compostgoblin@slrpnk.net to MemesEnglish · 1 month agoBut "socialism" is a scary wordslrpnk.netimagemessage-square299fedilinkarrow-up11.53Karrow-down144cross-posted to: anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.commemes@lemmy.world
arrow-up11.49Karrow-down1imageBut "socialism" is a scary wordslrpnk.netcompostgoblin@slrpnk.net to MemesEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square299fedilinkcross-posted to: anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.commemes@lemmy.world
minus-squareNSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 month agoso there is no one “at the top” “exploiting people at the bottom”
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]linkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 month agoYes, technically there is a top and a bottom, like an upper level administrator and a lower level worker, but this is not a relationship of exploitation just like it isn’t your manager that exploits you under Capitalism, but the Business Owner(s).
minus-squareNSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 month agounder communism, there is no exploitation
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]linkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 month agoCorrect. I am a Communist, I am just offering technical clarification that hierarchy exists under Communism, but not exploitation.
so there is no one “at the top” “exploiting people at the bottom”
Yes, technically there is a top and a bottom, like an upper level administrator and a lower level worker, but this is not a relationship of exploitation just like it isn’t your manager that exploits you under Capitalism, but the Business Owner(s).
under communism, there is no exploitation
Correct. I am a Communist, I am just offering technical clarification that hierarchy exists under Communism, but not exploitation.