compostgoblin@slrpnk.net to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 days agoBut "socialism" is a scary wordslrpnk.netexternal-linkmessage-square298fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10cross-posted to: memes@lemmy.world
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkBut "socialism" is a scary wordslrpnk.netcompostgoblin@slrpnk.net to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square298fedilinkcross-posted to: memes@lemmy.world
minus-squareNSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day agoso there is no one “at the top” “exploiting people at the bottom”
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day agoYes, technically there is a top and a bottom, like an upper level administrator and a lower level worker, but this is not a relationship of exploitation just like it isn’t your manager that exploits you under Capitalism, but the Business Owner(s).
minus-squareNSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day agounder communism, there is no exploitation
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day agoCorrect. I am a Communist, I am just offering technical clarification that hierarchy exists under Communism, but not exploitation.
so there is no one “at the top” “exploiting people at the bottom”
Yes, technically there is a top and a bottom, like an upper level administrator and a lower level worker, but this is not a relationship of exploitation just like it isn’t your manager that exploits you under Capitalism, but the Business Owner(s).
under communism, there is no exploitation
Correct. I am a Communist, I am just offering technical clarification that hierarchy exists under Communism, but not exploitation.