It’s not really all that open to debate is it? Now forgive my stupidity here, but it’s fair to say quite a lot of the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of the kind of arrogance and self-importance that permits those of a certain perceived social status to toss aside the opinion of those with whom they disagree, and resort to name-calling instead, yes?
1 Like
Really, it is that simple? 
You mean it might not be related to things like how people are using various institutions for their benefit at the expense of others. For example people see that Wall Street gets bailout after bailout while people not on Wall Street suddenly find their economic options taking a turn for the worse even though they haven’t really done anything wrong? That we have shifted from a capitalist system to a crony capitalist system? That plays no role at all. Gotcha.
1 Like
Well…not sure how the Chinese might see that… Perhaps you are one who feels Chinese communism was distinctly Chinese because of Chinese culture in the first place and has changed and is continuing to evolve into “Chineseism” rather than straight communism.
O_O
I invite you to look into…ah, nevermind. ccp rightly doesn’t want political discussions on their game forum, and I would be “going there” or at least too close in responding to your assertion.
1 Like
I am pointing out that university faculty are no more blameless than the dread Wall Street Tycoon, for one thing. I am pointing out that papal missives issued from the ivory tower are arguably so much distraction when economists, in particular, have proven impotent.
More important, and more relevant, is my point that some humility goes a very long way. “Human nature” is a Rorschach test; what you believe it to be reveals your own priors, and little else. Insofar as that spurs a person to examine his or her own axioms critically, this is fine.
But it is dubious at best to ever argue “you are wrong because human nature.”
1 Like
But it is even more complicated than that. Those people who suddenly find themselves with fewer and worse economic options and they haven’t really done much to wind up there, they also do things like vote. And they tend to vote for populists in those situations.
Free riding is a well known and well documented problem when trying to provide a collective good. For example, if I go down to the beach and clean up trash the benefits accrue not only to me, but to everyone else and since I cannot benefit from providing that widespread benefit I’m inclined to do less of it than if I could benefit from providing that collective benefit. And since this is true for everyone provision of such a collective good is very low.
Now, if left alone people have shown that they can be rather clever at finding ways to overcome these kinds of problems. There tends to be two polar extremes most people fixate on. The first is a top down coercive approach where some members of the community are given power over others with regards to the collective good. The other is to privatize all the collective things. But there is a vast range in between these two polar extremes and people can and have come up with solutions.
The approach is to create institutions that can help overcome these problems. These institutions can be either formal or informal or even a mixture. For example, light houses were deemed a “public good” by the economist Paul Samuelson. He pointed out that when a light house turns on its light for one ship that paid for that service it is on for all ships. So each ship has an incentive to not be the “first mover” and as such light houses will not be provided if left to the private sector/market. But the economist Ronald Coase asked the question: Is that true? So he went out and looked at light houses and found that about half were actually private light houses. What??? He found that sailors liked light houses since they helped them not crash on the rocks…and that since all ships usually end up in a harbor…that if they rolled light house fees into harbor fees they could in effect charge all ships for the benefit they received from the light houses.
Now, to keep this from veering completely off into “not at all related to EVE” the nature of the game make it very difficult to build either formal or informal institutions that can be used to over come the problem of free riding. We do have alliances and corporations which can be used to at least partially address this issue, but it should be pointed out that these are often far from sufficient and many alliances/corporations build additional means to over-come the free rider problem. And as I noted if somebody does not want to join your corporation or alliance what then? What if they sit in a NPC corp, then what. And given how quickly people can dispose of a character and create a new one…there are significant issues with trust as well. There is some means to over come this provided by CCP such as API keys, but those are not fool proof given the “testimony” provided by the long history of scams and thefts in game.
And turning to ideas like socialism (and the sub-ism of communism) these can work…in small groups. Most families/households are run along socialist principles. Some small communities also can work very well under a socialist system. But then again other systems such as monarchy can work well in small groups too. When there are strong ties between people these systems can work. In fact, trying to run a household based on capitalism/markets would likely destroy the household/family. But expanding that system to a larger group of people immediately runs into a host of problem one of which is the free rider problem.
Turing again to EVE and this particular idea, trying to organize all miners in the game is going to be extremely problematic. First off you are going to blow past Dunbar’s number. That means that a socialist/collectivist approach to things is probably not going to work. Once you go past that number or even say 500 people you are going to need rules, either formal or informal, to ensure compliance with the goals of the group.
