• phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    You do understand we can make loads of those about communism as well?

    Capitalism has caused untold horrors.

    Have you seen what horrors communism has caused, though? Ever tried looking at history? Maybe read up on the great Chinese famine? Maybe read up on how communism started in Russia? You know, maybe watch the movie “the Chekist”, great movie for those under the illusion that communism is a great thing. If your stomach can survive that movie, then yeah, you’re a diehard who is perfect for the next regime

    • redwattlebird@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Authoritarianism != Communism

      Communism is about the power of the working class, seizing the means of production, and self governance. No government has effectively put into practice communist practices because the concept of government itself is contrary to communism.

      There’s been a decades long movement in the US to demonise communism (and socialism) in favour of capitalism. There used to be overtly communist political groups in America.

      Anyway, it’s an interesting read. I highly recommend you read up about communism and what it stands for. Also capitalism because we’re all more or less living in a crony capitalist world.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Communism is about the power of the working class, seizing the means of production, and self governance. No government has effectively put into practice communist practices because the concept of government itself is contrary to communism.

        This is incorrect, and I encourage you to read more, specifically Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as well as The State and Revolution. Communism is not about “self governance” or being anti-government, that’s Anarchism, and thus the source of a large schism between Anarchists and Communists. The concept of government is not anti-Communist, and AES states were true representations of Communist ideology guiding the state.

        Principly, when Communists say Communism will abolish the state, they say it will wither away, and change from a tool one class uses to oppress others into an “administration of things,” ie elections, government, and so forth are retained, perhaps minimized over a long period of time.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Maybe read up on the genocide of the native Americans

      Maybe read up on American chattel slavery

      Maybe read up on the Ludlow Massacre

      Maybe read up on the Tulsa Race Massacre

      Notice how all yours are perpetuated by differing countries. All mine are from America. Capitalism is poison, and you are its catalyst.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      You do realise none of the examples you brought up are actual communism. Theyre all bad attempts that were taken advantage of.

      Thats like saying religion in general is bad because christianity ruined it

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        You do realise none of the examples you brought up are actual communism. Theyre all bad attempts that were taken advantage of.

        The PRC and the USSR are and were real examples of Actually Existing Socialism. They absolutely ran into problems, and no Communist can simply look away and say they didn’t Communism hard enough. That goes directly against the Dialectical Materialist theory of knowledge.

        The PRC and USSR also brought democratization, doubled life expectancies, 99%+ literacy rates, ended famine, and drastically reduced wealth inequality. As much as we must learn from their failures, we must learn from their myriad successes.

        I highly encourage you to read Blackshirts and Reds.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Free? When was the last time you got free food? Free in the fully subsidized by the government kind of way. Unless you live on food stamps (in which case you’re usually fucked in pretty much every other way) I can’t think of another way how you’d get free food. I guess technically dumpster diving but I’m sure it’s only a matter of time until it’s made illegal (if it’s not already illegal).

      And if the food not free then more available food doesn’t matter if the people can’t afford it. We produce enough food to feed everyone and we still have people without food security.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      “The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

      There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”

      ― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

  • wvstolzing@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s either this fairy tale, or its flip side, the myth that ‘private vices’ somehow add up to ‘public virtues’.

  • emmie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    From one extreme to another I see ml is still doing the stupid. There are things between ancapism and communism and they are lovely

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    You shouldn’t even attempt to figure out their logic. People will say and do anything for power. They don’t believe what they say. It’s just an excuse to do what they want to you and your people.

    They will find a way to make their twisted dreams your reality, even if they have to manufacture it.

  • andros_rex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Charity can serve as a means of control. This is way Republicans advocate against social services.

    The government cannot mandate that you attend church to receive EBT. A church can require you attend a service to feed you.

    I’ve heard from friends in Utah, for example, that access to many social services is through the church. Friend was trying to rescue a girl from FLDS - pretty much all job training/housing required she play along with mainstream Mormonism.

    Orgs like the Salvation Army are known to require trans people to detransition to recieve services as well.

    Another benefit is the rent seeking - Goodwill is a good example. You can still turn a profit with the right combination of PR, and tying access to services based on things that’ll make you profit (Goodwill “provides employment” for disabled people - they are legally allowed to pay them far below minimum wage.)

    It’s the two pillars of the contemporary Right - control and grifting.

    • exanime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Charity can also be used as a tax avoidance scheme and weaponized for political purposes; this is why the rich love it, through charity they are able to help themselves even further

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      We will feed you if you believe in our religion and work our fields, your true reward for your good works and piety will wait for you in heaven.

      It’s like your pension plan in the sky.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Communism Killed 100 Zillion People

    Now the massive population of China and Venezuela and Vietnam and Cuba and California are going to take over the world

    No, they aren’t doing Real Communism. That’s just Authoritarian State Capitalism.

    Yes, we have to fight them. That’s why we need the western governments to spend trillions of dollars on private military services.

    We have to kill all 100 Zillion of them. Because they’ve been infected with the Mind Virus of Communism.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          The zillion part definitely made me lean towards sarcasm, but I guess I can never be too sure with all the brainrot and bots out there. The Red Scare still lingers.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 days ago

              The Cold War ended in 1994, when the Russian government collapsed. We had a 15-20 year window in which Kennedy-esque American moderates thought they could dominate the industrial world through high finance while using a few “Rogue States” as punching bags.

              And then 2008 happened, revealing that this was not working. And then we got Trump’s ahem national socialism ahem of interstate deals making minus immigration. And the only thing NATO states seem to agree on is everyone building even biggest militaries with which to duke it out across North Africa and Eastern Europe.

              Now we’re flirting with Cold War 2, except it’s looking a lot hotter than the last one. Feels more like the prelude to WW1, tbh.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 days ago

                I’d describe it as a lull in the same general conflict. The primary contradiction remained. I do think there will be war, tragically.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  There was a solid minute during the War on Terror when DC, Moscow, and Beijing were in full kumbahyah mode.

                  Turning the resource rich Middle East into a free fire zone had a broad popular appeal among industrial powers.

  • stingpie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Communist logix

    we need to abolish private property so everybody has equal power.

    we class of people to maintain public ownership

    After all, how can we enforce public ownership without a more powerful class of enforcers?

    • Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Having been the one who brought it up, (and since I got here first) I guess I will super duper reluctantly be the enforcer. I super don’t want to y’all guys! But this is for the good of the collective!

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      we need to abolish private property so everybody has equal power.

      Abolishing private property isn’t about equalizing power, necessarily. It’s to end Capitalist production, which is necessarily exploitative and results in Monopoly Capitalism, aka Imperialism. Abolishing Private Property allows us to produce based on needs, not profits for a few individuals.

      we class of people to maintain public ownership

      Communists advocate for the abolition of classes.

      After all, how can we enforce public ownership without a more powerful class of enforcers?

      That’s a pretty terrible misreading of Communist structures. Communists advocate for abolition of the State, via creating a government as an “administration of things,” similar to how the Post Office functions, but for all of production. The goal of protecting the revolution is done by the Proletariat, the most advanced among them making up the Vanguard. There isn’t a separate “class.”

      • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        What does it mean to have a misreading in this context (last point)? You are just reiterating what they said but reassuring us that the most “advanced” among them are not going to turn into a ruling class because…?

        Any form of political power is poison. You don’t get to a state-less, egalitarian society by going in the exact opposite direction, by enforcing a ruling class and an hierarchy like any else.

        And you can see this practically not in any massacre, genocide, famine or war communist countries have inflicted, these are up for discussion. The actual evidence that this is not the right path is in the lack of accountability of the governing Party under communism, the lack of freedom of speech inside that party and the decision making body, the absolute discipline required to be in it or you get kicked out for having a different opinion for any topic, the gradual increase in authoritarianism by it and the Party’s gradual alienation from the people. These all are fundamental structural problems that stem from the fact that you set out to solve a problem by endorsing it and practising it.

        People are never going to free themselves from hierarchy and the state if they don’t learn to live without it in practise, take decisions for themselves, develop the skills, knowledge and tactics to abolish it etc. You are/become what you practise in your life, not what you preach.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          What does it mean to have a misreading in this context (last point)? You are just reiterating what they said but reassuring us that the most “advanced” among them are not going to turn into a ruling class because…?

          What is a class? If you can meaningfully explain what a class is, then you will understand the answer. Here’s an example: is the Post Office manager a separate class from the drivers? No.

          Any form of political power is poison. You don’t get to a state-less, egalitarian society by going in the exact opposite direction, by enforcing a ruling class and an hierarchy like any else.

          What is a State, and what do Communists mean when they say Communism will be State-less? What is a ruling class? If I say a post-office driver is a Capitalist, this is wrong. Correct analysis of class dynamics, where they draw their power, and their social relation with others, determines Class. Engels specifically describes the withering of the state as a transformation from a tool by which one class oppresses another into an administration of things.

          And you can see this practically not in any massacre, genocide, famine or war communist countries have inflicted, these are up for discussion. The actual evidence that this is not the right path is in the lack of accountability of the governing Party under communism, the lack of freedom of speech inside that party and the decision making body, the absolute discipline required to be in it or you get kicked out for having a different opinion for any topic, the gradual increase in authoritarianism by it and the Party’s gradual alienation from the people. These all are fundamental structural problems that stem from the fact that you set out to solve a problem by endorsing it and practising it.

          These are frankly false statements. There is accountability, there is freedom of discussion. Being a fascist or liberal will indeed get you kicked out, as it should. Communists don’t believe the problem is with the State, but with Capitalism, and as such use the State against the bourgeoisie to end Capitalism.

          People are never going to free themselves from hierarchy and the state if they don’t learn to live without it in practise, take decisions for themselves, develop the skills, knowledge and tactics to abolish it etc. You are/become what you practise in your life, not what you preach.

          Communists don’t believe “hierarchy” is a problem. That’s an anarchist concern.

          All in all, I highly encourage you to read both Blackshirts and Reds, as well as The State and Revolution. The former will help recontextualize Communism and Communist states, correcting popular myths and taking a realistic, critical look at AES. The latter will elaborate on the Communist theory of the State, which is fundamentally different from the Anarchist theory of the State. Both are generally easy reads.

          • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            I don’t get why you purposefully obfuscate what ruling class I am referring to. What kind of example are managers and drivers when I am clearly talking about the people comprising the decision making body or Communist party under communism? I think that’s simple enough and also the fact that any communist government that survived long enough gradually became more and more authoritarian, more detached from the people - never in the other direction. The evidence is there and we both know it. The burden of proof that this isn’t the case is on you, not me…

            You simply dismissed my claims without any evidence on that. Although you seem to like to meticulously answer every sentence separately, you dismiss the core of the argument. I understand most communism movements start off with noble and admirable intentions and I’m not ignoring this, but the fundamental issue here is that in the longterm, by design, in order to preserve state power, for whatever reason, you’d be heading to the opposite direction of a stateless society.

            I’ve read enough Lenin to understand this from his descriptions of the ideal Party. I don’t need reading recommendations, thank you. I am not saying anything profound here, this is like mainstream critique of marxism.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              I don’t get why you purposefully obfuscate what ruling class I am referring to. What kind of example are managers and drivers when I am clearly talking about the people comprising the decision making body or Communist party under communism? I think that’s simple enough and also the fact that any communist government that survived long enough gradually became more and more authoritarian, more detached from the people - never in the other direction. The evidence is there and we both know it. The burden of proof that this isn’t the case is on you, not me…

              1. The Communist Party was not a class, hence why I asked you to prove it to be.

              2. You claim it’s a “fact” that Communist countries “get more authoritarian,” and left that hanging and unsupported.

              In both cases, the burden of proof is on you.

              You simply dismissed my claims without any evidence on that. Although you seem to like to meticulously answer every sentence separately, you dismiss the core of the argument. I understand most communism movements start off with noble and admirable intentions and I’m not ignoring this, but the fundamental issue here is that in the longterm, by design, in order to preserve state power, for whatever reason, you’d be heading to the opposite direction of a stateless society.

              I dismissed blanket claims with no reasoning or evidence. There was no logic, just blanket statements. Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that Communist countries have ever been at a point where they could abolish the state entirely, which in the age of Imperialism that’s impossible due to foreign interference. There’s good reason why Anarchism has never lasted at scale.

              I’ve read enough Lenin to understand this from his descriptions of the ideal Party. I don’t need reading recommendations, thank you. I am not saying anything profound here, this is like mainstream critique of marxism.

              You’ve demonstrated a lack of understanding of both the history of Communist states and the general Communist theory of the State. Just because you are making common anarchist critiques of Marxism doesn’t make them correct, hence why I have tried to highlight the differences between the goals of anarchism and Communism, the nuances in the Communist theory of the State you appear to be unaware of, and provided additional sources in case you want to learn more for yourself.

              If you want to keep engaging, I ask that you at least back up some of your points with either evidence or logic, and take into account that Communists aren’t Anarchists and thus have different goals and methods, otherwise I think we are just going to keep talking past each other.

      • stingpie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        You say it’s the goal of the proletariat to protect the revolution, but why would they? Each proletariat would benefit from the revolution’s failure- they could live better lives as the bourgeois. You talk about the proletariat like they are some monolithic entity, with a single mind and goal. You talk big about helping the individual, but cannot see beyond their class. The proletariat is a person, with needs, desires and opinions. What father would hold the abstract ideals of the “revolution” over the life of his sick daughter? Any father I know would do anything for the safety of his children, even hoard life-saving medicine from others.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          You say it’s the goal of the proletariat to protect the revolution, but why would they? Each proletariat would benefit from the revolution’s failure- they could live better lives as the bourgeois

          This is absurd. That’s like saying the French Revolution should’ve been sabotaged because the Proletariat would have fared better as nobility.

          You talk about the proletariat like they are some monolithic entity, with a single mind and goal.

          No, I do not. I speak of the Proletariat as a class, which shares class interests and class dynamics, ie they are all workers who create the value exploited from them.

          The proletariat is a person, with needs, desires and opinions. What father would hold the abstract ideals of the “revolution” over the life of his sick daughter?

          What is this wild tangent? Why do you think a father would side against his and his daughters interests and continue to live in sqaulor? Do you think revolution is an aesthetic choice, and not a practical conclusion?

          Any father I know would do anything for the safety of his children, even hoard life-saving medicine from others.

          Revolution is when no medicine for sick daughters

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    “The good of the people” is a noble enough goal. Unfortunately, the people in charge of these movements are people who deliberately seek power, and for the most part, those people are vain greedy, brutal, a-holes.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      For the most part? That’s an empirical claim. Any evidence? My gut disagrees with you, but my gut also has no evidence.

      • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s not an empirical claim if you have literal examples of how badly “communism” (self-serving oligarchy) has failed.

        I’ll start with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. And I hope I don’t even need to point out what Mao did to China.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      people in charge of these movements are people who deliberately seek power

      “Don’t trust anyone who tells you what to do”

      “Okay, I’m not going to trust you.”

      “No, you idiot! That’s not what I meant!”

      So, anyway, let’s talk about why the Anarchists of the Spanish Civil War got absolutely rolled by the well organized and disciplined Fascists. Then maybe pop over to Russia, China, Cuba, Korea, and Vietnam, and consider why Marxism have had a better record on self defense.

      • Dragon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        the Anarchists of the Spanish Civil War got absolutely rolled betrayed by the well organized and disciplined Fascists Communists

        FTFY

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago
          • Don’t listen to anyone in authority
          • Don’t collaborate anyone in authority
          • Don’t submit to anyone in authority

          The people in authority betrayed us.

        • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          Hate to be betrayed by not having enough tanks sent to me. Maybe if the Spanish anarchists had all the military equipment they wanted, they would have won, but the war-torn Russians couldn’t afford to waste equipment on the shittily organized anarchists, so now I’m going to whinge about it for a century as though that makes them equivalent to (or worse than) the fascists who actually killed them!

          • Dragon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 days ago

            The Spanish Civil War wasn’t anarchists vs fascists. There was a popular front that included anarchists, socialists, communists, liberals. The USSR-associated groups made a grab for power over the anarchist factions, which can’t have helped the war effort.

            • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              There was logistical involvement from the USSR itself, which is what I thought you were referring to. I have nothing to say one way or another about internal factionalism, besides that the whole basis of your riff is still equivocating with or in fact making the Communists out to be worse than the Francoists, which I find to be in poor taste. You come off even worse than those dweebs who fellate the Makhnovist.

              Do you have nothing to say to Cowbee?

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          Please ignore the history of Anarchists fighting the Communists, it simply must have been the dirty Marxists betraying the noble Anarchists.

          • Dragon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            Are you referring to instances in which Anarchist groups in the Spanish Civil War took actions to hurt Communist groups? I won’t claim it didn’t happen, but I don’t know of examples.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 days ago

              I’m referring to the general distrust of Anarchists by the Communists. They fought against the Anarchists of Russia during the Russian Civil War, yet still supplied the Spanish Anarchists with weapons and vehicles. The general fact that Anarchists struggle with organization and Communists generally don’t to nearly the same degree compounded this.

              By what manner do you say the Communists betrayed the Anarchists?

              • Dragon@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 days ago

                USSR-aligned groups, where they had power in Spain, in many instances used that power to imprison, smear, and seize weapons from, and attack non-USSR-aligned groups. You can look up José Cazorla’s anti-subversion measures in Madrid, or PSUC’s attacks on POUM during the Barcelona May Days.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Yes, and the anti-USSR groups used their power to imprison, smear, seize weapons from, and attack USSR-aligned groups.

                  It wasn’t a “betrayal,” it was a conflict in how the war should be fought. The Anarchists tried to stick to decentralization even within the context of war, and lost. Had the Anarchists adopted a more Marxist line, they may have succeeded.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      I work a couple food service jobs and the waste brings a tear to my eye. And that’s just what makes it to the restaurant. Oh this tomato doesn’t look perfect? Throw it away.

      Perfect tomato’s for sale: $10 each.

      Then the pile of perfect tomatos rot as hungry eyes look upon it from outside the store. (They aren’t allowed inside, the vagrants might steal!) Rotten like the hearts of those who gatekeep necessities for profit and power.

      • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        That just Is word for word the peak of "grapes of wrath "

        “The oranges needed to be dumped in kerosene and burned. It is cheaper than dumping them in the river and making sure the poor don’t take them… why? All for the sake of profit”

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Ok but socdem. And before you try to make a counter argument with [insert nordic country that is actually capitalist] just think about how they always call the ussr and china communist while they arent.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Ok but socdem

      Lol. Lmao, even.

      And before you try to make a counter argument with [insert nordic country that is actually capitalist] just think about how they always call the ussr and china communist while they arent.

      China is Socialist with Chinese Characteristics, and the USSR was Socialist. Both are/were Communist in ideology.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Ok but socdem. And before you try to make a counter argument with [insert nordic country that is actually capitalist]

      ??? That is a novel take “let us split power with our oppressors, but Nordic countries don’t do that”

      they always call the ussr and china communist while they arent.

      Yeah the USSR was and China is a transitionary socialist state lead by a communist party.

      Get it together people.

    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Ok but socdem. And before you try to make a counter argument with [insert nordic country that is actually capitalist] just think about how they always call the ussr and china communist while they arent.

      What are you trying to say?

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Does it really matter what scheme the elites use to wring out all surplus value out of the population to repurpose for their own ends ?

  • Ascend910@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    The problem is not that ether system is bad, human nature is inherently flawed. So both forcing people to help or let them run wild with no restrictions is a bad idea.

  • jimitsoni18@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I know I would be attacked by entire fediverse, but I want to say that charity also has egoism as backing cause. People help other people because it makes them feel good. And people expect themselves to be noticed or praised or rewarded, even if they tell themselves and everyone else that they don’t.

    Also don’t presume that I am a capitalist, before you decide to attack me.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      People help other people because it makes them feel good. And people expect themselves to be noticed or praised or rewarded, even if they tell themselves and everyone else that they don’t.

      People want their labor to be recognized. But you don’t need to wield an Elon Musk level of deranged dictatorial financial clout in order to experience self-actualization for your efforts.

      Pride in your work also comes with a degree of autonomy and creative freedom. A draconian profit driven privatized capitalist restaurant or clinic or school isn’t going to care whether the staff feed or heal or educate anymore. All they care about is driving up profits. By contrast, a (good) chef cares that people like the food. They care about evolving their craft. They care about the experience they are producing, even when that may mean the dish doesn’t make someone else money.

      There’s a balance to be struck between enterprises with scarce resources and people with a desire to feel accomplished in their craft.

      But you can strike that balance with good administrative leadership. The reward for a day’s work can be a beautiful place to live and a happy neighborhood, rather than a single incredibly rich guy hosting an award show for his pet favorites and using these token elites as an excuse to make the rest of his staff live in poverty.

    • steeznson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I remember looking at charity jobs when I was graduating with my humanities degree before I got into tech. Revealingly, the alumi I was speaking to who worked in the sector said something like, “At it’s core you need to remember that working for a charity is essentially a sales job.”

      Made me nope tf out of there lol.

    • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I agree with you. If I have anything to give when I see someone in need, I give it to them. Not because I have some grand sense of purpose or anything. I do it because it makes me feel warm inside, it puts me in a better mood for the whole day knowing that someone else’s life is now a little easier because of me. Does that change the fact that I’ve made someone’s life a little easier?

    • witx@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Kind of. I agree partly. My mother used to knit winter clothes, for free, for some institutions and she wasn’t the one delivering them. They never knew who she was, and she didn’t bother.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        Your mother was kind and intelligent enough to get satisfaction from the knowledge that she made someone’s winter a bit more bearable. We should all strive to be like your mother.

    • kronisk @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      We hear that argument a lot, and though some people’s charity may be motivated purely by egoism I don’t think it applies to the majority at all. The argument assumes that if doing something makes you feel good, then that feeling must be the sole motivation for that action, which is dubious. And if we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, every action that does not make you feel bad is egoistic, and the concept becomes completely meaningless. Saving a child from falling down a cliff? Egoistic! Intervening when someone is treated unfairly? Egoistic! Giving up your chair for an elderly person on a crowded bus? Egoistic!

      Let’s take this last (admittedly small, everyday, non-dramatic) example. Sure, you could give up your seat purely because you want to look like a good person to others (although it’s doubtful anyone would even notice). It’s also possible to experience this feeling called empathy, to see an elderly person struggling to keep their balance while standing up and to want to alleviate that particular suffering. Everyone else is sitting down looking at their phones, so there’s no community pressure to speak of. No one would call you out if you just pretended not to notice. And the discomfort from standing up on a really crowded bus on a bumpy road could easily outweigh that little buzz you get from doing good.

      I’ll go even further; it’s even possible, in a scenario like this, to not even think about how it’s going to make you feel or your self-image or whatever. You just want to help someone else because it’s in your power to do so. If this isn’t an example of not being egoistic, what would be? What would be the opposite of egoism? To act completely dispassionately?

      And what about someone sacrificing their own life to save another? Striving to do good in the world does feel better, yes, but empathy is also a burden. Still, there are genuinely good people out there, that do good deeds and do not take any credit for it, even do it anonymously. And I can tell you from experience, not all of them walk around on clouds feeling like saints. Some of them even experience crippling guilt because they feel they do not do enough. How is that egoism?

