So, they’re not untested and completely theoretical…
As a group, you’re absolutely right, illiberal leftism is not untested or theoretical. It has a long, bloody history of failure and murder.
But you’ll note that Dibble alludes to his flavor of illiberal leftism, which is typical - each particular advocate insists that while other forms of illiberal leftism have been tried with disastrous results, their particular flavor is actually different and would be amazing if implemented.
You’ll note that Dibble didn’t respond to me asking for examples with “Well, there aren’t any countries that operate by the principles I suggest, but here are some worker coops that do some great stuff” or anything like that.
That’s quite a badly-structured argument, in that you have not remotely demonstrated that the bit after “because” follows the assertion before it. One could, for example, argue that they fail because those with a vested interest in existing capitalist power structures take action to ensure they fail before they even have a chance to begin, which is not a test of which is the “better idea”.
Also, I don’t know what system Mr Dibble has in mind. There are lots of different kinds of “capitalism”, ranging from social democracy to human trafficking. Perhaps he could elaborate on whether he means he’s against a specific type of capitalism or against all of them?
So you know the answer, why ask the question?
Productive, I’ll happily give you. Capitalism sure is good at sucking all the nutrients out of its hosts. But … looks at the burning world… mere “productivity” is not the unalloyed good you seem to think it is.
I’m against all of them.
I can happily do that, if you’d like. Or I can just link to a previous thread where I’ve done that, instead.
Yes, that’s the standard argument:
It’s a silly argument. Literally “true communism has never been tried” tier.
That is not a rebuttal of it. That’s just handwaving.
There are reasons it’s the “standard argument”, one of which is that hardcore free market capitalism does indeed work to destroy other systems to prevent those benefitting from the status quo from losing power and money. On the other hand, hardcore free market capitalism also works to destroy itself (as we’re seeing now in America), which is why periodic upheavals to the left happen - often with a lot of blood shed.
Personally I think some level of regulated capitalism combined with a welfare state is necessary for a functional free society, and I don’t think a system with no capitalism whatsoever would work in the long run for a lot of reasons. But none of them are “it’s a silly argument”.
It has in the past, for thousands of years. Capitalism is only ~500 years old.
You want a return to feudalism?
Dark gods, no. But at the same time, I don’t look at capitalism like it’s some historical inevitability or the only natural outcome of history. There were many multiple other ways of being - temple economies, palace economies, gift economies, state economies - before feudalism ever existed.
What do you call people who value both individual freedom and social justice?
I think it’s going to depend on what groups you include as part of your social justice. If it’s a lot of so-called abberant groups then you’re a progressive commie. If it’s limited to lower and middle class straight white people you are get to be deigned a common sense centrist liberal.
Case in point:
FYI, If you don’t quote or @me, Discourse doesn’t notify me.
That fits any number of categories - I mean, I value both, for instance. Just not unreservedly.
Liberal progressive. It’s possible to be liberal and not be progressive; classical liberalism isn’t progressive, and liberal conservatism is a thing. But really it depends how much you value each. Political views exist on a spectrum, so these labels are never going to be exact.
Political views exist in a space that has at least 4 and maybe 10 dimensions.