Democracy ballsl

 A Right Social Democrat that would take into account the suggestions from linked Jacobin article by flipping it leftward (but while still staying in its hyper lane but really take this quote from said Jacobin article into account 

"I suppose you could want to eliminate poverty and empower workers without giving a shit about gay people living and dying in the closet or women dying from botched back-alley abortions or members of religious minorities living the kinds of miserable lives they’d end up living in Sohrab Ahmari’s ideal state. I’m pretty skeptical that Ahmari himself cares much about the first part, but I guess it’s possible.

I have to say, though, that I don’t see the appeal of this combination. If you don’t have the kind of egalitarian impulses that would lead you to support basic rights and equal dignity for every human being, why would you care about pro-worker policies in the first place? What on earth would be the point?"")

It would have elements of Reformist Marxism   polcompball anarchy cutl bolsh to reform marxism: You are just like Social Democracy but not a Capitalist.,  and basically be a spitting image of this type of Social Democracy (Saq khan thought variant of socdem source:polcompball, right center socdem is right socdem on main polcompball article for socdem, new five star socdem source socdem article polcomball, also support five star in main blog and at least 1 pre main blog blog big tent)

See here for more elements of this fixed type of Right Social Democracy (which deals more with the democracy part)

Jacob mag critiqued right wing socdem, so here i try to fuse jacobin mag/jacobism w said right wing socdem in various, outside the box ways:

A Centralism indira ghandi a dem socialist like jacobin mag according to polcompball, move from at heart views blog  (weird political wing so fits here) 

type of Democracy not unlike this one and similar in vein to Socialism of the 21st Century in that

Soc of 21st century and Objectivism further provides unique way to unite jacobin mag + right wing socdem but again in outside the box way (those 2 ideoloiges are sort of beyond left right center via revisonism of socialism of 21st cent or whackiness of obejctivism). objectivism meshes with libertarian, and this being a (fake) right wing political blog

it realizes that both free-market industrial capitalism and 20th-century socialism have failed to solve urgent problems of humanity such as poverty, hunger, exploitation of labour, economic oppression, sexism, prejudice, the destruction of natural resources and the absence of true democracy. Like Socialism of the 21st century, it has democratic socialist elements, but it also resembles Marxist revisionism.

polcompball objectivism

It would have elements of Ayn Rand's Objectivism:  Like "Objectivism" it would be derived from the idea that human knowledge and values are objective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one's mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has. Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—"existentialism"—had already been taken.

Like Objectivism it would be"a philosophy for living on earth", based on reality, and intended as a method of defining human nature and the nature of the world in which we live.

When discussing Objectivism it is important to note that it isn't merely an ideology but rather a full philosophy, meaning that instead of just being a theory of politics it's a theory of philosophy as a whole (meaning: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics as well as politics). Or at least that's what it's intended to be.

Metaphysics

As with Objectivism, this ideology would be built on what Ayn Rand wrote in "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" (Philosophy: Who Needs It): "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.

Epistemology

Like with Rand, it would base its solution to the problem of universals on a quasi-mathematical analysis of similarity. It would reject the common view that similarity is unanalysable, and like with Ayn it would define similarity as: "the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree."

The grasp of similarity, this ideology like Objectivism holds, requires a contrast between the two or more similar items and a third item that differs from them, but differs along the same scale of measurement (which Rand herself termed a "Conceptual Common Denominator"). Thus two shades of blue, to be perceived as similar must be contrasted with something differing greatly in hue from both—e.g., a shade of red.

Accordingly, like with Rand it would define "concept" as: a "mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s) with their particular measurements omitted."

Like with the provocative title of Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness it would match an equally provocative thesis about ethics. Traditional ethics has always been suspicious of self-interest, praising acts that are selfless in intent and calling amoral or immoral acts that are motivated by self-interest. A self-interested person, on the traditional view, as in this ideology will not consider the interests of others and so will slight or harm those interests in the pursuit of his own. Rand’s view which is similar to this ideology's view is that the exact opposite is true: 

Self-interest, properly understood, is the standard of morality and selflessness is the deepest immorality. Self-interest rightly understood, according to Rand, is to see oneself as an end in oneself.