As for human nature, my view is that we have to deal with how people are not how we’d like them to be. People generally tend to not provide benefits to others, especially those they do not know, for little or no compensation. Or there are limits to that kind of behavior. Socialism on a wide spread scale usually entails setting a system that is based on how we’d like them to behave vs. how they really are. This is why markets generally work and socialism is almost surely going to fail (when used on a widespread basis).
Nonsense yourself. “Free riding” is only a “problem” in economies which are not primarily designed to fulfill the wants and needs of the humans. Capitalism is the economic system whose motor is the “creation” and skimming of surplus value aka exploitation of labor made possible blackmailability of the vast amount of people (aka the ones without capital) because of privatization of means of production, natural ressources and its consequencial pressure on people: sell their time or die. Of course, in this logic, people who like this system will proclaim a “free rider” problem, because for them everything should be privately owned. They don’t care that every ownership of land, machines etc. is either declaing ownership over other peoples work or natural ressources, always with the use of threat of murder in order to reinforce the ownership.
In societies where the first goal of economy is to fulfill the wants and needs of the humans, there are no such things as commodities. If in such systems a ressource, a space, a thing or whatever, is asked for or used beyond the systems capabilities, it is not a “free rider” problem, but a problem of ressources.
In capitalism of course, the solution is oh so simple: just exclude more people from usage by privatizing it and demanding higher prices and swooosh, the problem is… well, still there. It is surely needed as a little tool to make people believe capitalist market works through the rule of supply and demand… lol.
You have a pretty funny definition of coercion here. Democracy means that the people rule (in what crippled way doesn’t matter here) and it’s the only justification for even having a state. A state that - nowaways everywhere - guarantees the right to property (no matter if it was acquired by murder, exploitation, etc). If you call democracy coercion, you kind of sound like one of these people, who demand “less state” and when the next crises is at the doorstep, ask the state to bail them out. 
It is cynical because you deny the fact that states and companies everywhere killed and still kill workers en masse or use other proto-capitalist means of expropriation, deprivation of rights and so on. Of course you also deny the violence of this economic system as a whole: exploitation of labor, privatization of goods, that’s real life violence and it has done more harm to human kind than any war this planet has ever seen.
Not for markets down the supply chain, where every western country acquires its ressources and where institutions, such as USAID, make sure the local government guarantees a union free environment - meaning: murder them, put them away.
For the US and other western countries there is also the issue with in-house unions that are basically corrupted by the companies. Alternatives exist, but thanks to US law people can not join them without risking to be fired.
Calling me out for something you do yourself… why?
And the state is the “general” capitalist. Without him, this system could not work. He has to make sure the inner destructive tendencies of capitalism do not destroy its own base (human life, nature), while also making sure that the most necessary condition for capitalism works for the national economy: growth. Hence wars, hence USAID for union free environments in Africa, hence government backed murder of unions in South America and so on.
Well, you are right. It’s a curse of western societies to grow up with a large portion of ignorance towards the rest of the world. Takes time and loads of effort to get rid of that, so excuse me here. As far as I understand it, “Communism” in most if not all east-Asian countries was primarily a tool to rid themselves of colonialism and the horrors it meant for its victims. While knowing about the flaws of the enemy is crucial, I think we’ve learned that knowing about own flaws is at least as crucial. Personally I don’t think there ever was a “Communism” on a larger level than maybe a village, while there have been plenty of people reclaiming it their goal to create/reach communism, it hasn’t been done. Now I know for former Soviet Union that Communism was always seen as the goal, while state socialism was seen as the way to get there. I don’t know how China approaches this nowadays, but from the little I know it would seem that China could maybe be a somewhat socialist state with the goal of Communism, but surely not “having” Communism.
There is also no current movement that asks for a new attempt at Communism, as far as I know. Instead you have the poor and beaten down turn towards religious craze or other forms of reactionary movement, while the “winners” slowly get rancid from their own fat.
It’s a fair point, but going into details is pretty necessary in order to shine light on things. Some people who argue there hasn’t been enough freedom in countries that historically tried to reach communism - and I would agree, but only within the frame of communism as a goal. In capitalism freedom means exclusion, the famous “double freedom”. Me and possibly billions of other people in the world can well live without that kind of “freedom”. Also, just because Communism is the only systematic approach to the big issues of human kind, it would be unfair to ask for attempts in that direction to be perfect or even “clean”. Look at the cold war, look at how the US created the Taliban aka religious zealots to fight against the soviets and so on… If your argument would go into that direciton, let me make a comparison: Holding your infant in your arms to give it warmth and protect it could generally be considered to be one of the properties of a good dad. Now, if someone comes at you, while you are doing it and kicks you in the back, so that your baby falls. Who will you blame? Is the dad a bad dad, because the baby fell down or wouldn’t you rather need to talk about the crazy guy who doesn’t like humans to be comfortable?
They also haven’t done much to have had more and better economic options before. They are unlucky enough to live in the gruesome times of facebook capitalism, but were lucky enough to be born in a place which grants them a privileged status in the global context. Now, things are shifting, and they are all the time. Neofacists tendencies like in the US or Europe are the classical outcome of completely de-politicized masses that were happy to believe they deserve their advantages in life, and facing potential loss of living standard they are willing to play humanum lupus est.
So, either you are a friend of humans in general or you are human kinds enemy. Socialism or barbarism - everything else is just temporary.
It seems for your, the system called Capitalism, equals nature. That’s wrong, but an understandable mistake, a consequence of commodity fetishism. “Well known and well documented” - that’s always the thinnest straw to grasp at.
The basic issue with OPs proposal isn’t that there would be people profiting from the work/strike of others, but that miners in Highsec have little to no leverage. Look at production vs. destruction and such. They can’t push supply so far down to influence the game at its core.
Classical families are run alogn the principle of division of labour into “productive” and “reproductive”, just like in capitalism. Communism can likely only ever work as a global unity of people who realize the concept of democracy in the best possible way, including but not limited to economic democracy.
Again, you are speaking about “nature” of people, as if you’d know it, while only stating your own mindset and meanwhile declaring historical social circumstances as ever-lasting rule. It’s a very common mistake, which happens if you - oups - forget to analyze the surroundings as the major part of the equation. The same would go for Communism: just because (if that ever happens) people would tend to be upfront and driven, full of courage and curiousity, helpful without paternalism, it wouldn’t be right to call any of these things “human nature”. We can be as good or as bad as the circumstances we create for ourselves - on average.
Then that must include socialism and communism.
Bunk. The entrepreneur actually takes risks. He puts resources at risk and for that he hopes to earn a return based on that risk. Much like EVE. You take risks based on what you expect to earn. Problem is some people take too much risk either out of ignorance, laziness and/or greed.
The notion of surplus value being “taken” is a complete myth. Could the workers create that surplus value without the inputs and capital that the entrepreneur supplies? No. Further, the entrepreneur helps workers by helping foster specialization in terms of labor which allows workers to earn more. Contrary to the claims of Marx and others wages and incomes have risen dramatically wherever markets take hold. Prof. Deirdre McCloskey puts the increase at 1,000 to 3,000 percent since 1800.
Economists and historians agree on its startling magnitude: By 2010, the average daily income in a wide range of countries, including Japan, the United States, Botswana and Brazil, had soared 1,000 to 3,000 percent over the levels of 1800. People moved from tents and mud huts to split-levels and city condominiums, from waterborne diseases to 80-year life spans, from ignorance to literacy.
[,]
What, then, caused this Great Enrichment?
Not exploitation of the poor, not investment, not existing institutions, but a mere idea, which the philosopher and economist Adam Smith called “the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” In a word, it was liberalism, in the free-market European sense. Give masses of ordinary people equality before the law and equality of social dignity, and leave them alone, and it turns out that they become extraordinarily creative and energetic.–Link
And you can quite easily free ride in a communist or socialist economy. The concept is precisely the same. In fact, given that one’s reward is split from one’s effort and risk taking there is even greater incentive. Why work hard when I am going to get the same reward when I hardly work at all.
In fact, this is where the murderous nature of communist and other such regimes show up. Since shirking in a communist system is often the optimal response the regime responds by using coercion and violence to try and get more output out of their workers. It is kinda sorta possible if you live in say 1875 when intellectual capital was far less prevalent and building factories with lots of workers is the way to make stuff. But as innovation and technological improvements build up it becomes harder to enforce such policies.
There is a joke the Soviets used to tell,
The central planner calls up nail factory: We need 1 ton of nails next month.
The nail factory manager: Okay.
The next month the central planner is out in the parking lot looking at his one ton nail.
