The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.
Couple things: tiered income would likely exist in early stages of Communism, and certainly in almost all forms of Socialism. Marx makes it exceptionally clear that both intense and skilled labor are represented as condensed unskilled labor.
Either way, there are examples of anti-capitalism. Chiapas and Rojava are more Libertarian Socialist. There’s also countries like Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, who appear to be attempting to reject Capitalism still and still operating on some basis of Marxism-Leninism Socialism. China relies on Capitalism as their dominant mode of production, but claims to be Socialist by 2050, though that remains to be seen.
The nations you think of as “Communist” are typically Communist in ideology, but are building towards it through Socialism. Just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so to do Marxists believe Capitalism is a necessary stage before Socialism, which is a necessary stage before Communism.
Exactly! This is exactly what I’m saying. The 1% is still the 1% calling the shots… No matter where they are or what you want to call the type of government they influence.
Yes, so you’re proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.
What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.
Oh! I see. No…I’m only saying the minute you start talking any “-isms”, you trigger feelings of tribalism that exist in all of humanity. We want to be on the “good team”. No one wants to be on the bad team, and that feeling is what the Uber wealthy uses to keep us busy. Debating all of the “-isms” is the problem. Let’s figure out how to take care of the masses so basic human needs are met, allowing humanity to prosper, and figure out what the hell to call it later. Otherwise, we just quibble over semantics and nothing gets done.
I mean absolutely no offense by this, but that’s a load of Utopian bullshit.
People use “-isms” not to divide into tribalism, but to describe methods and structures. If you can identify problems with modern, Capitalist society, calling it “Capitalism” is not meant to divide anyone. Similarly, the various leftist strategies, such as Marxism-Leninism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndiclaism, and so forth, are all different proposed ways of tackling the same problems.
How do you propose people move towards a solution if nobody knows what the fuck everyone else is doing?
First…I love this discussion. Thank you for it. It’s what made me love Reddit in the early years, and why I’m so enamored with Lemmy. Secondly…You make an excellent point; one I can’t refute. I don’t know how we move towards a solution without having a way to succinctly describe an ideologic structure. I just hate how partisan the world becomes, and how much the media plays off of it to help the fuckers in charge sell ads, or maintain power, wherever you live and whatever ism you subscribe to. Maybe all I’m doing is just missing the point and muddying the waters…
You’re starting to get it. You should read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky. He describes the very mechanisms by which the bourgeoisie use the media to control the people into doing their bidding.
You should really read a copy of the Communist Manifesto, i dont think you are muddying the waters, you are merely trying to look through the clouds of sentiment that have been stirred up in front of you your whole life.
The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.
…do you think Russia is still Socialist? The Russian oligarchs are Billionaire Capitalists.
The USSR collapsed in the 90s, buddy.
Is there even a non-capitalist government in existence? Even the communist nations generally have a currency and tiered income based on position.
Couple things: tiered income would likely exist in early stages of Communism, and certainly in almost all forms of Socialism. Marx makes it exceptionally clear that both intense and skilled labor are represented as condensed unskilled labor.
Either way, there are examples of anti-capitalism. Chiapas and Rojava are more Libertarian Socialist. There’s also countries like Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, who appear to be attempting to reject Capitalism still and still operating on some basis of Marxism-Leninism Socialism. China relies on Capitalism as their dominant mode of production, but claims to be Socialist by 2050, though that remains to be seen.
The nations you think of as “Communist” are typically Communist in ideology, but are building towards it through Socialism. Just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so to do Marxists believe Capitalism is a necessary stage before Socialism, which is a necessary stage before Communism.
Tiered income does not mean capitalism. Capitalism is not at all defined by inequality. It is defined by free market activity.
Exactly! This is exactly what I’m saying. The 1% is still the 1% calling the shots… No matter where they are or what you want to call the type of government they influence.
The Russian Oligarchs you speak of are a result of the fall of Communism in Russia.
Yes, so you’re proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.
What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.
Oh! I see. No…I’m only saying the minute you start talking any “-isms”, you trigger feelings of tribalism that exist in all of humanity. We want to be on the “good team”. No one wants to be on the bad team, and that feeling is what the Uber wealthy uses to keep us busy. Debating all of the “-isms” is the problem. Let’s figure out how to take care of the masses so basic human needs are met, allowing humanity to prosper, and figure out what the hell to call it later. Otherwise, we just quibble over semantics and nothing gets done.
I mean absolutely no offense by this, but that’s a load of Utopian bullshit.
People use “-isms” not to divide into tribalism, but to describe methods and structures. If you can identify problems with modern, Capitalist society, calling it “Capitalism” is not meant to divide anyone. Similarly, the various leftist strategies, such as Marxism-Leninism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndiclaism, and so forth, are all different proposed ways of tackling the same problems.
How do you propose people move towards a solution if nobody knows what the fuck everyone else is doing?
First…I love this discussion. Thank you for it. It’s what made me love Reddit in the early years, and why I’m so enamored with Lemmy. Secondly…You make an excellent point; one I can’t refute. I don’t know how we move towards a solution without having a way to succinctly describe an ideologic structure. I just hate how partisan the world becomes, and how much the media plays off of it to help the fuckers in charge sell ads, or maintain power, wherever you live and whatever ism you subscribe to. Maybe all I’m doing is just missing the point and muddying the waters…
You’re starting to get it. You should read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky. He describes the very mechanisms by which the bourgeoisie use the media to control the people into doing their bidding.
You should really read a copy of the Communist Manifesto, i dont think you are muddying the waters, you are merely trying to look through the clouds of sentiment that have been stirred up in front of you your whole life.