• foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes Marx formalized this opinion.

    It’s the owners of the land and the means of production that control all of the wealth.

  • Mr PoopyButthole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly one of the reasons I fell for a pyramid scheme coming out of high school.

    A friend invited me and I went to shit on it and get him out, but the main guy’s whole thing was “everything is a pyramid scheme, at least here you have the chance to build a pyramid beneath you.”

    Obviously there were other reasons as old as time, but the argument of “so what, your ‘regular job’ is already a pyramid scheme you can’t win” was pretty rattling to a teenager in 2011.

    • hihellobyeoh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The difference between a pyramid scheme and a good business is where your money comes from, in a pyramid scheme it comes from the people at the bottom of the pyramid, in a business it comes from selling goods and/or services, that’s not saying I agree with big business, but one is profiting off of legitimate customers, the other is profiting off it’s own “employees”. I nearly got caught into one a few years ago too, until I realized what it was, at that point they had only taken a couple $100 for the interview and sign up stage, i had to block my card for them to never get access again, because even though i didnt complete sign up, thwy kept charging me monthly

  • RatMaster@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d say it’s more like disguised feudalism. We’re all peasants for the few kings and queens that have all the money at the top.

  • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, it is not. It is brutal in many ways. But that it is not. Neither is socialomswor communism.

    Pyramid schemes are zero-sum. I steal and gain, you lose. Capitalism and even communism are not zero-sum games. They are net-positive. They involve people making goods and services for others.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pyramid schemes don’t have to be zero-sum. All you need are assholes at the top trying to suck up as many resources as they can. Imagine the shape that makes.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you can say is a pyramid scheme in the way you can’t really make money if you are making money for someone upper on the ladder, even if are an independent business owner, you still have loans to pay or equipment that is sold by a corporation.

    • Ysysel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If we take into consideration the destruction of the ecosystems necessary to sustain human life, capitalism is a net-negative.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They draw the box around the part that is a net positive.

        The destruction of the Commons is not accounted for.

        The impacts outside their box are not accounted for.

      • infotainment@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the tragedy of the commons, and you’ll find it’s true for basically every possible societal organization.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          the tragedy of the commons was a bit of British aristocrat propaganda to take the land peasants worked…

      • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.

        • Ysysel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.

          This particular system is the main reason it’s happening.

          • havokdj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?

            We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.

            • Ysysel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.

              And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.

  • mtchristo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    actually all economies are zero sum game. down the drain everything is about ressources rather than labour or energy. the later are the means to transforming the resources. what counts at the end is how much you have to survive and thrive.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, but you’re going to find the same thing with Communism.

    Too many shitty greedy people at the top, too many plebs with fuck all at the bottom.

    And while you may be thinking “I could live on a commune, spend an hour a day growing our own food and have all that time left for whatever else I want”, you’ll quickly find you can’t grow your own 65" OLED television or whatever other comforts you’ve become accustomed to.

    The billionaires need reining in, and better distribution of wealth all around the bottom, but capitalism ain’t going anywhere.

    • viliam@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need a 65" OLED TV because you know it’s bad for the environment.

    • deejay4am@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      fascist

      Marxist/ Communist

      Those two things are opposites…you buzzword concern troll

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Opposite likes north and south are opposites? Or opposites like apples and oranges are opposites.

        Fascism and communism are both:

        • authoritarian attempts
        • to improve socieity
        • by radically changing economic relations
        • from consensual trade to slavery
        • to support a massive war effort
        • designed to get the rest of the world under the same authoritarian regime
        • resulting in millions of battlefield deaths
        • and the deaths of millions of enslaved citizens
        • by overwork, disease, starvation
        • and outright systematic execution

        But one’s “left wing” and the other is “right wing” so they could be described as “opposites”.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          you have anything that isn’t Carl-“what nationalist”-Tucker ranting on Fox News?

          first off, Fascists didn’t try to change any economic relations, in fact a lot of the NAZI party members were staunch capitalists, People like Ford were lauded as great men of commerce and industry for their success in economics, the Nazis even privatized stuff that was public during the Weimar years.

          And why wouldn’t authoritarians like capitalism? the modern workplace literally resembles the fascist dream, you have the CEO (führer) with his cadre of upper management (close political aids/figures) middle and lower management as an enforcement mechanism with limited decision-making powers (Gestapo/SA/SS) and the good workers.

          and in the USA the ultra capitalists even have the fun social Darwinism bit going on (13/50 anyone?)

    • Ruxias@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communism is covert fascism? Why then did fascists round up and kill communists? The two are wholeheartedly opposed to each other.

      • nxfsi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fanatics often hate those that are only slightly different from themselves the most. See Catholics vs protestants.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s ok, communists only rounded up and killed millions…and caused millions more to die of starvation…but it’s ok because fascist killed them in WW II…

        • folkrav@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some governments who got put into power under the promise of communism did stray away from their promise of communism and statelessness into authoritarianism, and it killed people, yes. Capitalism has also killed and is killing as we speak, so I’m curious why it’s “okay” in their case.

