this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
894 points (99.9% liked)

196

16488 readers
1606 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Democracy of the founding fathers was Greek Democracy, predicated upon a slave society, and restricted to only the elite. This is the society we live in today, even with our reforms towards direct representation. The system is inherently biased towards the election of elites and against the representation of the masses. Hamilton called it “faction” when the working class got together and demanded better conditions, and mechanisms were built in (which still exist to this day) that serve to ensure the continued dominance of the elite over the masses. The suffering of the many is intentional. The opulence of the wealthy is also. This is the intended outcome.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yea yeah no true Scotsman. Where is this “true capitalism” in existence? Or is this another “homo economicus “ that definitively can never exist?

Large scale socialism has worked, multiple times. Do you not think industrializing a peasant society, more than doubling lifespan, cutting working hours in half, I could go on but I’ll leave it there, are things successful countries do? What determines success?

[–] Cannacheques@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Arguably the most capitalist societies were probably nomadic hunter gatherers where everyone was always on the move, every man and woman was out there for themselves. Not really everyone's cup of tea let alone particularly enjoyable to be fair

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 1 points 1 year ago

There’s no evidence of any time when humans were “Out there for themselves”. History shows definitively that humans have actively collaborated in social arrangements in every instance that we have found.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like somebody needs to take an anthropology course or two. You are badly confused. You're not even wrong, you're just light years off base and clearly speculating with a kind of pure almost childlike ignorance of the subject.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have a very generous definition of the word "worked."

It's just a simple fact that managed or hybrid capitalism produces by far the best results for the most people. I will never understand the need to see the world in black and white terms when it's quite obvious to nearly everyone that mixed economies provide the best allocation of resources together with the highest quality of life. This is a subject that mainstream economists see as largely settled, apart from the details.

I can't believe I'm seriously arguing with a communist. Maybe this is enough Internet for me for today.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No I have a rather defined definition of worked. It is “improved the lives of the vast majority of citizens”. Which socialism did, and does.

25% of American children don’t get enough food to sustain proper development. And that’s a proper allocation of resources to you? Millions of Britains rely upon food banks because the resources are so unevenly distributed that a few individuals hold the majority of it, and that is a proper allocation of resources to you?

Nearly a million people are homeless (40% of which work full time) in the US. Is that a better allocation of resources than providing housing as a human right?