The author sets a definition for "socialism" and "capitalism" and then shows that both are fake, do not exist today. It is a rhetorical "trick" but nonetheless the observations made are insightful.

Very crude summary: 1 - Socialism does not exist today, what we do have is a system of patronage where lower classes sell their vote to a particular elite, not benefiting lower classes that much in the process. System of dependency.

2 - Capitalism does not exist today. Capital markets are not free, and with fiat money what we have is a massive regressive tax, a transfer of wealth from people without assets to people with assets (stocks, real estate).

3 - The author gives a back of envelope solution to this mess, in a hypothetical world without transition costs.

Entertaining throughout especially if you enjoy the flowery language.

In our circles number 2 is almost canonical knowledge, and monero a big weapon to break this regressive tax. And monero could also break number 1, since it is much harder to confiscate property to redistribute among your clients under the patronage system.

Enjoy your Friday all!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

All that you say makes sense. That is why I gave the heads up that the author is doing a "rhetorical trick" by defining "socialism" and "capitalism" in a certain way and then saying "look, these things don't exist!"

The interesting side in my view was not how person A or person B defines "socialism" and "capitalism", but rather the critique of our current times contained in the essay.

Ancient geeks argued a lot about "what is the right definition of X??", missing the nuance that "definitions" are in the end just aids in transmitting information. They matter if you are trying to "box-in" your adversary in a debate, but they should matter much less if both sides are more interested in sharing their picture of the world and reaching common understanding about reality.