Nostr Web Client

When someone uses the term “late stage capitalism”

I think we're in late stage socialism.

I can see it in the emptiness of Globalist organisations, attempts at creating CBDCs and mandating digital IDs, increasingly out-of-touch nature of politics, extreme and unnecessary mainstream media alarmism for solvable problems with workable solutions.

Bitcoin, cryptography, the internet and software in general will drastically reduce the role of government in people's lives, if not entirely eliminate it. It's inevitable, if one looks at the incentives.

I'd say we are in the very early stages of a capitalist renaissance and possibly a second enlightenment era.

I see two obstacles:

1. Fiat money and Central Banking

2. Being able to access the internet without relying on ISP's/setting up ISP's without Government permission

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

TheOneWithAReallyLongName 1y ago

Late stage *socialism*? What exactly do you think socialism means?

sachin 1y ago

Collective intervention or aggression of an entity or organisation of individuals in the lives, liberties, enterprise or economy of other individuals by means of coercive action as opposed to a voluntary one

TheOneWithAReallyLongName 1y ago

Wow, not a single word of that was accurate. As always, the guy bitching about socialism ruining stuff has absolutely no fucking clue what socialism actually is. Let's look at actual definitions. I'm gonna list several so you can't accuse me of cherry picking.

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members." https://www.britannica.com/money/socialism

"Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.[6] Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative,[7][8][9] or employee.[10][11]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism describes any political or economic theory that says the community, rather than individuals, should own and manage property and natural resources. The term “socialism” has been applied to very different economic and political systems throughout history, including utopianism, anarchism, Soviet communism and social democracy. These systems vary widely in structure, but they share an opposition to an unrestricted market economy, and the belief that public ownership of the means of production (and making money) will lead to better distribution of wealth and a more egalitarian society." https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/socialism

And because it's long and has multiple definitions, I'll just link a dictionary entry here without copying, noting that none of them resemble what you said at all: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Socialism is about one thing and one thing only: who gets to own the means of production, the things society needs to produce the food and goods that allow society to function? Capitalism says the guy who has all the money to buy it should own it. Communism says society should collectively own it. Socialism says something in the middle, often that the workers who actually use the means of production to, well, produce.

sachin 1y ago

Those are incomplete definitions. Mine is more complete.

I recommend reading the following as it can help you understand why I say so:

https://mises.org/mises-wire/socialism-brief-taxonomy

TheOneWithAReallyLongName 1y ago

First off, your own source barely expands the definitions I provided, mainly adding consciousness and redistribution of wealth, which still looks nothing like your definition, so your own source still agrees that you don't understand socialism.

Second off, why should we trust the definition of some random guy who professes in his own bio that political philosophy is just a hobby over the definitions supplied by a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and a Wikipedia quote with no less than *eleven* relevant citations? We can also note that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy *also* agrees with me and not him of you. Everyone who's an actual expert disagrees with you, it seems. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

Third, any definition of socialism that attempts to include fascism and the god damn Nazis is just wrong. There's no informed approach that leads to the conclusion that those are socialist.

This is a classic case of conservatives bastardizing language and twisting it to mislead people for political gains. Socialism is tangential to communism, and they already made you terrified of communism, so if they can just twist the definition of socialism so that it applies to something they don't like if you squint real hard at it, they can convince you to vote against your interests and in the interests of the owner class, a class that 99% of us will never belong to.

sachin 1y ago

My definition describes how Socialism happens in practice. It is based on my lived experience of a partially Socialist society which is more liberalised now (not nearly enough). It is also informed by accounts of the generations before me who lived in a far more socialistic pattern of society and actually suffered through the atrocities.

The expansion in the material I shared is quite important. It includes collectivisation of consciousness, property ownership and redistribution of wealth which requires my definition of Socialism to happen in practice, which involves aggression, coercion and a rejection of an individual's aims in life, to live within his or her truth and the violation and rejection of his or her natural rights.

It is a social order and ideology that is ineffective, goes against basic incentives, causes suffering, stagnation, resentment, envy, corruption and conflict.

Why do I say this?

Because I see it happening right now.

Socialism requires me to reject the notion of non-agression and voluntaryism, to give up my property rights and the economic calculations I make to take care of myself and those i care about.

The source material you just shared itself accepts that there are different definitions of Socialism. I can guess that there are possibly hundreds more.

My definition is simply another one of them, based on my experience of it. I do not claim it to be canonical. You are free to reject my definition.

Your source material also claims that Socialism is not the same as statism.

My claim is that Socialism inevitably leads to statism. It always has, and always will.

Lastly, my rights and aims of life do not care about credentials or expertise. If there is something that violates them, I will reject it. Ergo, I reject Socialism.

Toxic Bitcoiner 1y ago

The npub you’re interacting with here is almost certainly a bot. Even if it’s a human, still a bot.

rand0mguest2 1y ago

Lobotomized npc

sachin 1y ago

Certainly a very angry person it seems like