this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023

142 points (93.8% liked)

Communism

1611 readers

31 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

142

Protestation (mujico.org)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm more of an Anarchist but this still holds true

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

In anarchy, the encroachments on human rights would be even more profound. Unless you think authorative regulation, intervention, and concepts like tax on social economics is what drives some people to take advantage of others for profit and others to live poorly. But I'm pretty sure things like social housing, tax brackets, monolopy laws, etc. are doing something to prevent things being even worse than what they are now.

It's not the system—pick any ideology you want—its the people. We didn't get to be number one out of billions of species because we fucked around and sniffed daisies. Now that we are number one, the only thing our nature can prey on is each other.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think the word anarchy is bad branding. (Though good branding is impossible when the king want his citizens to hate you.)

From what I understand, the main goal of anarchy is to remove the system that separates us from power. For example, representative democracy makes it so you just go "pretty please represent me" without having any direct agency over the world around you.

Anarchy is not "remove all the rules".

Edit: if there is a system that facilitates personal rights and agency then it is not necessarily against anarchy.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago

Everything is true if you are ignorant enough...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Same applies to almost every example of communism we have seen, with the leaders being the ones who are profiting at the expense of everyone else.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

COMUNISM IS A FANTASTIC IDEA.

What a shame all their leaders in all countries and all of history and all of the future HAVE ALWAYS BEEN STEALING corrupt oligarch aholes that party in Miami and have bank accounts in the vatican, Zürich and cayman islands. Why not party in Havana and save in a venezuelan bank? Why not visit China and use rubble for your holidays? Maybe COMUNIST LEADERS PREFER CAPITALISM?

#letthedownvotescommence

PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And that's why I'm an Anarchist personally. Less chance to get taken over by corrupt leaders

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago

Well......... I dunno about that. Let's just guillotine everyone that has over a hundred million.

Then try build some society with the best of both worlds.

Extremists suck. Moderation is key.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I can appreciate people here love to try push progressive change and all, but sometimes this stuff pops up and it's clearly a clueless person trying to be profound for internet praise. As an actual libertarian, here we go...

The capitalist idea of liberty is Laissez-faire. Literally the foundation of capitalism. It is based on, private transactions being free from state intervention or regulation.

The underlying beliefs that make up the fundamentals of laissez-faire economics include the idea that economic competition constitutes a "natural order" that rules the world. Because this natural self-regulation is the best type of regulation, laissez-faire economists argue that there is no need for business and industrial affairs to be complicated by government intervention.

As a result, they oppose any sort of federal involvement in the economy, which includes any type of legislation or oversight; they are against minimum wages, duties, trade restrictions, and corporate taxes. In fact, laissez-faire economists see such taxes as a penalty for production.

This is literal liberty. It's not "capitalism's idea of it".

Since we're on Communism turf, what this meme is probably actually aimed at are the same criticisms of Laissez-faire we've had since the the 18th century, where passive entities in economics—landlords, funds, etc.—don't contribute to natural social economics, rather can economically impact others. However, since the ideology of Laissez-faire, and therefore most capitalist economies as we know them, is liberty which respects human rights, it's probably more the side-effects of a liberal concept that doesn't factor in arseholes—which are most. Depending where you land on the liberal spectrum depends on how willing you are to allow state intervention to control this aspect of society. This being anti-liberal in nature, but arguably more ethical depending on the balance of your personal views.

So I don't know what the meme's creator thinks liberty is, but basic rights, as a concept in libertarianism, are simply not meant to be encroached on. They are not a part of liberty, they are just respected by social contract to allow the benefits of freedom for all to flourish. It never will, though.

So, what it should say is...

The Capitalist idea of liberty can allow profiteering to encroach on the rights of others because as long as we live there'll be arseholes trying to take advantage of others no matter what ideology we try out. It's human nature, baby."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Lack of regulation can literally give capitalists inherent power over others; therefore, no, the definition you provided is not liberty. At least not for all; your "liberty" is only available to those who can afford it.

I.E. the meme is far more accurate than your word vomit was.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Hey, I didn't make the definition. Don't gaslight me like I'm providing some sort of opinion about it.

In fact, I said the same thing you did to Captain Anarchy here earlier.

It's an explaination. With sources. Encouraging you to do your own light reading. If you're unhappy with it, you'll have to take that up with a few billion people over the course of 400 years and put your amendment forward somehow. You'll also need to try convince the entire philosophy of libertarianism. Though as I already said—and obviously you never made it that far—these have been considerations for many many many many many years before you came along existing. Ever heard of Adam Smith? You would've if you spent the same time Googling instead of typing.

What did pappa tomato say to lagging baby tomato?