> "Capitalist" has a definition that does not mean "something I don't like."
“Something I don't like”? Don't be a child. Capitalism is a mode of production. According to Marxism it could be state-lead, which the Soviet Union pursued because they wanted to move through capitalism into socialism (and then communism).
Of course one can disagree with Marxism.
Go grind your axe somewhere else. The topic is climate change.
> But you aren't, are you? I don't expect people to completely detatch themselves from society, but you at least need to commit yourself to that lifestyle of a certain extent if you want me to consider you a real anarcho-primitivist as opposed to simply a contrarian. At the very least, you should be able to survive with minimal support for a year before you make the conclusion that this is the way you want all of humanity to live forever.
Have you heard of the phrase “e.g.“?
And also, not really. I could be an anarcho-primitivist who claims that industrial society has made such opt-in lifestyles impossible. For one, someone who happened to be born into industrial society might not have the skills to live in the wilds since they weren't embedded in that kind of environment from birth. Second of all, maybe industrial society has already forced former hunter-gatherers into society as wage workers and whatnot. Then what chance does an “Internet Contrarian” stand?
Third of all: the goal for someone of that ideological bent might not be to convince some Internet Contrarian of some opposite persuasion. In fact, it is mind-boggling how arrogant it is to claim that such a person would first have to prove something to you, who—considering how most Internet Contrarians are like—is likely to be so ideologically possessed that any evidence contrary to your own beliefs is likely to make you dig in your heels further (backfire effect or something...?).
If you're using a nonstandard Marxist definition of capitalism, then you should point that out because that is not the definition that people typically use. You know full on well that you're calling them capitalist to make capitalism sound worse and communism better.
This reminds me of another Marxist motte and bailey where when you call out their use of "exploit" they retreat and claim that "exploit" is a neutral word, knowing full well they used that word to illicit negative emotions.
Also, no. The Soviet Union never considered themselves state capitalists. That was a label that certain leftist critics used.
> Go grind your axe somewhere else. The topic is climate change.
Says the person who brought up their personal economic grievances to this discussion in the first place. I'm not making an attack on communism. I used it as an example of how economic system has zero correlation to climate change.
> Have you heard of the phrase “e.g.“?
Yes. Have you heard of giving a counterexample to an example?
> And also, not really. I could be an anarcho-primitivist who claims that industrial society has made such opt-in lifestyles impossible. For one, someone who happened to be born into industrial society might not have the skills to live in the wilds since they weren't embedded in that kind of environment from birth. Second of all, maybe industrial society has already forced former hunter-gatherers into society as wage workers and whatnot. Then what chance does an “Internet Contrarian” stand?
That's why I said "minimal assistance." The important part is making a good faith attempt to imagine how you would fare in such a lifestyle. If you were to do so, I'd expect that you at least be as committed as the Youtube channel Primitive Technology in learning this primitive skills. If you don't make such an attempt, I'll think that you're an contrarian.
> Third of all: the goal for someone of that ideological bent might not be to convince some Internet Contrarian of some opposite persuasion. In fact, it is mind-boggling how arrogant it is to claim that such a person would first have to prove something to you
A contrarian also isn't just "thing you don't like." I believe in mixed market capitalism, and my actions are consistent with that of a mixed market capitalist. If you attack my brand of mixed market capitalism, I'll give you a defense of such beliefs. I won't make up a hypothetical of something that I may or may not believe in and defend that instead.
> Also, no. The Soviet Union never considered themselves state capitalists.
They did not describe themselves as ideological state capitalists, they did recognize the existence of state capitalism, and advocate it, in the hands of a “revolutionary-democratic” state as a step from the pre-revolutionary status-quo toward socialism.
Lenin wrote fairly extensively on the topic.
E.g., for one example, in The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It (1917)
> That was a label that certain leftist critics used.
Leftist—largely Marxist—critics of the USSR, and vanguardist-authoritarian systems more generally, point out that there is both a theoretical reason to see a vanguardist regime as not “revolutionary-democratic” and an empirical case to be made based in experience in the USSR and other countries employing similar approaches that vanguardist state capitalism gets stuck in elite-serving extractive capitalism and does not transition to socialism.
But the label “state capitalism” does not originate with that critique.
> If you're using a nonstandard Marxist definition of capitalism, then you should point that out because that is not the definition that people typically use.
You bring up two Marxist governments and then get upset when I talk about capitalism as defined by Marxists.
Like I said: you can disagree with Marxism (or its perspective on what capitalism) but to call it akin to "something I don't like" is childish.
> Says the person who brought up their personal economic grievances to this discussion in the first place. I'm not making an attack on communism. I used it as an example of how economic system has zero correlation to climate change.
Yeah, sure. The problem with making any comments on this contrarian stronghold is that some ideologue will take offense to the specific words unless they are surrounded by three paragraphs of expository context.
But in the service of offending your sensibilities slightly less in the future I will reflect on what I could have replaced this part with:
> > and not the economic system itself.
I really should have said:
> > and not the system itself.
There. Still no less true.
> That's why I said "minimal assistance." The important part is making a good faith attempt to imagine how you would fare in such a lifestyle. I
That's not how ideological critique works. We're all armchair opiners here.
You're gonna be disappointed if you think your naysayers are going to live out this perverse performative exhibition. And it's even less likely for an ideology that lives in the pre-agricultural revolution past.
> A contrarian also isn't just "thing you don't like." I believe in mixed market capitalism, and my actions are consistent with that of a mixed market capitalist. If you attack my brand of mixed market capitalism, I'll give you a defense of such beliefs. I won't make up a hypothetical of something that I may or may not believe in and defend that instead.
“Something I don't like”? Don't be a child. Capitalism is a mode of production. According to Marxism it could be state-lead, which the Soviet Union pursued because they wanted to move through capitalism into socialism (and then communism).
Of course one can disagree with Marxism.
Go grind your axe somewhere else. The topic is climate change.
> But you aren't, are you? I don't expect people to completely detatch themselves from society, but you at least need to commit yourself to that lifestyle of a certain extent if you want me to consider you a real anarcho-primitivist as opposed to simply a contrarian. At the very least, you should be able to survive with minimal support for a year before you make the conclusion that this is the way you want all of humanity to live forever.
Have you heard of the phrase “e.g.“?
And also, not really. I could be an anarcho-primitivist who claims that industrial society has made such opt-in lifestyles impossible. For one, someone who happened to be born into industrial society might not have the skills to live in the wilds since they weren't embedded in that kind of environment from birth. Second of all, maybe industrial society has already forced former hunter-gatherers into society as wage workers and whatnot. Then what chance does an “Internet Contrarian” stand?
Third of all: the goal for someone of that ideological bent might not be to convince some Internet Contrarian of some opposite persuasion. In fact, it is mind-boggling how arrogant it is to claim that such a person would first have to prove something to you, who—considering how most Internet Contrarians are like—is likely to be so ideologically possessed that any evidence contrary to your own beliefs is likely to make you dig in your heels further (backfire effect or something...?).