893
Political mindset evolution
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
893 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45660 readers
1153 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
All countries have always been governed by the property owning class. With all its faults, capitalism has resulted in "peons" having the most say they've ever had. It's not a lot, but it's sure better than under classical democracy, feudalism, monarchy, theocracy, and "communism" at least as practiced in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and China.
That's wildly ahistorical. It has allowed the creation of Labor Aristocracy, Proletarians that benefit from the fruits of Imperialism, but Socialist countries like the ones you listed did far more for the working class than Capitalist countries have. You should read Blackshirts and Reds.
Edit: In this they take on the posture of a severely depressed person who views hope as a dangerous delusion.
Capitalism and modern western democracy suck. But, life has always sucked for those without power. Life is/was much worse for people under "communism". It was much worse under fascism. It was much worse under feudalism. It is/was much worse in a theocracy.
Also, this idea that "existence is evaluated in terms of money alone" is a silly caricature of capitalism. People with power have always been the ones to make the rules. It doesn't matter if that power is in the form of money, or absolute control over anyone who lives on a certain bit of land, or in terms of absolute control due to being the representative on earth of a god's will.
The first paragraph is literally the same "I can't justify capitalism but the others are worse" argument again.
The society we live in is an employment based, market fundamentalist society. It just used to be a different kind of fundamentalist theocratic rule is all.
Instead of lashing out and calling it a silly caricature, you can just say "I just plain don't like that." It would have had the same effect.
That being said, how much money would it take for you to change your mind about existence being measured in terms of money alone being a silly caricature? Even if you were the type to give it all away, eventually, we would find a number. Not only that, you'd be a multi millionaire and, as such, on that basis alone, your existence would be judged as an inherently good one.
Which happens to be true. Maybe in the future there will be something better, but so far it hasn't been found.
Sure, ok. And it's better than a feudalist society where you're tied to the land, or a slave-based economy where you're property.
I'm not lashing out. I'm just describing it as a silly caricature, which it is. Capitalism is fundamentally about owners of capital competing to make more money by investing in capital and selling goods at a profit. People who don't own capital have to work in that kind of a system. Similar to how peasants were tied to land they had to work under feudalism, or slaves were required to do whatever their owners demanded in a slave state, but it's less brutal. Workers can change employers and their bodies are not owned.
Is it fair? Of course not, but no socioeconomic system that has ever existed in reality has ever been fair.
No amount of money would make me change my mind. There would probably be an amount of money where I'd be willing to lie, but what does that prove? You'd lie too if you were offered enough money. That's human nature, not capitalism. If this were a feudalist system you could be bribed with land. If it were a theocracy you could be bribed by religious titles.
I don't know what you're trying to prove. Capitalism is bad, but other systems are worse. There are purely theoretical systems that would be better, but none of them has ever survived an encounter with reality. But, that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Eventually we'll find a way to improve on capitalism, just like capitalism improved on feudalism.
What is also true is that its the mentality of a depressive who views hope as a dangerous delusion, as had been said a fair few times now.
It is lashing out, as you can't refute it or engage it.
Dismissing a legitimate observation of our society as a silly caricature is a far more silly caricature of someone who just doesn't like what they're hearing.
Existence is measured in money, under capitalism. Why would you lying about it and not meaning make any difference? As long as you're doing what you were paid to do, it would have the same appearance and the same effect. I would take the money too, as its the most important thing in society and existance is measured in it. Thats the point here. Why would I care what was in your heart of hearts?
No, none of the other systems survived an attack by a system that cannot tolerate any alternatives to live unmolested. Had any of them failed of their own accord, you might have a point there. You can't shoot someone in the leg and then declare that their claims of being able to run didn't survive an encounter with reality.
Trying to improve capitalism has never survived an encounter with reality. All it did was make the rich richer.
Capitalism didn't improve feudalism. Firstly, capitalism grew out of merchantislism. Secondly, merchantislism had to be forced on people who had been robbed of their homes and were facing starvation. Had they any other option than starving, they would have stuck with feudalism.
What are you talking about? Research how many rights women and lgbt people lost when the GDR fell for an example of how wrong-headed this line of thinking is.
For those who want light reading, I highly recommend "Why women had better sex under socialism, and other arguments for economic independence"
I remember an anecdote from an East German woman after the Berlin Wall fell saying West German women were just now beginning to advocate for what the East German women already had.
I'm not arguing for the BRD and how not fucked LGBTQ rights were. I'm arguing against a picture that the GDR had better rights in general when in fact most people who didn't strictly follow the party line were heavily suppressed and observed.
Yes these rights rights were lost, but this paints the GDR in a positive light regarding regarding civil rights when in reality people who showed a smidge of dissent were persecuted.
Because they were, especially compared to West Germany.
I’m not arguing for the BRD and how not fucked LGBTQ and women's rights were. I’m arguing against a picture that the GDR had better rights in general when in fact most people who didn’t strictly follow the party line were heavily suppressed and observed.
Edit: forgot women's rights
Look up how the stasi dealt with lgbt dissidents after being told to solve the issue and then come back here and say that with a straight face.
Dissidents for "hey we need to fix the problems of socialism" or dissidents for "we have to dissolve socialist democracy and let the capitalists pillage us" were treated very differently.
And the ones arguing for dissolving socialism got what they wanted, and the result is justification enough for their oppression tbh. Better to suppress right wing dissidents than let them oppress vast swathes of the population.
Do you seriously tell yourself the GDR was a democratic socialist country? The GDR not being democratic was exactly it's problem and why it couldn't reform its problems. And yeah, the people only wanted to get oppressed by capitalists when they protested in Leipzig and Berlin. If you really believe that I don't know what to tell you. Are you some Wessi who doesn't know shit about life in the GDR?
Man, they wanted something better than the shit show that their life had become. They had many ideas about how they could reform their country. A new socialist constitution, a emancipated reunion with the West etc. All they knew was that it couldn't go on with the current SED clique.
How did the SED respond? Fucking off with the last money. They left their population with no help when they negotiated with Kohl. But hey, to you that's just capitalist propaganda probably. Now it's the people's fault that they got screwed by the capitalists pfffff
Holy shit bro. Do you think Hohenschönhausen was filled with right wingers and capitalists and that your beloved party didn't oppress the population? First of right wing networks were left alone all over the country. What we see now in Thüringen and Sachsen didn't just hop over from the BRD after the wall fell. It merely got reinforced. Second, do you really think only right wing dissidents got suppressed? My father got in trouble because he stepped into the voting booth, NOT casting his vote openly for the SED. Democratic my ass bro, righteous suppression of right wingers lol. 100k Stasi agents 200k informants just for right wing dissidents, yeah right
They didn't get something better though. They got capitalism, worse living conditions, and a bourgeois democracy that didn't represent them either
The SED literally lost influence and that let reunification happen. You're blaming an organization that was trying to prevent something disastrous from happening for the thing happening disastrously.
Pretty sure it was the fault of the power dynamics at play, as reunifiers had taken control of the government and led to a massive looting of the GDR. And as for the SED "fucking off with the money" you get that the big impoverishment of east germany was that all the nationalized industries were given to private individuals, mostly people in West Germany who used to own(or whos parents owned) the industries prior to nationalization, right?
Also, I ask again: how did the Stasi respond to the lgbt movement in the 80s? Because that shit runs entirely contrary to the propaganda you're trying to spew.
That's nice, but the issue was whether they were part of the governing class. The rights the women were given in the GDR didn't include the right to pass new laws. As for choosing new representatives, look up the term "Wir gehen falten".
You're claiming that capitalism is better on having elected women officials? First off, no. GDR and west Germany had similar rates of women in leadership, and women had political organization through the democratic women's front.
Second off the framing is bad: I care less about smashing the glass ceiling than I care about not being hatecrimed in a rampantly misogynistic culture. I care about having the economic independence to leave abusive relationships, and to date for love and pleasure and not financial security.
No, I'm saying western democracies are better because you got to vote.
You get to vote in socialist democracies like China, Cuba, USSR, etc. You've been told you can't. Who told you this?
If you don't believe me, look up the process for how the Cuban 2019 constitution and 2022 family code were drafted. Socialist democracy is more advanced and democratic than liberal democracies.
Sure you do, as long as you vote for the candidate that the state prefers. Again, look up "Wir gehen falten".
That isn't how soviet style democracies work. For example, the municipal assemblies of Cuba have multiple candidates for each seat, which are not chosen by the party. Those councils then choose a national representative for their municipality, which is confirmed by a popular vote.
Link to what you're referring to please, I didn't find anything interesting in the search.
We're going to ALL be dead from climate change in 20 years? lol
Yeah... sure. "We all die".
The earth isn't going to be hit by an asteroid, it's just going to have more and more catastrophes. If the earth reaches a tipping point with the melting of the polar icecaps, it will still take centuries for them to melt. The tipping point just means that it won't be possible to stop it. Humanity will survive, because killing off humanity would be as difficult as killing off mosquitoes or cockroaches. What will happen, not suddenly in 20 years, but gradually over the next few centuries, is that life will get more and more unpleasant. There will be more famines, more disasters wiping cities off the map. More wars over resources. But, some humans will keep living, and they'll have children, and those children will grow up in a terrible world where survival is a struggle. But, humans will survive, though it might be a very brutal, primitive existence.
As for "capitalism", it's not "capitalism" that's at fault here, it's humanity. It's not like North Korea is a bastion of carbon-neutral utopian living. Humans are unable to think and act on a global scale. They're selfish, and always have been. The difference is that now there are billions of humans, and technology has enabled each selfish human to have a massive climate footprint. Human brains were evolved to exist in small groups on the savanna. The thinking that allowed humans to thrive in that environment has meant destruction now that technology has massively amplified the impact each human now has.
The solution isn't some random change to a different economic system or a different political system. It's either destroying most technology so that each human can no longer have such a massive impact, or it's fundamentally altering the human brain so that people use that technology wisely and with a tiny footprint. Neither of those is likely, so we're almost certainly doomed.
Countries are defined by land-hoarding class, because the nomadic people define themselves by their group instead of the land on which they live.
Without hoarders (landlords), we wouldn't need to put as much effort towards regulating land use, instead we could focus on regulating behaviours. Ex: "this land is a national park, you are not allowed to trash it. Go next door, there you are allowed to pour the trash from your industrial process into the ground, because it's your private land"