163
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
163 points (86.9% liked)
Asklemmy
51854 readers
1209 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
No they wouldn't.
Even the capitalists are behaving differently and more humane compared the fuedalists of the middle ages.
That's actually the main reason why communism and socialism even exists, as a prediction to say what will come after capitalism to the naysayers saying that there's no such thing as social progress.
Yes, because their source of wealth is fundamentally different. Lords had to project violence and play court politics to keep their position. Still do, in some places. The rich in developed countries, on the other hand, can rely on strong rule of law to protect their property with very little personal input.
Also why if the apocalypse ever happened, they'd get owned and somebody else would take their bunker.