[ingliz]

Which did not make its economic system anything other than state capitalism

As it should be to complete the bourgeois revolution.

Completion is the first step to building socialism in an undeveloped country.

You can't have socialism as Marx defined it if you've never experienced capitalism - You lack the institutional superstructure and a base to build on.

[Ivan_R]

As it should be to complete the bourgeois revolution.

Yup, it became quite a useful formula for retaining their power. What! We are completing the revolution, don't you see? Clear off!

With all those minor differences between the U.S., Russia and China nowadays, there is an important thing making all three almost the same. They are building some forms of networking totalitarianism. Again, those forms might have some minor differences, but structurally they are the same.
I am not sure if any of such forms may be in any respect preferable to anyone...

[Potemkin]

Yup, it became quite a useful formula for retaining their power. What! We are completing the revolution, don't you see? Clear off!

With all those minor differences between the U.S., Russia and China nowadays, there is an important thing making all three almost the same. They are building some forms of networking totalitarianism. Again, those forms might have some minor differences, but structurally they are the same.
I am not sure if any of such forms may be in any respect preferable to anyone...

Convergence theory.

[Ivan_R]

Convergence theory.

Now we'd rather have to discuss 'post-industrial' development. So I'd personally follow some theorists like Bar-Yam in explaining the brave new world we all are falling into...
Ideology today is just a set of 'narratives'. So literally any ideology may be flexibly adopted to serve anyone with any possible actual background.

[QatzelOk]

Ideology today is just a set of 'narratives'.

Not just today.

According to post-modern theory, ideology was ALWAYs just a set of narratives.

Reality is something else... something that we might lose contact with if we pursue ideology too much. And it often appears that humankind has taken the wrong road in this regard, forever igoring Reality in favor of the magical spells of technological power and the fantastic lies and myths humans build around it.

[Potemkin]

Not just today.

According to post-modern theory, ideology was ALWAYs just a set of narratives.

Reality is something else... something that we might lose contact with if we pursue ideology too much. And it often appears that humankind has taken the wrong road in this regard, forever igoring Reality in favor of the magical spells of technological power and the fantastic lies and myths humans build around it.

Which is exactly what Marx said about it. Marx was scathing about what he called "ideology", which he always equated with false consciousness and self-delusion. Ironically, after his death Marxism itself became just such an "ideology"....

[QatzelOk]

Which is exactly what Marx said about it. Marx was scathing about what he called "ideology", which he always equated with false consciousness and self-delusion. Ironically, after his death Marxism itself became just such an "ideology"....

This is one of the problems with humanity's worship of dead authors - the authors can't explain or update their work once they're gone.

This allows groups of *interested parties* to create official interpretations of these books, and these interpretations may be very far from the intentions of the departed author. In fact, any *interested party* is likely to start from the vantage point of their own interests when formulating their interpretation.

All books are subject to this kind of post-mortem whoring. Especially civilization-changing ones.

[Patrickov]

So, according to you, *the alternatives to capitalism* are *bad for common people's lives?

All those animals (including humans) who went extinct were happy to go extinct for capitalism? All the slaves were happy to be part of capitalism?

The million years of human existence before capitalism was filled with misery?

1. A quick answer to your first question is a "yes"
2. I am a human being so human beings count. Besides many of those alternatives (especially Stalinism) destroys ecology just as much as capitalism if not more. Aral Sea is shouting at you.
3. I am pretty much talking about here and now. If your implied message is that we should all go back to Stone Age just say it.

[Potemkin]

I am pretty much talking about here and now. If your implied message is that we should all go back to Stone Age just say it.

He has said it. Many times.

[Patrickov]

He has said it. Many times.

Oops. I apologize for my ignorance then.

[Juin]

This is one of the problems with humanity's worship of dead authors - the authors can't explain or update their work once they're gone.

Reminds me a lot of when I hear the oft mentioned "intent of the founding fathers". They seem obviously dead to me, and as you point out, are not in a position to explain or update their theses with changing times. Some ancient Brit, whose name eludes me, succintly observed that no man can legislate from the grave. Correct, it will appear to me. Yet the founding fathers are always invoked to address matters!

[Rancid]

Oops. I apologize for my ignorance then.

I believe @QatzelOk has even stated that the agriculture revolution was a big mistake.

[Ivan_R]

According to post-modern theory, ideology was ALWAYs just a set of narratives.

OK, let us agree it was post-modernism, which opened our eyes to the fact that ANY philosophical and/or political theory, ideology, religion, values etc., etc. may be easily deconstructed and turned into sets of narratives. So larger groups of people, even with lower IQ, could easily grasp and enjoy them.
So this case with HMS Defender is becoming even more interesting. If we realize we have nothing but sets of narratives to defend, then are we actually ready to fight for those sets physically? What was the message? Weird

[QatzelOk]

OK, let us agree it was post-modernism, which opened our eyes to the fact that ANY philosophical and/or political theory, ideology, religion, values etc., etc. may be easily deconstructed and turned into sets of narratives.

And also, that every technology leads to a new ideology, which is really marketing for this new technology. So the lies and manipulation of ideology, is really just a means to sell each new technology, from agriculture to nuclear weapons.

So larger groups of people, even with lower IQ, could easily grasp and enjoy them.

Yes, Civilizations tell their own citizens *Santa Claus* stories so that they remain quiet when locked in their houses.

So this case with HMS Defender is becoming even more interesting. If we realize we have nothing but sets of narratives to defend, then are we actually ready to fight for those sets physically? What was the message? Weird

The USA-versus-Russia Empire-with-Nukes game is built on a set of ideologies that have pushed along the development of many technologies, like industrialization, colonialism, nuclear arms, and space weapons.

Several of these are potentially extinction-causing. When will humanity learn to choose its games more wisely?

[Ivan_R]

Yes, Civilizations tell their own citizens *Santa Claus* stories so that they remain quiet when locked in their houses.

That it is the duty of every man and child—bond and free, male and female,—and the duty of the whole State, to charm themselves unceasingly with the chants we have described, constantly changing them and securing variety in every way possible, so as to inspire the singers with an insatiable appetite for the hymns and with pleasure therein.

And also, that every technology leads to a new ideology, which is really marketing for this new technology.

Exactly.

When will humanity learn to choose its games more wisely?

Yes, it's the XXI-th freaking century. And we are still like children in a sandbox...