• ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Imagine telling the original artist right after they finished it that in 113 years time people would be posting his/her creation in full color and high fidelity on a communications system that instantly made it accessible to anyone in the world. That would completely blow their mind.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Less than a decade after this “meme” a communist society was formed and it ended up with pretty much the same hierarchy. Just with different costumes for the people at the top.

    • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate when people talk about system like capitalism and communism is so simplistic terms.

      I mean this is about as vague and reasonable as “a man stole a Softdrink from the supermarket. Every man is a thief”

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tribes, miltaries, religions, businesses, governments, political parties, courtrooms, sports teams… basically every kind of grouping of people is in a hierarchy. We don’t have hive minds, so we aren’t always going to agree on everything. When there’s disagreement, someone needs to make a decision. The person who decides is going to be higher in the hierarchy than the people who have to go along with that decision. It’s necessary for things to function.

        Socialism is similar to a religion. “We just need to all believe the same thing and everything will just work out.” And also similar to religions, the belief that their group is more special and different from others mean they will tend to deny the hierarchy they’re in. The leader becomes sort of like the Pope, the infallible one that is of pure belief, so not above us in a hierarchy but the vessel by which we will achieve our perfect society.

        But in the end it’s all the same hierarchical shit. Best we can do is have a system where we can vote out the people at the top of the hierarchy when they get too corrupted by the power.

        “a man stole a Softdrink from the supermarket. Every man is a thief”

        No, not every hierarchy is tyrannical. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to vote out those above us in the hierarchy.

        • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I like that you jump on a long rant over hierarchy and the unavoidability of it. Then rant over socialism how it is there is a hierarchy but people deny it. To quote me and act like my point was that hierarchy is tyrannical.

          I am not sure who you are talking to but I hope you are enjoying yourself.

          Sidenote, you are talking about property law systems, not a whole political system, remember that.

            • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Still talking to someone else?

              I mean, why concession? It makes it sound like I said it wasn’t “all that good”, after expressing that it was. I did neither. You are really talking to someone else. Who is it? And why respond to my message instead of theirs?

              Or did you mistake my summarization of your vaguely stated opinion on a very big multifaceted issue, as me expressing support for your “fire bad” take?

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re just talking about talking now, and aren’t making an effort to make any kind of point. Common tactic for people that have lost a debate but don’t want to admit it.

                • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What debate? Have you addressed my first comment to your first comment? No. Have you addressed my second comment to you talking to me without talking about anything related to what I said? No. Have you addressed my third comment about you talking to me as if we had a conversation while you haven’t said anything addressing anything that was a response to what I said? No.

                  And I am not making an effort to make any kind of point? Dude you are talking to no one!

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m guessing you’re not too stupid to know that the so-called communist society was anything but.

      There are no power hierarchies in communism.

      But maybe you think the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democratic republic?

      • enleeten@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So far, every communist country in history has turned out to be dominated by power hierarchies, with dictators and juntas at the top.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which means they aren’t communist countries.

          Again, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic.

          Read some fucking Marx. Hell, just read the word ‘communism.’ As in communal. As in no hierarchies because the community decides everything.

          • enleeten@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right, because there’s no such thing as a communist country. It’s a flawed idea that doesn’t work in reality.

            Kind of like how every time machine ends up being fake.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              And yet there are communist communities, sometimes large ones, all over the world which function just fine. Because they don’t have hierarchies. And your claim was that communist societies have the same hierarchies. They do not.

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Communes only really function within a capitalist society. You can have nice little communal farm for a short amount of time, but that’s only because the challenges like a legal system, national defense, etc, are handled by a hierarchical government. If you’re in a good country, the people can vote and have a degree of influence on those in power in the hierarchy to ensure they don’t get too corrupt.

                Even communes ultimately fail because hierarchies form within the commune, and the people at the bottom get tired of doing all the work and leave. That’s even when they aren’t deciding the laws and don’t have to worry about national defense. When communists are deciding the laws and have control over national defense, then oh yeah… there’s gonna be a hierarchy.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s utter nonsense. Communes predate capitalism by thousands of years. The first known settled town was a commune. There are no detectable hierarchies.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çatalhöyük#Economy

                  Currency wouldn’t even exist for a good 5000 years after Çatalhöyük.

                  As far as “ultimately” failing, it lasted at least 900 years, which much is longer than most countries around today have been in existence.

                  Nice try though.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m confused about what this picture is trying to say. What do the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tiers from the top — rule by royalty(?), indoctrination by the clergy, oppression by the military — have to do with capitalism?

    • Peddlephile@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s more:

      • We rule you and take your money
      • We preach to you and take your money
      • We fight you and take your money/resources
      • We take your resources that you’ve grown

      Or it could be the rulling class takes the biggest cut, clergy the next biggest etc. with workers at the bottom supporting the entire system but receiving the least.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of that has anything to do with capitalism, though. You’re just pointing out the negatives of tyranny, which, arguably, capitalism doesn’t necessitate.

        • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are each beneficiaries of the capitalist system, with the military / police serving duel roles as employed and enforcers / protectors of the system.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are each beneficiaries of the capitalist system

            How do police and the military specifically benefit from a capitalist system?


            with the military / police serving duel roles as employed and enforcers / protectors of the system.

            Are you saying that only a capitalist system benefits from the police and military?


            All that being said, I’m not entirely sure what your point has to do with the thesis of the poster.