Gregory's Server@yogthos There are some people that argue incremental change can happen. James Muldoon comes to mind (Platform Socialism)
|
5 comments
@yogthos Arguing history would be the wrong way to go here. History has shown that rapid socialist idea adoption tends to devolve into people bargaining with things other than money, such as connections. When that happens, it becomes a game of who you know, not who has the money. If that's the case, spontaneous revolution would likely not solve any problems.  @yogthos I was going by "entire liberal capitalist system is overthrown" to mean all at once. Anyway, history is a good predictor except for the fact we now have a different technological ecosystem. It's easier for people to communicate. Boundaries are less restricted to space and time, and where they do exist, often take on a different flavor. Human nature in some cases is amplified, in others, muffled. @tkenben I'm not convinced technology changes the way humans behave and interact all that much. Technology can also exacerbate the problems. For example, we're now seeing a lot of polarization, and people ending up in bubbles. Technology has made it very easy to create groupthink where you can find people with similar opinions, and get the impression that it's a popular opinion even if it's fringe or even dangerous. A couple of good examples are flat earthers and antivaxxers. |
@tkenben people argue all kinds of things, but over a century of history shows that they are wrong