this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
107 points (100.0% liked)

196

16503 readers
2865 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
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tupewe@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 year ago

I genuinely thought it was going to end with something silly like a "your mom" joke

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

hmm, I imagine the then 2 prevalent systems of neoliberal capitalism and soviet-style "communism" to be a pretty terrible combination actually. Although I believe I get what he was trying to say about individual rights within an economy of the commons(or at least thats how I interpret it).

[–] Akagigahara@lemmy.akagigahara.site 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't follow, would you elaborate? Sounds like an interesting debate :)

[–] toothbrush@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The funny combination would be to combine the single party authoritarian structure with a completly unregulated economy for maximum carnage :P

As far as I underatand the quote, hes talking about needing a socialist system where the rights of individuals are respected and protected, but factories, housing etc is owned and and managed by the commons.

That kinda sounds like the goal of socialism to me, with a state managing the societal functions but the workers owning the means of production but still in a capitalist environment

[–] scribs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

funny, "we all lift together" started playing in my head.

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I love stumbling about references to this game

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Your first paragraph pretty much describes the PRC.

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

Smaller groups of humans (villages, households, ...?) could decide among themselves whether they prefer to live together by capitalist or communist principles. These smaller groups could function within a larger federation - a bit like the fediverse with its smaller instances where each can decide their own internal rules.

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

yeah, thats probably a really unstable combination, as the internal logic of capitalism requires infinite growth, so the capitalist parts will be strongly incentivised to expand into and consume the communist parts.

But maybe different kinds of socialist communities could federate like this?

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

That's roughly the idea of Anarchism, Democratic Confederalism, and how the Zapatistas govern themselves. But they're all anti-capitalist.

[–] Autonomarx@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This reads so much like a Mussolini quote that I am stunned it's actually real (at least as real as any e-quote is).

[–] SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Capitalism on the one hand, communism on the other... man, I just support a Third Position!