I would even say it is one of the key components of everything we consider life. On the other hand, other components include selflesness, compassion and sacrifice. Denying and of these features leads to disfunctional systems
I would even say it is one of the key components of everything we consider life. On the other hand, other components include selflesness, compassion and sacrifice. Denying and of these features leads to disfunctional systems
There is a lot of space for discussion on the desired reach of free market and regulation, and it is actually happening in politics. Too bad in public space it sometimes looks like the only options are extreme capitalism or anticapitalism.
By the way, highly regulated authoritarian states have even more success to regulate breathing than capitalism, so it is weird to focus the hate on one but not the other.
On the other hand there is something to be said about those who feel like they are left out by the system which does not self correct in their favor. Hearing their voices, which might justifiably sound extreme, is important.
As others said, science also needs governance, direction. Scientists have internal motivation and sense of what to do, but they often disagree and choices for resource allocation need to be made. Exteme competetiveness in some scientific institutions can cause bad culture (like favoring hype over achievement) but authoritharian systems also often breed bad science (like what soviets disregarded quantum physics at first). Speaking as a scientist myself.
Paradoxically regulation is needed to ensure free and fair competetion in science (and in other things)
Capitalism builds on competetion but favors behavior which eliminates competitors. This inner tension of capitalism makes it easily degrade into an authoritharian system. But it does not make it the same as one. Regulation is needed to maintain fair competetion which sounds paradoxical but is also a tension in the capitalism as such.
Democracies struggle with capitalism but they struggle much more with planned state. Struggle is in the nature of free agents of democracy, so it does not have to suggest incompatibility.
As someone who grew up with soviet animation I'd say it was pretty high quality but also extremely limited in quantity and diversity. Also it was not infrequently associted with dissidents.
Maybe it's even more like "I got an outlook message" instead of "I got an email". Since email is an analog of ActivityPub. Just that people are not used yet to the fact that social media can be interoperable like email, so "saw on lemmy" carries different connotations. It should not, however.
Anecdotically, I have an old frendlica account too, from times of diaspora, and it's now very lively, so I saw this post on frendlica too.
This is very interesting and not discussed enough, thanks for sharing. Could you refer to some materials, where did you learn it?
Probably, but they could also just be evil. Some people actually want things which are not compatible with what many would consider fair.
A bigger problem is that most of the people in Russia actually support Putin. It is a democracy, just not a liberal one.
Like others said, struggle is in human nature. But it is possible to shift it to other domains: art, science, exploration. To prevent this stuggle spill back into physical violence, there should be broad consensus on basic rules, effectively enforced.
So I'd say, build this consensus, which will probably need to rely on abundant renewable enengy, some form of UBI, equality, and stronger international institutions, but will not spotaneously evolve towards unsupportable preferences of some groups.