At least on the communities i follow. Every so often I come across a thread where i recognize most of the users there even in the big communities with over 30k members and I haven’t even been on lemmy that long.

  • GrammarPolice@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hmm I don’t know which communists you’re debating on here but there are quite a few who i can say have made me reconsider my position enough times. I don’t know whether that’s because of how good they are at debating or how inherently strong their points are but i would be inclined to assume the latter. Maybe you’re just arguing with the blabbermouthed “cAPitALism Bad” folks

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Some are just ‘west bad! China good!’, the last one was actually trying but I’d read Das capital and simply felt base Marxism was hopelessly outdated as a darwinism era construct social model, obsoleted by game theory and other more modern behavioral frameworks.

      I’m a moderate centrist on most issues, I think we need more social support systems to counter balance the power of corporations and the rich, I just understand a powerful government isn’t a panacea, you’re just shifting the power and therefore corruption to a different body.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No, I’m sure chomsky would be great.

          I don’t disagree with the criticism that we have far too unregulated capitalism, we need to go way back the other way.

          My issue is the stupid, faith-based, communism will solve everything, even though it never has before.

          Capitalism is corruption by the rich, communism devolves into corruption by the powerful, always.

          In the past the people only had freedom when the king and the nobles checked each other in power, which is why the founders created checks and balances. Now the king has been replaced by the government while the nobility are the rich and corporations.

          If both are balanced against each other (which has happened a few times in the past) then we have increased freedoms, often because they have to lobby the people in their struggle with each other.

          When they join forces, we have fascism, which is when things are the worst. That’s where we’re going now with our current system. That’s a problem.

          • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The book does discuss a bunch of these topics, especially the history between capital business interests and the US government.

            I think communism gets too muddy with everyone’s different idea of what it is, especially do to all the different countries that have ‘tried communism’ to various degrees of success. I think socialism is more tangible to talk about. Changing the structure of businesses to a democratic organization between the workers, where the profit they generate goes to where is democraticly decided (such as fair wages vs reinvestment into the business). Changing the social organization of society would be revolutionary, as it at odds with the profit motive of capital interests

            • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I’m far more open to movement in that direction as a counter balance to concentrated power. Not that it can’t concentrate that way (ambition + charisma finds a way), but you need something.

              It’s the blind ‘communists’ who operate on pure faith that everything we tried before will work this time, in complete defiance of human nature.