At the risk of sounding like a class reductionist (I’m not), even things like racism and LGBTphobia are exacerbated by this, because the only reason we don’t just eat those ten guys is we’re always hating each other. The reason there’s so much racism in the US, for example, has a lot to do with slavery – and guess who benefitted from slavery? Guess who benefitted from the genocide against Native Americans? Who benefits most from calling refugees and undocumented workers “illegal immigrants”?
It’s not me. If you’re reading this, it’s probably not you. It hurts us. It hurts our communities, while these ten people keep brainwashing us into actually defending them and their system while hating each other.
(Ok now I’m going to have my coffee, and I wish to the gods that I could disable inbox notifications after posting this.)
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” – Lyndon Johnson
I live in the Bible belt and people 100% think a trans kid socially transitioning with a new haircut and different pronoun is a more direct threat to their livelihood than their boss giving them a 1% raise in a 5% inflation environment.
Same. We are surrounded by abject poverty and massive social problems. We could work to address those issues… But no. Bullying and maligning librarians for bullshit reasons is more important.
This is very class reductionist. Rich people are still hurt by bigotry, especially celebrities. Not every rich person is a cis, hetero, white, man.
These issues predate capitalism. Not making full use of minorities and oppressed people actually hurts the capitalist economy especially in terms of innovation. It would be much more efficient for the rich if everyone were giving their best.
These divisions are far from the only reason people don’t turn on the rich. People just don’t support socialism and I can see why. Things like the USSR and China are what happened when marxism was tried. We need to come up with better economic and political systems that actually work if we want to get anywhere. We then need to remove the stains these previous systems caused. I don’t think that’s gonna happen with the current crop of leftists as they are idealists still using 100s of years old ideologies.
Not every rich person is a cis, hetero, white, man.
Don’t give a fuck about rich people regardless of race, sex, or anything else. Just because a group of rich people can also inadvertently harm themselves doesn’t mean they are not effectively 100% to blame.
Things like the USSR and China are what happened when marxism was tried.
The USSR was what happened when dictators pretended to be socialist and victimized their subjects. This has little to do with Marx’ economic theories.
I don’t think that’s gonna happen with the current crop of leftists as they are idealists still using 100s of years old ideologies.
I agree with you here. I’ve started to see the left/right spectrum as not very useful, and the authoritarian/anarchist spectrum more appropriate. If peace, stability, and sustainability are ever achieved, it won’t be at the point of a gun or the order of an authoritarian.
Don’t give a fuck about rich people regardless of race, sex, or anything else. Just because a group of rich people can also inadvertently harm themselves doesn’t mean they are not effectively 100% to blame.
I want evidence rich people caused this mess. It’s said all the time that they are at fault for rascism, sexism, homophobia, etc but never proven. These ideologies go back to slave times, long before the world of capitalism and billionaires. It’s possible some are exploiting existing divisions to suit their own ends, but that’s different from being the sole cause of a problem.
The USSR was what happened when dictators pretended to be socialist and victimized their subjects. This has little to do with Marx’ economic theories.
Then why did it happen in almost every country with a socialist revolution lead by marxists? The USSR is only one example, you could look at China or North Korea for example.
I agree with you here. I’ve started to see the left/right spectrum as not very useful, and the authoritarian/anarchist spectrum more appropriate. If peace, stability, and sustainability are ever achieved, it won’t be at the point of a gun or the order of an authoritarian.
Anarchism is great until a well organized army comes around and invades them. If someone can find a way to build a commune without it getting invaded by tankies or fascists or the USA then I am all ears.
I want evidence rich people caused this mess.
LOL LOL! LOOLLLLLLLLL!
I don’t know why you’d be an apologist for the rich unless you are one. I don’t care much to get into it anymore with someone defending the rich, if you can’t understand this nothing I say would change that. I mean you can’t even see that the issue with the USSR, i.e. a dictator is also a problem in China and N. Korea.
