Fwiw, i was only spewing things i vaguely remembered from that one sociology course i took, so i was bound to misspeak. Thank you for your insight.

I'll tuck my tail between my legs. You definitely know more than me so it's pointless to continue on. Sorry for wasting your time. Thanks for the book recommendations though.

Thanks man. I'll be sure to hit you up if i need help with anything!

Not necessarily. I'm just very open minded and refuse to dismiss viewpoints until i am fully knowledgeable about them. I also think the "idea creating matter" part of your argument is a misrepresentation of the theory. It's more of a shift in human history through the evolution of ideas. It's a more philosophical approach to change. For example, the very idea of Marxism is an antithesis to the idea of capitalism. The dialectical theory is basically saying that at some point, these two ideas will be resolved and form a new thesis.

This is my understanding of this theory. Of course, I'm no expert, and i still have a lot to learn, but i don't think it can be easily dismissed. Unless you know something I don't.

My main point is that societal evolution isn't as easy as economics and politics. It's more than that. I only offered the dialectical approach as an example. There are many other theories out there that might explain society in conjunction with the conflict theory.

Interesting. I still disagree with the impossibility of "blends", but i will take a look at that book you recommended. Thank you for the conversation.

I want to say that i appreciate your nuance on the subject. You have raised many good points, and i will take a lot of what you have said into consideration in my future discussions on the topic.

I also want to give kudos on your shift from focus on income to more the relationship with that income which i agree can create problems especially when it comes to power imbalances. The overfocus on the income is as you put it "obscurantist".

If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?

You raise a very good point here as well. One which makes sense with your analogy.

I've also gone through the articles you posted, and there's some pretty eye-opening stuff in there.

I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat. I do not know whether i completely subscribe to a "communism is the next best". I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.

So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I'm saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.

And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don't think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?

Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.

That's a fair critique. I don't like the capitalism we currently practice. I prefer a blend of socialism and capitalism - a social democracy if you will. I don't hate large corporations per se. I do hate those who commoditize basic necessities such as healthcare and housing. This is where i believe there should be no privatisation.

I kinda like Marx sooo...

Google sunk cost fallacy

And lotion

Because communism ≠ utopia. I only hate on shitty billionaires and ones that used shady methods to amass their wealth.