Asklemmy

43803 readers

786 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Fiat doesn't work on a finite planet. Crypto has failed on its goals. What is a better way to be economically secure? (infosec.pub)

submitted 3 months ago by aviation_hydrated@infosec.pub to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Assuming the title to be accurate, what is a good way for the working class (90%+ of all humans) to save and succeed in this current environment?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Communism: A classless, moneyless society, based on the principle of "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability".

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think you’re conflating communism and socialism a bit.

Communism is a classless society where it is “from each according to their ability to each according to their needs”. Moneyless is often mentioned as well, but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary.

Socialism is a transitional stage on the way to communism, where the working class controls the state (having taken it from the capitalist class’ control), and it is usually described as “from each according to their ability to each according to their labor,” though when they say that I don’t think they really mean that those who can’t perform labor should simply starve.

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand why you think that guy was conflating communism and socialism. He claimed communism is moneyless, and in your response you said "neither is moneyless." What's being conflated?

And it's worth noting that most definitions include, if not expressly the word "moneyless," clauses about all property being held in common. And if there is no property, then there is equally no money, by definition (as money is simply a system for the valuation and exchange of property).

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah you’re right. Sorry, @Prunebutt@slrpnk.net!

I didn’t say that neither is moneyless, only that I don’t think it’s strictly necessary for a society to be moneyless in order to be considered communist.

[–] nitefox@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Then where is the communism and what’s the point of money? Seems like a capitalist society with a bit of socialism… see any European nation, really

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

You seem to think that money and capital are one and the same; they are not.

Do European nations have “a bit of socialism”? Has the working class wrested control of the state from the capitalist class? Have they abolished private ownership of the means of production? No, in fact they’re becoming more and more neoliberal, where the working class has less and less influence on the state.