If someone can find a way to build a commune without it getting invaded by tankies or fascists or the USA then I am all ears.
Any tiny group, commune or not, surrounded on all sides by powerful hostile enemies will fail (unless they are tolerated). Anarchism (anarcho-communism) if it’s at all possible, will come from cultural changes on the bottom, not from some privileged commune successfully fighting the world. It will come from economies failing due to people rejecting them and making, growing, and sharing. It will come when people can see that cooperation is superior to mutual exploitation.
IDK if anarchism is possible, but everything other than anarchism involves powerful groups forcing their way on vulnerable populations and I know that’s inherently wrong. I support what’s right, not what’s most likely.
If you make a serious claim the least you can do is provide some evidence. Otherwise why should I take anything you say seriously?
I’ve often wondered if anarchism is actually more just. How do you deal with things like criminals without resorting to vigilantism? You must have a solution to this if you want to build stable communes. I don’t read much anarchist literature as I don’t care for 100 year old books, so there might be a solution there.
Dismissing the practicality of an idea as being unimportant is not great. If you support something you know won’t work you aren’t helping anyone.
Edit: also I don’t know how you can call me an apologist for the rich. I am all for eating billionaires for breakfast, I just want it to be for the right reasons not something people have made up.
What would you accept as evidence?
You know like a study or financial documents proving the majority of the bourgeoisie or even just billionaires support or fund rascist, sexist, homophobic or other kinds of organizations that attempt to divide people.
Even then I expect there to be exceptions like Bill Gates who are known for their philanthropy. Exceptions aren’t a reason to keep around billionaires of course as no individual should have that much power, money, or influence.
You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about since if anything there’s been a wealth of leftist literature within the past couple of decades, and if anything ideologies such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism are experiencing a renaissance.
I also find it highly suspect that your first go-to example of leftism is a failed authoritarian state like the Soviet Union rather than groups like the Zapatistas, the anti-fascist movement in the US, Food Not Bombs, many horizontally structured local coalitions, or other much better examples of leftism manifesting in helpful and vibrant ways.
Class reductionism is harmful, though – I’ll agree with you there.
You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about since if anything there’s been a wealth of leftist literature within the past couple of decades, and if anything ideologies such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism are experiencing a renaissance.
Anarcho-communism comes from Krapotkin, right? He wrote the book on it. He died over 100 years ago. Sure there might have been newer literature but it’s still based on 100+ year old ideology.
Anarchism is better in many ways than Marxism. The issue I have is that they get steam rolled by more organized regimes in places like Kronstadt in the USSR, or what happened to anarchist communes in Spain and Ukraine. I don’t think they can stand up against a well organized army. I would love to be proven wrong obviously. As long as regimes like fascism, marxism, capitalism are still around it will be difficult to make communes stick without some external force to defend them.
I choose the USSR as Marxism is far more popular in the UK (and I think the US too) than Anarchism. It’s the most obvious example of a failed Marxist regime.
Seriously, why does Lenny not have the ability to disable notifications on posts?
I guess to encourage engagement, but it honestly has the opposite effect for me since it makes me squint at my inbox while hitting read all so I don’t have to see the debatelords and their hot takes lol
Why do you fear that lol?
Divide and conquer is a thing older than a sum of this thread’s ages. If there’s no constant infights and smaller issues, we’d figure things out and switch to them. When a poor white guy covers himself in blankets and burn crosses, they laught and applaud, because hating other poor guys is what would occupy him for life. They fund hatred for it lets them stay in power, it brings them easy wins against ‘the mysterious other’ people fear or don’t understand. It props them up alright.
Take insanely long copyright holders and LLMs from the thread I’ve read previously. We start to take sides and defend overwhelmingy rich companies from which none of them would probably suffer, and both of these suck ass. That’d hold us from regulating each at the same time, if anywhen.
