this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
1230 points (82.5% liked)

Memes

45726 readers
622 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's simple... If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We're fighting culture wars so we won't fight class wars, my friend.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

... capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn't part of the culture war.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No the 1% definitely exists in communism.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

How can a stateless, classless, moneyless society have a 1%?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

...do you think Russia is still Socialist? The Russian oligarchs are Billionaire Capitalists.

The USSR collapsed in the 90s, buddy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is there even a non-capitalist government in existence? Even the communist nations generally have a currency and tiered income based on position.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Couple things: tiered income would likely exist in early stages of Communism, and certainly in almost all forms of Socialism. Marx makes it exceptionally clear that both intense and skilled labor are represented as condensed unskilled labor.

Either way, there are examples of anti-capitalism. Chiapas and Rojava are more Libertarian Socialist. There's also countries like Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, who appear to be attempting to reject Capitalism still and still operating on some basis of Marxism-Leninism Socialism. China relies on Capitalism as their dominant mode of production, but claims to be Socialist by 2050, though that remains to be seen.

The nations you think of as "Communist" are typically Communist in ideology, but are building towards it through Socialism. Just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so to do Marxists believe Capitalism is a necessary stage before Socialism, which is a necessary stage before Communism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Tiered income does not mean capitalism. Capitalism is not at all defined by inequality. It is defined by free market activity.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exactly! This is exactly what I'm saying. The 1% is still the 1% calling the shots... No matter where they are or what you want to call the type of government they influence.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

The Russian Oligarchs you speak of are a result of the fall of Communism in Russia.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, so you're proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.

What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh! I see. No...I'm only saying the minute you start talking any "-isms", you trigger feelings of tribalism that exist in all of humanity. We want to be on the "good team". No one wants to be on the bad team, and that feeling is what the Uber wealthy uses to keep us busy. Debating all of the "-isms" is the problem. Let's figure out how to take care of the masses so basic human needs are met, allowing humanity to prosper, and figure out what the hell to call it later. Otherwise, we just quibble over semantics and nothing gets done.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean absolutely no offense by this, but that's a load of Utopian bullshit.

People use "-isms" not to divide into tribalism, but to describe methods and structures. If you can identify problems with modern, Capitalist society, calling it "Capitalism" is not meant to divide anyone. Similarly, the various leftist strategies, such as Marxism-Leninism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndiclaism, and so forth, are all different proposed ways of tackling the same problems.

How do you propose people move towards a solution if nobody knows what the fuck everyone else is doing?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

First...I love this discussion. Thank you for it. It's what made me love Reddit in the early years, and why I'm so enamored with Lemmy. Secondly...You make an excellent point; one I can't refute. I don't know how we move towards a solution without having a way to succinctly describe an ideologic structure. I just hate how partisan the world becomes, and how much the media plays off of it to help the fuckers in charge sell ads, or maintain power, wherever you live and whatever ism you subscribe to. Maybe all I'm doing is just missing the point and muddying the waters...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

You're starting to get it. You should read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky. He describes the very mechanisms by which the bourgeoisie use the media to control the people into doing their bidding.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

You should really read a copy of the Communist Manifesto, i dont think you are muddying the waters, you are merely trying to look through the clouds of sentiment that have been stirred up in front of you your whole life.

[–] Furball -1 points 1 year ago

Do you think the Russian oligarchs, who by the way pen a FAR larger portion of the Russian economy than their American counterparts, appeared from nowhere after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The Soviets had an extremely wealthy and influential elite

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you want to fight a class war, you're a communist

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It's certainly not right wing.

If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you're communist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Take their power back and give it to the ruling class government you say?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lol no, I do not say. No ruling class. No government. That's communism.

It's bonkers to me that you talk a big talk about class and class conflict, yet are opposed to left wing politics. Where do you think those terms come from?

What's even more bonkers is that you seem to think communism has never said anything about the 1%, when that is the biggest problem communists won't shut up about!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now you're literally saying that I'm saying or thinking something

Huge issues with that kind of projection

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think you know what projection is. The comment I replied to literally said that the 1% and class are the problem, and that communists are distracted. Couldn't be more off base.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Man you communists need to figure out how to cope with the existence of written records

Here’s you:

The comment I replied to literally said that the 1% and class are the problem, and that communists are distracted

Actually it said this:

Take their power back and give it to the ruling class government you say?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is the comment I replied to:

It’s simple… If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We’re fighting culture wars so we won’t fight class wars, my friend.

https://reddthat.com/comment/4678920

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back?

That sounds like a free market to me. When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.

When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market. The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That sounds like a free market to me

A free market means zero regulation, so I hope you like drinking poison because "ain't no gubmint telling me how to bottle my soda!"

When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.

This requires kicking capital out of the economy. That would be defeating capitalism.

When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market

No, it's called voluntary participation. Free markets inevitably trend toward monopolies and concentrations of power, because the supply side is not held to any standard.

The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.

And look where it's gotten us - with a 1% bleeding the rest dry.