73
submitted 3 days ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 13 points 3 days ago

That’s because western propaganda has destroyed your ability to learn or think critically about anything left of capitalism. It’s not really your fault, it’s trillions spent on creating that mentality.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

No, it's because communism is an extremist ideology. You literally can't go farther left on the political spectrum than communism. That is the very definition of extremism.

By the way, capitalism is not a political ideology. It's an economic one. I am a capitalist, but a centrist Libertarian one. I used to consider myself left of center, but the insanity of the left since Oct 7, 2023, has caused me to shift right of center.

[-] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You literally can't go farther left on the political spectrum than communism.

By the way, capitalism is not a political ideology.

You contradict yourself.

By your own logic, if capitalism isn't a political ideology then neither is communism.

The fact that you wrote these in the same comment lets everyone know that either you are ignorant, or you are extremely misinformed on the subject at hand.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Communism is inherently a political/economic ideology. Capitalism is primarily an economic ideology with political implications.

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 4 points 2 days ago

Okay, it’s become clear that you really have no clue what you’re talking about. You have a good rest of your life man, I truly mean that.

You are misinformed. Communism has 'political implications' the same way that capitalism does. See the list of communist ideologies on Wikipedia for a primer.

[-] SGforce@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

"Economics" aren't political?

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Using the left and right spectrum is idiotic and not indicative of how extreme an ideology is. It’s like… 6th grade understanding of the nuances and philosophy of political, economic, and social issues and was created to make capitalism seem like a reasonable centrist position.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Actually, it sounds more like you're dismissing a standard political spectrum model to make communism sound less extreme than it is. Would you feel better if I used the word 'radical' rather than 'extreme'?

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 2 points 2 days ago

So extreme and radical to you are just “the further away an ideology is from our current form of capitalism, the more extreme it is” then?

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

No, extreme is the further away an ideology is from centrist/moderate ideologies. At one end of the spectrum is fascism, at the other is communism.

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago

And who gets to dictate what defines a centrist or moderate ideology?

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Moderate communists.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 5 points 3 days ago

Capitalism is indefensible from a libertarian perspective. A central libertarian tenet is that legal and de facto responsibility should match. However, the capitalist employer-employee contract inherently involves a violation of this tenet. The employer gets 100% of the legal responsibility for the positive and negative results of the enterprise. Despite workers' joint de facto responsibility for using up inputs to produce outputs, workers as employees get 0%

@canada

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It's been a long time since I've read any of this stuff - do you have a reference for the claim about legal and de facto responsibility?

That being said, I would argue that they are not incompatible but rather that capitalism acts as a constraint on liberty. That being said, it is the economic system in which liberty is maximized relative to any other system. No doubt that's why it has persisted.

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 2 points 2 days ago

Liberty and longevity are not directly related. History has in fact shown the opposite. Like… capitalism is only a few hundred years old at most, and has only existed in its current form since the 18th century. Compare that to systems of fuedalism, monarchism, places that have had oppressive regimes since conception like Saudi Arabia. Also look at how our current form of capitalism has subsisted largely on the backs of usee countries being bled and made to kneel by usar countries, which is arguably the largest contributor to its perceived longevity.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Sorry, by "persisted" I didn't mean to imply that it's the oldest. More that it is surviving where other systems have failed.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 0 points 2 days ago

Article: https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

Video: https://youtu.be/c2UCqzH5wAQ

Either one introduces the argument against capitalism based on the liberal principle of imputation.

Economic democracy, a market economy where worker coop is the only firm legal structure, maximizes liberty much better than capitalism

@canada

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Interesting theory. Does this exist on any large scale anywhere in the world?

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 13 hours ago
[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

I understand that employee-owned companies exist (though I think it's rather telling that I haven't heard of any of them) but I thought this was a model for economic policy at the societal level. Those companies all exist within a capitalist economy.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 0 points 10 hours ago

The idea is to mandate worker coop structure on all firms.

It's not that telling. Without a worker coop mandate, there are collective action problems and market failures. It's harder for all the workers to cooperate to form a worker coop than an employer to hire up all the workers.

No society has a full worker coop mandate because the modern arguments for it were published in the 90s. Some countries do mandate some worker board representation and codetermination though
@canada

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Mandating it doesn't seem to be consistent with individual liberty, though.

Forgive me for being pragmatic about this, but if this was such a good idea and consistent with the interests of the people, you wouldn't have to mandate it. This is how things would be done.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 6 hours ago

Political democracy also mandates legal non-transferability for voting rights. Would you allow people to sell or transfer their voting rights?

People prefer democratic firms: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-do-americans-want-from-private-government-experimental-evidence-demonstrates-that-americans-want-workplace-democracy/D9C1DBB6F95D9EEA35A34ABF016511F4

A mandate doesn't restrict any non-institutionally-described action as labor is de facto non-transferable. It only prevents fraudulently treating de facto responsible persons as legal non-responsible things.

Are we free when we can sell our freedom or when we can't even if we want to?

@canada

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

This comment demonstrates what the parent comment said.

this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
73 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
220 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS