• psivchaz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      We totally did try pure capitalism. It mostly led to naked children in coal mines (because their clothes would get stuck on the sides of the super narrow mining shafts, you see) and pepper with iron fillings (because scrap iron was cheaper than actual pepper). Also a lot of other horrifying stuff, but those two have always stuck out to me.

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Blood iron levels plummeted after that pepper stopped being fortified and if the children don’t like their jobs or how they are treated they can find new ones.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Funny because it you talk to libertarians, we’ve never had a pure capitalist society. You probably just don’t realize how similar they all are to the people who claim we’ve never tried our Communism.

        • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          they all are to the people who claim we’ve never tried our Communism.

          When you dont know the difference between socialism and communism

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            You’ll have to explain what you think I don’t understand and how you came to that conclusion.

            • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Because for the idea of communism to exists it would have to be globally, otherwise youd need a state and a definition of communism is a stateless and classless society.

              A common misconception is to think that what the Soviets, Chinese, Cubans, etc. were/are doing is communism, when in fact it’s communists exercising state power to organize the economy in a state socialist, market socialist (or SWCC) etc. way. You can’t just claim power and say it’s communism now, in a context where globally capitalism and imperial forces exist. (See if you find and notable examples of anarchist/stateless societies that survived)

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                The cold war lasted a long time. Sure, pure communism is probably going to take a lot more time, but what these countries did (well ig I don’t know about Cuba) is move away from it. Every political system needs some idea of implementation and transition, and of course defense. To say that it’s impossible for a system to do that is conceding its outright utopicness.

                I really don’t know what you mean by “it would have to be globally”. In anarchism, you solve communication with others by temporarily agreeing to have someone speak with other communities and rotating that person.

                • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  what these countries did (well ig I don’t know about Cuba) is move away from it.

                  Move away how and were? The Soviets, Chinese, Cubans, definitely were/are socialist.

                  Every political system needs some idea of implementation and transition, and of course defense.

                  Yes and AES states managed to do so.

                  To say that it’s impossible for a system to do that is conceding its outright utopicness.

                  Frederick Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

                  I really don’t know what you mean by “it would have to be globally”

                  A new system will always exist within an old one. You cant proclaim communism/anarchism and think that other countries will just stand by idle. (See Rojava, etc.) In a world where most other countries are capitalist and go on imperialist emdevours, you’re basically inviting them to colonize you, because you don’t have a state apparatus to organize defense. Communism/anarchism can only be proclaimed at once and globally where adveserial forces to the working class had been overcome.

                  Communists in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. are aware of it and are exercising state power to navigate these conditions. What they are doing is socialism, which ofc still has classes and it’s own contradictions which are being resolved.

                  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Yes, they’re socialist. No, they did not work towards communism. Brezhnev and Deng did not simplify government and declared the end of the era of working towards communism as well as a new era of practicing socialism. Sure, implementing communism would take a long time, but I don’t see how they’re working towards it instead of just improving on socialism.

                    I don’t know what AES is.

                    Before I read a full nonfiction book, I check its summary on Wikipedia or Goodreads to see if it’s worth reading. I don’t see how this book on socialism relates to the topic, which is how any system you can’t implement is utopic.

                    because you don’t have a state apparatus to organize defense

                    Volunteer militias. Stateless doesn’t mean people can’t organize. This applies to many kinds of work as well: roles on the railway have to constantly communicate with each other.

    • Liome@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean, with legal political corruption, and everything being private down to healthcare and prisons, I guess US is pretty much on it.

    • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t automatically recognize posters on Lemmy but when I do, its SatansMaggotyCumFart.

      Which makes me ask, how do you identify politically?

    • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Check Argentina if you want to see what happens when you want to try “pure” capitalism lol Also not like there’s been a shitton of books written describing in detail it’s contradictions, which apparently you choose to ignore and espouse liberal ideology instead

      • Fox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Argentina hasn’t had anything resembling a free market economy in the past hundred years, but the 8 months of austerity to fix that shit sandwich is the best example of ‘pure capitalism’ you can come up with?

        • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I specifically used that example because Javier Milei espouses the same nonsense as OP I replied to did. The ideology is very similar, and you can see how it materializes lol

          Why so hostile? Name a different example and fuck off?

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Capitalism has a strong state because with it is more competitive than capitalism without state intervention, and it also needs more protection from revolution than it used to.

      Literally just have an understanding of history and your meme ideology will be a thing of your past that is a little embarrassing