• SouthEndSunset
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Do the people saying that communism is bad think capitalism is good?

    • MissJinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      you knoe there isn’t only 2 choices right? Thay can both have good and bad sides. Maybe try some mix of it fisrt

      • EchoCT@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Dialectical Materialism. Right now, they are. You either work towards communism or capitalism moves towards consolidation of capital. Those are your choices.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          also there are more than 1 proposed way to achieve communism, even though i tend to favor socialism.

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Imma be real, chief, I don’t think DiaMat is going to work on Non-marxists, even if I agree.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        there’s capitalism and its variants (the current system), and there is anti-capitalism in various flavours. (socdem, ML, anarchism)

        you can choose your favorite flavour, but its either moving towards capitalism, or moving away from it.

                • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I mean, it’s just literally what they call themselves. Sure, they lie or don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, but that’s kind of their whole deal.

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Ok fine, 4th pill then. The nerve them ! Nazi think they own the idea of rejecting the current order and its ditect opposition.

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Power dichotomy will always slander any “third option”. They’ll even say something dumb on its face like third way is “x”. There are only two solutions, “with us” or “against us”. Anything outside these choices is literally unthinkable for the power structure. The power structure cannot imagine a future where it does not exist. If you ask the unthinkable alternative, they will default to “oh you must be one of the enemy”. We know that category well. They stand for every thing we don’t stand for.

                • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Describe what you consider the “third way” that isn’t capitalists owning the means of production, workers owning the means, or the state owning the means.

                  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    No, I asked for a third pill. I didn’t say “take my third pill”. I also hope we can escape the narrow minded concept of a society centered on the tug of war to “own the means”.

      • SouthEndSunset
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes. It’s just those are the two mentioned, and I’m slightly communist. So there’s some bias.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          thats not a mix though, it was just a bandaid over capitalism, borrowed from socialistic ideas. the capital accumulating class was never extinguished, eventually leading to the same problems today all over again.

          hence why we advocate for a systemic change, if you can’t accumulate capital, you can’t buy back the system again like it is rn. this is pretty much the crux of the issue here.

      • SouthEndSunset
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Can’t we just nuke people we don’t like….like my neighbour or Elon Musk?

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        we tried that before though, improving things temporarily, but it will never be permanent until we extinguish the owner class.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The trick is not falling for the lie that social democracy is meeting socialism in the middle.

          Social Democracy is just liberalism with enlightened self interest. Is it better than other capitalists models?

          Sure. That doesn’t make it the end goal.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes, we must have a middle ground between having parasites and not having parasites. Thank you enlightened centrist.

        • Gigan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think human nature is inherently greedy and selfish, and capitalism is best equipped to use this in a way that benefits society. Workers are motivated to work harder and learn new skills to find the most rewarding job they can. Businesses are motivated to create products and run as efficiently as possible. Consumers are motivated to get as much value as the can out of their money. Everyone in the equation is acting selfishly and in their own self-interest (which I believe humans are inclined to do anyway) but when applied on a societal level, everyone benefits. However I will concede that this is a balancing act that requires some level of government regulation to maintain.

          On the other hand, I think communism only works when everyone acts altruistically. Which is noble, but unrealistic.

          • Moxvallix@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Explain open source, free software, linux community, lemmy / the fediverse, and many many other things not formed around profit, largely maintained by people in their free time motivated by community over profit.

            People aren’t inherently greedy. People are born into a system that rewards greed, and punishes altruism. There have been many different societies with many different political and economic systems, and capitalism is a fairly new one all things considered.

            Rational self interest is irrational. If only a few can succeed, chances are you fail. If everyone only looks out for themselves, then everyone fails. Humanity’s biggest strength — what set us apart from many other animals — is our ability to work together and look out for each other.

            Capitalism doesn’t work, and is destroying the Earth.

            • Hule@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              You brought up open source and linux, but how many are maintainers vs. freeloaders?

              If communism could be upheld by a select few and enjoyed endlessly by everyone… Utopia.

              • Moxvallix@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                2 months ago

                Freeloaders, like large corporations taking open source and then not giving back, is yet another symptom of a system that rewards extraction and self interest.

                FOSS exists despite capitalism. The fact that people are willing to work on something out of their own passion, or sense of community, directly contradicts the fundamental assertion of capitalism.

                Humans are not inherently greedy.

          • Taleya@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Nope.

            Human nature is co-operative and altruistic, there’s evidence going back to barely recognisable AS human and it’s literally a key reason why we’re the dominant species.

            Capitalism rewarding sociopaths is the outlier

            • jesterchen42@social.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              @Taleya Is there any scientific material on this? I’ve had this discussion again and again with my family, from the far side of ultimately altruistic to vastly egoistic… and if there is (hopefully unbiased) scientific material on this, we might settle this argument.

