Both egoism and altruism are human nature. We are capable of both (for the most part). Currently, we have a socioeconomic system that rewards and encourages primarily the former. Why not try it the other way and see where that brings us?
I’d like to point out the viability of cooperatives to accomplish this. A co-op is defined by the seven Rochdale Principles. Among those is open and voluntary membership, democratic member control, cooperation among cooperatives, and concern for community.
Its a stateless form of socialism that gives workers ownership to the means of production and doesnt have to necessarily negate private ownership. They can simply be incentivized by the state similar to how tax breaks and subsidies currently work or by providing workers the framework for which to purchase a company in the case of failure (like after the 2008 financial crash - when competition, greed, and capitalism failed).
Why would they be incentivized by the state that exists to uphold capitalism? Read state and revolution.
Just what ive decided might be the best, or quickest, path to achievement. Wishful thinking, idealist, idea worth spreading. I see cooperatives as a form of peaceful revolution, but how best to achieve a cooperative economy when so few are aware of what it means? One way, I suppose, is for elected officials to advocate for it. Its hard but not impossible to imagine. I suppose there are multiple steps in between that would make that more tangible, and one of those is awareness. There’s already a lot of us in support of socialist ideas where one of the biggest criticisms is for a planned economy, so why not advocate for a stateless form of socialism that expands, rather than possibly, or arguably, restricts, individual and collective freedoms?
Was Lenin aware of cooperatives when he wrote the state and revolution? Its not a theoretical idea. Its already a proven and successful form of enterprise. Why do some of our representatives advocate for workers unions when their existence goes against capitalist exploitation of workers? Seems totally possible to advocate for worker cooperatives in a similar vein.
There’s already a lot of us in support of socialist ideas where one of the biggest criticisms is for a planned economy
Planned economies are good actually, there is a reason semi-feudal russia was able to go to space in 40 years after the revolution, while beating off imperial superpowers like Germany and Britain.
Was Lenin aware of cooperatives when he wrote the state and revolution? Its not a theoretical idea.
Yes lol: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1917/a-meeting.html
There can be no such thing as peaceful revolution, if your political movement is getting anywhere the bourgeoisie will send their dogs to destroy it, and it will be violent. You must only look to history to see how easily the mask of civility slips away and the inhuman, bloodthirsty face of capital is revealed.
I had an ex help organize an event to great success, ultimately accomplishing more than they were asking for from the powers at be. Organizers in the area tried to shut it down, or take over, however because it wasn’t how protests are typically done.
I don’t know enough about Lenin, but do we need violent revolution to advocate for cooperatives and elect officials that will help support them? With the right state sponsored incentives, cooperatives can be a great stepping stone for a peaceful transition of power giving workers ownership to the means of production. I struggle to understand how someone can argue against this idea. Maybe I need to learn more history, or maybe we need to be collectively more optimistic and united. I don’t know how to accomplish this aside from trying to feebly spread the idea here and in my own life. I’m involved and trying to be more involved in the small cooperative movement.
to advocate for cooperatives and elect officials that will help support them? With the right state sponsored incentives, cooperatives can be a great stepping stone for a peaceful transition of power giving workers ownership to the means of production. I struggle to understand how someone can argue against this idea.
So basically the state exists in order to defend capitalism from internal and external threats, and a cooperative movement growing too big is a threat that it is going to respond to violently. Hell, union struggles led to literal battles and aerial bombings, and they only wanted better conditions working for the capitalists.
Right I see. Co-ops are a threat to a capitalist that wants to exploit their workers, and if co-ops got big enough to strain the system I imagine there would be some push back from someone with money.
But co-ops can exist outside the system so it shouldn’t matter, and theyd have the power in numbers. Cooperation among cooperatives is one of the defining principles of a cooperative. So if a housing co-op gets their food from a food co-op who gets their food from a farmers co-op and they all get there energy from an energy co-op, what is a capitalist to do? Its like a free market and if the capitalist fails, that’s just competition.
All that would need to be done is for there to be more co-ops and more people that understand and want them to exist.
I mean if we want to overthrow the system violently, or reject it with violence, we can but I see an alternative here if somehow people can unite on an idea. I don’t know how to do that though.
I wonder how well a system would work where you get more money, the more you help people/help solve problems (with problems i mean like pollution or something)
I don’t think money should be an incentive at all, in the long run.
It definitely would be nice if that were the case, but i think the best way to incentivice people is to reward them. Better yet make a competition out of it. Just gotta reward actions that benefit other people.