Even coke and pepsi sold and sell us their rivalry as a way to up loyalty to their brand. Generating unrest is a good tool in their box. And I don’t think it’s a controversial opinion. Especially in economics and politics.
It may not be as bad here, but there are a shit ton of people who defend inherently destructive systems like capitalism, or who excuse systemic racism or transphobia. I’ve encountered them a lot, even here in the fediverse.
And now I understand you. I’ve seen persons fanboying for my fucking state, and I’m still open to switch places with them. They aren’t so enthusiastic about it after I propose that.
Either way, I wasn’t disagreeing with you at all.
Yeah, I get it. Personally, I live in the US, but we’re not so great either.
Personally, I think all states and hierarchies are destructive, but I’m willing to talk to people online who at least agree that oppressive systems like capitalism and authoritarianism are bad, as a baseline. In real life, I’m more open to conversing with people and debating ideologies, but being online is my escape from this fascist hellscape where I live.
Same here. It seeds some hope when you doubt either you or everyone gone insane.
Wishing the best to you. I keep trying to make things better, and maybe at some point after I’m gone, they will. I like what I’m seeing and hearing from a lot of younger people, so at least there’s that.
True to you. Best of luck too.
Doing the math, if you took the wealth of the top 10 people and divided it up among the world’s population, everyone would get 153 dollars.
Put a cleaning robot in a public space, and count the number of hours until it’s been vandalized.
Those kinds of people are a major contributor too.
Seems like a real good reason to get independent and start doing things for passion instead of for money.
Only issue is you can’t eat passion or use it to protect you from the elements. The idea of doing something for passion while tangentially making just enough money to support yourself is and always was a lie under a capitalist system.
Well, i used to stop critique our system, as i can offer no relevant working alternative. Can you? As long as people are involved, nothing really works except dictatorship. And that fails at one person
Democracy is pretty good, Dictatorships themselves suck. That’s why Democracy should be extended to the work place, and shouldn’t be mini-dictatorships.
Dictatorships only suck because every dictator ever sucked. Because getting to this position requires the worst traits of humanity. Imagine a just dictator that couldn’t be bribed. Even the thought sounds funny. Democracy might be nice, but where is it really? It’s capitalism that really rules the world. Even if democracy is slapped upon as a label.
The Americans are the best (worst) example.
Dictatorships suck because there’s no accountability. A just dictator that can’t be bribed is still an unjust hierarchy that removes freedom and choice.
Democratically accountable Capitalism isn’t Capitalism. If production is democratically owned and controlled, it’s Socialism.
Yeah sure. Great. And now? Socialism (one that actually works for the good of all people, not just the leading ones) will never happen.
Said just dictatorship might be wrong, but it might actually work. The same kind of unrealistic ideology that will also never happen. I’d be all for either. Even if I’d be the loosing one in socialism.
Why do you believe its impossible for Workers to democratically own and control the Means of Production? Worker Co-ops already exist as proof of possibility, same with Lemmy and other FOSS software.
You would not be the losing one in Socialism unless you’re a landlord or a business owner, in which case I’m sorry but humanity shouldn’t hold back progression for your personal sake.
Oh you did get me wrong. I would loose in socialism, because I’m well off now. STILL I would prefer being worse off than now, if everyone would be equally good. I would loose a ton of moneyz, others would win. Only fair. I didn’t want this system, I just got lucky in it. But those unlucky in it far outweigh the lucky ones. And yeah, noone should be sorry for those loosing.
Yet, I don’t believe BIG changes are possible. Sure, some workers might unite and seize the means of production. But, it’s not always just that simple. And surely, the majority of people who would loose would strongly oppose every uprising. And have the means to successfully do so. And let’s say it’s a car-factory. You might seize the means of production, but who will buy from you? And which bank will not freeze your accounts this day? And which company will deliver you with power? Parts? None. Unless they aaaaaaaallll revolt. Which they won’t. As most regular Joes are happy with their few bucks, a TV and a beer. Why risk it all being homeless? What’s with your kid that wants food NOW not a hope tomorrow?
