• deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      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!”

    • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Dyskolos
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      Democracy is pretty good, Dictatorships themselves suck. That’s why Democracy should be extended to the work place, and shouldn’t be mini-dictatorships.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          You’re making a few assumptions, which unfortunately are wrong.

          1. There is downward pressure against worker co-operatives. Number 1, Capitalist firms are far more willing to brutally exploit Workers to maintain competitive advantage. Number 2, there is little infrastructure in place to assist with starting worker Co-operatives, unlike Capitalist firms.

          2. You can absolutely pay a fixed salary in a worker co-operative, and place any excess into funds for expansion or to pay steady salaries when in economic troubles.

          3. Worker Co-operatives are desirable for workers, that’s why worker co-operatives are far more stable, last longer, and have higher job satisfaction than Capitalist firms.

          All of that to say that Worker co-operatives are only one form of Socialism, and they still knock the socks off of Capitalist owned and run firms, because it turns out, dictatorship is unnecessary and unpopular.

      • Dyskolos
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Dyskolos
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • Dyskolos
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                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?

                • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

                  • Dyskolos
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Landlord and many other assets for passive income. They would also be gone. I’m aware. But I’m not of the 1%. But be it as it may, it’s not about me.

                    Strategies and plans are all cool for political discussions, but, my point being was, that it can’t be done (anymore). We’re way past the possibilities of changes of such a titanic nature. It was nearly un-doable before globalization, now it’s an utopian dream.

                    Say you and all your friend-workers manage to seize the means of production in your really big company. Bosses are killed/kicked/whatever, you also managed a perfectly fair strategy that every worker is 100% fairly compensated yadda yadda. What then? How long do you think your bank-accounts aren’t frozen? How long will it take for the power-company to show you who’s boss? How long til your buyers (assuming you produced something) won’t buy anymore (unless you’re B2C maybe)? How long til your suppliers stop supplying? And you were one big mega-corpo amongst thousands. In just your country. And it might last a week. And that was already a big “IF”, as you would need to convince the vast majority of co-workers to do the same shit at day X. And how many wouldn’t dare to risk (especially in anti-worker-countries like the USA) being suddenly job- and then homeless? How many would like to but don’t dare coz of the kids at home?

                    Unless any strategy contain a real-life-solution, it’s just a nice topic for a theoretical discussion. No real thing. I would love to be wrong though.

      • Dyskolos
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          “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.

          • Dyskolos
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • Dyskolos
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • Daskie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  As you mentioned in another comment, you’re at least somewhat well off (I don’t fault you for that), which means you very likely have stable housing, food, access to healthcare, etc., great. But that means you aren’t experiencing the same pressure that the global average person is. I.e. there’s still a few necks between yours and the boot.

                  So it’s easy for you to say this, cry “there’s nothing that can be done”, to retain your conscience while living out your life in relative comfort.

                  I don’t mean to vilify you. Everyone does this to some degree. Life is short and scary, and it’s no single one of our faults for the current situation.

                  But please understand that rolling over on your back in apathy is exactly what those ten men want. And spreading it through social media even more so.

                  The world looked completely different 100 years ago, and 100 years before that, and that rate of change has not slowed. There is no reason to think it won’t be completely different 100 years from now, and what that will look like entirely depends on what we do now.