I'm harping on this because definitions matter..and some people are confused.

Capitalism, in all definitions you can probably find (obviously language evolves and adapts) is based on private property and free, unregulated markets. Trade involves the exchange of property for other property, and if it is unregulated, would fit in the definition of capitalism. This guy is correct.

Money is the most marketable good in an economy that arises within capitalism, and can be traced back to the use of something as a commodity (a piece of other property. Bitcoin may or may not fit this in different views).

Communism, on the other hand, as the half-baked ideology it is, can be traced back to Karl Marx. I have read The Communist Manifesto. It is not natural, creates arbitrary division based on his personal assumptions, requires a state and aggression, and requires a change in the nature of humans just to theoretically come into existence at all, nevermind sustain itself. It is a pure fantasy which becomes a wet dream and tool of psychopaths to infect and leverage self-entitled nitwits to gain power and to commit aggression on the natural property of individuals (down to their body and life).

Understand the difference.

#nostr

#nostriches

#plebs

#plebchain

#bitcoin

#thoughtstr

#communismismindpoison

nostr:nevent1qqsy0wqu0n2yx4p77kypfsyhpl2qghe6r99gcagu2lg24a4kcjhca8cpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsyg9yfk7f4234w9m20484cvgxs3h2p94kdhst2rhrntl4fw4td39lfvpsgqqqqqqs08hkcm

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

they both stem from the same root...

a materialist reductionist view of man as an economic unit of prodution.

We are sources of production. Scarcity exists, so economy exists.

ok but you missed the point.

And that is...?

its along these lines:

"On the one side was the Soviet Union, the pure incarnation of the proletarian ideal; on the other side the United States, offering the most out-and-out bourgeois ideology the world had yet seen. These two ideals were shown to the world as two opposed and irreconcilable models of existence, of two global alternatives in terms of ideology, social organisation and culture; but in an article published in 1929 and in Rivolta contro il mondo moderno (Revolt against the modern world), Evola had already put in relief the analogy between the two systems. Over and above the obvious differences of race, of mentality and temperament, and of historical background, there was a perceptible correspondence betwe! en the two kinds of system: the meaninglessness of life centred on the economic and productive sphere of existence; the tendency towards the mechanisation and depersonalisation of every human activity; the collectivisation of large masses of individuals enervated by the rhythms of a frenetic, restless society; the negation of any notion of transcendence (in the one case by means of a dull, state-imposed atheism; in the other case through reducing the religious perspective to a banal, moralistic facade); the formless and soulless character of the arts; the utilisation of all intellectual resources for the purpose of encouraging a solely external and quantitative growth. Between two supposedly opposed systems Evola maintained that there existed only one essential distinction to be made: this relates exclusively to the nature of political power within the two systems and therefore to their mode of procedure in pursuing what is in fact a programme common to both. The bureaucratic Sovi! et dictatorship imposes a mortifying and grey view of life by means of brash propaganda and the adoption of brutal means of administration which attack every conceivable human right including armed repression of popular dissent. In the ‘democratic’ and capitalist United States the same ends are obtained by a fatalistic notion of the ‘inevitable’ development of society which is realised at the moment that man is severed from all links with a deeper spiritual reality and becomes absorbed into an anaemic unidimensional vision of existence. In that sense the American model of existence can be argued to be more insidious than the Marxist one.

Evola charges American society with creating a totally vacuous kind of human being, whose terms of reference are exclusively related to personal enrichment, whether financial or ‘psychological’; one incapable of autonomous choice, an abject conformist; someone who has been made crass and incapable by a materially easy life which is without idealist impulse. Far from being the acme of human progress, American society is in fact at the most advanced stage of disintegration of modern civilisation. It is so because in America regression is taking place at every social level and is neither contained by any solid barrier nor challenged by any significant resistance: it is a spontaneous and natural development which is now permeating the whole of the Western world."

I think I understand. I like this and agree that humans are more than goods and services or a monetary value. Capital economy is not the metaphysical purpose or value of humans, and I haven't seen this constended here, yet. Maybe coincidentally, I think Evola's assertion basically plays into the original guy's point about conflation of capitalism as an economic system and the American economic system and it's common portrayal. That's how I see it.

American economy is fascism