Ah. I do not think of capitalism (nor communism) as a base, but rather as an emergent activity of the (more foundational than economic structure) human mind and societal organism.

this is because regardless of the presence or absence of capitalism and communism, the human mind exists. The human mind and the underlying physical, emotional, mental, and holistic needs are more foundational than the economic system we employ.

I don’t think I’m conflating them. I simply think the humans are the foundation, not the economic system.

Capitalism is a natural phenomenon, not an idea.

I disagree. Capitalism is both a natural phenomenon (in the sense that all thoughts that are put into action, and all behaviors, collective and individual, are natural phenomena) and an ideology (in the sense that it is an actively-developed conceptual framework which addresses, poorly or not, the underlying need for the organized distribution of human energy and labor).

As to what you’re saying regarding capitalism and socialism, I don’t disagree. I don’t think it’s necessary to spell out the class and power dynamics, but ok.

now, how would you say the above concepts regarding capitalism and communism concisely?

Your definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society.

No, it does not fail to do so, it simply doesn’t attempt to do so, because that’s pretty well-trodden ground. Whether or not that treading leads to an actual path forward is pretty debatable.

So, I tire of the argument. But I don’t think that communism is any more viable or functional a system then capitalism. I do understand that there’s a concept that capitalism must eventually give way to socialism - but I do not agree.

I do, however, think that the ideals of socialism and communism are ultimately reflective of a true underlying need that capitalism does not address, just as I think that socialism doesn’t address true underlying needs that capitalism does.

In my opinion, the way forward, though, does involve meeting the needs seen by both capitalists and socialists, through done kind of collectivist sovereignty, and explicit social contracts.

edit: and, here I am, continuing the conversation. sigh :-)

I understand this means a lot to you, and that you have a lot of reasons to think the way you do. Also, that communicating with others, and winning them over, means a lot to you.

My ideology also means a lot to me, and I have a lot of reasons to think the way I do. …and I disagree with you on many things. But I don’t really care too much about winning people over. I think time will do that for me. …and this feels more like a battle of wills than a conversation but conversation is why I’m conversing.

Good luck out there.

physically? That’s the point. you don’t get “pure capitalism” or “pure comunism”. But abstractly, and relevant, physically:

For communism, or public ownership of production (and often, resources in general), the issue is that it is easily hacked by individuals who seek personal advantage by seizing control of the distribution of assets - but the system relies on people not doing that. this occurs both in the large and small scales. on the kindest end, this looks like “the fireman’s ball”.

For capitalism, or the private ownership of production (and often, resources in general), the issue is that it’s sustainability depends on “enlightened” or at least reasonable self-interest, but winning strategies often don’t have those characteristics. In effect, when no public-sector oversight is present, capitalistic systems shit the bed. when public-sector oversight is present, capitalistic systems tend to remove it.

Feel free to disagree about any of this, but I don’t think I’ll be pursuing this conversation further. I don’t think it’s likely to be fruitful.

there is no real separation of an ideology from the framework that is it’s context, because that ideology is a response to and utilization of that framework, and the framework gives rise to the ideology. So, sure. One can argue (and it is commonly argued) that capitalism is not an ideology. And it is, in a technical sense, an economic system which has evolved over time. A “mode of production,” as it were.

But in reality, it is not merely an economic system, but rather, has all the trappings, prescriptions, and effects of an ideology - and, as with any ideology, a change in the foundation of that ideology leads to different behaviors, for better and worse. This is why I do not, in general, separate capitalism from the underlying perspectives that drive it. It is useful to see that they are linked, and directly impact each other - although, there’s definitely a time for dissection.

But also, we can very effectively sum the two (capitalism and communism) up as “privately held means of production” and “publicly held means of production” - and that “pure capitalism” would be a theoretical privately-held means of production without any interference from the state or other public entities, and that “pure communism” would be the (again, theoretical) inverse of that.

And, as I said, neither can exist effectively and functionally as an extreme. The more a system is on one of these extremes, the more susceptible it is to abuse (or, proper interference) by the other.

Capitalism, as practiced by humans, absolutely has ideals and principles. they may be implicit, and they may be foolish and dangerous to enact, but it absolutely does.

Even the basic foundational logical arguments for capitalism are rife with assumption, and, ultimately, opinion.

Communism does, but applying it in reality and testing theory to practice is one of the major pillars.

Will you rephrase that?

Nah. Capitalism may not, in the strictest, theoretical sense, be an ideology. But it is, in actuality, an ideology. It is not simply an economic system, but rather, a complex ideological web, including an entire set of beliefs and principles about what reasonable behavior actually is. It is, however, an ideology that has a logical and economic foundation - however flawed that foundation and its operational reality may be.

My understanding of communism is fine. Not believing in the ultimate efficacy of your preferred system doesn’t make me an idiot. But feel free to sling more mud, it makes you look great.

But that’s a part of the point I was making. They are ideological extremes, and don’t function in reality - both because of flaws in the ideology, and because of the fundamental difficulty of getting most ideologies to be universally accepted.

ideological purity can’t generally sustain itself, it must ultimately address external concepts (and actions).

Pure communism or pure capitalism would be systems of societal organization that function as close to the respective ideals of communism or capitalism as possible.

I’m surprised that was unclear.

this, exactly. That the communism site is being sold to the highest bidder is karma, just like the oppressive action of capitalism driving escapism into communism is.

the raw reality is that neither pure communism nor pure capitalism will work. It’s like saying “top-down architecture is better than peer-to-peer architecture,” or vice-versa. it’s foolish. the right architecture depends on the situation being addressed.