• A2PKXG@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    To all the people here ranting about monetary debt: its not an issue. Money isn’t designed to hold value in the long term. It’s a feature, not a bug.

    It’s just really unfortunate for those who play the game as if money were an asset. It’s meant for transactions, not for storage.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes Marx formalized this opinion.

    It’s the owners of the land and the means of production that control all of the wealth.

    • Ruxias@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communism is covert fascism? Why then did fascists round up and kill communists? The two are wholeheartedly opposed to each other.

      • trimmerfrost@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s like two communists Stalin and Trotskey, fighting against each other for power. Trotskey was defeated, exiled and later assassinated

        Communism is fascism under a different name. Every communist country in the past or present has been a fascist totalitarian state

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          no, fascism is nothing like communism outside of being authoritarian, but fascism is capitalistic for sure.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s ok, communists only rounded up and killed millions…and caused millions more to die of starvation…but it’s ok because fascist killed them in WW II…

        • folkrav@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some governments who got put into power under the promise of communism did stray away from their promise of communism and statelessness into authoritarianism, and it killed people, yes. Capitalism has also killed and is killing as we speak, so I’m curious why it’s “okay” in their case.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not, neither case is ok, but communism has been tried many times and always ends in authoritarianism. This communist utopia is a myth. At least with capitalism I’m not starving or have nothing for my labor.

            • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              At least with capitalism I’m not starving or have nothing for my labor.

              Ah nice self-unmasking. “I am comfortable under capitalism and it could be worse for me so thats why I don’t want to even consider something else where no-one had to starve while food is available or be homeless while millions of houses stand empty.” You are just selfish and afraid.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s also known as intellectual humility. A person is allowed to think of their own self interest, and speaking of one’s own experience is the most based form of communication because it holds the highest certainty.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes because I forgot how china and Russia and north Korea all kindly take care of their homeless and special needs people…o wait they just euthanize them.

            • folkrav@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              This utopia that capitalism works well only does in a vacuum, looking at the westernp/“developed” world. Half the world’s population lives on less than $7 a day. Most people objectively have close to nothing to show for their labor.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Under capitalism those people who earn the least are improving their lot rapidly. That $7 a day you’re citing was $2 a day about 20 years ago.

                Under communism people who are doing fine descend into poverty and starvation. Not “food insecurity” where they have all the doritos they could ever want, but actual starvation where they eat their neighbors to survive.

          • realitista@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The main issue with communism is that it puts the entire control of the economy in a few people’s hands. Even more so than capitalism does.

            When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.

            And in the usual case, ends up with them funneling much of the resources to their buddies and letting others starve (a la holodomor).

            Anyhow, it’s an argument that is about 100 years out of date. The Scandinavians solved this problem half a century ago already. The best thing we can do is have capitalism control production and distribution of goods and services, and democratic government’s socialist policies drive the resources where they need to go and solve the many economic externalities endemic in any capitalistic system.

            A better solution, as yet, has not been demonstrated. Anyone advocating “pure communism” or “pure capitalism” is a rube.

            • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Agreed to this! Communism means that people can’t be the owners of a buisness or anything at all. Thoose mixed economies where government-based (communist) companies compete along with individual’s buisness should be enought to make the best of two worlds. But still should be implemented correctly and you might also want to consider governments making some limitation on other private companies anti-competatively though. If government behaves well within this mixed economy then it will be cool i guess

              • realitista@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, antitrust, consumer protection, health and welfare programs, and pollution taxes are starkly missing in many of todays capitalist countries, first and foremost being the USA.

                Though I must admit I don’t understand what you mean by that people can’t own things in capitalist societies. I would say there’s maybe too much ownership in capitalism.

            • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.

              There was one promising solution to that which was attempted back in the early 70’s: Combine Cybernetics with Socialism.

              Unfortunately the CIA instituted a coup in Chile to install a dictator more favorable to multinational business interests before it could be implemented.

              • realitista@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I didn’t watch the whole video, but it sounds very similar to what The Venus Project has in mind.

                My feeling about this is that it unfortunately suffers from many of the same problems as communism. In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.

                Open source could mitigate this to some degree, but there will still be an “intelligencia” owning the code and having massive incentives for abusing it.

                Best just not to have a system where such incentives exist IMO

                • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m familiar with the Venus Project, I don’t believe there is much overlap in their ideas.

                  In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.

                  This is likely true with Communism, but could be almost entirely mitigated if done using Anarchist (like Peter Kropotkin style anarchism) principles. Instead of an all powerful state controlling the reins which would inevitably breed corruption, this concept of cybernetics could be applied in a federated way, where smaller communities could hook-up to this cybernetic collective, which would allow for greater cohesion and collaboration between directly democratic communities.

      • nxfsi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fanatics often hate those that are only slightly different from themselves the most. See Catholics vs protestants.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism literally turns to fascism to stay relevant as it makes life really bad for most people. This is such a laughably bad take.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s hilarious how these tankies are agreeing with your comment not knowing it’s sarcasm lol

    • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      From my limited understanding, Marxism comes off as more of a lense to analyze politics and human behavior than an actual system. It also comes off as not very fascist, but fascist seeming things can come out of it, depending on your perspective. I will admit I’m not very educated in regards to political science, and I’ve just begun my foray into Marxist theory.

      • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s easy to analyze and critique an economic system, it is difficult or impossible to make a perfect one. As far as I’ve seen, Marxism, and systems inspired by it, have not fared well in the real world. Something something stones, something something glass houses.

        • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can’t disagree with that. I think the sort of utopia that communism suggests is a natural progression back to our roots as a species, and will happen, but only after we’ve pushed for it AND survived through an inevitable apocalypse, because we done royally fucked up tbh. For right now? Well I’m just a blue collar American with no degree. I don’t know. I think socialist structure needs to be implemented for sure though, just to stop the people whove captured the wealth from royally screwing all of us over. I am not educated, or indoctrinated enough to actually debate you beyond that. In fact, I kind of just avoid people, so I’m probably not the best leftist to debate you at all.

          • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which roots as a species did we have a utopia? If things were perfect, people wouldn’t have sought solutions which led us to where we’re at. People, animals, even plants will always have problems. It’s just a question of what those problems are. If we don’t problems, we’ll create our own, it’s just how we’re wired.

            When people talk about wanting socialism in the US, they are usually talking about something like Scandinavia. Scandinavia is rooted in capitalism, but has a social safety net. The US has the same thing, it’s just has some inefficiencies. The US has welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, section 8 housing, social security, and various other programs. If we check out the budget it shows $4.1T being spend on these programs. People always talk about much the US spends on the military, but they are spending 5x more on social services and safety nets (socialism if we want to call it that). Police, fire departments, most roads, national parks, etc are all paid for and supported by the government through tax dollars at either a national or local level.

            In terms of those who captured the wealth, I think the stat is that 90% millionaires in the US are first generation millionaires who didn’t inherit their way there. I kind of like the idea someone, regardless of their background, has a chance to make it. At least there is hope for a way way out. Form what I’ve seen with socialism it doesn’t mean everyone lives well, it just means everyone lives poorly. Instead of having some people a the top who started companies, rich politicians with their thumb on everyone. It’s still a power hierarchy, it’s just one that’s harder to rise up in. I didn’t start a business and I’m not a millionaire, but I have a 401k, so when those rich guys win, I win too, because my 401k gains value which will help me in retirement. A house and a 401k, with consistent investment over time are how most people become millionaires, and that ability doesn’t exist without those people willing to take the risk on a business… and most of them fail and end up with nothing. We see a lot of selection bias when looking at those on the top.

            I’m not trying to fight you on it, or get into a big debate. I’d just tell you to keep an open mind and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of people online will paint capitalism as all bad, and socialism as a utopia. In reality, neither is perfect and a balance is probably the best we can do… and that’s what we have in the US. One can argue the tipping of the scale might be a little off, and that’s something to work on, but it doesn’t mean with throw out the whole system. I’m not saying you were going there, but I see that a lot. If those other systems were so great, I’d question why the US is still the most popular place to immigrate to for people looking for a better life. The US has more foreign born residents than anywhere else in the world, and it isn’t even close. There has to be a reason for that.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, but recall that any communist system attempted was being trampled by the capitalist countries (still is). Marxist-Leninism calls for “leaders” to guide the masses, which is definitely a straight path to another two-class system(see, USSR). Communism calls for a democratic system, which isn’t really compatible with ML (in my understanding)

    • deejay4am@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      fascist

      Marxist/ Communist

      Those two things are opposites…you buzzword concern troll

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Opposite likes north and south are opposites? Or opposites like apples and oranges are opposites.

        Fascism and communism are both:

        • authoritarian attempts
        • to improve socieity
        • by radically changing economic relations
        • from consensual trade to slavery
        • to support a massive war effort
        • designed to get the rest of the world under the same authoritarian regime
        • resulting in millions of battlefield deaths
        • and the deaths of millions of enslaved citizens
        • by overwork, disease, starvation
        • and outright systematic execution

        But one’s “left wing” and the other is “right wing” so they could be described as “opposites”.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          you have anything that isn’t Carl-“what nationalist”-Tucker ranting on Fox News?

          first off, Fascists didn’t try to change any economic relations, in fact a lot of the NAZI party members were staunch capitalists, People like Ford were lauded as great men of commerce and industry for their success in economics, the Nazis even privatized stuff that was public during the Weimar years.

          And why wouldn’t authoritarians like capitalism? the modern workplace literally resembles the fascist dream, you have the CEO (führer) with his cadre of upper management (close political aids/figures) middle and lower management as an enforcement mechanism with limited decision-making powers (Gestapo/SA/SS) and the good workers.

          and in the USA the ultra capitalists even have the fun social Darwinism bit going on (13/50 anyone?)

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fascists didn’t try to change any economic relations

            They had labor camps where they used slave labor to further the war effort. Slavery was imposed upon people for whom economic interactions had previously been consensual and free.

            Why wouldn’t authorizations like capitalism?

            Because it is an economic system based on consensual exchange. That’s why it’s referred to as a “free market” system.

            • orrk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, first off, I will remind you that the great slave nations were almost all Capitalist.

              Secondly, Capitalism is not based on consensual exchange, and no free market means no government interference, the fact that we have laws against slavery inherently mean the market is LESS free, Capitalism is an economic system where power is mainly held by the capital holders, instead of the workers.

              Ironically, Capitalism can function perfectly fine with planed, and authoritarian economies… like it did during Nazi Germany.

              then again, I don’t expect someone spouting the old Glenbech shit to actually know anything about economic and political ideologies…

    • pachrist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      True, because it’s also a giant Ponzi scheme. We pick up new debt today to pay off debt from yesterday, and we hope expanding GDP and inflation will always offset the difference.

      • halfelfhalfreindeer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not forced to take on that debt though, nor is the debt unpayable unless you take on more debt. Some people put themselves into a ponzi-like situation either through poor financial decision making or circumstances so shit that they can’t do any better, but the average person doesn’t need to take out a loan on a freaking pair of nikes or even a car or house. It’s a cultural norm to get a mortgage, but if you do the math it often doesn’t make sense to and isn’t anywhere close to mandatory. At most you could argue that the US government debt works that way, but even that’s iffy and depends on your geopolitical outlook.

        • Barack_Embalmer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. I’m thinking of dying for a few years so I can save up enough to get on the property ladder. Just waiting for a decent grave to come up on the outskirts of town where the rents aren’t too high.

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the point isn’t debt my man,l’m thinking OP means capitalism sells you the “if you work hard and play by the rules you too can be rich” as your buy-in. That’s the scam.

        • markr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s a good question. Amway is perhaps the architype pyramid scheme. They actually do sell products, but primarily to the marks they con into being ‘amway agents’ or whatever they call them. The marks, in addition to buying the shit, also kick back part of the proceeds from any sales up the ladder. A ponzi scheme doesn’t actually do anything with the marks investment money other than use it to pay off the people in on the con.

        • A2PKXG@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but most people using the term don’t know their defitition, so knowing the correct definition is of limited usefulness.

          Ponzi is for Investments that offer high returns, by marking the principal as gains. Pyramid schemes sell stuff, through a pyramid of salesmen. Each one earns a percentage of the revenue of his underlings and is encouraged to recruit more underlings.

        • Sarcastik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s used so interchangeably these days that I’m inclined to say no, but an oversimplication is that a ponzi scheme is always illegal and is more detailed in its mechanics (as named after conman Charles Ponzi). Wheras a pyramid scheme (or more commonly known: MLM) can actually be legal depending on how it’s constructed.

