A system of government where the people have virtually no authority and the state wields absolute control of every aspect of the country, socially, financially and politically.

This has nothing to do with value judgement. To say totalitarian is good or bad is a value judgement.

If it wouldn't, Capitalism wouldn't work.

Capitalism doesnt work. It consumes itself.

Capitalism is a reflection of our mind

Sorry but I'm at the point where this is becoming very hard to take serious. Capitalism came from feudalism whete we already had massive wealth accumulation of wealth and slavery. You're mixing up nature with nurture.

If that makes Capitalism inevitable, could it be that we need more instead of less Capitalism for a better society?

That would be anarcho capitalism. The fascists wet dream. Of course this would make a "better" society for the owner class but you would suffer and die at work while they sniff cocaine off someones butt.

Neoliberalist takes will always lead to more inequality, more suffering and more monopolies. Look at the US. They have more capitalism now. They're dying like flies, outlawing books that picture the dystopian fresh hell they're building and pushing so much anti trans propaganda that goebbels would be envious.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Without the expectation of being taken serious I want to double down.

In feudal times, peasants were controlled by the sword. They didn't have access to swords and couldn't change their situation.

Capitalism has the militarized police, but the main weapon is the control of the markets. Profits are made with the prices that the peasants are willing to pay.

At least in theory, it's within reach of the peasants to influence those prices because those prices are living in their heads.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're onto something... About not being taken seriously.

One needs to have serious delusions to believe making the situation even worse would somehow make it better. except maybe by waking people up and spark violent uprising but the death toll would be insane and empathy forbids that idea.

And the assumption of "theoretical reach of influence" in full knowledge of the nuclear arsenal that states wield, only someone with no grip on reality would suggest thay this in earnest.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

States bomb their own population, but nuclear self destruction is a bit too much. I don't see the link to what I suggested.

I am talking about things in the mind, about attitudes. If changing that already leads to anhilation, what is then left but acceptance of the current situation?

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe I didnt really get the second part yesterday as it was late for me. But still, of course people have to change their thinking but the "solution" you described was so thin and abstract that I cant see how that could be done or how it would help.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

I think it could help to approach the game differently.

There is the anecdote about chess in which two kings are about to lead their armies into battle, but they play a game of chess first and start to appreciate their opponent and end up not fighting the battle.

There is the entire history of colonialism that suggests otherwise, but I think that capitalism is more than a means to oppress the masses. The masses are oppressed to achieve cultural progress. There is no need for our current form of capitalism if we find a way to create progress in another way.

State capitalism was not bad, but I think it is a dead end. We should try to come up with, and try other ways.