>As I said to me you sound like somebody who is fearing he is losing advantages over others so far unnoticed.
This is exactly what I said earlier in >>78136
. Anyone not on your side is either an oppressor or not sufficiently conscious. You decided that I am part of the first group and thus, need to be eliminated or at least have my assets seized and redistributed. As >>78213
pointed out, this need is not determined by the amount of assets I have - it is measured by my perceived amount of opposition. Such are the ways of revolutionary justice.
A revealing question. To you, institutions do not have a function/the only function to be tolerated is the creation of a 'just' 'equal' society, free of 'oppression'.
>Whatever that means exactly.
Examples: A dysfunctional executive and judicial branch leads to rampant crime and corruption, impacting quality of life. A non-oppressive system of education will only teach about oppression and the achievements of the revolution, impacting quality of life. A cleaned-out cultural sector means we will be force-fed the cultural products of 'oppressed groups', made in a prescribed, diminishing the quality of life.
One example: socialist realism, truly proletarian, not avangarde-bullshit.
Completely different example: gangster-rap, the music of the oppressed. It is incredibly, unbelievably, absurdly positive about violence, sexual exploitation, misogyny and crime in general, all without the slightest hint of irony. Yet, it is tolerated, because gangster rap is the pre-approved cultural product of an 'oppressed group'. Tolerance for the oppressed, intolerance for the oppressors! And thus, we get gangster-rap reviews in FAZ. Pro-crime pro-sexual-violence propaganda in mainstream media, brought to you by the left.
>The problem is that capitalism can have a very narrow definition of quality of life usually understood as derivates of "wealth".
Much of the things the contemporary left values are derivatives of wealth. For example self-realization requires free time, requires time spent not working. This is only possible with a sufficient capital stock. Even hunter-gatherer societies that have free time, have it due to their capital stock of immense amounts of land per capita. Early cities had much less capital and thus, had much more oppressive political structures, slavery, longer working hours and centralized palace-economies with little private property. Personal freedom itself is a function of wealth.
>so you want to dominate and decide about who is really oppressed and who is not.
The oppressor-oppressed dichotomy where each member of a certain group is either constantly oppressed or constantly oppressive is ridiculous. But it lends itself well to assigning blame and as a pseudo-argument against dissident opinions. OF COURSE I WOULD SAY THAT, I AM AN OPPRESSOR. After all, there are only two reasons two not agree with you: 1) has insufficient consciousness. 2) is an oppressor.
>You like what we have, we have it good but you fail to see that people went here by the idea of social progress
If right-wing nationalist Freikorps had not stopped the 1918 revolution, Germany would likely look worse than Belarus today. I think the idea of "social progress" has not exactly fared well. What you consider "social progress" is the result of technological and institutional progress, the cultural and technological ability to create working (not overly corrupt, not overly biased, working towards a purpose) institutions and infrastructure, itself a result of liberalism.
>Why aren't these better off? The magic powers of capitalism are not taking off despite all the reforms the IWF suggested? Hm.
It is not in the power of the IWF to prevent corrupt officials ranging from president to pre-school-teacher to use their position as a sinecure or to use what power they have for the benefit of their clan/tribe/extended family/peer-group. (This form of corruption, by the way, is disgusting enough when the right does it, but for the left, it is part of the political agenda, helping the oppressed, etc). It is also not in the power of the IWF to change the culture of a society. If, for example, the concept of investment is not established culturally, their will be little chance for building a capital stock in that country.
If you think that development aid is mostly a bullshit waste of money and at best creates sales opportunity for domestic industry, I agree. Should be done away with asap.
Now, name one free, non-oppressive affluent society any brand of marxism has created anywhere.>>78232
>You people are not having a true capitalist Silicon Valley spirit. Just because a project failed, it doesn't mean another chance is possible. Have more trust in the process of learning.
In start-up culture, they are not exactly in the habit of flogging dead horses.