You clearly haven't educated yourself on both sides of the argument, as you clearly haven't read any marxist literature. You are just repeating what youtube "right-wing conservatives" said about marxism. It's ironic, as you keep bashing marxism, yet you are awfully materially reductionist. Claim that nature is oppressive is laughable and could only come from a mind under the influence of modernity. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, for economic, environmental, moral and many other reasons. Get off that high horse, you're trying too hard to be seen as someone intelligent. Maybe go read some books first (books, not youtube videos!) and learn some humility.
Ok, seems I was wrong. You are deliberately dishonest. At least I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. If trying to be polite and clearly articulating a position is "trying too hard to be seen as someone intelligent"... then I am guilty. Your original, deliberately condescending response of "bruh" is clearly a morally superior approach.
I am not being reductionist, another red-herring argument. You simply want the right to ignore facts or counter arguments. Fortunately, that is not how our free society works. For now at least. Some people seem desperate to change that.
1-3. was relating to your completely irrelevant tax point. As your reply convenient ignores this, I assume you concede that your statement was irrelevant.
4. was about equality under the law. No reference to it, so you must concede that point as well then. This is quite a biggy. It is rather disconcerting how many people do not realise how much this contributes to their economic and social well being.
Thus far you have ignored 4/5s of my post, but from your tone one might think you have convincingly won the argument. Forums are great like that though, other readers can simply click on the arrow and judge for themselves.
5. You are playing semantics, so let us clarify the definition of "oppression" here, if we cannot trust each other to honestly interpret the others words. Certainly nature does not "oppress" in the same manner as humans do. No reasonable person would infer that is what I meant. However, humans in their natural state are extremely vulnerable and suffer hardship because of this. Do you deny this?
This is a key point because human society has developed in response to the harsh realities of nature and human power struggles. This goes all the way back to the advent of agriculture and before, but without going on an even more long winded tangent, let us just say that social norms are the way societies organised themselves to survive. That is not reductionist, because there are still variations within human societies, meaning the outcome is not predetermined, but we not talking social details, we are talking social intent.
You posted a snarky comment about women being oppressed which is based on the politically motivated claim that women have been / are structurally oppressed by society. That implies a deliberate intent to keep women down. That is an emotive and shallow interpretation of history. Marxisms basic tenant is that society is divided between the oppressed and the oppressor. Us vs them. It is a fundamentally dystopian and destabilising ideology and has been applied in governance several times to catastrophic consequences in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and few smaller examples. Capitalism was too successful, it lifted untold millions of people out of poverty and the original communist revolution failed. Through a complex (and partially deliberate) effort that original ideology morphed into modern identity politics but it still clings to the basic "oppressor" vs the "oppressed" tenant.
And it is disturbingly successful because unless people are challenged to improve themselves through social norms or harsh necessity, many of us prefer to be lazy and avoid responsibility. In comes identity politics that pats you on the head, don't worry, its not your fault, you are oppressed, a victim. Vote for me and I will make the bad man pay. The irony is, you only have the luxury and freedom to indulge in these fantasies because of the success of capitalism, free speech and the rule of law.
My counter claim is that women are not oppressed specifically nor was their any original intent to do so. They do not deserve recompense. Trying to construct a historical scorecard of who is the greater victim is a futile and destructive effort.
6. Let us make your reference to the industrial revolution a new point. How can the IR be a disaster when it has ushered in the greatest revolution in life outcomes on a scale that is incomparable to anything that has come before? The benefits have been simply staggering. Yours is a pointless position to take because the IR is not a moral choice. It is the inevitable progress of humankind. Certainly there are some challenges and damages, but they will be overcome by protecting the individual (as opposed to special interest groups) and letting human ingenuity flourish.
What I always suggest for people to read are:
Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond, 1997
The Horse, Wheel and Language - David W. Anthony, 2007 (I shouldn't actually add this one as it can be heavy reading but it does illustrate that many social concepts go back thousands of years)
The Origins of Political Order - Francis Fukuyama, 2011
The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity - Douglas Murray, 2019
EDIT: Since I know this will come up. Yes, there are inequalities in capitalism. But that is not an intrinsic problem with capitalism. All human societies are unequal and hierarchical. The solution is not destroying the single most effective tool we have for generating wealth. The fundamental problem relates to land value. It keeps increasing. The income tax system is deeply flawed. Take two people who both earn £80k per annum. One of them already owns a £1m house. Yet they are taxed the same? I am really keen on some sort of fixed-supply / non-renewable goods tax, i.e. land (not buildings), mines, forests, fisheries, radiowaves, electromagnetic spectrum, near-Earth orbit etc should have a special tax that goes into a UBI for citizens. Sort of like what Norway did with its oil. But there is your problem, not capitalism.
