I seriously cannot have any degree of nuanced conversation here.
Like I get it, we all know capitalism is bad, but it feels like every time I or anyone go towards discussing the steps that need to be taken to address current looming problems in the short term, someone has to jump in and shut it down with "capitalism bad >:[ " and tear down any idea presented because its not complete and total destruction of the current economic model.
The result just feels like an echo chamber where no actual solutions get presented other than someone posting whole ass dissertations on their 33-step (where 30/33 steps are about as vague as “we’ll just handle it”) plan to fully convert the world to an anarchist commune.
Edit: I still vastly prefer Lemmy and the fediverse and a whole, my complaint here is that many of you are TOO INTENSE. You blow up small scale discussion.
Whenever I have a broad vague discussion of the world that is subject to significant interpretations and assumptions it creates a lot of friction too. Contraversy is one place where Lemmy’s high response rates work against it.
To the people doing “capitalism bad” replies I implore you to check out socialist economists. Fleshed out descriptions of socialism and communism usually discuss emulating the successes of industrial capitalism while mitigating the failures. The idea of armed revolutionary communism is largely a mess that only ever worked in rural environments.
Armed revolutionary communism appeals to teenagers and simpletons, that’s why you see it brought up a lot on Lemmy.
This is true for socialism, but communist economics are traditionally moneyless.
Socialism is conceptualized as a transitional economic stage, so it makes a lot of sense it would share commonalities with capitalism.
Armed revolutionary communism is a bit of a misnomer, since it’s a part of that socialist transitional stage towards communism. If memory serves, it has basically only been done in rural/early industrial states.
Currency has always been a metaphor for energy and other resources to help alleviate the incongruities of a barter economy. A moneyless society is just a barter economy even if people’s needs are largely met.
I’m not even sure this is really true, but even if it was it would still be fundamentally different from industrial capitalism.
The point is not that its the same as capitalism, its just there are constraints on social reality as there are on physical resources. Money is a state intervention and one of the results are systems that skim money off the top of it. Its obvious that an effecient theoretical economy would be more efficient without money as it creates a lot of unwanted problems.
Can you clarify the intent and meaning of this original statement? Maybe i’ve misunderstood what you’re trying to say: