You must log in or register to comment.
It can definitely be argued that capitalists themselves fucking hate capitalism.
That was a brilliant read.
I appreciated the nuance, and it even added a lot of perspective to the notion that Adam Smith’s “capitalism” concept was not the evil and inhuman machine we experience today.
I’ve noticed this move to “technofeudalism” everywhere but didn’t have a name for it. It’s exhausting seeing how many services, products, businesses, whatever, all simply want to coast on monthly payments and lock-ins for what amounts to merely keeping the lights on.
The PetsMart thing was insidious. This surely solidifies the definition of “human resources”: Seeking to control people as “assets” that generate profits like (proprietary) batteries.
It seems it should be a priority goal to undermine the corporate and wealthy’s dominion over “assets.” They’d be terrified of this, as they might actually have to do something besides acquire everyone else’s hard work for a change!
Not everyone. Capitalists love capitalism. It’s the people who aren’t capitalists but think they are because they love capitalism.
Sort of like how people think they are Christian’s because they go to church believe in Jesus, but don’t actually follow the teachings.
People think they are all sorts of things they are not and make themselves and or other miserable because of their fantasies.
We haven’t had capitalism in any sense of the word for about 60 years at this point. What we have seen is government interventionism in a protection of certain businesses that align with the interests of the sitting politicians - in other words, a form of Oligarchy.
What has transpired is an increasing degree of government deficits to fund entitlements, that drive inflation, which create more dependency on the entitlements and a call to do things like raise minimum wages.
The actual solution is: Trim federal spending, go into deflation, and drive the buying power of the currency up. This would allow people to pay down debts while maintaining standard of living, and allow for a reduction of dependency on hand outs - which would allow for a further reduction in government spending. The problem here is that the first step ABSOLUTELY SUCKS for a LOT of people - but it needs to be done.
From here: The big hedge funds, and such need to be ripped apart systemically.
This is so fractally wrong that it would take two hours to untangle this hodge-podge of confusion. So I’ll just say, the only way out of neoliberalism’s problems is to do neoliberalism even harder. 😂
-We haven’t had capitalism.
Continues on with Capitalistic solutions.
You’re just describing how Capitalism has reached its later stages, its death throes. You can’t turn the clock back, we have to turn it forwards to Socialism.
Trim federal spending, go into deflation, and drive the buying power of the currency up. This would allow people to pay down debts while maintaining standard of living.
My problem with this logic is the same problem I have when suited clowns claim they’ll just raise prices on everything 300% if the minimum wage goes up by $2.
Say we “trimmed federal spending” (which is kinda its job as an entity, to spend towards the people, ideally), and somehow magically our already-printed simoleons became worth more per dollar…
What, besides intense federal regulations, would prevent bosses from just spinning this as some kind of crisis, and making it an excuse to pay us less because “each dollar is worth more now so you’re making too much”?
“Entitlements” and “hand-outs” are necessary not because people are lazy, but because from a business perspective, jobs aren’t worth doing anymore , but we do them anyway because we’re forced to, if we want to participate in society at all.
TL;DR:
Basically, the solution is to tell the rent-seeking neo-gilded-age robber-barons of our day “Fuck you. Pay me.” If they actually paid a fair wage for the profits their employees generate, we’d be able to “pay down debts while maintaining standard of living, and allow for a reduction of dependency on hand outs - which would allow for a further reduction in government spending.”
The flaw in capitalism and the flaw that makes it unmanageable is how over time capitalism will find ways to extract more for less.
This will always fall to the workers. The recent recession had tax payers bail out the banks as well as pay bonuses. all because banks got very greedy.
Its not a flaw, its working as planned. But yeah, our “market solutions”, basically any problem created by capitalism just gets exploited for profit. Even when the economy crashes its actually a good thing for the very rich, as it " disciplines" labor, moves people down and out of the middle class which lowers wages systematically, takes out a few competitors, etc.,
Even when the economy crashes its actually a good thing for the very rich, as it " disciplines" labor, moves people down and out of the middle class which lowers wages systematically, takes out a few competitors, etc.,
If you look at it, every crisis always results in transfer of wealth up. Covid was the biggest up to date.
There are other things unmanageable.
Like a nuclear superpower with vast fertile southern lands fit for growing grapes, sea access with fishing fleet, and all such, which had a significant part of population under threat of scurvy. Because capitalism makes logistics work, it’s the reason European colonial empires could exist.
Or the same nuclear superpower, which boasted widespread literacy and all that, except that conveniently ignored Central Asian areas mostly busy with growing, collecting and processing cotton. Damn right, my dear. These were, ahem, not very developed even in 1991.
Or the same nuclear superpower, which had a powerful standardization apparatus, but when you look at its tank models or anything else, the components which could be interchangeable were just slightly incompatible. They were designed by people with the same kind of education and understanding and context, for the same purpose, but, first, every defense plant or research institute or something wanted to have their standard and they did get it, second, due to secrecy and vertical administrative structure there were little communication between them.
Or a system of logistics, that turned into shit the moment that superpower decided to leave the chat, leaving populations of whole countries foraging for wood to not freeze at winter.
Capitalism works differently, because it (any human actually, you included) tries to get more with less. Non-market instruments are supposed to constrain it to doing that only honestly.
I would never advocate for a super power, I want a classless society, this means no political class either.
“Political Class” isn’t really a thing, though, unless you’re replacing Class with Category, in which case “plumber” and “janitor” would be distinct classes. Administration and management are forms of labor, and are necessary in large-scale complex production, even Anarchists concede this.
I wish this was true. But as seen in history a class does developed around the political leader. This is why the country cried with the death of Stalin, he was a god to the workers. This isn’t how the vanguard should look in the push towards a classless society.
In what manner is it not?
Edit to respond to your edit: I think you are confusing power with classes, and hierarchy with classes. A class is defined by its social relation to the Means of Production, a CEO can technically be proletarian if they are merely employed by the board and have no ownership. There is hierarchy, and unequal power, but the relation to Capital is fundamentally different as the M-C-M’ circuit does not directly funnel into their pockets like it would with Capitalists.
Sorry I edited my response
I edited mine as well, I’ll copy and paste it here for coherence:
I think you are confusing power with classes, and hierarchy with classes. A class is defined by its social relation to the Means of Production, a CEO can technically be proletarian if they are merely employed by the board and have no ownership. There is hierarchy, and unequal power, but the relation to Capital is fundamentally different as the M-C-M’ circuit does not directly funnel into their pockets like it would with Capitalists.
That’s a main feature dude!
deleted by creator
Strong “I can fix him” energy out there.
I think capitalism is fine in principle, but like anything else that needs limits and rules that people are willing to enforce.
Here’s a nice quote from The Communist Manifesto:
What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen…
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people…
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.
Ah shit, never mind. This was from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations
I think the flaw is human nature. All governments and organizations are corrupt. All implementations are always twisted to suit the greed of individuals.
It’s entirely possible to create policy and enforcement mechanisms that would mitigate or eliminate excessive greed but nobody with anything votes for it because they’ll lose out on their own personal greed by their measure. They want that chance to fleece the masses even if they aren’t in the club that’s already doing it.
Blame humans.
2·2 days agoAll implementations are always twisted to suit the greed of individuals.
So it would be best to live under a system that doesn’t encourage and reward such behavior, no?
I’d love one, I don’t think humans are capable.
In very small organization sizes it’s possible but as people come and go eventually someone will get control to make decisions that put their interests or their connections interests ahead of the masses.
I think “it’s human nature” is an excuse made by the ruling class to quell challenges to the system that benefits them.
Sociopathic hoarding and anti-social manipulation is an abberation that our system artificially elevates and rewards.
If we were culturally more hostile to attempts to rent out our lives and natural resources back to us, and didn’t put zero-empathy profit hoarders on the front of magazines, things could be better.
I agree with you on group sizes though. When people are treated like hyper-specialized insects with ID numbers instead of identities, funneled into highly-specialized roles, every one a stranger to the other, something has gone horribly wrong.
I think it is possible
In what way does this graph say humans are not corrupt and taking advantage?
Even under communism the 1% had 4% of assets, that’s not 1% of assets like true communism should be. That in and of itself proves corruption to me. The fact that the USSR fell and a handful of 1%ers got the majority of industries for pennies on the dollar is egregious corruption. None of this is a criticism of communism. This is criticizing the actions of individuals who decided to be corrupt.
It’s just human nature. Some people call it “enlightened self interest” others call it nepotism, some call it survival of the fittest. Some call it gaming the system. In all cases it’s the same problem. Sometimes things can go well for a while but on a scale of even just a hundred years when an organization has more than a couple hundred people it simply goes sideways.
Even under communism the 1% had 4% of assets, that’s not 1% of assets like true communism should be.
In the US, the top 1% has over 30%. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because a socialist state hadn’t yet reached some Platonic ideal doesn’t mean it should be thrown out with the bathwater. You can’t go from a decimated, war-ravaged, illiterate, feudal agrarian backwater to some socialist utopia overnight.
This graph does not say that no-one is corrupt, correct. It does however show that the soviet system had much less inequality than what came before (under the Tsar) and after (capitalism). This is an improvement. This graph does not prove corruption either. Some having more than others is not corruption.
The soviets did not reach communism, they were building socialism.
Under capitalism, the vast majority of people must labour, by getting a job… if they can, to get money to have a house, food, medicine, etc. They take actions in line with how capitalism functions, to the extent they are doing so to survive, this is “human nature”, yes, but I don’t think this is the way that you are using those words. Under socialism, you are guaranteed a job, housing, food, there is free healthcare, etc. The actions the same person would take under socialism are different. So what you call “human nature”, but is just actions taken within context of capitalism, is not actually human nature.
I would argue this is more an issue of when citizens get complacent and stop holding those who govern them accountable. This is when any form of government will eventually start turning to the corruption. Those in power can change the rules while citizens are going about their lives. It works even better if the citizens are too busy and stressed out to worry about “silly things like politics”.
Getting everyone to be involved and knowledgeable about absolutely everything and to fight to make things right is beyond the capabilities of current humans. The more I know the more I understand I don’t know a lot about so many things beyond what i’ve experienced. Ignorance drives so many reactions (including the personal attacks from my comments here.)
I have met many individuals in this world who get very, very angry that someone else is doing x, y, or z - even if it has zero impact on them. Some of the reactions to my comments here about a very logical challenge that could have solutions with technology are attacked with illogical non-arguments and are a perfect example of how impossible it is to get humans to think critically about things when they have their own biases.
No
You’re wrong.
No, take your fascist misanthropy elsewhere.
Based on your comment history and how negative you are about absolutely everything… have you looked in the mirror lately?
Also keep in mind that I have simply made a hypothesis that humans are incapable of not being corrupt in organizations at scale. How in the fuck is that any one political leaning? The system itself is irrelevant. Even in communes where everyone “shares equally” there’s usually someone in leadership getting special exemptions and special treatment.
No, take your fascist misanthropy elsewhere
Regarding OP’s image…
- They make blanket statements
- They tell you what your problem is and they think they are more qualified than you, to know what your problem is
- They think they have the perfect solution for you, if only you weren’t in the way
Naturally the government they favor would have the same perspective, no?
You can be fine with the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism and still favor a wealth cap and abolishing laws like Citizens United that give money undue influence on politics. Extreme wealth concentration actually hurts capitalism by starving the spending economy of money. It’s a defect in the system that eventually spoils the system.
Innovation and entrepreneurship is not exclusive to capitalism. People innovated and undertook ambitious projects before capitalism, and they will be doing so after it.
There is nothing inherent to the private ownership of the means of production and the wage exploitation/human rental system we have now that mandates innovation and entrepreneurship. In fact the opposite is visible today, with big companies stifling innovation.
Lots of people on Lemmy forget that the choice between Capitalism and Socialism isn’t binary. Country picks individual policies that are capitalist or socialist in nature. All of the modern countries are a combination of both. Even USA has certain socialist policies. Most of Europe is roughly equally capitalist and socialist.