    • hikaru755@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I mean, you’re not wrong, but your point is also kinda meaningless. Of course, you only ever do things because there’s something in it for you, even if that something is just feeling good about yourself. If there was truly nothing in it for you, then why would you do it?

      But that misses the point of the “people are inherently selfish” vs “people are inherently generous” discussion, because it’s not actually about whether people do things only for themselves at the most literal level, instead it’s about whether people inherently get something out of doing things for others without external motivation. So your point works the same on both sides of the argument.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        I might help people because it makes me feel good, sure. But I might also do it because those are my values, long since established, and I try to live by said values. So it’s about what following a self-imposed expectation, not about getting something. For some people, some of the time.

        Similarly, the argument that “being selfless is selfish” is not useful and provably false. Just go ask people, and they’ll tell you why they did things and how they felt. Then you have to argue that many of them are either lying or mistaken, which doesn’t seem like a winnable argument.

      • kronisk @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        Of course, you only ever do things because there’s something in it for you,

        No, sometimes you do things because you care about other people and want to help them. That you also probably feel better about yourself than you would if you did shitty things all day doesn’t mean that feeling is the only and single motivation.

        • hikaru755@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Well, but what does “caring” mean? It means that their well-being affects your emotions. At its very core, you wanting to help people you care about comes from wanting to create positive emotions in yourself or avoiding negative ones (possibly in the future, it doesn’t have to be an immediate effect). If those emotions weren’t there, you wouldn’t actually care and thus not do it.

          Edit to clarify: I’m not being cynical or pessimistic here, or implying that this means that everyone is egotistical because of this. The point I was trying to make is that defining egotism vs. Altruism is a little bit more complex than just looking at whether there’s something in it for the acting person. We actually need to look at what’s in it for the acting person.

          • kronisk @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 days ago

            Well, but what does “caring” mean? It means that their well-being affects your emotions.

            That would be an extremely reductive definition that doesn’t really tell us much about how caring for others is actually experienced and how it manifests in the world. How would this for example explain sacrificing yourself to save another person, if the very core of caring is to create positive emotions in yourself? Dying is a pretty negative thing to experience and there will be no more positive emotions for you after that. I guess this idea that caring is in its essence transactional feels profound to people because we’re so ingrained with capitalist ideology… but it’s a lot more complex and multifaceted than that.

            • hikaru755@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 days ago

              That would be an extremely reductive definition that doesn’t really tell us much about how caring for others is actually experienced and how it manifests in the world.

              Exactly, that’s my point.

              How would this for example explain sacrificing yourself to save another person, if the very core of caring is to create positive emotions in yourself?

              In this case it would be about reducing negative emotions, choosing the lesser of two evils. Losing a loved one and/or having to live with the knowledge that you could have saved them but chose not to can inflict massive emotional pain, potentially for the rest of your life. Dying yourself instead might seem outright attractive in comparison.

              this idea that caring is in its essence transactional

              That’s not actually how I’m seeing it, and I also don’t think it’s a super profound insight or something. It’s just a super technical way of viewing the topic of motivation, and while it’s an interesting thought experiment, it’s mostly useless.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      that’s a very grim way of looking at goodness. Of course doing things you believe are making a positive change makes you feel good, of course helping your community makes you feel good, and it does feel nice to be recognised and known as a good person.

      It’s a strange ambient idea in our society, that to be truly good you must suffer, and never find joy in the good things you do. Not to turn conspiratorial, but to me it sounds like a cope from actually selfish people who look at people who do nice things and think to themselves “they’re only doing it to be popular and feel good about themselves, why else would anyone do anything”

      • jimitsoni18@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        Egoism isn’t a positive or negative word. It is a word that describes human behaviour, and anyone who declares it to be positive or negative would be wrong. Egoism is something that makes you happy, or gives you a feeling of gain or happiness.

        This isn’t the standard definition of egoism, but I like to think about it this way.