• 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    You’ve obviously never read anything about communism or socialism.

    • Littleborat@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      But where are the good outcomes of communism? I agree that communism is terrible does not make much sense as a general statement.

      • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        There are a lot of benefits to it, like no real central leadership (more like central steering, not really iron fisted dictators which is what most implementations of it turned out to be), abolishing the monetary system (if implemented all the way), communes decide for themselves, good free healthcare, people are at the center of the system, not money/profit, etc.

          • Cowbee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Abolishing money is a very gradual process, not an immediate one. In lower stages, Labor Vouchers would be paid, and these represent an hour of labor. The difference is that labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use.

            Secondly, difficult, unpleasant, or otherwise undesirable labor would either be paid at a higher ratio, or require less labor per week to make the same amount of labor Vouchers. Alternatively, these dirty jobs may require rotation, so nobody is stuck working them. There are many ways of handling this, with more proposals than you would expect.

            • BilliamBoberts@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              So labor vouchers are money that give special treatment to people who do undesirable tasks? Or are they forced upon people at random, like a temporary forced labor lottery?

              • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Neither. It’s a replacement for money, based on hours worked. The difference between money and LVs are that LVs are destroyed upon first use, ie you create 4 hours of Value, then trade that for 4 different hours of Value.

                  • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    People don’t get everything for free until productivity is so high that it’s practical, which comes from development. The distribution is handled by the Socialist State, typically, until it becomes vestigial and no longer necessary.

          • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That requires a different mindset and (maybe) a different level of eveolution. Food is free, you take what you need. Services are free, if your house needs something fixed, you call the adequate people, they do the job, that’s it. Same for healthcare, you just go to the doctor, no bill, you just leave (we used to have that around here). Tech products are free, you take what you need (TV, stereo, phone, PC, etc.). You go to work and do the same as everyone else, do your job and go home.

            This is a very simplified version and as I said, it requires a different mindset. We’re not used to that right now, it’s alien to us.

            • BilliamBoberts@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              You have to put someone in charge of distributing the goods and services, set laws to make interactions between parties fair, and divy up resources, and remove/rehabilitate criminals, and that inherently creates a power imbalance. How do you suggest we keep the leaders beholden to the governed in this system so they dont abuse this power?

              • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                You groom them from children. This is an unpopular opinion, but it’s the best solution I could think of. Shamans have done the same in tribes. Some children show empathetic and leadership skills, stading behind the weak and sharing things equaly among siblings and other children. You pick those and groom them from children to take on the burden to be leaders. Yes, this is not fair, they’ll never grow up to choose what they want to be, but so are so many things in life. Sacrifices have to be made for the greater good… and so many far worse things have happened in human history.

                • BilliamBoberts@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Under that system, all leadership would be exclusive and homogeneous, as they would all be a part of some select leadership class, not unlike the nobility class of europe. Picking people from childhood and grooming them to be leaders is no guarantee that they will be good leaders. What do we do if someone is a bad leader in this sytem?

                  • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    You resign them from their positions because those leaders will not be the only ones in the country/world, more like a part of a council.

                    I have thought about this as well… this is the best I could come up with.

    • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Oh come on, that is such a lazy argument. I suppose you’re an economics PhD then?

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

        If you’re going to debate a topic - and especially if you’re going to make such a bold claim - you have a duty to learn and understand the topic you are debating.

        You’ve neglected that duty.

        • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Again, a lazy statement. You’re supposing that I don’t know a thing because I don’t agree with you. That is a wrong supposition altogether, certainly some sort of a logical fallacy, and also, most importantly, this is linuxmemes, sir.

          • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Derail the conversation… OK, now I know you’re just parroting what others have told you all your life.

            • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              A new person comes to join the lazy statement club. Welcome! If you think I should take you folks seriously, however, perhaps you should try forming actual arguments.

      • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Communism and socialism are primarily social orders, not economic ones. Yes, there must be an economic order in place, but as a derivative of the social order, to serve the social order and make it better, to grow and mature. That is not the case with democracy and capitalism.