• @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -14 months ago

    Capitalism is supposed to put the worker at the top

    It doesn’t because the people with capital make decisions

    Christianity straight up opposes wealth, but it doesn’t play out that way because people with wealth make the decisions

    It’s the same for every system/ideology because a power vacuum will always be filled

    • @hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 months ago

      Capitalism is supposed to put the worker at the top

      No it isn’t. It’s supposed to put capital at the top. It’s right in the name!

      • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        It’s supposed to take money away from the owning class (lords) and give it to the working class (craftsmen)

        The idea is that no matter what you do, you are paid based on hours put into it

    • @olivebranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -14 months ago

      You are assuming someone always has to be in power over someone else. Historically most communities where run without anyone in charge, but with direct democracies. It just became harder with bigger cities, because it was harder to communicate with everyone else. Perhaps we can change that with the Internet.

      • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Historically you are incorrect

        If you don’t put power over someone else then someone comes in and puts it over you

        The vehicle for change was just how easily that other person can get to you

        You can go back to bronze age kings to demonstrate how what you said was false in all of recorded history

        • @olivebranch@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -14 months ago

          There is a good yt channel talking about egalitarian societies in prehistory called What is Politics

          • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            If you want to go far enough back that we use theory

            Then we can say prehistoric nomadic humans still had fights with other clans and territorial disputes because our genetic ancestors (chimps/monkeys/apes) also have those

            And if you were there with a gun, would you be able to dominate them? If so then you are able to put power over people without a power structure

            • @olivebranch@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              03 months ago

              Territorial disputes where only common after agriculture in humans, because territory wasn’t as important before as mutual aid.

              • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                13 months ago

                You can point to territorial disputes between non-agrarian humans to suggest otherwise

                Hunting grounds and shelter were more important than mutual aid

                You don’t even need to use humans, you can use other primates

                • @olivebranch@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  03 months ago

                  it is not just farming land that is valuable, sometimes there are good fishing spots and etc in scarce regions. However those are far rarer situations and usually there is plenty of food for everyone, but hard times also happen and then most animals and humans practice mutual aid. There is a good book about it, by Kropotkin, called Mutual aid. It isn’t long, I listened to the audio book.