can you expand on the notion of "merging?" what does that mean in this context exactly? subsidies?

Yeah, capitalism gives corporations and monopolies too much opportunity for power

@dontchewglass
I argue that it isn't capitalism unless all transactions are exclusively private and voluntary, which implies a free market. Corporatism is what you end up with when you start a nation with a _preexisting_ government infrastructure to interfere in the economy and draw out taxes and impose regulations and fees in order to sustain itself, which wouldn't be capitalism since the entire infrastructure requires coercion in order to sustain.

@Tʜᴇ Sᴛᴜᴅʏ ᴏғ Cʜᴀɴɢᴇ#1345 "the fact that our perspective on our control of the world around us affects how we behave" Which is predetermined, not caused by 'free will'.

Do you guys even read Marx?

no, i'm new here 🤗

@Deleted User
No one argues for maximal autonomy. Also, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, lol.

Explains. Fair enough.

I essentially deny Marx and Engel's Dialectical Materialism framework of metaphysics.

@Mawk Would you like to? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/

lmao why is there an ancap in this chat

REEEEEE

>ancap

can someone give me a quick rundown on postmodernism? why is it so closely linked with leftist thinking? postmodernist and marxist have become synonymous from what i've seen at least

not that i've seen much tbh 😩

"an"cap

@Deleted User i'll bookmark it for later

ty

Ancap literally has the government get replaced by corporations, same thing tbh

@Mawk
Postmodernism can be summed up in one word: Deconstruction. What this means is that it's a framework of philosophy that questions and dismantles every single value system as a byproduct of history with no inherent merit. It's known now as Critical Theory.

@★ Commissar Regi ★
Difference between government and a business is that the government requires force, while a business requires the consumer's consent.

what would be an example of a value system?

does anyone have any clue of how one would hypothetically contact the IRPGF

Humanitarianism.
Utilitarianism.
Christian ethics.

ah ok

deontology

@Tʜᴇ Sᴛᴜᴅʏ ᴏғ Cʜᴀɴɢᴇ#1345 Corrrection: diamat is not metaphysics. It is scientific and objective.

@dontchewglass Why would you want to do something stupid like that?

@Deleted User
I argue otherwise, because it presupposes the naturalistic framework while dismissing the only verifiability that is subjective experience, i.e idealism:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13423-015-0890-8

@Tʜᴇ Sᴛᴜᴅʏ ᴏғ Cʜᴀɴɢᴇ#1345 " the only verifiability " Subjectvity verifies nothing. Logic and Reason do, which are not products of consciousness, but of the nervous system.

Do you call this document academic?

@Deleted User
Can you prove that? Is a materialistic framework more verifiable than a subjective one, where the only thing you're ever actually able to verify is your own direct experiential perception?

@Deleted User
Yes.

'Framework; is not necessary. Nor is verifiableness. If it were necessary for existance I would correctly attribute it to subjectivity.

Do I have to verify that the air is breathable?

@Deleted User
Logically speaking you can't prove that atoms and the void are all that exists when your mind is actually all you really have. I argue that it's not matter or energy that is the most fundamental, but information; defined simply as whatever subjective pattern that is.

@Deleted User
It's already self-evident as verification.

none of you are ubermensch, get out

Lel Nietzsche's Will to Power

My Willy has Power

Nietzche's guide to picking up women