No, you would not lose in Socialism unless you are a landlord or business owner. If you’re an engineer, doctor, lawyer, or other skilled worker that makes good money, you would be better off in Socialism. Socialism is about worker ownership of the Means of Production. Again, unless you’re a landlord or a business owner, you stand to gain. It isn’t the bottom 50% against the top 50%, but closer to the bottom 99% against the top 1%.
If you’re asking about leftist strategy, Unionization is a big one, see Syndicalism. Anarchists and Marxists, reformers and revolutionary Socialists, there are plenty of strategies for enacting meaningful change.
That’s why Democracy should be extended to the work place, and shouldn’t be mini-dictatorships.
You could do that. You could even distribute ownership, profits and risk among the workers. Literally nothing prevents someone from starting a business using that model. But then being paid a share of profits instead of a fixed salary is…probably not desirable for most people.
Even a tepid, liberal political system like Social Democracy would be a step in the right direction. As the post correctly states, massive wealth inequality is at the core of many societal problems. If we simply taxed the rich to make wealth more equally distributed, limiting the effects of labor exploitation somewhat, that would be a “relevant working alternative” as long as you concede that the current system “works” - which it only does by exploiting labor in the global south.
I know. But “if we simply” won’t ever do it. Noone will manage to eradicate the ultra-rich (or just taxing them a lil) , hence it’s just stupid political talk that leads to absolutely nowhere. Never said I like it.
Even if… If they’re suddenly being taxed, they would just move to where they ain’t.
It’s a simple and efficient idea, yet it won’t happen. Those who have the money already, make the rules. Or bend them just enough.
Maybe not reward greed for a start
Sure. Great words. Won’t help at all. Won’t change a thing at all. Because people will always be greedy, and all societies reward the dark triad of human traits rather than the civilized and honorable ones.
A nice guy like you, who figured it out, doesn’t matter the slightest. No offence meant ofc.
“people will always be greedy” is such a lazy response. It’s the same as saying “there’s no point in trying to prevent violence and murder, because people will always be violent and murder others”.
And not all societies worked the way our society does.
A lazy response? So you actually disagree? Have you taken a look around in the world? Even if the majority wouldn’t be greedy at all, the minority is always more than enough to fuck up the system (for others)
And we’re not talking about homicides. Sure everyone not murdered is good. But do you think, that you and your perfect political ideology will ever change anything? Are you filthy rich? Then you might have a tiny chance. But if you were, we wouldn’t be talking here. You’re, like everyone else, a toothless cog-wheel.
The system itself heavily rewards greed.
For a metaphor, you cannot look at people growing up in a cheating and lying home and conclude that it’s human nature to lie and cheat all the time. We all grew up in capitalism, but there existed societies where things like greed wasn’t rewarded, but shunned, and they were different.
And your last paragraph, well, if change can never happen, why even bother voting? You’re just one vote in a million? Why form a union? Why do anything? Why do activism? It’s too pessimistic and not how the world works. Movements are very much possible.
Yeah sure. Just continue believing in it. No sarcasm here. I just don’t. We’re ruled by capital and that will never change as long as the regular Joe and Jane at least got their TV, beer and whatever else little they require to be “happy”.
“Optimism is just a lack of knowledge” someone once said. Anyhow I’m not pessimistic, but simply realistic. My WISH to change this world to the better, changes absolutely nothing to the fact that I can’t. By no means at all. You can’t really think, that, in our modern times, there would be big changes possible? Especially when those big changes would mostly be horrible to the big money-bags? We will probably even witness the birth of the first person to be a trillionaire(s). Nothing will stop this.
I’d love to be wrong here.
Sees everyone shouting about needing a stronger democracy, all the research about wealth inequality causing problems, and all the economic theory on how to improve people’s lives.
“We’ve tried nothing and I’m out of ideas. Let’s go back to Kings. That was cool. There were swords!”
