1154
Evident (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/tumblr@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I think this is an argument against any system without checks and balances. Capitalism has some great features, but it absolutely needs regulations to prevent the wealthiest class from abusing it. Same can be said about socialism.

Checks and balances needs to be a core part of the design of any system. I think a function of fascism is to get rid of those checks and balances.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    The problem is that you can use wealth and power to chip at (or on a good day take a sledgehammer at) those checks and balances, resulting in an inevitable shift form social democracy to fascism. Checks and balances are addons you layer onto the economic system at work that can change its workings to an extent but not fundamentally alter it; they can't be core to the system due to their very nature. That's why socialists (which, BTW, socialism is a wide category of systems characterized by the lack of private property and accumulation of wealth, not one particular system) call for the complete abolition of capitalism; whether you agree with that or not "but checks and balances" isn't an adequate response.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    My point is that even socialism needs checks and balances. And everything you said applies even to Socialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It doesn’t because the power and needs of the many are aligned in socialism and that’s not the case in capitalism

    Within capitalism you need checks and balances so that the ruling class aka capitalist class doesn’t put their “needs” (more like desires”) above the needs of the majority

    Within socialism the ruling class is the majority by definition they can’t exploit the system in their favor because that’s literally how it’s supposed to work.

    So no, it’s very different

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I get that in a utopian society, you are correct. But it’s not impossible for somebody to gain power and abuse this system. The socialist society would need to set up rules to prevent this from happening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ofc but those rules are there by design and are natural to the system

    If the many have the control then it is hard for any one individual to gain control and rig the system for himself, because the many can kick him out

    With capitalism you don’t have this natural control. You put in checks and balances that will fail eventually as they always did and then you’re screwed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    If the many have the control then it is hard for any one individual to gain control and rig the system for himself, because the many can kick him out

    Have you never witnessed “the many” being manipulated by a small number of people into doing things that are against their best interest? There is nothing “natural to the system” that protects against this. It is just hope that the many will stay aligned with the goal of the system. And that each generation keeps this alignment.

    You build your system on a set of rules, but then you need to maintain that system. If you don’t, the system will warp.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent