Do you think you can have effective communism with only self interested parties? That was my take away from your comment, that you can get communism as a logical extension of greedy motives?

When someone says capitalism is human nature, I don’t think they mean that industrial automation allowing unskilled workers is human nature. So they’re using a different meaning of capitalism. To address their concern, you would show counter examples of large groups of people working together for a common good rather than their own enrichment. Rather than just saying they’re using the word wrong.

When you survey people on the street, would they use that definition? English isn’t a prescriptive language, the definition is what people use it as.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

But you’d say that capitalism requires the technological advancements of the industrial revolution by definition?

I was asking to clarify, because it sounded like your definition of capitalism was something like ‘uses industrial machinery to allow for unskilled work.’ By that definition, I agree that by definition capitalism didn’t exist till after the industrial revolution, since industrial machinery didn’t exist yet. But I disagree that capitalism requires industrial machinery.

Ceramics (roof tiles and pots) were manufactured on an industrial scale in Rome for example. They employed workers and produced massive numbers of products.

What is your distinction between employing people for money and capitalism?

What would you call employing people for wages around 0AD? I don’t think it’s feudalism.

You using private capital as synonymous with powerful people? Rich people to tend to be powerful, but they’re not the only ones.

And are you saying the treaty of versailles and it’s fallout were part of the conditions for fascism, and were capitalist in nature?

Whether a king is above the law or not is the difference between a democratic or absolute monarchy. He thinks he’s above the law, so I guess he’s shooting for absolute monarchy.

Wouldn’t it be a derivative of oligarchy? Fascism doesn’t care about the free market, only the well being of those at the top. You could argue oligarchy is a derivative of capitalism, but I don’t think they’re synonymous.

Is that a real trump tweet? That’s scary.

You comparing additional deaths per year per capita or what?

To extend the metaphor, it would be like discussing cold fusion with a fellow chemistry enthusiast. They imply that it works, and was shut down by political motives, but that it’s been discussed to death professionally, so no use discussing it further. I agree that it has been discussed to death, but their conclusion is opposite of the conclusion I have found online, so I would push for further support.

The answers I easily got online were opposite of what you were saying, hence my persistence.

But neither of us are political scientists. We’re both backyard chemistry enthusiasts in this metaphor. So when you claim something that doesn’t make sense with my cursory knowledge and searches, I ask you to back it up.

I did reread the thread. My summary still stands. Could you summarize your understanding of it?

Can you imagine how pointless, arrogant and entitled it would be for me, someone who has (as an example) no knowledge about chemistry, to go to a chemistry forum and ask an elementary question on an incredibly divisive topic within the chemistry field?

I actually love that. I love explaining engineering topics to friends and family when they have questions, even though they don’t have as much background. Do you not enjoy taking to people about your field?

What are you saying? That people who don’t have political science degrees shouldn’t participate in politics? The whole point of democracy is more people participating.

You seem to be holding yourself up as an authority, but I have no reason to think you are.

Your assertion was you can’t have an authoritarian communist. I gave a counter example of Stalin, an authoritarian communist. You seem unwilling or unable to refute that Stalin was authoritarian.

Can you answer my question too? Why is Google a bad thing? I know several of the OKB aircraft design bureaus were exiled/killed off the top of my head, but I didn’t want to mix them up and say the wrong one.