• LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The very concept of a free loader best represents the ruling class of capitalists interests. The ruling class does not contribute in any way to society, and instead steal billions of dollars of labor value from the working class and use it in ways that benefit only themselves. Allowing people to survive even without providing a capital benefit to the ruling class wouldn’t enable free loading, it would mean society actually does what its supposed to and looks out for the wellbeing of all people.

    You shouldn’t have to work to exist. You shouldn’t have to be useful to anyone else to be a part of a community. Food and shelter are human rights. Water is a human right. Healthcare and education are human rights.

    Toppling capitalism and wage slavery is the only way to a just world. Socialism doesn’t inherently belong to the soviet union. And the soviet union did not categorically fail at every single thing they did. Don’t mistake my words for endorsement of stalinism or of any of the many horrible things they did. But there were other aspects of their society and governance that were actually pretty great. Its not all black and all white. Life isn’t that simple in reality. A flat condemnation of communism is rooted in propaganda more than it is in reality.

    And I’m an anarchist, before you accuse me of being a tankie. I do not advocate state communism. But to say “fuck communism” and be done with it just shows your bias towards socialism.

    • two_wheel2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      you shouldn’t have to work to exist, you shouldn’t have to be useful to anyone else to be part of a community

      While I largely agree with your points (or at least some of the core of them) I think you’d have to flesh this out. For anything alive to exist, work needs to be done. And for anyone to be in a community people must mutually agree on membership. The “freeloader” problem isn’t a problem of ability where individuals “not useful” (and that gives me chills as much as it probably does you) to society can’t work, though it’s often framed that way to varying extents from both sides. I feel that it’s a problem where a large enough segment of the population would not be productive at what they could be doing simply because they don’t have to.

      Our brains are literally wired to seek out more for less energy.

      Again, I agree with most of your points, but these two could probably use a bit more explanation (at least to me)

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We live in a time of unprecedented efficiency and automation. We over produce how much we require massively. Optimized, no not every human has to work. Work should be voluntary and without exploitation. Food water and shelter should be shared resources that no one is deprived of. We have the abundance to do this, we only don’t because of the capitalist economic political and social systems which promote wage slavery (the concept that you don’t deserve to live if you’re not capable of producing labor value for capitalists).

        Everyone should be encouraged to work and contribute. But no one should face death for being unable to do so. All work should be voluntary and people should be encouraged to work for their benefit, their family’s benefit, and their community’s benefit. Universal basic income should exist (in our society today) so that if you’re being exploited you don’t face either further exploitation or literally death. Supporting yourself and your family and society should be done because you believe in those things and you see the direct benefits of your contributions. The problem is capitalism has indoctrinated people to believe that work is not a mechanism of direct survival. It is a mechanism for attaining capital value, which is traded for direct survival.

        It goes beyond that even, they indoctrinate us to believe that:

        1. Capitalism is natural and can be found in nature.

        2. Human beings are inherently uncooperative and hate each other. Plenty of human beings are uncooperative, but capitalism literally makes people uncooperative by continually reinforcing the hopelessness of helping others. How can you cooperate when your own survival solely depends on you being willing to give your labor value to capitalists in exchange for indirect survival?

        3. The homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted, all those who are unable or unwilling to give up their labor value to capitalists - they’re all the picture of sin and vice and they are to be derided and hated for their inability to provide labor value to capitalists. That they are worthless, and should be treated like wild animals.

        4. On that note, they also indoctrinate us to believe that homelessness is natural. That its a personal failing.

        When examined separately you can see that they pre-construct people’s opinions to cooperation among the labor force. “Don’t be a failure by not giving us your labor value.” “Don’t help those who we deem failures.” “Being a failure, by our definition, is a personal choice and not a product of exploitation.” “Our system is natural, the natural world has capitalist-type hierarchies. So it is unchallengable.”

        Bear in mind that politically I am an anarchist. In my eyes no society has ever done nearly enough to create real equality. And I fundamentally disagree with all social hierarchies.

    • MostlyBirds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communism and socialism are completely different things. At least learn what they are before spouting nonsense about them

      • fishtacos@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure how you are defining them, but they are, and aren’t, the same. Socialism is a transitionary government to communism. It isnt the ‘exact’ same thing, but when a communist party is in charge, they create socialism, with goals to move towards communism.

        Socialism is also a lot of things, but all those things are considered communist.

        Democratic socialism is what Cuba has for example. Socialism run by a democracy.

        Socialist democracy is what Sweden has, currently. It’s still capitalist, so is not communist at all, but regulates capitalism better than America and most of Europe does. They are slowly loosing the fight to Nazis though. Like literal Nazis, they call themselves nazis, That’s not a joke.

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They aren’t completely different no. Communism is a form of socialism, socialism being the political movement that focuses workers rights to varying degrees. Communism came first though, and socialism just includes other things like democratic socialism. Socialism when discussing theory is often used widely to mean the global anti capitalist movement as it has existed since the beginning of worker’s rights.

    • TheRevenger@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You have the right not to be denied food or shelter… Are you saying everyone should receive free food and shelter? How will that work? I understand small scale communes can mostly work under that idea, but a country with millions of people? Scarcity is the basis of economic theory for a reason.

      • relevants@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Currently, as much as 40% of food is thrown away in the US, while millions of people experience food insecurity. The scarcity is fully intentional.

        • gun/linux@latte.isnot.coffee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why is that food thrown away? You do realise that food can get thrown away for being bad? That at least takes up 10 percentage points, then there’s the question on how its measured. Who is throwing this food away? If its your average Joe then I doubt their throwing it away just to make artificial scarcity. How nutritional is the food that gets thrown away?

          millions of people experience food insecurity.

          The US has hundreds of millions of people those people experiencing food insecurity barely make up anything. Also would that food that gets thrown away even feed everyone?

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism creates scarcity to generate profit. We live and have been living in a time of unprecedented efficiency productivity and abundance. Artifical scarcity is used to keep workers from resisting wage slavery.

        • gun/linux@latte.isnot.coffee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Companies would rather sell more product then pretend for it to be rarer (except for stuff like diamonds but those are selled to rich, successful people anyway)

          • Miqo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s such a naïve thing to say. Artificial scarcity is incredibly common and used as a marketing tool by nearly every industry. My favorite example is when digital content has “limited edition” copies.

          • Viclan@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Literally what are you talking about??? Why would a company not enforce artificial scarcity, it means they have to produce less and their product is more valuable per item. It costs companies to produce more product, they’re not interested in selling a good product just anything that will keep profit margins high. If anything they’d lay off the actual laborers to keep their executives nice and comfy while “cutting costs” across the board. Why do we subsidize farmers to overproduce and we still have people suffering food insecurity?