Comment on The Billionaires have spent a fortune making sure you hate Socialism.
jld@lemmy.zip 10 hours agoHow? By funneling taxes to a central authority and empowering them? Because we’re not empowering society by doing that. We’re actually empowering just a small group, who gets all the agency to make decisions on behalf of everybody and, most likely, on behalf of themselves mostly. An actually fair society needs to be governed in a decentralized manner. On the far left, we’ve got communism, and we all know how that went, and on the far right we’ve got fascism, and we definitely know how that went.
I maintain my original hypothesis that “the left” and “the right” are simply constructs designed to keeps up fighting among ourselves, where we mostly disagree with each other in a tribalist way, as opposed to actually discussing and thinking about the problems and trying to come up with solutions. To me, it’s plain simple that we need both mindsets combined to be able to actually fight the rich and the powerful.
But that’s it from me on politics this week. As I problem solver, I have less and less interest on this pointless topic.
Objection@lemmy.ml 10 hours ago
That is an anarchist position, anarchism is a strain of leftist thought.
We need right-wing thought to fight the rich and powerful? What part? Cutting taxes on the rich? Starting wars of aggression? Kicking down doors and rounding up immigrants?
The right is completely wrong, has no insight on anything, mostly on account of being completely anti-intellectual. All of their policies are about reinforcing existing heirarchies, strengthening the rich and weakening the poor. Opposing those policies is not “tribalism.” I challenge you to name one right-wing position with any merit.
Pointless topics! So you don’t actually care about fighting the rich at all.
jld@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
Objection@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
“Anarcho”-capitalism isn’t so much anarchism as it is a rebranding of feudalism. Anarchism is opposed to heirarchies, so it’s incompatible with capitalism. Minarchism is an unrealistic, idealist ideology. Whichever class wields power over the state is going to use the state to advance their interests.
It’s not biased, and it’s not “revenge.” The rich are a class, which is engaged in class warfare against the poor. Weakening them would be worthwhile even if we didn’t get a direct benefit from it, because the fewer resources they have the less ability they have to impose worse conditions, and vise versa.
An anarchist might oppose taxing taxing the rich for that reason.
I would argue that the government is merely a tool, that can be used by different classes for different purposes. It is not the primary enemy, which is the rich, but the tool is often used by the rich to advance their interests. Imposing taxes on the rich would be an example of the working class wielding the tool of the government against the rich.
That’s what you just called a “pointless issue,” isn’t it? When we discuss politics, aren’t we discussing strategies for addressing the power of the rich? Is it pointless to discuss those strategies?
jld@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
It is, unfortunately, pointless, as the vast majority of people don’t even bother to lift a finger to click ‘like’ on a post that’s fighting for something they also care about. I’ve often been ‘man yelling at cloud’ trying to fight mass surveillance and privacy issues alone. There’s a niche, of course, but, mostly, people are either afraid or don’t care enough, so yeah, it feels pointless.
Also, let me take note that we have discussed the political spectrum and the worthiness of discussing politics, but we haven’t really discussed anything worth discussing. Not that I didn’t enjoy it, but this doesn’t change my point of view. If anything, it consolidates it.
Things are only as bad as the people let them become. We voted ourselves out of democracy, so the people are really to blame. The way I see it, I won’t be ‘man yelling at cloud’ anymore, and the less people stand up and shout, the bigger the penalty will be. It’s unfortunate, but also self-serving.