to you.

My ideology also means a lot to me, and I have a lot of reasons to think the way I do. ..and I disagree with you on many things. But I don't really care too much about winning people over. I think time will do that for me. ..and this feels more like a battle of wills than a conversation but conversation is why I'm conversing.

Good luck out there.

Maybe what you're experiencing is an accurate emotional assessment of the state of our society.

Baker's dozens, even!

living out in the woods, getting dirt on your hands, and learning to work well with feelings again.

physically? That's the point. you don't get "pure capitalism" or "pure comunism". But abstractly, and relevant, physically:

For communism, or public ownership of production (and often, resources in general), the issue is that it is easily hacked by individuals who seek personal advantage by seizing control of the distribution of assets - but the system relies on people not doing that. this occurs both in the large and small scales. on the kindest end, this looks like "the fireman's ball".

For capitalism, or the private ownership of production (and often, resources in general), the issue is that it's sustainability depends on "enlightened" or at least reasonable self-interest, but winning strategies often don't have those characteristics. In effect, when no public-sector oversight is present, capitalistic systems shit the bed. when public-sector oversight is present, capitalistic systems tend to remove it.

Feel free to disagree about any of this, but I don't think I'll be pursuing this conversation further. I don't think it's likely to be fruitful.