Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Whenever I have a broad vague discussion of the world that is subject to significant interpretations and assumptions it creates a lot of friction too. Contraversy is one place where Lemmy's high response rates work against it.
To the people doing "capitalism bad" replies I implore you to check out socialist economists. Fleshed out descriptions of socialism and communism usually discuss emulating the successes of industrial capitalism while mitigating the failures. The idea of armed revolutionary communism is largely a mess that only ever worked in rural environments.
Armed revolutionary communism appeals to teenagers and simpletons, that's why you see it brought up a lot on Lemmy.
This is true for socialism, but communist economics are traditionally moneyless.
Socialism is conceptualized as a transitional economic stage, so it makes a lot of sense it would share commonalities with capitalism.
Armed revolutionary communism is a bit of a misnomer, since it's a part of that socialist transitional stage towards communism. If memory serves, it has basically only been done in rural/early industrial states.
Currency has always been a metaphor for energy and other resources to help alleviate the incongruities of a barter economy. A moneyless society is just a barter economy even if people's needs are largely met.
I'm not even sure this is really true, but even if it was it would still be fundamentally different from industrial capitalism.
The point is not that its the same as capitalism, its just there are constraints on social reality as there are on physical resources. Money is a state intervention and one of the results are systems that skim money off the top of it. Its obvious that an effecient theoretical economy would be more efficient without money as it creates a lot of unwanted problems.
Can you clarify the intent and meaning of this original statement? Maybe i've misunderstood what you're trying to say: