I love how people act like their knowledge alone somehow makes them better than their peers, just utilizing knowledge to appear aloof, or above it all, when in reality, if capitalism shot itself in the chest and socialism took over tomorrow, we would still have the same rich 1% families stealing from the working class and none of us would actually be in any better a position because no damned political system to date has figured out how to keep the rich from sacrificing the poor for their own selfish ends. End of story. Time to change.
That’s not historically accurate, though. Socialist states have made dramatic improvements to the lives of the working class and generally dramatically reduced wealth disparity, such as in the USSR. This seems to be more political apathy than genuine analysis.
Humans are brainwashed into thinking it’s “Human nature” to be greedy and self-centered, so when someone comes offering help those stuck in this condition can’t help but think “What’s the catch?”
And the clearer it is that the person has good intent, the more dangerous the catch must be.
I’m not really knowledgeable enough to contribute to the discussion going on here.
I just wanted to say I’ve seen you engaging in good faith discussion all over Lemmy, and I really, really, appreciate that. Whenever socialism, communism, Marxism and the like come up, people are quick to jump to ad hominem and flinging shit-covered sarcasm at each other, and you consistently engage thoughtfully in the discussion, even when your interlocutors don’t. Thank you.
Thank you! I really appreciate it, I do try to be level headed when engaging with people. I know I used to have a lot of the same misconceptions so I try to correct them when I can. Thanks!
Please share your wisdom, I always get snarky as hell and I don’t like that about myself
If I’m being honest? Reading Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist (also in the reading list on my profile). A good part of it stresses the importance of maintaining a level head and trying to maintain good relations with “wrong” but well-meaning comrades.
Capitalism sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats, and socialism also sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats.
Remember Stalin and his style of socialism? Just because one hell sucks doesn’t mean another hell is better.
The only type of social which has made any kind of sense in recent times is the Nordic Model.
They were state capitalists. Most revolutionaries that win fall into the same trap, let’s change everything everywhere at all once. Don’t like farm structures? Fuck it, invent a new system and enforce it violently. And that same thing we’re seeing GOP Trumpist about to do right now. Purge the ranks. Again and again and again. Fascism is a death cult that devalues life. It never lasts long.
State Capitalism went away when they transitioned away from the NEP and went for a more collectivized economy. I think you need to brush up more on theory.
Capitalism doesn’t suck because of individual bad actors, but systemic issues. Competition naturally results in monopolization and the death of competition, and rising disparity. In addition, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall results in businesses and corporations seeking to move production abroad, to over-exploit and under-develop countries in the Global South by paying poverty wages. This extends to IMF loans, as well.
Socialism doesn’t have these same problems. No, it isn’t some perfect system, such a claim would be absurd. However, collectivization of Capital and producing with the aim of fulfilling needs, rather than pursuit of profit, helps to eliminate the excesses of Capitalist exploitation. In addition to the reduction in exploitation, central planning is very efficient once competition stagnates.
It’s funny that you bring up the Nordic model, Nordic countries are seeing withering safety nets, which in turn are generally funded from the same hyper-exploitation of the Global South in the form of brutal IMF loans and unequal exchange. The Safety Nets themselves came as concessions towards strong internal labor organization and the strong safety nets of the neighboring USSR, who had free high quality healthcare, education, and more. Now that the USSR is gone, the safety nets have been withering.
I wouldn’t say decaying Imperialist ethno states are a “good” model to look towards.
I mean, every country to date has been an ethnostate of one type or another, with the exception of what America wanted or purported to be. I’d add Canada and Australia to that as well. Have a look at these socialists states, which one isn’t centered around a dominant ethnicity? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states. So I don’t think using the label of “ethnostate” to disparage democratic counties is justified.
Second, I agree that the global south is heavily exploited, but that seriously discounts successful countries in BRICS or East Asia. We need to understand why those countries succeeded, and others could not, and a lot of the failures of global south actors have to do with corruption and lack of solidarity with each other. Granted, imperial powers instigated instability in every continent, but it didn’t work many times, especially in East Asia. Africa is a great example of failing to realize its potential, a unionized Africa would be a force to reckon with. The “global south” needs to stop blaming convenient scapegoats for many of its own problems. You can’t be like, oh once we fix greed everything will be okay! How do you ever propose to fix greed? Even if the whole world agrees to be socialist, examples like Stalins USSR show us that greed exists to corrupt any economic and political model. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise.
I am not saying we have to be capitalist, I am saying it’s disingenuous to say that greed occurs because of capitalism, and not the other way around. You don’t have to dismantle the whole world to start taxing wealthy people at a higher rate, and start using those funds in a sensible way like they do in the Nordic model.
0·5 hours agoRemember Stalin and his style of socialism?
No. Cuz I wasn’t alive at that time.
