We live wasted lives
-
I mean we have it pretty good compared to most of history
I think most reasonable people would agree that there are many objectively good things about the modern world, but progress isn't a strict good/bad binary. Often, progress results in both good and bad circumstances.
For instance, I think most reasonable people would agree that modern medicine is a very good thing. Vaccines and antibiotics have saved countless lives. Also, more advanced agricultural technology has allowed us to grow more food and feed more people. However, progress has also resulted in significant ecological damage, depletion of natural, nonrenewable resources and a significant loss of biodiversity. I think most reasonable people would agree that these are very bad things.
I don't think the point is to ignore the very real, important positives about the modern world, but to point out that there are still things that need to improve, and unintended negative effects of progress that need to be dealt with.
I appreciate that for you the modern world is overall good, but that's not necessarily everyone's experience. Some people do feel purposeless, depressed and worn down, despite being relatively wealthy and comfortable, especially compared to humans of past eras.
-
So if someone calls you a git, and you say "I'm not a TRUE git", is that a no true scotsman too?
If someone gives you an example of a communist country and then you go "no no that's not communism" when in fact yes, it was communism, because otherwise as you yourself said "no country in the last 2000 years was communist" then that's the true scotsman.
-
I just gave you a true scotsman 4 messages ago, genius. You pick those debate skills up at Harvard?
You gave me a singular anecdote from a state that didn't exist for even three years.
-
Communism (from Latin communis 'common, universal')[1][2] is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Let's see how the USSR performed against this definition of communism.
-
Common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.
Kind of, the state owned most means of production and distributed products. Arguably based on Russian need rather than any other Soviet republic's need. Let's be generous and say partial pass for this one. -
Absence of private property and social classes
Presumably this is private property as in the distinction between personal and private property set out by Proudhon. In that regard, as the state owned most all private property, in a way it was absent. But the state still owned it, and the state is counter to communism. Social classes still remained. -
Ultimately money
Still existed. -
The state.
That definitely still existed.
So what part of the USSR was real communism? Kind of common ownership of the means of production and kind of the absence of private property. All other criteria were failed.
Tbh, I don't even think the first two points apply.
Ownership by the state, especially a state that the people have no control over, isn't really ownership of the people. The main point of ownership (also under communism) is control. If I own something, I control it. I can decide what happens with it. Under capitalism the worker doesn't own the factory, because the worker has no control over it. The worker has no say over what or how or when the factory produces, so the worker doesn't own the factory.
Under the USSR system, the worker also has no say over anything regarding the work. The only difference is that the owner isn't another person but the state.
Something like the early stock corporations would be closer to communism. There each worker owns stock in the company and thus can vote on what the company does.
Same goes with social classes. There certainly was a class difference between party member (or at least high ranking party member) and non-party-members.
Private property also still existed, just on a lower scale. People still owned their cars, their stereo systems and all the other items of daily usage.
(I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to reinforce the point)
-
-
"I don't believe your country was under communism, that's not real communism" is EXACTLY the scotsman fallacy. But by all means, go for a lengthy post that says nothing.
Go, read what I wrote, then come back.
-
Picking berries can be relaxing but cleaning them sucks
or the opposite...
-
Cool. Yet you are ignoring the very tiny fact that collective farms started famines. They didn't "just underperform".
Well, I guess the great depression never happened, correct?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Imagine this! Before you was adventure, exploration, and danger. Then there was slavery, then there was our period (where there are still millions of actual slaves btw).
Then after you, if anyone survives, and we don't all get put into an I have no mouth and I must scream scenario by our overlords, the youth after us will never know work. They will be far more functional than us, and will simply not understand working to survive. They will look down on us, senile outcasts, who get to watch "heaven" from afar.
-
If someone gives you an example of a communist country and then you go "no no that's not communism" when in fact yes, it was communism, because otherwise as you yourself said "no country in the last 2000 years was communist" then that's the true scotsman.
I said YOUR country wasn't communist in the last 2000 years. Many were. Like Catalonia. Like I told you.
-
You gave me a singular anecdote from a state that didn't exist for even three years.
That's one more anecdote from a communist country than you've given.
-
Tbh, I don't even think the first two points apply.
Ownership by the state, especially a state that the people have no control over, isn't really ownership of the people. The main point of ownership (also under communism) is control. If I own something, I control it. I can decide what happens with it. Under capitalism the worker doesn't own the factory, because the worker has no control over it. The worker has no say over what or how or when the factory produces, so the worker doesn't own the factory.
Under the USSR system, the worker also has no say over anything regarding the work. The only difference is that the owner isn't another person but the state.
Something like the early stock corporations would be closer to communism. There each worker owns stock in the company and thus can vote on what the company does.
Same goes with social classes. There certainly was a class difference between party member (or at least high ranking party member) and non-party-members.
Private property also still existed, just on a lower scale. People still owned their cars, their stereo systems and all the other items of daily usage.
(I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to reinforce the point)
Aye that's fair. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" and all that.
Just to clarify though, owning your own car and stereo falls under personal property, not private property. See my comment here for a brief distinction of the two: https://feddit.uk/comment/18187961
-
WaSTeD LiFe 🤪
What do you think they meant with the alternating caps and the emoji?
Personally, I think that it's quite clearly an attempt to ridicule the meme and those who agree with it, built on the preceding facts about modern white collar work being relatively comfortable, which is (as per my previous comment) irrelevant to the question at hand.
If you disagree on this interpretation of their intent, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Good day to you.Fair enough, have a good one mate. Appreciate the discussion.
-
Governance structures aren't without fail either, as exemplified with quite a few big corporations going down over time.
Governance structures are also present in political systems, and also there they can fail.
A government and a corporation are really not all that dissimilar when it comes to managing work, projects and so on.
Yeah that was also my reason to say that it doesn't always work like that.
People also defend companies or system that lack transparancy, things like not publishing annual reports etc
-
Aye that's fair. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" and all that.
Just to clarify though, owning your own car and stereo falls under personal property, not private property. See my comment here for a brief distinction of the two: https://feddit.uk/comment/18187961
Just to clarify though, owning your own car and stereo falls under personal property, not private property. See my comment here for a brief distinction of the two: https://feddit.uk/comment/18187961
Yeah, ok, I see that distinction, it does make sense.
-
This post did not contain any content.
hell yeah brother, 30 hours a week, 4 weeks paid vacation, guaranteed and paid for further education courses, protection from being fired while pregnant/ at home with newborn, minimum wage, privacy laws and employee protection laws, unionization, multiple paid federal holidays.
I fuckin love Europe. -
Well, I guess the great depression never happened, correct?
The great depression has never starved millions of Ukrainians to death.
-
I think most reasonable people would agree that there are many objectively good things about the modern world, but progress isn't a strict good/bad binary. Often, progress results in both good and bad circumstances.
For instance, I think most reasonable people would agree that modern medicine is a very good thing. Vaccines and antibiotics have saved countless lives. Also, more advanced agricultural technology has allowed us to grow more food and feed more people. However, progress has also resulted in significant ecological damage, depletion of natural, nonrenewable resources and a significant loss of biodiversity. I think most reasonable people would agree that these are very bad things.
I don't think the point is to ignore the very real, important positives about the modern world, but to point out that there are still things that need to improve, and unintended negative effects of progress that need to be dealt with.
I appreciate that for you the modern world is overall good, but that's not necessarily everyone's experience. Some people do feel purposeless, depressed and worn down, despite being relatively wealthy and comfortable, especially compared to humans of past eras.
I meant good in comparison to other times. And I don't mean me personally but people in general.
-
Absolutely. Really, if you're reading this, you are probably pretty high up on the scale.
Yeah I’ve said this a few times, but honestly anybody who can interact with Lemmy is in the upper tiers of the scale compared with the vast majority of humans who have ever lived.
Obviously that does not mean that individuals cannot have terrible luck and circumstances.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
I sure do love being a wage slave in the good ol US of A.
🥲
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think we are wasting our lives to a certain degree. As kids, we expected more from life than sitting in front of a computer to feed the family. And sitting at a computer is seen as one of the "good" jobs.
