113
Protestation (mujico.org)
all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fl42v@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Yap, it did, and the same goes for almost all the tech nowadays. Although, by that I mean ideological bullshit more than anything: crapple, for example, locks you in their fancy walled garden where you're not allowed to even fart in the wrong way; then more globally we have hardware with no schematics available, firmware that verifies that nobody dared to replace broken parts, etc. Heck, as much as I dislike most of the stuff about Soviet Union I adore their tech which (although often ripped off of western models) came with schematics out of the box.

!This comment is brought to you by an open hardware cultist :D!<

[-] Fleur__@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Capitalism making iPhones just makes me hate capitalism more

[-] MenKlash@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Hmm, interesting. Why did those workers made the iphone in the first place?

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

So they wouldn’t starve to death?

[-] MenKlash@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago

Individual human beings act; that is, every individual engage in conscious action toward chosen goals (Fundamental Axiom of Action)

We choose to employ scarce means according to a technological plan in the present because we expect to arrive at our goals at some future time.

But, we are all different: we don't choose the same means and goals, and we don't have the same set of skills and intelligence. So, in order to satisfy our self interest, we need to cooperate with others to satisfy our own goals.

So they wouldn’t starve to death?

Essentially, yes. This is only possible by social cooperation, division of labor, private property, voluntary exchange and competition, but any intromission of the State (that is, an oligarchy of politicians and public employees) is detrimental and coercive to the welfare of all the agents.

[-] Fleur__@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Idgaf about any of that lingo. Workers deserve the world simply by merit of being workers. So what if a rich upper class "owns" the land, capital and resources to build an iPhone, it's not like they actually could without people designing, manufacturing and distributing them.

[-] MenKlash@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Workers deserve the world simply by merit of being workers.

Well, I believe anyone who owns property, by legit means (Neo-Lockean homestead principle), should have the right to have total ownership over it, without compromising the natural rights (Life, liberty and property) of others.

it’s not like they actually could without people designing, manufacturing and distributing them.

Exactly! That's why social cooperation and division of labor is possible, by voluntary relationships and the pursue of self interest.

Idgaf about any of that lingo.

Don't be closed-minded. I invite you to read more about libertarian ethics and the Austrian School of Economics.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Austrian school🤮 Right wing “libertarians” 🤮

[-] Fleur__@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Bros like "go to Austrian school" Man go tf outside mfrs out here struggling and he's like "it's elementary Watson just go to elite college and learn capitalism good actually"

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It gives “just be born rich”

[-] Fleur__@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

How exactly do you intend to have these values upheld and protected from a wealthy class without intermission of state. I find the idea that private property is the personal fiefdom of whoever owns it non constructive. So what if a rich person owns 3 houses. If two of them sit empty the homeless should be housed in them regardless of the personal wishes of the owner. I don't like the idea that our society should be constructed around a system of self interest because society is built from community not competition

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

It can be built on self-interest, but only if people have conscious egoism.

The lack of conscious egoism is more obvious in the capitalist class. They destroy the world for their own “self-interest”. But that is a contradiction. They, as us, need the world to live. They act anti-socially and destroy the wellbeing of poorer people in their “self-interest”. But we as a species are social animals and only feel as good as the one among us that feels the worst. Homelessness, famine, destitution etc. obviously affect the people directly suffering from them most, but they also affect all of us. We can’t as individuals be truly happy and content as long as people suffer in poverty.

If we were to truly act in self-interest, in a truly conscious way, we would make sure everyone was materially served, had no needs, and could follow their dreams to the fullest. That would be the most satisfying thing for all of us individually.

For the capitalists to enjoy their positions, they have to separate themselves from the rest of humanity. And in many ways, from their own humanity itself.

[-] MenKlash@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago
[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

If I’m “anything” is a socialist. And my only political goal is the abolishment of private property.

[-] MenKlash@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How exactly do you intend to have these values upheld and protected from a wealthy class without intermission of state.

Property is a naturally arising relationship between human beings and material things. Property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Any intromission on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.

The Neo-Lockean homestead principle states that the only legit ways to own property is either by

  • Mixing your labor with unowned resources;

  • Trading or being gifted it by the previous owner;

  • Producing new property.

the homeless should be housed in them regardless of the personal wishes of the owner.

The end does not justify the means. If that rich person legitimately owns 3 houses, they should have the full control of their property, as their natural right should be protected.

I don’t like the idea that our society should be constructed around a system of self interest because society is built from community not competition

Civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. A community is built by the willness of its individual members to cooperate with each other by voluntary means.

As human beings are different by nature, we are willing to form a community so that, with our own skills and intelligence, we can help ourselves by helping others. Differences are the very source of division of labor and, withing a free-market setting, lead not to conflict but cooperation.

Competition is a dynamic process of change. It's not merely about rivalry between existing businesses but also about the discovery of new opportunities and better ways of serving consumer needs, being a part of the spontaneous order.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

How you get downvotes over capitalism 101 facts in c/communism 🤡

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 9 points 1 year ago

I think they used the clown makeup meme wrong. The statements are supposed to get more ridiculous and indefensible as the clown puts on more makeup. As if to say, "you're a clown if you believe this."

[-] Fleur__@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The statements do get more ridiculous though

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Not if it's making fun of capitalism.

