Not families held together by force.

right and those families fall apart too

When you expand the definition of family to include everyone, you include those dysfunctional families.

which means the system only works for those who are compassionate, for those not compassionate, the system does not work.

🤔 What we're talking about when we say "families" in this particular discussion is "a group who voluntarily shares their labour with others out of implicit compassion".

the real question then is, do these people just fall out of the system, or disrupt the system

I would argue that not one family works that way

What about those who do not participate however have compassion for their immediate families and friends, are they somehow not compassionate because they don't partake in feeding a random homeless man 3 states away?

I would also point out that even if a family does work that way at one point in time, it is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs

No family shares their labour because of compassion

there are always limits to people's compassion

@>_ I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Sure they offer their labour for far lower than teh market value

You're bringing in terms such as compassionate.

sometimes close to zero

but each one expects a thing in return

that being love and compassion at least

You understand that compassion can willingly exist within the free market. **Willingly.**

@>_ I do understand that.

And it does, as I've said many times.

That orange nigger better fucking don't take away citizenship

lol

Alright then, your proposed ideal social structure can exist within the existing structure.

Either she has blocked me or intentionally ignoreing every post i make 😭

Marxism argues that the compassionate social structure should be expanded to all of society, and that a certain process is required for this.

And furthermore, this compassionate social structure is mututally exclusive to capitalism as defined in the Marxian sense.

You can not do that explicitly except for by force or willingness

If you do it by willingness this is the ideal structure to promote it

If you do it by force you are talking about traditional socialist states

Well... "traditional" is a bit of a stretch, but yes socialist states are good

interestingly, capitalism allows for the introduction of competing microsystems, including communes

So states that enforce obligation to others are good?

What about the 10s of millions who died under stalin?

@>_ If they progress the historical dialectic, yes

@Cody what about them? you didn't really make an argument or anything

I thought that we agreed forcing obligation to others is not ideal.

@>_ in an ideal society yeah, but we haven't reached that yet

I hope you're not arguing "we will enforce sharing until it becomes willing and compassionate"

because that's how it comes across honestly

So if you are advocating for forced obligation, you are advocating for less then ideal. In your own understanding.

So you are arguing that an ideal society is a society where the individual willingly submits to mob rule?