          • realitista@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The main issue with communism is that it puts the entire control of the economy in a few people’s hands. Even more so than capitalism does.

            When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.

            And in the usual case, ends up with them funneling much of the resources to their buddies and letting others starve (a la holodomor).

            Anyhow, it’s an argument that is about 100 years out of date. The Scandinavians solved this problem half a century ago already. The best thing we can do is have capitalism control production and distribution of goods and services, and democratic government’s socialist policies drive the resources where they need to go and solve the many economic externalities endemic in any capitalistic system.

            A better solution, as yet, has not been demonstrated. Anyone advocating “pure communism” or “pure capitalism” is a rube.

            • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.

              There was one promising solution to that which was attempted back in the early 70’s: Combine Cybernetics with Socialism.

              Unfortunately the CIA instituted a coup in Chile to install a dictator more favorable to multinational business interests before it could be implemented.

              • realitista@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I didn’t watch the whole video, but it sounds very similar to what The Venus Project has in mind.

                My feeling about this is that it unfortunately suffers from many of the same problems as communism. In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.

                Open source could mitigate this to some degree, but there will still be an “intelligencia” owning the code and having massive incentives for abusing it.

                Best just not to have a system where such incentives exist IMO

                • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m familiar with the Venus Project, I don’t believe there is much overlap in their ideas.

                  In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.

                  This is likely true with Communism, but could be almost entirely mitigated if done using Anarchist (like Peter Kropotkin style anarchism) principles. Instead of an all powerful state controlling the reins which would inevitably breed corruption, this concept of cybernetics could be applied in a federated way, where smaller communities could hook-up to this cybernetic collective, which would allow for greater cohesion and collaboration between directly democratic communities.

            • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed to this! Capitalism means that people can’t be the owners of a buisness or anything at all. Thoose mixed economies where government-based (communist) companies compete along with individual’s buisness should be enought to make the best of two worlds. But still should be implemented correctly and you might also want to consider governments making some limitation on other private companies anti-competatively though. If government behaves well within this mixed economy then it will be cool i guess

              • realitista@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, antitrust, consumer protection, health and welfare programs, and pollution taxes are starkly missing in many of todays capitalist countries, first and foremost being the USA.

                Though I must admit I don’t understand what you mean by that people can’t own things in capitalist societies. I would say there’s maybe too much ownership in capitalism.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not, neither case is ok, but communism has been tried many times and always ends in authoritarianism. This communist utopia is a myth. At least with capitalism I’m not starving or have nothing for my labor.

            • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              At least with capitalism I’m not starving or have nothing for my labor.

              Ah nice self-unmasking. “I am comfortable under capitalism and it could be worse for me so thats why I don’t want to even consider something else where no-one had to starve while food is available or be homeless while millions of houses stand empty.” You are just selfish and afraid.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s also known as intellectual humility. A person is allowed to think of their own self interest, and speaking of one’s own experience is the most based form of communication because it holds the highest certainty.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes because I forgot how china and Russia and north Korea all kindly take care of their homeless and special needs people…o wait they just euthanize them.

            • folkrav@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              This utopia that capitalism works well only does in a vacuum, looking at the westernp/“developed” world. Half the world’s population lives on less than $7 a day. Most people objectively have close to nothing to show for their labor.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Under capitalism those people who earn the least are improving their lot rapidly. That $7 a day you’re citing was $2 a day about 20 years ago.

                Under communism people who are doing fine descend into poverty and starvation. Not “food insecurity” where they have all the doritos they could ever want, but actual starvation where they eat their neighbors to survive.

      • trimmerfrost@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s like two communists Stalin and Trotskey, fighting against each other for power. Trotskey was defeated, exiled and later assassinated

        Communism is fascism under a different name. Every communist country in the past or present has been a fascist totalitarian state

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          no, fascism is nothing like communism outside of being authoritarian, but fascism is capitalistic for sure.

    • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      From my limited understanding, Marxism comes off as more of a lense to analyze politics and human behavior than an actual system. It also comes off as not very fascist, but fascist seeming things can come out of it, depending on your perspective. I will admit I’m not very educated in regards to political science, and I’ve just begun my foray into Marxist theory.

        • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can’t disagree with that. I think the sort of utopia that communism suggests is a natural progression back to our roots as a species, and will happen, but only after we’ve pushed for it AND survived through an inevitable apocalypse, because we done royally fucked up tbh. For right now? Well I’m just a blue collar American with no degree. I don’t know. I think socialist structure needs to be implemented for sure though, just to stop the people whove captured the wealth from royally screwing all of us over. I am not educated, or indoctrinated enough to actually debate you beyond that. In fact, I kind of just avoid people, so I’m probably not the best leftist to debate you at all.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism literally turns to fascism to stay relevant as it makes life really bad for most people. This is such a laughably bad take.