774
This is why Americans hate Socialism.
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2026
774 points (97.1% liked)
Work Reform
17513 readers
1596 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Everybody's hooked on communism.
But what about anarchism?
A top priority for me is the people who do stuff benefit from that stuff, instead of some removed jerks.
Along side health care, food, shelter, an environment that's sustainable for human life.
I'm not familiar with anarchism's solutions to these things.
Anarchism is an assured destruction of the Social Contract. People, without guidance, are more horrible.
You know anarchism doesn't just mean 'anything goes', right?
"No rulers" doesn't mean "no rules."
But it does mean nobody to enforce the rules, which means no rules.
No it doesn’t.
Yes it does.
[citation needed]
Anarchy only helps those privileged enough to have the means to defend what they have with violence.
Anarchy means the sick, disabled, poor, minorities, etc are thrown to the wolves, and expected to defend themselves with less capability and resources than the majority.
Sure, you might argue family units or communities might band together and take care of each other, but they probably need some rules to make that equitable since not everyone will agree, and- oops we made government again.
Sips fox news brand coolaid
That's not how anarchism works.
That's the thing, anarchism doesn't work.
Just like communism and socialism doesn't work.
Because capitalism is a violent, agressive system that keep sabotaging them for profit.
Capitalism is the reason why everything is shit and why the masses can't have any form of real democratic power.
Something that works is something that can't be "sabotaged" by a better system.
Capitalism works, but 100% capitalism doesn't. Socialism works, but not 100% socialism. If you can imagine less than 100% anarchism, then that works too -- basically people having a certain amount of autonomy, but not 100% autonomy.
Balance is key. People can't be 100% under the thumb of the government or life isn't worth living. But, people also can't be 100% free to do anything they want without considering other people because that leads to chaos and death. You can't have absolutely everything being privately owned for someone's profit, because that's just awful, but you also can't have no private ownership of the means of production either. A successful system is a mix.
Capitalism isn't the reason why everything is shit. That's the kind of argument a 6 year old would make. Everything was shit long before Capitalism came around. When feudalism / manorialism was the dominant economic system, people weren't allowed to leave the land where they were born because legally they were tied to the land and owed their labour to their landlord until they died. No capitalism there, but things were awful shitty.
The problem is extreme power inequality and wealth inequality. The theorists who promoted capitalism liked it because they thought that it would lead to less wealth and power inequality than feudalism. They thought that as long as the government enforced laws to ensure there was fair competition, there wouldn't be a ruling class of capital owners who would hold all the power. Anybody could start their own business and compete against existing businesses. If they had a better idea, or a better product, or a more efficient process, they'd be rewarded with more sales, and that would displace the existing business. But, of course, the wealthy and powerful managed to corrupt the system so that those laws were not being enforced and the wealthy and powerful were able to eliminate competition and effectively become feudal lords again.
I stopped reading here.
Calling capitalism a "better system" is a fucking joke. The system can't work without exploiting people, authoritarianism, and exploring every resource until there's nothing left but a burnt empty husk of a planet.
GTFO of here, fascist.
I have visited wikipedia. So you mean the anarchy that is "without hierarchy or authority" but not complete chaos?
I guess I'm unclear how you manage that without it devolving into chaos though. Like corporations constantly prove that if we don't have a law against it they'd just sell humans. I dunno how you manage to make an equitable society without some kind of rules and enforcement of said rules, when there will always be bad actors.
It's a more complex concept than I assumed, but I struggle to conceptualize what that kind of system actually looks like.
Yes. Sort of.
To be honest, I think even I need more education on the topic. But I think it's more like societies form organically. People pick roles and contribute to society as needed instead of doing a job just because you need to pay the rent.
And it doesn't mean there's an absence of rules or laws. And commerce would still function but there would be a specific need for it. And it wouldn't be just for profit. So that removed a lot of incentive to do bad things.
But it is kind of how humans work. Have you met humans?
Then, with that logic, none of the social systems work whether it's capitalism, communism, anarchism, socialism, etc.