this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
1446 points (97.2% liked)

Memes

46016 readers
2102 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
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 day ago (36 children)

Capitalism is the current problem for 95% of the world

Capitalism isn't the current problem for 95% of the world. The problem for 95% of the world is 1% of the people who have the power/wealth. Whatever "ism" you use, there will always be people at the top who are exploiting people at the bottom. Capitalism succeeded because it provided a new and more efficient form for the people at the top to exploit the people at the bottom. But, it was also better for the people at the bottom. Instead of being tied to the land where they were born, born into a trade, and so-on, now they at least had a tiny bit of agency in their lives.

Capitalism isn't the cause of any of these problems, humanity is the cause of the problem. Humanity forms hierarchical groups, and people at the top exploit people at the bottom. In fact, you could probably extend it well beyond humanity. This is pretty common even in apes, and even in other mammals. Dolphins don't know about capitalism, yet they still have hierarchies.

political and economic systems throughout history reflect an aspect of human nature to control and bequeath that control to their offspring, doesn’t take capitalism off the hook

Ok, so what puts capitalism on the hook? In what ways are people exploited more under capitalism than any other previous system? What makes capitalism so uniquely bad that you have to call it out rather than just acknowledging that it's human, or even animal nature?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago (34 children)

Whatever “ism” you use, there will always be people at the top who are exploiting people at the bottom.

communism is classless. there is no top or bottom. same with anarchism.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 23 hours ago (28 children)

Yes, and there's a reason that those can't exist in actual human communities of more than about a dozen people.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

those can’t exist in actual human communities of more than about a dozen people.

this is a lie.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Ok, then disprove it. Show a counterexample.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

seems like you're no true scotsmanning.

say what you want to say

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

I already said it.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

it's an anarchist community of 55,000

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

After a whole 2 months. Clearly if one of your prime examples is something that couldn't even last a quarter of a year, you don't have a leg to stand on.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

being invaded by a superpower is not an indictment of a societal structure

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

The point is that anarchism historically has not succeeded and cannot succeed in the real world that we actually live in today, in the face of monopoly capitalist/imperialist states that will do everything in their power to plunder the resources of all other states.

Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds:

But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 35 minutes ago

anarchism historically has not succeeded

what is your measure for success? I think liberating people from oppression is the standard, an anarchism has a great track record.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Not being able to defend itself is indeed an indictment of a societal structure.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

what city could have survived an attack from France? none. you will never find any true Scotsman.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Moscow has survived attacks from France. Every viable political/economic system has to be able to defend itself. I hope you realize how ridiculous your argument is by giving an example of something that lasted just barely 2 months. That's like claiming that a perpetual motion machine exists by showing some swinging pendulum for 10 seconds.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

this is just a denial that anarchist and communist societyies function. you're shifting the goalposts

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

this is just a denial that anarchist and communist societyies function

They don't. There has never been a communist or anarchist society that has functioned for an extended length of time as its own sovereign entity.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago

now you're moving the goalposts

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

No, it isn't. You're so very smart.

load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
load more comments (32 replies)