feddit.org

-1 points

6 months ago

On a fundamental level, socialism encourages it. And you, you seem to have a misconception of what capitalism is and how money works.

Yes, the best and most effective way to make money is by owning things and hiring people, and letting them work for you. I own a business myself.

You call it ‘parasite’ and that can be true to an extent when it turns evil and only profit-driven.

If you choose to be a normal wage worker that doesn’t own anything, then yeah, capitalism is probably not for you. You’ll be stuck in an endless rat race and feel like a slave all your life.

My advice is to stop trading your time for money and start owning things that generate money for you.

That’s why I think a healthy balance of both socialism and capitalism is optimal.

report

Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml

[ - ]

2 points

6 months ago

“My advice is simply to not be poor and become a member of the tiny owner class, like me, that practices wage slavery on the vast majority of the rest of society. 👍”

You can’t make this up

report

[ - ]

-1 points

6 months ago

I don’t practice wage slavery. I do have my own business, and I don’t even have employees. I use technology and softwares as leverage.

And I’m not part of the 1% either. Far from it.

But I understand that to make money, you have to understand how money operates and work for it.

I don’t think expecting the government to pay and provide for everything is a good solution.

The gov should definitely take care of some things, but not everything. Some things should be accountable to the individuals themselves.

report

Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml

[ - ]

2 points

6 months ago

Cool, so you’re a self-proprietor, and still think you can magic the system into a bunch of self-proprietorships. Simply “understanding how money works” isn’t all you need to succeed, otherwise the system would work for the vast majority rather than the vast minority.

You clearly have no actual idea what Socialism is if you think it’s just welfare, it’s worker ownership of the Means of Production. Directing production towards fulfilling needs and uses, rather than the profits and wealth hoarding of the few.

You do realize Lemmy was made by Communists along Communist principles, right?

report

[ - ]

-2 points

6 months ago

I came to Lemmy because I like the free and open source aspect of it from a software perspective.

Now, FOSS and communism do share common ideologies about collaboration, community, accessibility, etc. But they are fundamentally different.

I hope you realize that ‘business’ and ‘making money’ usually mean exchange of services. You buy something because you need it. You sell/work something because someone needs it.

Generally speaking, from a capitalist perspective, the more money you have, the more useful you are to society. It means that what you have to sell/give/work is more valuable and people need it.

Socialism isn’t all bad, but generally wants to redistribute resources to people that might not necessarily deserve it. And I think perfect equality is a hoax.

report

Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml

[ - ]

2 points

6 months ago

I came to Lemmy because I like the free and open source aspect of it from a software perspective. Now, FOSS and communism do share common ideologies about collaboration, community, accessibility, etc. But they are fundamentally different.

That’s all well and good, but the devs have outright stated that they are Communists and made Lemmy along Communist lines. I didn’t say that because Lemmy is FOSS, but because of what the devs have said.

I hope you realize that ‘business’ and ‘making money’ usually mean exchange of services. You buy something because you need it. You sell/work something because someone needs it.

Trade does exist, yes. That’s not Capitalism.

Generally speaking, from a capitalist perspective, the more money you have, the more useful you are to society. It means that what you have to sell/give/work is more valuable and people need it.

Completely and hilariously incorrect. The bulk of the money in society is owned by people who contribute the least amount to it and simply gain more money from ownership.

Socialism isn’t all bad, but generally wants to redistribute resources to people that might not necessarily deserve it. And I think perfect equality is a hoax.

Socialism wants Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, so the people that contribute to society can control their lives instead of working for warlords as wage slaves. As such, the workers deserve no less than the products of their labor without a parasite sucking it up. Capitalists are parasites that seek income from ownership, not labor.

What the hell is “perfect equality?” What Socialist has said they want “perfect equality?”

report

[ - ]

https://www.businessinsider.com/universal-basic-income-works-red-state-blue-state-2023-10?op=1

0 points

6 months ago

I see that you emphasize a lot on ownership.

I do agree that some things should be managed publicly like healthcare, education, etc. Because those are necessities that everybody need.

But other than that, I think most common trades should come from private property. That’s how businesses and wealth are built. I want this in exchange for that, and money often being involved.

Also, ownership doesn’t always mean that you don’t work at all, it simply means that you use your resources and what you have adequately. Someone that has a lot of resources can probably manage to not work much, but still has to make important decisions on how to use these resources.

We could obviously go into the small details, and I understand that private property can be abused when it goes too far. But that’s why I think we need a healthy balance of socialism and capitalism. Some things should be owned publicly, while other things are owned privately. It’s up to the society to create laws and regulations depending on their values.

That being said, one of the reason I like FOSS is that it’s outside ownership system. It’s public, yet you retain all ownership rights.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 months ago

Socialism isn’t all bad, but generally wants to redistribute resources to people that might not necessarily deserve it.

Everyone deserves to eat, to have access to clean water, to have a roof over our heads, to have our physical and mental health needs met, and access to a quality education. All these are enablers to become what you define as “deserving” and are also good for society at large.

NO ONE has worked hard enough to deserve a billion dollars, and they certainly don’t deserve it because their parents supposedly did. The hoarding by those people (and IMO anyone in the “hundreds of millions” category) is the reason artificial scarcity of water, food, and healthcare exists, and why secondary education is unobtainable for many, and things like UBI and single-payer healthcare look unsustainable to folks who don’t want to support those measures anyway.

These are people who could continue to live fantastic amazing lifestyles that most of us can only dream about, even if they gave huge sums in taxes to help the common good.

You also seem to suggest that everyone who works hard is deserving. Plenty of hard working people live in poverty, and deserve the things I listed even by the most cold-hearted conservative standard.

Edit - I’m going to pick just ONE thing: UBI

In the past few years, aided no doubt by the economic consequences wrought by the pandemic, centuries of theory have at last been put to the test. A few dozen cities across the country have begun basic-income programs, and the early results have been overwhelmingly positive. In Denver, more than 800 of the city’s most vulnerable residents received monthly stipends of up to $1,000. So far the program has reduced homelessness, increased employment, and bolstered the mental-health outcomes of participants. A similar program in Stockton, California, had similar effects — the unemployment rate among the 125 participants was nearly halved. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania studying the program concluded it could have “profound positive impacts on local public health.”

https://gizmodo.com/universal-basic-income-has-been-tried-over-and-over-aga-1851255547

https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/multiple-countries-have-tested-universal-basic-income-and-it-works

The biggest problem I see - folks hung up on what people “deserve.” I got news for you - no one deserves to be a billionaire. No one.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 months ago

I can see the point.

Being a billionaire is most likely morally wrong and probably exploited tons of people to reach that point. I can see why people might think it’s unjust.

But if a billionaire trully worked hard for it, than I don’t see what’s wrong. He can do what he wants with his money.

It might effectively trigger people like you. Maybe that’s a reflection of your own inability to create wealth for yourself.

Your argument that every body deserve to eat, clean water, roof, etc., it sounds good on paper.

In some cases, I’m sure it truly helps some people to get back on their feet and create a better life for themselves.

But I don’t think that’s a long term solution. Why? Because then, people can decide to be usefulness and not work. Why would they? Everything is given to them. It encourages laziness and poverty.

Why would a billionaire who worked hard to reach that point not deserve his money while a homeless person who purposely decided to not work derserve to be given anything?

report