It’s just making a character build and picking perks. Capitalist policies aren’t bad (for the general public) by default. Depending on how and which ones are implemented, they can be beneficial to everybody.Europe has many more Social policies than the US, but it is nowhere close to equally parts Socialist and Capitalist.
Socialism means that the Workers own the means of production, and there is no country in Europe where that is the case.
Social policies != Socialism.
It’s not about strictly “owning”, it’s about controlling. Control can be achieved in many different ways, including, but not limited to regulations. Socialism is an economic system, of which you can implements certain parts.
I didn’t say “social policies”. Socialist policies are a more specific subset of social policies, so all socialist policies are social policies, but not all social policies are socialist.
Regarding the European countries’ degree of being socialist, it of course depends on the country. But on average, you might be right, and perhaps using “equally” was an exaggeration.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy […] characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
I’m not gonna lie, I don’t think a common-good healthcare regulation or whatever housing plans fall under the definition.
Edit: there’s some merit to this you could’ve brought up, e.g. Germany’s mandating by law of some (limited) worker control in firms ≥500 employees in size (wikipedia link). But even that’s breaking with the definition, since it’s not about ownership, but rather a say in leading the company.
You’re thinking of Capitalism and Socialism as Private Property and Public Property, and as oil and water. That’s not how systems work in the real world, however. An economic system is determined by what is primary in an Economy, and at scale property relations are entirely mixed and inter-related. Having safety nets doesn’t make the Capitalist EU somehow “a mix,” and having markets doesn’t make the Socialist PRC Capitalist either.
You are partially correct, in that markets are a useful tool at lower stages of development and public ownership and central planning at higher stages, but that doesn’t seem to be where you were going with that.
Socialism is when the government does stuff, and when it does a whole bunch of stuff, its communism.
Thank you, that is such an important point! Many if not most issues in our world are non-binary, but facing this requires thinking beyond memes, which many people don’t want to do. Gotta swipe left or right, those are your two choices, or you’re a shill for the wrong side. It’s really discouraging, almost a New Conservatism - not in a political sense but in an insular thinking and circling the wagons sense.
Funny enough, reducing Communists to rigid thinking devoid of nuance is actually anti-Marxist. Nuance and looking at issues dialectically is core to Communist thought, it’s non-Marxists that paint Marxism as dogmatic and inflexible.
it’s non-Marxists that paint Marxism as dogmatic and inflexible.
Yeah, it’s such a tired trope that it’s almost become a meme.
“Read theory” is already such an all-encompassing meme though, and covers that pretty well. Truly, if every liberal read like 3 or 4 pamphlets on Marxism we’d probably be at Socialism by now, well on our way to Communism.
For real, it doesn’t take much reading to dispell many of the myths and I frankly think most people wouldn’t be content to stop there. Once you begin reading, you hunger for more.
Absolutely, I started taking theory fairly seriously about a year ago and I haven’t been nearly as voracious in my studies or reading since childhood. The process of learning how the world genuinely works and seeing everything click into place is immensely satisfying.
“The truth must lie somewhere in the middle” is one of the most overused and underexamined memes in public discourse this comment is about to collapse upon itself into an irony black hole
Good illustration - binary thinking turns “the truth CAN lie somewhere in the middle” into “the truth MUST lie somewhere in the middle” because there has to be one right answer and one COMPLETELY OPPOSITE AND WRONG answer to everything. Except no, you’re just doing it wrong.
When the hinges on the door to your mind palace have rusted shut “Um actually false dichotomies are themselves a false dichotomy!”
The US has a bunch of socialist policies, it’s just that the people who complain about socialism don’t know what it means.
If you think the US has “socialist policies,” I wouldn’t be so sure you know what Socialism means either. It’s worth reading theory IMO.
The US doesn’t have any socialist policies.
But when government has social programs it’s socialism. It’s in the name!
I don’t think this needs a /s, but the world doesn’t fucking make any sense.
Arguably, The US does have several socialist policies, albeit implemented very badly. For instance, public education. Does capitalism stick its grubby fingers into it from every possible angle? Yes. But at its core it has collective funding through taxes (therefore owned/controlled by the state), universal access, and the prioritization of public welfare over profit (at least on paper). Those principles are strictly socialist and not capitalist.
Socialism does not mean controlled by the state, that is just a state service, which can be capitalist.
Socialism, and I cannot stress this enough, is not when the government does stuff
Where did I say “government does stuff”? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it’s socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist.
This may help clear up much of where you are butting heads with MLs in your comments.
No, this type of thinking is anti-dialectical. Capitalism is a system where private property and commodity production is primary, and socialism is a system where collective ownership and planning is primary. This does not mean systems are partially Socialist and partially Capitalist, but that property relations are not uniform in most systems. I think reading Marx would be helpful for you.
People blame capitalism, but capitalism isn’t the problem. The problem, as always, is power.
Under feudalism things were much worse. Serfs worked 6 days a week, 12+ hours a day. Up to 3 days of that week was spent tending your lord’s lands for free.
Under absolute monarchies, dictatorships and police states you work as hard as you can for whatever hours your employer sets, and you keep any complaints to yourself or you’re dragged off to a camp, or summarily executed.
So far, every time “communism” has been tried, it was just a dictatorship or police state where the leaders pretend that there’s a higher ideal.
Capitalist republics don’t give people at the bottom much power, but they get a little bit. And, that little bit is the best that the people at the bottom have ever had, even if it isn’t much.
The fact that there are people at the bottom isn’t the fault of some political system, and especially isn’t the fault of capitalism, it’s the fault of human nature.
You were two steps away from discovering libertarian socialism/democratic confederalism and then you crawled backwards.
The fact that there are people at the bottom isn’t the fault of some political system
If your political system is based on hierarchy, there will always be someone at the bottom of said hierarchy. It’s the logical consequence.
and especially isn’t the fault of capitalism, it’s the fault of human nature.
This is literally capitalist propaganda. Humans are a social specie, by nature they seek cooperation, not competition.
You were two steps away from discovering libertarian socialism/democratic confederalism
Riiight, a tried and true political/economic system which is sure to work perfectly as soon as it’s tried, just like communism.
If your political system is based on hierarchy
If you’re human, your political system will involve hierarchy as soon as more than about a dozen individuals are involved.
This is literally capitalist propaganda
Suuure… it’s capitalist propaganda to acknowledge that all mammals act in ways that are hierarchical and unfair.
I agree with most of your individual points… But your thesis relies on a false assumption.
Capitalism is the current problem for 95% of the world… Just like monarchies were a problem for that particular country. Just because many 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. Hell, if that were the case, we could blame everything on the evolutionary drive to be sexually successful, and not place the blame on anyone or anything else. That’s what those at the top would love the rest of us to believe.
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?
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.
Yes, and there’s a reason that those can’t exist in actual human communities of more than about a dozen people.
those can’t exist in actual human communities of more than about a dozen people.
this is a lie.
Ok, then disprove it. Show a counterexample.
the Paris commune
the swamp maroons
exarcheia
Inequality isnt the fault of the system that creates inequality. It just is.
The system doesn’t create inequality, the inequality was always there.
We already produce enough food to feed all of humanity, we already have enough houses to house everyone, and we have the means to prevent and cure most diseases, yet people at the top gatekeep access to those resources to increase their profits.
But sure, inequality just happens spontaneously. There’s nothing we could do about that 😒
Yes, because we’re humans, and humans are mammals. Dolphins have a 1:1 male/female sex ratio, and yet male dolphins team up to control breeding access to females. Damn capitalism, making dolphins not share fairly!
Things I hate were present where I live through half of USSR and then till now, and replaced things even scarier present since the revolution.
Tell me it’s capitalism, mofo, I beg you.
USSR had a state capitalist economy
The USSR moved out of State Capitalism with the end of the NEP. It is technically correct that they had a State Capitalist economy, but they moved on to a traditional Socialist economy relatively early on.
