Analyzing it is complex, but the behavior itself is more instinctual. I think Kevin feels the difference, but doesn’t think about it rationally.

I do think categorizing Steve’s comments as “wrong” vastly oversimplified the exchange, though. He’s pulling the emotional argument Kevin is making into a rational one, which is the point of the exchange.

Yet you support capitalism, which is a dictatorship of capital over people.

No, just suggesting that people take charge of their future instead of just assuming that the system will work itself out. The best system is the one that encourages people to not only look out for each other, but also criticize and question each other. And do so freely without the need for financial backing to do so.

That only happens when people decide to work together for their goals, even if they occasionally have to work towards someone else’s instead of their own. Which is entirely possible, no matter how dim a view of others one might have.

So don’t support dictators :)

To be fair 🤓 since it’s mostly theoretical, any definition of communism is going to be in flux as it has not achieved a shelf-stable real life application yet.

It’s slowness is it’s most effective and insidious trait. It ingrains itself into a society, with promises of “this is healthy if we just let it be”. Which is clearly not the case.

If most positives from it involve it having to be shackled entirely by regulation to constrain its most definable traits, it is not a good thing. It is just exploitable.

Tobias getting around.

States don’t aspire to Communism, people do. States aspire to use a watered down form of Communism to trick populations into giving them power.

Anarchism, as a whole concept, doesn’t put equality first. It can divide power and resources equally, but it doesn’t have to.

With Communism there is a specific emphasis on power (and resources) and responsibility being equally shared amongst the populace.

These concepts often have overlap, they do not exist in vacuums unto themselves.

A system where there is no central authority and everyone has an equal share of both responsibility and power? Somehow I don’t think they’d find that particularly enthralling.

There’s countries outside the middle east.

That sounds like an emotional chain of logic, we must dispose of it immediately.

Luckily there’s plenty that haven’t reached that level yet, and we can do something to keep them from getting there.

Often because those people sat around until those people had enough power to do it.

Plenty of people who are doing something aren’t going to prison, it just depends on how you define “meaningful”.

Did you read the title?

Because we don’t stand up and call them to account for it.

The only reason to believe it would be better with less people is delusional fantasy.

The problem isn’t population, it’s policy.

Because they’re not communist. At best they’re state capitalism, at worst they’re dictatorships, which is just capitalism with less steps.