Politics

Although Ayn Rand who created Objectivism had political views that are often classified as conservative or libertarian, similar to Rand (but different a bit) this ideology would preferred the term  "radical for Left Reformist Capitalism and 'Communism'"

Like with Rand it might work with conservatives on political projects, but disagree with them over issues such as religion and ethics. Like with Rand it would denounce libertarianism (or at least give lip service to denouncing it)

Aesthetics

The essence of this ideology like with Ayn Rand's view of art is that an artwork presents a philosophy, that is, a basic view of life. 

To identify what an artwork concretizes, this ideology draws inspiration from Rand in forwarding her concept of metaphysical value-judgments. 

Rand's aesthetic theory being spread by this ideology, being reached inductively rather than being deductively imposed on phenomena, allows for special cases which differ in certain respects, such that the same general principles apply in a somewhat different way. 

Architecture and music are such cases. This ideology like with Rand, champions Romanticism in one more case in which they apply the principle that underlies their entire aesthetics. Art serves a fundamental need of man's/woman's consciousness by bringing said concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allowing them to grasp them directly, as if they were precepts, thereby unifying woman's/man's consciousness and offering him a coherent view of existence

moved from main pol blog  since it meshes better here than there: Ayn Rand was a crypto Communist and that is a good thing. She was just critiquing Soviet Revisionism. Cope.

Twitter Nov 1 22 Henry Lawson's Ghost  🝆@LawsonsGhost Ayn Rand was a Communist. She was just critiquing Soviet Revisionism. Cope. LawsonsGhostFor a People's Republic of Virtue and a community of common destiny for mankind. Wattle Appreciator Terra Australis Nondum Cognitacuriouscat.live/LawsonsGhostJoined August 2022   when I type ‘Ayn Rand was a crypto Communist and that is a good thing. She was just critiquing Soviet Revisionism. Cope’ I also get Twitter links to 4pt tankie Sameera Khans tweets.

. She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics. Rand denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism.

Hébertism/Exaggeratism of Jacobinsim :

  It would also be Post-Catholicism: Anti-Catholicism

Jacobinism variant with Authoritarian Direct Democracy, Cult of Reason, Dechristianization (of Christofascists and commie Andrew Torba type chauvinist Christianity that James Lindsay criticizes) and 

Mediacracy , Ochlocracy, Populism, Radicalism herbertism , exagerrationism polcompball jacobnisnm

radical centrism to bridge jacobin mag to right socdem, but here it unites jacobinism to right socdem:

It would also be La Plaineist (including being, syncretic, French nonpartisan, Proto-Radical Centrist and moderate Jacobinist) La Plaineism is pragmatic when it comes to praxis

---------------------------------------------------

Both communism and capitalism are a form of social organization, that is associated with trade and industry in the economy and discusses the ownership of property. (comparison web site)

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/uwu7c9/communism_and_capitalism_are_two_sides_of_the/:

If one were to stand back and evaluate the communist and capitalist systems from the perspective of history, it becomes clear that the differences between the two amount to different implementations of the same core worldview.

The communist/capitalist mode of thought is fairly straightforward: Humanity is ever advancing on a linear trajectory towards an ultimate state of comfort and happiness, to be brought about by perfect social organization via the economy. This zealous "utopian" idea is one place where Lenin and Ronald Reagan could shake hands in full agreement. Any difference of opinion comes down to correct implementation of this guiding principle

The "economistic" value system is taken for granted in our age due to the fifty or so years in which capitalism and communism presented the only two opposing social frameworks. It is a worldview vastly marginalized in the scope of human history.

The concept of linear progress is quite dubious and controversial to say the least. Traditionally, history has been viewed as a cyclical process of expansion and contraction. Civilizations rise and fall in the spirit of their age, a process that may last for over three millennium. The idea that history is "progressing" towards something concrete was expressed only in the limited form of eschatology.

The Doctrine of progress fundamentally stems from the Christian desire to "Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it, have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Every culture has had some sacred understanding of nature, but no culture in history before the European Christian tradition placed such an emphasis on subduing and dominating nature. It is then not hard to realize why the Europeans of all peoples would be the ones to conquer nearly every corner of the Earth for the first time in history during the 18th through 20th centuries. The quest to "subdue" and "dominate" all that is natural (including human beings) had taken on a secular character by that point.

Once seen as a means of better understanding God's creation, the natural sciences had become a goal in of themselves by the time of Francis Bacon. It's worth noting that this emphasis on naturalism was a purely European phenomena at this point. The great Arab, Mesoamerican, Chinese and Hindu thinkers were more likely to be mathematicians or metaphysicians.

As Europe began to "subdue and dominate" other continents, so spread the concept of linear progress, evermore justified by growing scientific achievement. The civilizations dominated by metaphysicians were no match in wars fought on physical battlefields. And thus the present situation took form.

This foundational belief in linear progress coupled with a purely materialist worldview became the basis of Marxist and capitalist thought. The philosophy of ethics, interpretation of history, sociological method, and overall worldview of these two systems are more often than not noncontradictory. This is evident when you step back a few centuries and see what was thought for most of human history. Chronological snobbery and her sister Eurocentrism are mostly to blame for the ignorance on this matter.

Ironically enough, "anti-colonial" Marxist movements played a huge role in upending non-western societies and replacing their belief system with a purely western adaptation. In that sense Mao Zedong was the last great western imperialist.

TL;DR Capitalism and communism are based on the same idea that utopia is possible through economic organization. The goals and overall value system are shared by both ideologies, and this is a fringe worldview in the scope of world history.

They never follow through on the implication that because Marxism is a focused critique of Capital, that communists are better at capitalism than the bourgeois.  twitter reply brad carter re: sid gadni

Capitalism and Communism both deal with scarcity (distribution of resources both natural and man made), so solving this problem makes most the whole '-ism' thing obsolete.   polcom memes reddit

 Communism and capitalism both claim to be `modern' ideologies above all else. Yet their roots lie in the same 19th century `liberal' world view. (gale U)

cmv reddit Communism, and capitalism both the same inw ays

Communism is the state owning asset, but if people wanting promotion, they'll still try to outdo their peers.

Same with capitalism, Capitalism without regulation will also lead to stagnation, because for a massive corporation, its cheaper to kill off the competition than to actually improve. cmv reddit

Communism: keeps the rich getting richer while the poor struggle more and more under the guise of equality

Capitalism: keeps the rich getting richer while the poor struggle more and more under the guise of equality  unsubbed reddit

For sociologist Peter Berger, communism and capitalism both adopted a “sacrificial” conception of development in which myths of “progress” and “growth” claimed their share of victims, much as Aztec priests had once used ritual murder to propitiate the gods and save their civilization. In his book Pyramids of Sacrifice, Berger writes that the “elite almost invariably legitimates its privileged position in terms of alleged benefits it is bestowing or getting ready to bestow upon ‘the people.’” More often than not, however, these promised benefits accrue to the elite, not the masses.  fpif.org

Communism has workers own their labor while John Locke Capitalism has ownership of property as an extension of worker ownership of labor

jacobn Ben Shapiro’s How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps recycles old tropes about the “nonsense” of Marx’s labor theory of value, while ignoring the irony of praising John Locke for “correctly point[ing] out that ownership of property is merely an extension of the idea of ownership of your labor;

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/uwu7c9/communism_and_capitalism_are_two_sides_of_the/

source: englithedn centrism reddit

A Review of Aaron Bastani's “Fully Automated Luxury:

In the book it said that Karl Marx's writings praised capitalist development and the author treats them as if Marx was a fan of capitalism.

liberal dem fb Communism is the same as capitalism ,a group who use any form of power ,to promote their elitist lifestyle. "Communism has always been about a small group of people having political and economic power" So communism is the same as capitalism :D ...  Marginal rev

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent. —Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down  conpsiracy

Dissent Communism is like capitalism except the government owns everyone instead of corporations owning everyone. It is not the solution.

filmsforaction So what do capitalism and communism have in common? They both assumed nature's resources to be infinite and placed value on extracting resources at faster rates distributing them through an ownership-based model.Mar 22, 2017

quora anarcho austrian economic girl

Not quite. Both are Marxist rubbish.

