• DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think that this is really true.

    If someone has “more” then yes of course someone needs to have “less”, merely by definition.

    The question is really whether those with less are living below the poverty line or living comfortably. I guess it’s a question of semantics whether “capitalism” requires people to be living below the poverty line but I don’t think it does. It’s just shitty regulations which allow wealth to become as concentrated as it has.

    Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it’s been implemented it’s suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it’s been implemented it’s suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.

      This is true, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is self-contradictory and impossible IMHO. Because as soon as a member of the proletariat is a dictator, they are now no longer a member of the proletariat.

      Now you don’t need a dictator, you can enact socialist policies democratically. This is very slow and kind of difficult, because the capitalists will lobby and fight so hard against it, and you need to maintain public support.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That isnt what dictatorship of the proletariat means. It means that the former bourgeoisie are temporarily politically disenfranchised from proletarian democracy

      • DerKriegs@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        German politics and energy consumption aside, I think they have the best base of knowledge for what your proposed economic model has in store for them and their allies. They had that model forced upon them, and fought for change and economic freedom. There was a freaking wall dividing their country over that.

        Don’t shitpost on good discussion please.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They had that model forced upon them, and fought for change and economic freedom.

          East germans, especially women and lgbt people, lost a lot of practical rights during reunification

                • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Nazis dogwhistle opposition to the USSR during WW2 Germany, the one time where the USSR was absolutely on the right side of history.

                  Literally every time someone goes hard on the anticommunism, they’re just ass-sore that they kicked their asses back in WW2.

                  • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nazis dogwhistle opposition to the US during WW2 Germany, the one time where the US was absolutely on the right side of history.

                    Literally every time someone goes hard on the anti-America, they’re just ass-sore that they kicked their asses back in WW2.

                    Well I can take your logic and easily condemn all criticism of America as being Nazi dog whistles.