What part of that goes against sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them? Doesn't your point mean that we shouldn't have Capitalism at all?

[–] AaronMaria@lemmy.ml 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Exactly, this argument is so weird, even if the assumption was true. "People are naturally greedy so we should have a system that allows them to do as much damage as possible"

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the poster who was down voted meant anything of the sort. They were just elaborating on their view of human nature.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 10 points 9 months ago

The view shoved into their brain by the oligarchy, which is why it's the most unoriginal cope out there.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

In any society, some people will be leaders, some will be followers, this is natural. You cannot have a society without someone organizing the work and setting the course.

Of those who are naturally leaders, some will be much greedier than most. Some will also be ambitious, corrupt, two faced etc.

These people will do their best to gather wealth and power for themselves, be it in a capitalist or communist system. In the capitalist system they'll become entrepreneurs if they also have good business acumen. In the communist system they'll become managers and state officials if they can also navigate politics well.

At the end of the day, the same people will get to power and will hold dictatorial control over the means of production. In communist countries a literal dictatorship seems inevitable, while capitalist ones usually favor democracy (can be better for business) but they can also descend into dictatorship.

If you disagree, show me an example where all this is not the case. I'm honestly curious

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Capitalism is the opposite of democracy. In a capitalist firm, the managers are not accountable to the governed (i.e. workers). The employer is not a delegate of the workers. They manage the company in their own name not in the workers' name. Managers do not have to have dictatorial control. It is entirely possible to have management be democratically accountable to the workers they govern as in a worker cooperative.

Capitalism v. Communism is a false dilemma. There are other options.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Capitalists aren't leaders, but owners.

Secondly, you are just tying Socialism and Communism with dictatorship without proving why you think it's necessary. It's purely vibes for you.

Tell me this: why do you think a system where Workers have no say, only Capitalists do and serve as mini dictators, is more democratic than a system where Workers vote on how to run production?