No, everyone doesn’t hate capitalism.
Yeah alot of them love capitalism so hard, while simultaneously bemoaning every single part of capitalism, while being too stupid to be convinced the two are connected.
what no class consciousness does to a mfit’s a question of education. They’re not stupid, but ignorant
The capitalist class that expropriates the working class’ surplus value sure doesn’t hate capitalism.
but everyone hates the big companies and the rich people
its just that the right has been told that the left are the rich people (and then the left say that the neoliberals are the rich people, etc)
Do you think the problem with big companies and rich people is that individual rich people and the CEOs they elect just happen to be bad people?
The people who are willing to do more unethical stuff to make a profit make more of a profit, and become more powerful as a natural consequence, so the problem is with the system that incentives this and brings it to the top
Then I am confused why you would disagree with the left, that the political philosophy of capitalism, liberalism, is to blame.
True. Capitalism can be made to work well for most people, as shown in many European and Asian countries. You need strong regulations (and for workers to engage in unions and in voting). People (specially on lemmy) seem to mix American oligarchy with capitalism.
Blaming “capitalism” for all of society’s problems is about as useful as blaming God or some gremlins. For example, if you’re in the USA and you blame “capitalism” for your problems, then what are you gonna do about it? There is no path to change this society from capitalism to socialism or communism. We have entire armies of military and police who will ensure that the status quo stays in place. You also can’t vote your way out of this. No candidates advocating such changes will be elected.
The best thing we can do is aim for better regulation of the systems that have allowed for the oligarchy to take it all over. Which won’t be easy or quick at all but is at least somewhat possible.
there are paths you’re just not willing to consider them.
So what are you gonna do about it then? In reality.
as i said you’re not willing to consider them as clearly demonstrated by trying to push the responsibility for these issues onto others.
Could it be that you just don’t want to admit that you can’t do anything about it?
As for me, I don’t have any responsibility to push onto others about it. I accept the things that cannot change, and I have adapted to survive in the environment that I live in, and things are going generally well.
No, I just have no interest in dicussing a topic like this with a random on the internet where it won’t matter. very different. enjoy your day time being ineffectual.
Likewise, have a great time with your fantasies of revolution or whatever.
I think they meant, like, practical actionable paths, not like ‘I’m playing a Sim and everyone does what I say’. Perhaps they were trying to think about what people could do in the real world that we actually live in
all paths are practical and actionable, if you take action. but thats a you issue not a me or others issue. someone recently showed you a path to take that is effective and simple to do on your own. you’re just not willing to consider it.
Your definition of practical and mine differ. For me, a path that makes my life considerably worse is not a practical path. I would assume the same is true for you, you’re just unable to admit it.
na you’re just making assumptions instead of reading what is actually said. I have not made a statement about what paths I personally support, only that unless you take action personally non-sense about the practicality of a particular idea is self defeating. there are always challenges and struggles the point is to surmount them not wallow in self pity. again pointing to a personal issue with the person claiming impracticality. not with the person proposing and ideally taking action on a path.
The path has been laid out by Mr Luigi
Posts like this one are chasing people away from Lemmy.
Lemmy doesn’t need people to “succeed,” it already does its job. It’s not a commercial product to be profited from. Further, you aren’t going to be able to chase away the Socialists from Lemmy, the structure is appealing to Leftists and its developed and maintained by Communists.
Good, we don’t want that kind of person.
That’s partially because like many other words and names (just consider Isis, an important goddess of ancient egypt), “socialism” to most people means the type of absolute control that communist countries usually feature. But of course, as a word/concept, socialism is just the application of socialist policies, not even remotely alluding to some absolute end goal or so. And naturally as a part of society except a tiny minority at the top, most people would benefit from more socialist policies.
Socialism isn’t really as simple as “socialist policies.” Such a character classification into binaries like “Capitalist policies” and “Socialist policies” doesn’t make much sense, Capitalism and Socialism describe much larger systems and what drives an economy. Social programs are good, yes, and Socialism is a good thing too, but they aren’t the same.
