User:CBDTHC

Disclosure: I don't know what to identify as. I am living as a rather priviliged citizen of an insignificant member nation of the European Union.

With the current challenges facing humanity, I wanted to help in any way I could. I was unable to overcome the first obstacle. The sheer number of active movements is staggering and the barrier of entry is quite high to become an invested contributor. On many main pages there is at least an outline of the guiding principles to gain a basic understanding of what the movement tries to accomplish. However, to get into the nitty-gritty details of specific issues requires a time investment on the individuals part, that increases exponentially, once you start realising how much knowledge you lack. At least from my perspective. Despite attending 15 years of scholarly education, I only have a basic grasp on a few select topics. Most of the learning I've done was in my recent years and it was on Wikipedia, while constantly being reminded of how much of an unreliable source it is. I didn't realise how much I actually depened on Wikipedia for factual information until now. This is the reason for this /question/.

Basically I agree with the core concept of Marx's economic theory. Capitalism is a natural proggression of feudalism, where the serfs are now workers, no longer tied to their land and free to move about and find the best employer. Following the rule of kings and aristocracy, it was freeing to adhere to an economic model that promoted hard work, by compensating it with surplus value - money. Where previously all excess could be appropriated by the nobility under false pretenses, now you got to keep that surplus value and invest into yourself or your workshop/ manufactory. If capitalism was achieved through a general peasant revolt we might even have something resembling communism right now. Instead the wealth was kept by the nobility and only a select few individuals were lifted from the general poverty of the masses. With increasing literacy and access to infromation we managed to _peacefully_ curtail the influence of aristocracy and establish democracies, where human rights have been slowly written into the law of the land. (At least I was lucky enough to be born into a part of the world where this applies, experiences in other places are quite different, I imagine.) However we didn't address the wealth and power inequality that we carried over to our existing nations, and so, slowly but surely, a new dominant class has emerged - the capitalists. They didn't really emerge, the wealthy have in most cases stayed wealthy through family inheritances and strategic marriages. A few might have accrued their wealth with hard work and exploitation of their workers, but most capitalists are born into wealth. With an economic model that incentivises profits above all else there is an inherent tension between the owners of the means of production and the workers who demand the most compensation for their work. Many states tried to put basic human rights into their founding documents, but with exponentially increasing technology and production, more laws were needed to regulate what was allowed and what was prohibited, and through this complexity, the wealthy has found a way to slowly bring bang their dominion over the populace. We went thorugh different stages of capitalism, colonialism, then imperialism and now outsourcing are all examples of shifting the exploitation further from a nations own borders. How can you call yourself a democracy if you pay some of your workers a fraction of the wage of your citizens? By not calling it your land directly and providing a decent quality of life for most of your citizens. There was a fine balance struck in the post WW2 era in some countries, where most people were able to afford all the life necessities and some form of comfort. But if profits are all that guides big bussiness, the exploitation of foreign labour is not enough, it needs to grow, so citizens are on the menu once again. And here we are, with the average company owner receiving more than 100x times the compensation of their workers, who do the brunt of the work that keeps the company functioning. When we decided that "money talks" in the law-making process, we underestimated how a select few individuals can impose thier worldview over the population through media. (Note: this is coming from a very uneducated individual on the subject)

Seeing the current state of the world and how humanity as a whole manages it's resources is, in my eyes, veeery inefficient. The classless, stateless society of the communists vision is very enticing, but no one seems to have any real, tangible idea how to achieve this You might get a response like "It's complicated you see, because...." or "Read the whole Capital first, then follow up with all the works of authors that worked on Marx's and Engels' work and then you *get* to hear my opinion" or the lazy "Workers unite!/ Eat the rich!". I reject the idea that communism can only be achieved thorugh violence, and I haven't found a similar viewpoint, yet. And, I have to wonder, why communists haven't embraced Wikimedia as their own. With the creative commons license, everything that is contributed here can be used by anyone. How is the idea that everyone should have unrestriced access to information not fundamentally the same as freeing the workers from their oppressive relationship with the system? The alienation that is experienced by the average human is a direct result of the governing system, why not grow and promote something that, at it's core, promotes free sharing and accessibility to everyone?

Final thought; I shout into the void my disorganised thoughts, hoping someone will provide a helping hand in understanding, how to make the world a more tolerant and cooperative place for everyone.