Assuming the title to be accurate, what is a good way for the working class (90%+ of all humans) to save and succeed in this current environment?

  • xantoxis
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    The objection about a “finite planet” is about capitalism, not currency. A 100% communist system can still have fiat currency and function perfectly well, the two aren’t even related.

    It’s capitalism you don’t like, not money.

    • Prunebutt
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago
      edit-2
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Communism: A classless, moneyless society, based on the principle of “to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability”.

      • davelEnglish
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago
        edit-2
        3 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        I think you’re conflating communism and socialism a bit.

        Communism is a classless society where it is “from each according to their ability to each according to their needs. Moneyless is often mentioned as well, but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary.

        Socialism is a transitional stage on the way to communism, where the working class controls the state (having taken it from the capitalist class’ control), and it is usually described as “from each according to their ability to each according to their labor,” though when they say that I don’t think they really mean that those who can’t perform labor should simply starve.

        • testfactor
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          3 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          I don’t understand why you think that guy was conflating communism and socialism. He claimed communism is moneyless, and in your response you said “neither is moneyless. What’s being conflated?

          And it’s worth noting that most definitions include, if not expressly the word “moneyless, clauses about all property being held in common. And if there is no property, then there is equally no money, by definition (as money is simply a system for the valuation and exchange of property).

          • davelEnglish
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Yeah you’re right. Sorry, @Prunebutt@slrpnk.net!

            I didn’t say that neither is moneyless, only that I don’t think it’s strictly necessary for a society to be moneyless in order to be considered communist.

            • im sorry i broke the code
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              Then where is the communism and what’s the point of money? Seems like a capitalist society with a bit of socialism see any European nation, really

              • davelEnglish
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                You seem to think that money and capital are one and the same; they are not.

                Do European nations have “a bit of socialism”? Has the working class wrested control of the state from the capitalist class? Have they abolished private ownership of the means of production? No, in fact they’re becoming more and more neoliberal, where the working class has less and less influence on the state.

    • nfh
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      It’s a question of the most stable thing to use to mediate value for exchange of goods and services, right? Fiat currency is just the choice of “the state” as a stabilizing force. Certainly it’s better than trusting the scarcity of rare metals, but eventually “just trust the state” will become a problem, and we’ll need to think about rebasing currencies. In theory, computational complexity isn’t a bad choice, but nobody has come up with a solution that actually functions well as a currency.

      But I agree, the finite planet has nothing to do with any failings of fiat currencies, and only makes sense as a failing of the “number must go up” mentality endemic to capitalism.

    • aviation_hydratedOPEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Well the issue here is we’d need full observability of the fiat currency, since how I’ve seen it, no issuing party ever states “there are XYZ units of currency in rotation”. Maybe a not capitalist issuing party would be so transparent?