[-] Miczech@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

I view this as a case of communism failing to protect its workers and capitalists squeezing the last dime towards corporate earnings. Apart from the shareholders it's a loss loss for everyone else.

And yet, none of that happens without the capitalists. Curious. Is the world perhaps complicated, or is everyone stupid except me?

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

I guess when you think of it that way, CEOs are Workers too. Thanks!

[-] DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Funny how I still haven't gotten a good example of a communist government. It's almost as if you guys have no idea what you're talking about 🤔

All I'm asking is for literally one example. Just one. Of a current, successful communist government. I'll wait 🤣😂

[-] Val@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

You could say the same for democratic governments before French revolution.

[-] DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Funny, I can point to at least 50 Democratic and capitalist countries that run just fine and are in the top 10 best countries to live in on the earth. But you can't name just one viable country run by a communist government?

Funny how that works 😂🤔

[-] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I said before the French revolution.

Also I doubt they are going to be "the best" after climate change (which is caused by those countries) causes them to collapse.

[-] DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Why is it so hard to name one successful, current communist country?

Forget about your French revolution nonsense 😂

[-] Val@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Because human progress is about making things that do not exist. Saying that something doesn't exist currently does not mean it cannot exist.

Before the french revolution there were no democratic countries. back then you could say "Name one democratic country. Oh you can't? Guess democracy doesn't work." and it would be just as valid as your claim now.

[-] DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Fair point but communism hasn't been effectively implemented because it's being purposely stifled, it's because it's a crap system.

I guess if you take the best aspects of communism and ignore the history of how shitty it is then maybe you can theoretically imagine a successful version of it. But I don't need to hypothesize such a scenario. There's plenty of data and historical facts that completely prove my point

[-] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Humanity has progressed a lot in even the last 20 years. Using historical facts to prove something doesn't work is not effective under these circumstances.

Also communism (in the classical sense) doesn't really have a practical history, as no country on the planet has purposefully reached it.

The soviet union or china were never communist. They were both horrific state capitalist dictatorships.

And capitalism is also crap. For example look at the impending climate catastrophe.

[-] DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I'll never say capitalism is perfect but it's a system that works - and at its best, it works remarkably well. I hear this argument a lot that communism hasn't implemented the way it should be. Has there ever been a government that came close to what you would consider "almost good enough" communism?

[-] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Communism is by definition a stateless, moneyless, classless society. If any of these exist it is not communism. There is no "almost good enough". You can't have almost classless. If you have classes you aren't classless, and in a single party system the party members are a class.

I put it to you that capitalism doesn't work. It is an inherently corrupt system that will inevitably end in the destruction of everything. Capitalism is unsustainable. Built on the myth of perpetual growth and willing to kill everything on this planet to achieve that. Given a long enough time-frame all wealth and decision making capabilities under a capitalism will be consolidated in the hands of a couple of rich companies that will only care about economic growth. Damn the consequences.

/sidenote. I am not actually a communist but an Anarchist. I oppose all unjust hierarchies. Money, state and class just happen to all fit under this definition and because of that I also support communism.

[-] DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Most economic systems are inherently morally neutral. They're just tools with no sentience - so I don't understand how you can say capitalism is inherently corrupt when you literally said communism hasn't been implemented properly in any country or state. It seems to me like communism is more flawed if it can be exploited more easily.

Please don't say you're an anarchist or I'll have even less respect for you. 😂

Seriously, though, I used to be a pretty radical socialist until I did some real research (not trying to insult you, I mean that I looked at my beliefs through a very critical lens and my ideologies didn't stand up to real scrutiny) and soul searching to end up leaning closer to what you would call a soc-dem.

I genuinely believe that you communists and anarchists want better living standards for every human on earth. But I think you guys have been lied to about the evils of capitalism and how good the system can truly be. And I concede that the extreme disparities between the rich and poor in a capitalist system are pretty fucking gross.

[-] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

so as I was trying to answer this I came across this little part. Here is a list of a couple of anarchist (and therefor communist) societies.

None of these lasted for very long because they were quickly either subverted or destroyed by statists. This, for me, is not a flaw of anarchism (or communism) as a concept and instead happened because the movement did not reach critical mass. Not enough people believed in the system for it to work.

Also note under the Russian revolution chapter the """communists""" were the enemy, as they were the ones that destroyed the systems that were actually communists in order to create their state capitalist state,

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seca5 A.5 What are some examples of “Anarchy in Action”?
A.5.1 The Paris Commune
A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs
A.5.3 Building the Syndicalist Unions
A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution
A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations
A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution
A.5.7 The May-June Revolt in France, 1968

But I still insist that even if these examples weren't there it proves nothing about the potential of the system. Progress is making things that do not exist. The statement that something doesn't exist is not proof that it can't.

Also if you look at my post history I have done a lot of reflecting on why I believe in anarchism and nothing has made me doubt that it is possible. The only thing stopping it is the greed of people, and as we are seeing what that causes I am hoping that too gets fixed.

Also I absolutely support any form of government you want to create as long as you allow me to live in my commune. In that sense I am a federalist. I believe that on a macro scale humanity works best if different societies can all coexist together, so everyone can find their place. I actually see it as macro-anarchism, the same fundamental beliefs that govern an anarchist society implemented on all of humanity.

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
113 points (87.4% liked)

Communism

1680 readers
11 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS