You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: It was never about capitalism vs communism - it was always about centralized vs decentralized
Hello again, bacchist. :) Once again, you've missed my point in your eagerness to accuse me of a logical fallacy. And once again, you've labeled me with a fallacy which does not apply to my argument.
No True Scotsman, by definition, applies only when there is no objective rule of difference between the two claims. I was careful to delineate a difference between "pure capitalism" and "capitalism-with-force." I had assumed readers would be able to tell the difference, but to spell it out, one of them has force and the other does not.
But all capitalism that has ever actually existed has required and implemented force in order to function. Capitalism can not exist without systematic violence.
This is from the Wikipedia you just cited...
Compare that to the following:
A: Capitalism doesn't require violence in order to function.
B: But literally every capitalist economy is underwritten by violence.
A: Yes, but pure capitalism doesn't require violence.
See?
And here's where that 4-tier reply limit really shows...
No, Ozer. The issue is the conflation of the notion of corporatism (capitalism + force) with the free market/capitalism (capitalism... as in the free market).
Communism always has force behind it. There is no form of communism that doesn't. Hence, it doesn't equate to parallel the two terms.
It is because of this tendency to conflate that "capitalism" has been such an insidious term:
Free market capitalism, do not require violence to work, or centralized power. Open source software, Internet, bitcoins, streem, other blockchain based technologies, are all great examples of violence-free, decentralized free markets.
I could say the same with communism. Communism requires centralized violence of state. No application of communism has ever been totally voluntary.
"Compare that to the following:
A: Capitalism doesn't require violence in order to function.
B: But literally every capitalist economy is underwritten by violence.
A: Yes, but pure capitalism doesn't require violence.
See?"
Which capitalist economy was "underwritten" with violence? You realize "underwrite" means "accept liability for", right? Where does violence come into consensual exchanges of capital among private property owners? If I rake someone's lawn for a glass of lemonade, who was the victim of violence?
Why are commies so intellectually dishonest?
I would say that a technologically decentralized financial system that prohibits the use of force will be pure capitalism without force meaning no monopolies only individuals exercising their rights to freely exchange. For example a smart contract using cryptocurrencies that allows a p2p exchange to exist and is encrypted and can not be hacked by any group. It runs itself endlessly with no arbitrary use of force and it runs honestly with open source software and never cheats you or tries to create a monopoly. SO we are now indeed coming into an age where pure capitalism ie a truly free unhindered market can exist where absolutely no force is used at all.