              • Taleya@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                off the top of my head there’s the ancient remains found multiple times of disabled and/or badly injured hominids who were treated (signs of healing) and lived long into adulthood despite requiring extensive care from others, the fact an extended childhood in our species means that our young are vulnerable for a far longer period than any other animal (a necessity since you can’t fit a fully formed adult brain through a human pelvis) and require cooperation with others to raise and continue the species, the fact we have developed specialised skillsets (that are shared between us rather than developing and being held isolate and then lost when the person who holds then dies).

                When you have a group that works together go up against one that doesn’t, the former comes out on top. When this competition is for resources and survival, it becomes an evolutionary pressure.

                If you do a quick googs you should find scores of whitepapers - but the egoistic argument falls flat on its face out of the gate because we have the word ‘sociopath’ and it’s not considered something to emulate. Neither is ‘egotistical’. We’ve literally got coded into our language that isolation, self-absorption and ‘self serving at the cost to others’ are bad concepts. Being a self absorbed shithead is documented as wrong as far back as our tales can possibly go.

          • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Lol, lmao even. Capitalism rewards greed it doesn’t mitigate it. You’ve got it twisted.

            • Jon_Servo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s the inability to see the forest for the trees. We were raised in a capitalist economic system, as were all of our past family members. The failings of capitalism appear to be the failings of human nature. In reality, meta analysis of multiple studies on human greed show that people will be inherently more kind to each other than be cruel. Quick search will bring up many articles on these studies. Plus, exchanges in material goods within communities where money hadn’t been invented would show that people didn’t barter, they gave their goods away to their neighbors, and the good deed would be remembered and reciprocated in times of need. You can look up “Gift Economy” in Wikipedia.

              • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                2 months ago

                I also highly recommend reading or listening to the audiobook for The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wingrow. It is extremely interesting and eye opening.

          • EchoCT@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Not going to downvote, but I do think you’re lacking quite a bit of insight into the reasons human society exists at all. Cooperation is the reason human society exists at all, so saying we’re inheritly selfish is kinda laughable in that context.

            I would encourage you to look up information on dialectical Materialism and the necessity of capitalism as a stage in that dialectical.

            Capitalism had a purpose, and it’s past time for us to move on.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Even if it was true that human nature was inherently greedy and selfish then it would be an argument for creating systems that discourage such behaviors. What you’re arguing is akin to saying that you should encourage a person struggling with alcoholism to drink more.

          • Guy Fleegman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            Let’s concede the point: humans are inherently greedy and selfish.

            But greed and selfishness are bad, right? We want less greed and selfishness in the world.

            Given these two assumptions—humans are greedy, greed is bad—shouldn’t we architect society to explicitly disincentivize greed?

            • Poloniousmonk@autistics.life
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              @GuyFleegman

              Fuck that, I do not concede the point. At least, I don’t concede that humans are /more/ selfish than we are compassionate. Our emotional wiring evolved for hundred-human tribes that required a lot more empathy and cooperation than competition.

              You don’t have to go so far as to disincentivize greed. Greed is socially useful in small doses. Adam Smith wasn’t a total idiot. Just stop letting the people who shape society make it so only the greedheads survive.

              • Guy Fleegman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                You’re preaching to the choir. “Concede the point” is a figure of speech which means the speaker is going explore an assumption despite not believing it themselves.

                My point is that the whole “capitalism is the best economic system we know about because humans are greedy” argument is sophistry. It doesn’t even make sense in the context of its own flawed premise.

          • Fred Edwards 🔻@mastodon.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            @Gigan @SouthEndSunset

            Greed, selfishness and our hyper-individualism is a product of our society, not society as a product of our nature

            These sentiments are something encouraged by those in power as it is advantageous for them to have the masses in want

            There are underlying instincts for survival and dominance that have manifested today as greed and selfishness, but that is something an equitable society can address given the chance

            To suggest otherwise is incredibly degrading humanity

          • SouthEndSunset
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Thank you for answering. The problem with capitalism is it’s got out of control.

          • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            @Gigan @SouthEndSunset
            Human nature is not inherently greedy and selfish because human beings possess an inherent capacity for empathy, cooperation, and solidarity, which when nurtured within equitable social structures, can create a collective ethos centered on mutual aid, communal ownership, and the pursuit of the common good, transcending the narrow confines of greed and selfishness perpetuated by systems of exploitation and inequality like capitalism.

      • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        @Gigan @SouthEndSunset
        There is nothing bad about the collective ownership of the means of production. I can, however, think of many things that are bad about one person owning the entire means production despite not doing any work, which is what exists under capitalism.