• DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Again, distinction without a difference.

    And you may want a refresher on your ancient democracies ;) Which one did not have a separate class of landowners (owning the only relevant means of production back then)? Also, just comparing agrarian societies to modern economic systems is childish. I am much better of living under “tyrannical capitalists” today than in any of those societies.

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I would wager to argue that one being, entirely a concept only existing in human thinking. The other being an exothermic reaction following the laws of nature is quite a distinction here.

      unless you are going to concede that we could just trust bust fire, can i sue fire for the damages on my house? what exactly is the fiscal return on the primary product of fire?

      as for:

      Also, just comparing agrarian societies to modern economic systems is childish. I am much better of living under “tyrannical capitalists” today than in any of those societies.

      You confuse the achievements of modernism with capitalism, it wasn’t capitalism the stopped famines in most of the world, it was a crazed Jewish-German nationalist with the backing of a local monarch

      also, most of the Greek democracies had all not enslaved male citizens enfranchised, with the woman’s vote in most the world being a consequence of socialist campaigning

      • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I would wager to argue that one being, entirely a concept only existing in human thinking. The other being an exothermic reaction following the laws of nature is quite a distinction here.

        unless you are going to concede that we could just trust bust fire, can i sue fire for the damages on my house? what exactly is the fiscal return on the primary product of fire?

        What are you even talking about?

        You confuse the achievements of modernism with capitalism

        You confuse using a hands crank with operating a nuclear powerplant. It is not about what created the modern industrial society. It is about whether an elected committee would be able to run it and average people be able to oversee it. Which they wouldn’t. People that dedicate their entire lives to studying management and economics are barely able to.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          What are you even talking about?

          ok, really, REALLY simply put:

          Fire, is generally an exothermic reaction, straight up chemistry/physics forces, there is nothing you can do that will change these functions.

          a Corporation is NOT based on any natural laws, a Corporation does not exist outside the cognitive, it is not a real thing, it is an idea, there is no corporate matter in the universe.

          in other words, Corporations, unlike fire, can be whatever we want them to be.

          because corporations can be anything, anything bad they do is an Inherent moral question, and unironically you defend corporations with the idea of “just following orders”

          • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            You can redefine the word corporation just as you can redefine the word fire.

            But corporations are groups of people (and some other stuff). They way they behave is not governed by what is written in a law-book or dictionary, but by the complex interactions of people and environments.

            You can try to regulate them with laws like you can try regulate a fire by building a fireplace, but that control is always going to be far from perfect.

            Of course, that certainly does not mean you shouldn’t try, you must try just like with fire. But you need to be smart about it. It becomes more difficult as the corporations and the economy becomes larger.

            There are ways to control forest fires, but the most effective is often a counterintuitive one. Control burns. You set even more stuff on fire. Capitalism is in a way a similar technique. You allow some resources to be wasted by the wealthy but the result of complex interactions between people is economic growth and better living standards even for the common people. Or you mess it up and the fire gets bigger, its not easy to regulate corporations.

            Communism is in my opinion like a fireplace. It may work really well if you keep the system small and simple. But it falls apart as you add scale and complexity.

            • orrk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              there is a lot of waffling about there, all for you to admit that you think “i was just following orders” was a valid excuse for the holocaust.

              and then the idiotic “Communism is like a fire place”, you may think your comparisons sagely and wise, but they only serve to show how little you actually know, or have thought about any of this, for example, like I said before, do not equate capitalism with the advances of modernity, the standard of living started to improve a long time before capitalism was a thing, ironically capitalism strives to reduce the standard of living.

              PS: it’s very easy to legislate corporations, that’s why they hate the EU so much.

              • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I think you need to re-read the comment a few times because I have no idea who was talking about taking orders or holocaust.

                As for my comparison, I made it as simplifies as I am possibly able to yet you still very obviously don’t understand if you think I am talking about advances of modernity.

                • orrk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Ahe logic of corporations being some non-moral entities, like fire, is the same logic that the Nazis used at the Nuremberg trials when they uttered the famous line of just following orders. The idea being that they were not responsible for the shit they did, as it was just a function of how the Nazis worked.

                  And yes, it is perfectly apt to call out flaws in your argument by using other, well known examples of the same theory being applied.

                  As for your comparison, I have pointed out that it’s shit because corporations aren’t some inherent force of nature and are entirely dictated both by society though the legislative process, and by the people committing the actions.

                  Fire exists outside human preview, no human “created” fire, fire has always been a thing because it’s a natural force, meanwhile, Corporations didn’t exist until English and Dutch traders pooled money and resources in the 1600s

                  • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    Omg, you are so hung up on fire being natural phenomena. Fine, replace fire with nuclear rods. They are man made, they are dangerous. You can make them not radioactive but then they are useless and arguably no longer nuclear rods.

                    And who said the individuals in a corporation should enjoy some sort of immunity for following orders (or even giving them)? If employees break the law, prosecute them. Stop injecting nonsense into the conversation.