When did the Purge become realistic intelligent science fiction literature?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And why is that not capitalism?

No.

You may be right that it's a failed ideology that does not work but if you're not engaging in the actual arguments for it based on the principles thereof.

Just how they've failed to be reigned in.

Basically, it's like saying, "Marxism doesn't work because inevitably the government becomes an authoritarian shitshow."

It may be RIGHT but it's not the way it's written.

And I tend to digress that capitalism is not in any sound way an ideology. It's founded on principles of private property and acting predominantly in the interest of self good... So I don't mean to disagree with your post outright when you're referring to the failed ideology part. But capitalism is basically a blue print for how resource distribution happens in the hands of the people rather than the *checks historical notes* monarchy.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It's apparently an inherent flaw in human nature, all political experiments if left unchecked end up with more and more wealth and power accumulating in fewer and fewer hands. Leave it too long and you've invented kingship yet again.

How do we define "Left unchecked" here? Because attributing any result of emergent systems to something as broad and nebulous as "human nature" is a risky business.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's apparently an inherent flaw in human nature, all political experiments if left unchecked end up with more and more wealth and power accumulating in fewer and fewer hands. Leave it too long and you've invented kingship yet again.

How do we define "Left unchecked" here? Because attributing any result of emergent systems to something as broad and nebulous as "human nature" is a risky business.

Like when the central authority appeals to the status quo so far as to eternally silence individual liberty's most prominent representative only to have his voice resonate thousands of years to come in order to hold those in power accountable.

[Riedquat]

It's apparently an inherent flaw in human nature, all political experiments if left unchecked end up with more and more wealth and power accumulating in fewer and fewer hands. Leave it too long and you've invented kingship yet again.

How do we define "Left unchecked" here? Because attributing any result of emergent systems to something as broad and nebulous as "human nature" is a risky business.

I don't think it's risky business. There are various aspects of human nature, if you let one dominate then the end results, i.e. "left unchecked" are likely to be bad. In most walks of life a good balance, a good equilibrium, is an unstable point, so you need constant deliberate effort to keep things somewhat near it. Advocates of simple rules and principles (ones that usually serve their own desires, at least in the short term) tend to ignore that, because it's inconvenient and leads to "inconsistencies" (a word that's often used to attack people less simple-minded).

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Knowing the nuance of how human nature corrupts complacent systems is just the name of the game for anybody involved.

Capitalism is synonymous with development. Having a mechanism in place for development doesn't mean you've solved issues of humanitarianism, and its ability to be productive towards progressive ends takes an insane deal of coordination. And that's okay by me, because we clearly have two brands of modernism in the form of organized voting parties.

[CharlesPhipps]

Knowing the nuance of how human nature corrupts complacent systems is just the name of the game for anybody involved.

Capitalism is synonymous with development. Having a mechanism in place for development doesn't mean you've solved issues of humanitarianism, and its ability to be productive towards progressive ends takes an insane deal of coordination. And that's okay by me, because we clearly have two brands of modernism in the form of organized voting parties.

There's also the fact a lot of people just assume capitalism is not an ideology but just a term for currency and trade. No, it's a system where the goal of private ownership as the ideal. Its a product of the Enlightenment and corporate ownership is actually its own contrast that is fucking with the original ideals behind it.

Because capitalism is defined by private ownership but if, say, United Produce owns 80% of all farmland in America then it's no longer private as a corporation exists in perpetuity.

Elon Musk and Besos-esque super owners are the minority.

[Durandal_1707]

It's apparently an inherent flaw in human nature, all political experiments if left unchecked end up with more and more wealth and power accumulating in fewer and fewer hands. Leave it too long and you've invented kingship yet again.

How do we define "Left unchecked" here? Because attributing any result of emergent systems to something as broad and nebulous as "human nature" is a risky business.

Like when the central authority appeals to the status quo so far as to eternally silence individual liberty's most prominent representative only to have his voice resonate thousands of years to come in order to hold those in power accountable.

... huh?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Knowing the nuance of how human nature corrupts complacent systems is just the name of the game for anybody involved.

Capitalism is synonymous with development. Having a mechanism in place for development doesn't mean you've solved issues of humanitarianism, and its ability to be productive towards progressive ends takes an insane deal of coordination. And that's okay by me, because we clearly have two brands of modernism in the form of organized voting parties.

There's also the fact a lot of people just assume capitalism is not an ideology but just a term for currency and trade. No, it's a system where the goal of private ownership as the ideal. Its a product of the Enlightenment and corporate ownership is actually its own contrast that is fucking with the original ideals behind it.

Because capitalism is defined by private ownership but if, say, United Produce owns 80% of all farmland in America then it's no longer private as a corporation exists in perpetuity.

Elon Musk and Besos-esque super owners are the minority.

I don’t think there’s any claim that private property is ideal. It’s just a necessary component.

Corporations are private because they are run by a board. The only difference at that point between them and a proprietor is that a corporation follows critical rules of a charter instead of the direct discretion of the top owner.

It’s consistent because individuals tend to pass down wealth to some sort of descendant or “family” anyways.

[CharlesPhipps]

I don’t think there’s any claim that private property is ideal. It’s just a necessary component.

Corporations are private because they are run by a board. The only difference at that point between them and a proprietor is that a corporation follows critical rules of a charter instead of the direct discretion of the top owner.

It’s consistent because individuals tend to pass down wealth to some sort of descendant or “family” anyways.

Eh, once you get into corporations you start developing mass ownership in the tens of thousands versus the property being private and the corporation is about as owned as much as a feudal society. Which works well for an aristocracy but not the public as a whole. The goal of capitalism was to free up wealth for the public to be able to pursue it.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

The function of a system is what the system does. The goal of capitalism is, and has always been, to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few and to force the many to labor under threat of death.