Capitalism is an imagined system, dreamed up by Marx, but not evident in reality. He only “saw” it because he had defective vision. It did not exist in his day, nor earlier, nor since. It is a myth. It could never exist.

Communism is also a figment of Marxist imagination. He expected it to emerge from the (ultimate) wreckage of “capitalism” - which he assumed would collapse due to its own “contradictions.” His hope was futile - since capitalism was never going to happen, no CONSEQUENCE could follow from “it” - ever.

So the “coin” is Marx’s silly ideas. He had a lot of them. His followers maintain them all, and help them to proliferate yet more. The two sides of a silly idea are the ghostly images of yet sillier ideas.

Now go and make yourself a nice cup of tea, and appreciate that “the world” also includes people who are not Marxists - pace Galbraith.

quora

This is a counter-intuitive statement, however it is worth spending time on it as it has some merit.

Firstly, us humans are operating all our lives with two primitive instincts, hard-coded in our brains: greed and fear. Both instincts can be traced back evolutionary, but this is a separate discussion.

Capitalist system uses and exploits *greed* at its core, in order to drive capital accumulation and profit by almost any possible (legal or not) means. Capital increase and profit generation is the main reason of existence of capitalism. The more people consume and the more indebted they are, the more they work to pay their debts and produce profit. The least they stay idle, meditate about life and think about other things such as family/free time/holiday etc the better it is. Individual wishes and needs are irrelevant, they’re cogs in the system; however some bread and circus are given to them so to happily work until they die. Elon Musk for example is the embodiment of pure capitalism but there are many others in the past that can be mentioned too.

Communist system has *fear* at its core: it has been invented as a system to replace capitalism and all its errors and excesses by force of fear and coercion (revolution). Marxism-Leninism talks about the proletariat dictatorship, where the working class institutes a dictatorship via its Party members, to wipe out capitalism (by force/fear) and replace it with (presumably better) communist institutions. Also re-education (by coercion/fear) is used to create a ‘new human/true communist’ (widely used under Lenin, Stalin and today’s North Korea and China). Similarly, the more people work, the least they consume and the more they give their time, energy, life and family to the Communism Ideal (global revolution) the better it is. Individual wishes and needs are irrelevant, they’re cogs in the system a system that doesn’t care if they are happy or not, they just need to work until they die.

If we imagine a coin that has *greed* on one side and *fear* on the other side, we can picture why we can also write *capitalism* on one side and *communism* on the other side of it too  quora

Also see here , here and here. Also see this article for more (archived) along with this article for more

Also from here: The blind trust of market forces (which act as “forces” only in and through human beings  choosing to act by the open-ended desire for profit, i.e. greedily) is an evil and ineffective way to deal with poverty. But is this not the prototypically capitalist solution to any social problem—to let the market work? It’s odd, then, that the Pope would be called a champion of the free market by virtue of his anti-Communism. In fact, John Paul is anti-communist precisely insofar as communism leads to the same results as capitalism. He critiques the suppression of initiative typical of socialist regimes in just this manner:

It should be noted that in today's world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed…In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only "ordering" and "decision-making" body — if not also the "owner"— of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 15)

Communism is bad because it leads to a situation in which persons do not own, order, or decide in regards to the means of production, but remain subservient to a bureaucratic apparatus — just like in capitalism. In fact, the sharpest slap the Pope can think to swing at socialism is to call it “State capitalism”:

In this sense, it is right to speak of a struggle against an economic system, if the latter is understood as a method of upholding the absolute predominance of capital, the possession of the means of production and of the land, in contrast to the free and personal nature of human work. In the struggle against such a system, what is being proposed as an alternative is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied. (Centesimus Annus 35)