• SevFTW@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I recently heard it phrased like this:

    Capitalism is built on hierarchy, which means someone fundamentally NEEDS to be at the bottom. There is no way around it, someone needs to suffer.

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that this is really true.

      If someone has “more” then yes of course someone needs to have “less”, merely by definition.

      The question is really whether those with less are living below the poverty line or living comfortably. I guess it’s a question of semantics whether “capitalism” requires people to be living below the poverty line but I don’t think it does. It’s just shitty regulations which allow wealth to become as concentrated as it has.

      Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it’s been implemented it’s suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it’s been implemented it’s suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.

        This is true, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is self-contradictory and impossible IMHO. Because as soon as a member of the proletariat is a dictator, they are now no longer a member of the proletariat.

        Now you don’t need a dictator, you can enact socialist policies democratically. This is very slow and kind of difficult, because the capitalists will lobby and fight so hard against it, and you need to maintain public support.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That isnt what dictatorship of the proletariat means. It means that the former bourgeoisie are temporarily politically disenfranchised from proletarian democracy

        • DerKriegs@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          German politics and energy consumption aside, I think they have the best base of knowledge for what your proposed economic model has in store for them and their allies. They had that model forced upon them, and fought for change and economic freedom. There was a freaking wall dividing their country over that.

          Don’t shitpost on good discussion please.

                  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Nazis dogwhistle opposition to the USSR during WW2 Germany, the one time where the USSR was absolutely on the right side of history.

                    Literally every time someone goes hard on the anticommunism, they’re just ass-sore that they kicked their asses back in WW2.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They had that model forced upon them, and fought for change and economic freedom.

            East germans, especially women and lgbt people, lost a lot of practical rights during reunification