emt02

7 ms·

1.
by emt02 10y ago
1. Have you actually read my comment? I explicitly said that I think that Marxist's view of dictatorship of proletariat as a means to reach communism is fundamentally flawed and wrong. 2. Well you're free to disagree, but the poin
2.
by emt02 10y ago
> Yes, studied and defined by those who later created a big slavesystem. And I read them, but don't like or agree to their definitions, nor alternatives. This is just plain misleading. Marxism/Leninism is not the only school of
3.
by emt02 10y ago
I'm just a random person on the internet that read some books on the topic, but a very quick google search would get you to a lot of information about the definition of capital and capitalist class. The division of the society in capit
4.
by emt02 10y ago
As I said in my previous comment, it is easy to twist a definition as you just did, to claim that the penny stock owned by the average Joe is even comparable to the stock controlled by the actual capitalist class. I think that everyone can
5.
by emt02 10y ago
> even if pushed by money pressure That's the whole point. People do not voluntarily work for shitty wages at shitty jobs, they are forced by the need of money. Workers in western countries are extremely lucky, since they live in ve
6.
by emt02 10y ago
I think you made some good points, but what I would like to point out is that, even if hierarchy was completely inevitable in some context, we should still struggle to get a just kind of hiearchy. (A part of) the world already did some good
7.
by emt02 10y ago
Giving a precise definition is hard, since it is easy to twist it and point out that pretty much everyone owns at least a bit of capital and could thus be considered part of the class. However, the usual definition of the capitalist class i
8.
by emt02 10y ago
Even if it were true (and personally I'm not sure of that) that humans naturally tend to form hierarchical structures of power, that's not a good reason not to try to overcome this "natural" condition to create a more ju
9.
by emt02 10y ago
> Where to begin ... Well first of, capitalism and global markets are made by people. Rather, they are made by the capitalist class. > Then there are very tiny individual nations, like Lichtenstein. > Why should they have more powe
10.
by emt02 10y ago
I guess you're talking about the oldest of those ideas, namely anarchism and communism. Regarding anarchism, it's known that the reason it didn't work out in the attempts so far has not been an inherent flaw in the system, bu
11.
by emt02 10y ago
> Yes, it does. Who/what else is going to prevent people from trading for a profit? There are several social and economical theories that consider a central government, and thus the state, unnecessary. Historically the anarchism mov
12.
by emt02 10y ago
> Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? No, I'm not sure. But we're talking about private companies now, not governments. Governments and companies in the end are two faces of the same coin: the first
13.
by emt02 10y ago
Personally I don't think we can accept Capitalism and global markets to be more powerful than any individual nation. Especially given the current trend in automation, the risk that a relatively small group of capitalists will slowly ta
14.
by emt02 10y ago
According to the communist manifesto, the point you mention should be put into effect during the transitory phase from capitalism to communism, where the State gathers the power in order to then build a class-less, state-less society. That
15.
by emt02 10y ago
> that's communism. I think you're confused about communism. What you're talking about seems more about soviet russia and other countries that run/ran an authoritarian state-capitalism system (often calling it communi