There is a reason why these economies are in a shambles. The incentives suck, free riding in built in everywhere. And if you run around killing everyone who free rides soon you’ll have nobody left to do the work.
That would be a market economy. The point of economic activity is not profit. It is consumption. People want stuff, that is why people work. That is why firms make stuff…they make stuff people want. And the people who own/run such firms also want stuff which is why they set up such firms to begin with.
There is nothing to say to this. This is just incoherent nonsense. A commodity is a useful or valuable thing. So if you grow your own corn…the result is a commodity, whether you sell it or not.
Nope, that is a variation on the free rider problem, and it is present in any society irrespective of its economic system. Common pool resource problems were issues even for Native Americans…and they found interesting solutions to them as well.
In a market economy, the solutions are any solution between using government coercion, private property rights, and anything in between. A key component of capitalism is voluntary interactions. As such, if people set up formal and/or informal institutions to address these problems that are either private, public or something in between it is feasible in a market based economy that values liberal ideals such as freedom to interact and set up such institutions.
Tell you what, go out and refuse to abide by the results of an election. Do anything you want other than what the outcome of the election was…or any legislation that was the result of the democratic process. The result will be that agents of the state show up and force you to either comply or lock you up. Resist enough and they’ll kill you.
Here in the U.S. a good way to test this is to take pictures of a building. Go to a downtown area, and start taking pictures of the building. Be sure to do it from public property though. And soon security will be there, then the police. You may be arrested if you don’t stop, and worse case scenario beaten. And…the punchline…taking such pictures is totally and completely legal.
I think you have confused market economies with socialist and communist economies like Venezuela. And I did not deny anything. When I say “violence was used on both sides” it means…both sides.
If you notice I’ll make at least a token effort to link my posts back to EVE topics such as why a miners strike in game is simply not feasible given the nature of the game. We won’t have a miners strike just like we won’t have a bank that is not a scam, a futures market, and real insurance market, etc. These things do not work in game and likely never will given that people can create alts, transfer ISK without a trail for players to follow, etc.
See what I did there…I referenced the game and this topic. Maybe it is just a token reference, but do try to bring it back to something in the game or toddle off the Out of Pod Experience sub-forum. You can go on and on about this stuff all day every day.
It isn’t think tank though.
Pure self-interest runs in Man’s veins. How and to what extent he balances it with equally pure altruism likely determines his position regarding enterprises like the OP’s proposal, and its chances of success.
Citations are only required by scholars; the rest of humanity can happily dispense with them and get on with the business of living.
I am, heaven help me, no scholar…
1 Like
At least socialism, yes. Socialism usually meaning a state of transition in which a society wants to rid itself of the nonsense of capitalism and become communists. Early 19th century communists already understood that to become non-capitalistis not something done over night, as capitalism doens’t produce democratic institutions, means of production and self-organization capable of doing non-capitalist economy. In that sense Soclalism, where it existed, was always still State-capitalism, in which the State still acts as a Capitalist in the global sphere while step by step protecting its citizens from the insanity of the market. In practise that meant nearly full employment, free health insurance, free schools and universities, free kindergardens, affordable public transportation, communication and housing. For the pro-capitalist states nearby it usually meant that the state showed its more “social” face, trying to prove that capitalism can be just as nice to its people as socialism. With the socialist competition eradicated, this is not necessary anymore and you can see the world wide impoverishment that followed the 1990s. The basic dilemma for any socialist state is indeed, that it cannot compete with war capitalism, while successfully introducing non-capitalist means, just as you cannot successfully run a discussion, while someone keeps on screaming at you all the time.
Not any entrepreneus is also a capitalist in the meaning of the word: to have capital. The ones who are capitalists usually take a “risk” in not making competetive amounts of profit with other peoples money and that’s it. Calling that risk is again cynical if you’d consider looking at the living conditions and risks most people have to take to have food and shelter, be it in the US, Europe or anywhere else.
Cool, thanks for asking. First off all, if your only question is “if” they could create that, the answer is simply: yes. Would they: maybe not. “Yes”, because what you call “inputs and capital” are nothing but products/results of surplus value being taken before, objectified results of workers work. Capital is actually the constant accumulation of surplus value and its reinvestment - money-hedging money. The capitalist “supplies” only the surplus value that he has stolen before, he uses todays exploitation as investment for tomorrows exploitation. Everyone can see this quite clearly, if they ever do business in the real world.
One important remark to the use of words here: you use “entrepreneur” as if it is the same as capitalist, while in most cases they are not. Not being capitalists, as in having a large enough portion of value in form of money or money-exchangeable stuff, means to not be the ones who take the surplus value, but rather a form of self-employment in which they hope to become capitalists one day. Neither are small business owners capitalists. “Their” capitalist is usually a bank or money lending institute with the small business owner and most “entrepreneurs” being just a better paid overseers with the additional task to decide about how they gonna make the bank rich.
I think you’ve never read Marx, or otherwise you’d know that labour is a commodity, wage the expression of the price of that commodity and there is a difference between absolute and relative rise in prices. Did the wages rise several thousand percent relative to the price of other commodities, most importantly the cost of labourers self re-production as a labourer (housing, food, clothing, medicine and so on)? No - in fact it did not. Throwing in such numbers without any context seems like a poor attempt at throwing a fog grenade into this discussion
Why do you do that?
Another such fog grenade. The concentration of capital grew massivly over the past few decades. More people than ever live in poverty, less and less people have more and more % of money. Also, the reason why people moved to houses is because people build them. Not capitalists, not money, people build them. Any who owns these houses now? The people who build them? Nope. There are many people out there in the world, for example service sectors, which couldn’t afford the service they are working for. I mean, it must be fun to be such an apologet of neoliberal thought, because for you everything is just a game and you can be part of an antihuman movement now, without fearing consequences.
Lol, so much lol. Yes, it was exploitation of the masses which created the massive amount of concentrated capital in the hands of few. “Leave them alone” in the sense of: first let capitalists rob them off their land, kill them in case of resistance, have the state illegalize democratic resistance, cement the inequality in law, ownership and when necessary with the use of brute force - and then let’s see what people, who have nothing else to sell than the bare time of their life, will do. Yes, they will try to survive. Some will do that with more success than others, a small percentage will even (albeit temporarily) somewhat grow out of the necessity to sell nothing but their time on this oh so free market.
That logic exists in capitalism and you probably wouldn’t understand people who work because they like to be productive, they see sense in sharing responsibility with others rather than competition to the death, as it is better for themselves and everyone around them.
The reason these economies are in shambles, are the ones I’ve formulated above. Communism can only ever exist as a worldwide thing, the Soviet Union was economically speaking state capitalism, but the constant market wars of the US and others were something no such society could survive. Just think about why the US decided to land in France during WW2, after the Soviet had already turned the tide and were about to win the war alone. The only motivation for the US (not the individual soldier, but the government), was to take part in the war in Europe to make sure communism doesn’t spread in Europe after WW2. In other words, while the individual soldier believed to fight fascism, he was sent to die for anti-communist reasons. The hate for any idea of social equality in the US is so incredibly high, I can’t really get it. I mean, I do get that every form of society produces people that fit into it and the capitalist economy produces a load of sociopaths, but the lack of compassion for human life in general is time and again astonishing.
Hahahaha, I like you. Work is - in any form of society - the precondition to survival. You need to eat, therefor you need to catch the rabbit. Let me ask you this: how do you explain the purposeful massive destruction of consumable products such as food, in your ideology? If the goal was consumption, why do companies destroy things that could be consumed? Why privatize anything that can already be consumed? Also: companies don’t make stuff people want, but they try to figure what they could make for people to buy it. It’s a guessing game for the most part. Yes, contrary to pro-capitalist ideologies there are also a load of aspects of planned economy in the so-called “free market”, but these are not for planned consumption, but for plannable profits, for - to name just one example - instance with government contracts.
Of course capitalism needs consumption, as only with consumption a commodity can be sold. Consumption in capitalist economy doesn’t describe you eating the apple, but you buying the apple, because at that point, the commodity stops being a commodity (unless you sell it on ebay, lol).
Yeah please do me the favor and cite the context. I said in a communist (not socialist) economy there would be no such thing as commodities. Also you are completely wrong. A commodity is only a commodity if it has the following three attributes: it must be useful, it must be produced by labor and it must be sold. If you grow apples in your garden, they are not commodities, just apples. You would then be doing your own little nonsense piece of self-sustainability, which I’m not a big fan of. IF you sold these apples, or rather, they become commodities.
In a communist society things and services that are useful, are still going to be produced by human labor (and the tools other human labor build), but the outcome will just be products for consumption, not commodities, as they won’t sold in the capitalist meaning of the term “sell”.
“Common pool resource problems” are not the same as “Free rider problems”, and you won’t smuggle that through the ■■■■■■■■ border control.
Voluntary interaction on the base of non-compensated inequalities due to past murder, expropriation and so on. If someone breaks your jaw, puts a hotdog in front of you and you still feel kind of hungry after biting off as much as you could… that is the voluntary interaction you are speaking of. It’s the freedom of the banks to exploit and extort and the freedom of everyone who doesn’t own capital (wether “poor” or “middle class” or a bit “wealthy”) is to choose for which pimp they’re gonna work and which toys they gonna buy themselves, while also being free off ownership of their own means of production and re-production.
Please don’t incite people to do something like that. Democracy now is far from being perfect, but renegades do no good for anyone.
I don’t know about the specific laws in the US, but what you describe sounds like very bad practise and maybe shows a pretty big flaw to the democracy there. If I understand correctly you are also describing illegal actions by employees of the state - I wonder where the coersive power of elections is in that situation. Maybe the issue is that “state” is something that you cannot elect. While you can elect politicians to try and make legislative change within the state, most of its institutions are out of reach for the democratic populus. Would you - as a free market person - be happy with much deeper and direct democratic influence on the state, first and foremost its financial policies, repressive organs and and laws?
I’ve always wondered what fun we could have in game if CCP introduced further financial instruments to the game or provide us with mechanics to create them ourselves. Call-options, insurance, reinsurance and such.
Finally, you can have teh last word in our discussion. I will read all of it, but I’ll try my best not to reply in this thread, as it seems we’ve taken enough space already.
The funny thing is though, that in order to maximize self-interest in the real world, everyone has to maximize common-interest. Human weak, Humans stronk. Communism is the highest and smartest form of self-interest and if it shall ever happen to exist, humans will be able to reach plateaus, we can’t even dream off right now.
Okay, this has gotten rather far off topic and you can’t even seem to at least make some token references to the game…
However, this further highlights you ignorance. The free rider problem is where the benefits of some action do not accrue entirely to the person taking the action whereas things are reversed in a common pool resource problem. In this case the benefits of (over) using the resource accrue to each individual utilizing the resource, however the costs are dispersed which is why over-use occurs. Both the free rider problem and the common pool resource problem can be viewed as sub-variants of a prisoner’s dilemma game.
And what this has to do with the border control is beyond me…
Oh, and yeah, apples grown in your backyard are a commodity…and they are apples.
Excuse me, but this is nuts. Ideologies are a brain cancer. The person who claims that one is better than the other is equal to the person who believes that their religion is better than the others. It’s dumb. So ■■■■■■■ dumb.
No, my way of seeing the world is better! You have to follow and believe this text written decades ago! You have to stop believing yours, because it’s bad! Believe mine, it’s good! Don’t think for yourself!
Im not too sure about that. History is littered with societies that died out or were destroyed because their idelogies were stupid or less useful than their neighbours.
Isn’t this just proving my point? Of course people die when there’s a stronger group of parrotting idiots running around spreading their “truth” … no?
1 Like
So one ideology can be stronger than another then, yes?
Irrelevant to the point. Ideologies are a brain cancer. A cage for the free thinking mind. it doesn’t matter if one is stronger than the other. They’re all equally bad, because they’re ■■■■ people follow without thinking about the fact that it’s mostly indoctrination from the ground up.
Just look at the communist up there. That’s not a freely thinking person. It’s a person who uas, somehow, learned to believe that what he thinks is true, and he also has learned lots of ways to argue about why what he believes is true. The fact that this truth is irrelevant on a higher level, doesn’t even occur to him.
“This is my box. My box is better than yours. Come, look inside my box and see how it’s much better. Don’t believe in your box, yours is wrong.” It’s 2017 and people are as easily brainwashed and indoctrinated as 2000 years ago.
If you undermine one of the initial principles of your point to prove it, then it renders the point irrelevent.
Your statement didn’t really connect to what i said in the first place. You came up with “stronger” ideologies, which had nothing to do with what i said. That’s why i tried again.
A more wide spread ideology might be “stronger”, but it is still the same cage for thoughts like all the others.
Thats what you said and what I was responding to.
But you said yourself that a stronger one would beat a weaker one, or at least agreed when I put that forward.