Like let people be millionaire’s but to get there they need to help like ten thousand people or something
We should encourage that financially. I don’t think communism is a viable solution tho
I kind of fail to see how a life in which all my basic needs are secured as long as I agree for them to be secured for everyone else, thus freeing me from anxiously giving my life to the futile attempt to crawl above others, is “altruistic”. Working your ass off for nothing but your crude survival and the benefit of a handful of others doesn’t seem very selfish if you put it in this perspective.
In any case, whatever is going on right now - it’s… not good, to say the least. Wanting to fix the problem with the problem is horribly naive.
Anyway, nice meme.
My response is always is it not human nature for many to be violent towards others and yet few would say that’s ok. The answer is simple, humans are fundementally more then their base instincts and desires. If humanity were nothing more then animals then society as we know it would have never formed.
Based response, even though I wouldn’t say I’m a communist, more social democratic
Removed by mod
Socialism is inherently democratic
Yeah you realize that Democracy is much larger than the United States of America. Many democracies around the world, which have been historically regarded as stable democracies, don’t have a separate election for their top leader. That’s a pretty American thing. Most democratic top leaders are selected by the ruling party, not the electorate. It’s just assumed that your vote about who is top leader is rolled into your vote for your local representative for that level of government.
The rest of the world looked at that and thought ‘and? What’s the problem? We do that shit all the time and it works out.’ Granted most democratic world leaders don’t have as many powers granted to them as the United States grants their President but still. In a bigger perspective it’s not a big deal.
Exactly. Our ability to use language, create culture, abstract ideas and concepts and step outside of them are the ingredients that allow us to transcend our evolutionary instincts and urges, and that’s exactly what we should do when building a society and culture.
There is no such thing as human nature only human habit
I’m currently reading a book which argues that “most people, deep down, are actually pretty decent”. It’s really good, highly recommend to anyone. It’s called “Human Kind” by Rutger Bregman
Game theorists in shambles
Communism is against human nature.
Along with every social construct that we make including laws and traditions. We make these rules precisely to counter the human nature in an attempt to create a better society, though not all are by intentional design. What is good for an isolated sole single individual is very different for a whole society and a prosperous society benefits individuals to have different opportunities than a lone actor. For example, a society where you aren’t constantly worried about theft allows you to engage in trade more freely and thus able to trade more. The act of limiting personal freedom (nature) to steal, in turn, allowed society to have an increase in ability to trade.
What is closer to human nature is going to be more easily accepted by humans. And free market is closer to nature than communism. That is why it was invented first and what has set place first. If communism is indeed what society as a whole feels is better for society, they will constantly shift towards it. Some may argue similar to Canada or Scandinavian countries. Though I wouldn’t define what they’re shifting to as communism because countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. score higher than USA in economic freedom index (free market). But, that discussion would go off course from topic of what is true communism which has no end.
Last 2 panels of the OP’s memes refer more greatly to individual actions rather than societal actions. I’m sure certain individuals will help and be charitable. Though as a whole would be obviously less than communism since certain definitions of communism would be a mathematical maximum of reduction of poor due to equalization.
The last two panels refer to structuring society based on the expectation that wealthy people will share, which is basically the trickle down argument.
That interpretation seems more like your own opinion rather than the opinion of those who actually say that. I see little causal relevance between charity and trickle down economics.
You have to think more impartially to understand why these two train of thoughts have little to no intersection. Do you know why these people you’re characterizing are saying “people are generous”? Because like you said, greed is simultaneously said. If you get it, you’ll see it’s not about trickle down.
Additionally the general right wing argument for the structuring society around volunteer charity over forced social care is that volunteer format is enough from the view of the giver, not that they will get enough from the view of the receiver. If that happens to be nothing, they’re saying so be it. If that happens to be a lot, that’s great. The argument is also about having the option to choose where they help rather than a government body choosing it… Though I don’t think individuals could possibly know though to choose well.
I am not making an argument for the right or left. I’m just fixing the polarized viewpoint of the other party.
What I’m saying is that regardless how you frame this, what it comes down in tangible terms is trickle down. The argument is that it’s fine for the wealth to become concentrated with a small minority of the population because they will share it voluntarily. This is demonstrably not the case in practice.
Bro why is it always you when I go on lemmy arguing on a fucking meme page in favor of communism. Get a life man!
this vapid comment was written without any hint of irony 😂
(You are mixing economic systems with market systems - as if communism can’t have free markets or that capitalism can’t come up with a law that 99% of the profits must be shared as bonuses to all workers)
How do you know free market is closer to human nature (which isn’t a thing)?
Especially when more than 99% of the time humans lived is socialist communes (ie communism).
(Not to mention most animals live in communistic systems, and none have free-markets.)And especially when even in free markets vast majority of the people (workers) don’t really participate in it directly.
Also humans with their blood thought and achieved that free market isn’t a thing, that we have governments that regulate at minimum things that just cannot ever work in a free market.
Thats a bit like a mediaeval peasant saying its ‘human nature’ to want feudalism.
And a bit like saying revolutions and socioeconomic system changes arent in human nature.
Even the argument of human greediness isn’t an argument for capitalism - the system decides what you are greedy for (capital in capitalism, land in feudalism, commune (respect) in communism, seashells in seashellsism).
In each -ism you can be greedy.
… wELL teCHniCAllY nO mArKEt iS aCTUallY frEe
Complete communism can’t have free market by definition. And complete free market can’t have laws to redistribute profits. That is the definition of these words. The theoretical maximum definition obviously differs from actual application as nothing is applied in a complete sense.
Revolutions and socioeconomic systems aren’t human nature. Along with all your above examples. My entire point is that there is a difference between individual human nature and the societal nature. Your point of human nature wanting feudalism is opposite of my point. I’m stating that EVERY SINGLE social construct you can imagine or think of is not of the individual nature but the societal one, including feudalism. And that less of construct you require is closer to human nature. More construct required is further away from human nature. That is, communism requires greater management by the society than the free market to exist, and thus is further from human nature. You may choose to define “human nature” differently, but this is how I see it.
I don’t think you realise how much effort systems invest into their own existence. I don’t know how to begin to compare that.
Do you equate free market (what market?) with lawlessness?
That is, is robbery part of free market then? Or why not?
Im assuming you mean taxes also arent free market? In which case I wonder why other infrastructure should be. Why would any laws or police be part of the free market?In the basic sense communism is to share labour profits by default, and there are plenty examples of that in nature. On the other hand I can’t really come up an example of free market - perhaps when they introduced money to monkeys and they immediately used it for sex (but I don’t recall there being much talk about pricing). They did the same when birds and they just communismed it (or remained as communist as before within a certain group I assume, taking moneys just as one of the resources).
What is in human nature is to adapt to circumstances - which includes various systems and infrastructure.
And people adapt quickly to good things as well as to bad things. Shockingly quickly in both cases.
The same with animals.
What is much harder is to go against the system & change it (like the actual system, not just the leaders or vips).Free market per wikipedia definition:
In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.
It’s not equal to lawlessness, but it is lawless within market. These two are not equivalent. Still, that is not to say it is without order. Free market is entirely an economic system and not a social system nor any other plethora of systems in a country. So the topic of those other systems are simply out of the scope. Therefore, laws can exist in the society.
Robbery is part of the free market. Along with whatever happens like tornadoes, fire, murder, etc. Including the cost to hire your own security if necessary. Police is against free market because it is an intervention by the government. There does exist a grey area like if a robber becomes a gang and becomes a businesses’ external authority. Then they are impeding on the free market.
This is how free market is defined. So, to reiterate, if there exists any body that is redistributing your profit, it is against free market.
Communism is not a share of labour profits. Communism is more than just an economic system. It’s also a social and philosophical one. But assuming we’re only talking about the economic parts, it still doesn’t mean to share labour profits. Quoting wikipedia once again:
Communism is […] a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.
The keyword here is common ownership. Everyone owns the entire chain of production together. Your view on the concept of profit even existing is out of line with communism. From wikipedia:
Monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest, and wage labor would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.
If we go with Marxist version, you already own everything together and nothing has monetary value. You can’t have profit because there is no such thing as selling, and there is no money, so you can’t profit on anything. The concept of the profit sharing would be anti-communism.
If we go with Lenin’s view on state capitalism (which he said is not communism, but may be a necessary transition state to communism) where we accept that things have value but that only the state engages in capitalism, people still wouldn’t get profit. Because people still wouldn’t have money. You would simply have better status in livelihood in hopes that the state has used that money well for the benefit of the people.
Communism is not profit sharing, its very core purpose is to remove the concept of profit.
Sharing of labour profits at a nation level is called “labour share”. And at a company level, it is called “co-operative business”.
deleted by creator
There are two arguments being combined here. The first half is regarding the free rider problem within a theoretical communist society. The second is regarding care of the less fortunate within a voluntaryist society. They are both valid arguments without proven answers outside of theory.
Free market and capitalism is much much less proven than living in communes (communism).
Even feudalism is a more proven system by that logic.
They’re both invalid arguments with proven answers throughout history. The free rider problem hasn’t existed in Communists states any more than in capitalist ones, meanwhile we know for a fact that trickle down economics does not work.
They’re both invalid arguments with proven answers throughout history. The free rider problem hasn’t existed in Communists states any more than in capitalist ones, meanwhile we know for a fact that trickle down economics does not work.
Your post isn’t an answer to either argument nor has anything been “proven”. Communism is a stateless society, and I can’t think of a time that has existed before the birth of nations. The free rider problem is what happens in a communist society when those who decide not to contribute become a burden upon those who do. Trickle down economics has nothing to do with charitable giving within a voluntary market-driven society, but is a term used to describe stronger economic growth based on reduced tax burdens for the upper economic class.
Free rider problem is made up. Stateless classless societies have obviously existed throughout history. Every small tribal society is basically that. Meanwhile, the “voluntary” market-driven society is what liberal capitalism is. It doesn’t work.
The free rider problem is most definitely not made up.
Stateless classless societies have obviously existed throughout history. Every small tribal society is basically that.
Every tribal society on earth exists within a State. As I wrote before, there have always been States after the birth of nations.
Meanwhile, the “voluntary” market-driven society is what liberal capitalism is. It doesn’t work.
There isn’t currently a voluntary market society, since all societies also exist within States, States that are run by governments.
The two original arguments exist within a theoretical vacuum which is my point. Unless you have some kind of a priori argument that solves either one, you haven’t provided actual “proof” of anything.
The free rider problem is most definitely not made up.
It is because real world societies have simple and well known mechanisms to deal with it.
Every tribal society on earth exists within a State. As I wrote before, there have always been States after the birth of nations.
It very much does not.
There isn’t currently a voluntary market society, since all societies also exist within States, States that are run by governments.
Wait till you find out how and why states form.
The two original arguments exist within a theoretical vacuum which is my point. Unless you have some kind of a priori argument that solves either one, you haven’t provided actual “proof” of anything.
Actually, it’s your arguments that exist in a theoretical vacuum utterly divorced from the real world.
Ok, you’re now writing things that have no connection whatsoever to the points presented. There is a good discussion to be had around the two original arguments as they’ve been covered by philosophers and economists for years, but it appears you are not the one to have that discussion with.
What I wrote directly relates to the points presented, but if you don’t understand how that’s fine. It appears you are not the one to have that discussion with.
Removed by mod
If someone mugs me and then hands me a dollar, that is charity.
So… wtf is the problem? They’re donating. Why aren’t you happy?
It’s another way billionaires are taking away power from the common people. They are donating money and reducing their taxes by doing so. What it effectively means is that instead of the democratically elected government deciding on what causes that money is spent on, the billionaires get to decide instead.
Removed by mod
More like billionaires donating ‘charities’ that push a certain agenda, e.g. the NRA, instead paying taxes that can be spent on things likje public schools or libraries.
Or they just create their own ‘charity’ that supports whatever political goals they have.
Removed by mod
The problem is that the billionaires get to decide how the money is spent, instead of ‘we the people’. You are basically giving them control over how that tax money is used.
😆
Removed by mod
Philanthropy doesn’t actually do anything to address the issues in tangible terms. Not only that, but the problems that it’s meant to address are actually caused by the very people using philanthropy as PR for themselves. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/12/the-problems-with-philanthropy
Removed by mod
Your meme specifies: In a truly free market, voluntary charity would help the poor - indeed that’s a fact.
The poor are the product of the free market operating. The free market is what’s creating the problem in the first place.
So you’re saying philanthropists cause cancer in children? And that’s why they donate to children’s cancer hospitals…?
Now that’s just a straw man you’re using to derail the argument.
His arguments countered.
🤣
A strawman that may actually be true, given how much poison the rich have dumped into our environment.
Indeed, all the externalities of businesses operating is how we find ourselves in a climate and ecological disaster.
So you’re saying philanthropists cause cancer in children?
That’s quite possible, rich businesses have a quite extensive history of poisoning environment.
The best is when they make more money setting up charities to slightly address issues they created
this isn’t reddit homie, you don’t have to argue with everyone. if you didn’t like the meme keep scrolling yknow?
Don’t you see the contradiction in your own meme? The clown says “we are born selfish” and then goes on to say “people are generous”. This in itself is a massive contradiction.
Do you think that might have something to do with why he’s portrayed as a clown?
imagine lacking the brainpower to understand a 4 panel meme
