a-little-trolling We're gonna read theory folks. We're going to keep reading and reading. We're going to read so much you're going to say "please, no more. No more reading. I already agree! We should build communism! I am joining an organization!" But no! We're gonna keep reading!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 38 points 15 hours ago

With all the arguments and data, calmly and thoroughly too. It's kinda spooky. 😅

[–] Rindogang@lemmy.ml 45 points 15 hours ago

Yeah… and I love him for it

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 49 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

[–] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 23 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

you leave those sharks alone

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 20 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Hey! Teacher....

[–] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 19 points 13 hours ago

Hey! Comrade, leave those sharks alone!

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Imma need some context. Searching "cowbee" gave me nothing.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 57 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

Cowbee is a prominent user on Lemmy who is a communist and frequently picks apart anti-communist comments.

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago

Gotcha, I'm terrible with names.

[+] Dremor@lemmy.world -42 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (18 children)

Communism by itself isn't bad, nor is capitalism, but both assume that their proponents are immune to greed, and that their opponent are full of it.

There are good things in both, bad things in both. The problem is to find people that are truly altruistic, and that have the moral fortitude to stay altruistic.

Edit: y'all can downvote all you want, I'll stand by my opinion unless someone has the honesty to argue on that.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 hours ago

Neither capitalism nor communism assume that their proponents are immune to greed. Capitalism was developed as an improvement over (European) feudalism and mercantilism. The idea is that division of labour expands the quantity and diversity of goods that can be produced. Communism is similarly supposed to be an improvement on capitalism. Here, the idea is that centralised planning can improve the distribution of the produced goods (and further improve the quantity and diversity of goods).

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I would argue capitalism is bad in nature, but people confuse free markets as being inherit to capitalism, which it is not.

Capitalism at its core is about ownership, in that those with money own a thing and thus make the decisions. This results in an Oligarchy controlling the market.

Communism in contrast is about collective ownership in that those that produce, own and make the decisions. However in practice, that ownership get usurped by "the state" which basically translates to an oligarchy through control of the market.

This is why I like the term, free market socialism. Ownership should be held by the producers, but the state should not control the market. The role of government in the market should be limited to monopoly prevention.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

The state ownership of production is deliberate, and aimed at improving efficiency and allowing forward planning. One (or a few, if you want competition) large factory is more efficient than a bunch of smaller workshops. State ownership can lead to corruption, as you pointed out, but it is a conscious choice and not happenstance.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

load more comments