          A ponzi scheme involves a conman who scams his customers by taking massive profits from their investors and requires a constant stream of new investors to pay off the old ones. This is fraud.

          A pyramid scheme usually involves some type of product and pays huge bonuses to the recruiters at the top for bringing in more people below them from the investment of new people below them. This is taxing uneducated people but can be legal.

          TLDR: capitalism is more akin to a pyramid scheme and not at all like a ponzi scheme.

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the ideal shower thought imo. Concise, absolutely true, and something you wouldn’t realize on a daily basis (at least not in these terms)

  • Mr PoopyButthole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly one of the reasons I fell for a pyramid scheme coming out of high school.

    A friend invited me and I went to shit on it and get him out, but the main guy’s whole thing was “everything is a pyramid scheme, at least here you have the chance to build a pyramid beneath you.”

    Obviously there were other reasons as old as time, but the argument of “so what, your ‘regular job’ is already a pyramid scheme you can’t win” was pretty rattling to a teenager in 2011.

    • hihellobyeoh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The difference between a pyramid scheme and a good business is where your money comes from, in a pyramid scheme it comes from the people at the bottom of the pyramid, in a business it comes from selling goods and/or services, that’s not saying I agree with big business, but one is profiting off of legitimate customers, the other is profiting off it’s own “employees”. I nearly got caught into one a few years ago too, until I realized what it was, at that point they had only taken a couple $100 for the interview and sign up stage, i had to block my card for them to never get access again, because even though i didnt complete sign up, thwy kept charging me monthly

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Imagine you own a goose that lays golden eggs. It lays one golden egg per year. How much would you sell it for? Probably not one golden egg, but definitely you’d sell if for a million gold eggs. You’d probably settle for maybe 5? 10? 15? Something like that.

          Suppose the goose only lays one egg per year now (or none at all!) but it’s still young and most people expect it to start laying four or five or even ten or twenty eggs per year in a few years from now. It’s impossible to tell for sure how many it’ll lay over its life, or when that will happen, or if it will happen at all. NOW how much do you sell it for?

          That’s the stock market.

          A bunch of investors think a bunch of gooses will start laying a ton more golden eggs soon, and they’re willing to pay big bucks now in exchange for the possibility of that in the future. This isn’t a pyramid scheme or a zero sum game or anything like that. It’s just a prediction of the future which may or may not be correct, and only time will tell.

          • msage@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the description of the very basics of the stock market.

            Now do the derivatives, and let’s see why it’s gone to hell.

            • obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I don’t want to pay for the full goose right now, I just want to pay for the right to buy the goose later, at a price that’s fixed now. I’ll decide later if I actually want to buy the goose or not.

              Alternatively, I’m not sure how much my goose will continue to lay in the future, I’d like to pay for insurance to guarantee me a fixed price to sell the goose later if I want to.

    • 46_and_2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Please explain, how exactly is fractional-reserve banking a pyramid scheme?

      • capr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it allows banks to lend out money they don’t have and when the banks lobby hard enough to completely remove whats left of the gold standard, the sky’s the limit for lending out money. Creating money out of thin air increases inflation. However, in a weird way it impoverishes the lower classes while inriching the elite class because the latter tends to better connected and therefor closer to the “monetary spigot”. This allows the elite class to buy up everything(land, companies, lobby/bribe governments)from the top down like a game of pacman.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    At this point, “Capitalism” feels as undefined to the left as “Woke” is to the right. It may be bad, but people just put whatever they don’t like into a box and call it “Capitalism”.

    • TimeNaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, no, the left has always had a pretty consistent analysis of capitalism. It comes to different solutions to it, but we all pretty much agree why capitalism is bad.

        • TimeNaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The definition is an economic system based on private property and market exchange of goods. That’s a pretty much universal definition that has been accurate since the 1700s

            • TimeNaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not going to summarize Marx, Kropotkin and the life’s work of thousands of other leftist philosophers for you. Go read a book.

              • randon31415@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You would think thousands of philosophers could summarize something into an elevator speech. but I’ll look up Kropotkin since that is not a name I’ve heard before. Thank you.