But yea, I did read about it in This Soviet World, Soviet Democracy, Russian Justice, and Blackshirts and Reds
Cool, also read about it on neutral sources
Wikipedia, especially English language Wikipedia, ain’t exactly neutral. And anyway “neutral” is fantasy. It doesn’t exist.
Anyone can edit it, what’s your problem?
Sure, anyone can edit. It’s just the invisible hand of the marketplace of ideas. and I have a bridge to sell you.
- The primary editor of Wikipedia is a fascist named Steven Pruitt. Steven currently works for the Dept. of Customs and Border Protection, where he’s been for four years, and the 8 years before that he worked for TSA and ICE.
- CIA and FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits
- Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages
- Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust
How does that discount my point? Anyone can edit it.
“neutral” as if.
lol what a cherry picked example, ignoring ranks of his people getting picked up by state agents to be put to death. How disingenuous
I don’t know what worse, the corruption of communism or the corruption of capitalism. Right now, we’re in the American Nightmare stage of capitalism. Seems to me humanity can’t have an economic system where a group of people want all the wealth and power.
What do you mean “corruption of Communism?”
If we can simply help Americans understand small-s socialism from small-c communism, we’d be in much better shape.
Because yes, my healthcare is already paid in advance by me and everyone else from our taxes; and my buddy’s emergency Sunday morning quintuple stent install after the widowmaker heart attack and two ambulances and a bed in one hospital before transfer (a third bus) to the regional trauma/cardiac center for the operation and 2 weeks of aftercare was free to him that day – and his only concern was not dying. And that’s not just normal but that’s the general expectation. No monthly subscription, no premium cost, no user fee, just paid-parking and vendor-machine food for visitors not coming in via the train.
Our upcoming election will gut that, though. Being bankrupt, losing retirement savings and mortgaged to the hilt at 61 is the American dream mr Polievre has for all Canadian plebes.
Socialism leads to Communism, Socialism isn’t social safety nets, but an economy where public ownership and central planning is the primary driving force.
I mean this is provably false but keep sucking that cap dick
I call fed
I mean this is provably false
[Citations needed]
First sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism :
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
Which part is “provably false,” and why are you using a homophobic insult? Moreover, I’m a Communist, I have no idea what you mean by me supporting Capitalism.
“but you’re gonna take my private property !”
That’s the People’s Toothbrush!
I think “private property” isn’t well defined in socialist discourse and this idea of no private property gets a lot of backlash from some. A distinction between personal and private property needs to be made where one is used to generate capital in exchange for wages and the other is your dildo. The dildo is your personal property and no one is going to take it. A piece of land can be someones private property when they employ you and pay you a wage to work it - you get payed a pittance and they, without work, take the cream.
A distinction between personal and private property needs to be made where one is used to generate capital in exchange for wages and the other is your dildo
That’s always the definition. It is well defined, the problem is that there are national propaganda machines outright lying to the people.
Its well defined IMO, but anti-communist propaganda intentionally spreads the wrong definition of it to make communists look scary.
This is a reasonable explanation, similar to the ones I write on the spot when attempting to explain things. Made more difficult by the fact many signs barring entry to owned land say “private property” (or some variation on it, at least in France and the US)
Most people just want to be left alone and socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone. They say there is no private property in socialism but really you become the property.
what is your definition of socialism and what makes you say “you become the property”?
Wanting to be “left alone” is more a consequence of the alienation caused by the Capitalist system, humans are very social animals. No idea what you mean by “becoming the property,” that doesn’t make any sense.
We’re social with small groups of people not governments or people we have never met. I’m a person by the way, a social one, so I am speaking from experience.
Regardless of our will, increasingly complex production forces further connection. Decentralization only attempts to turn back this clock, it isn’t a solution. You are speaking from your experience as presumably a worker within Capitalism, which necessarily ends up atomizing individuals and destroys the social fabric of society in pursuit of profit. That’s why over time, more people have become fascinated by the idea of moving to Alaska or some remote area and becoming a self-sustainable farmer, but if Socialism is accomplished these desires erode.
I think it’s safe to argue that living in a place like the USA (I am assuming this so, correct me if I’m wrong) you are inherently social with governments or people you’ve never met. It’s just not in the same sense that socialism would allow for. After all, you hear what the government and electoral candidates say to you, make your opinion on it, and respond by a means of voting. That’s a pretty social relationship to me. You’re also currently being social online! With people you have never met. I am also a social person and am speaking from experience.
This definition of “social” from Oxford is probably most accurate, to how I am using the word:
- needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities. “we are social beings as well as individuals”
I interact with the government but I would hardly call it social. They send me paper asking for taxes, I send them taxes. I vote but that’s just filling out a form. It’s transactional, the government provides services. In rare cases I do have conversations with people who work for the government but I wouldn’t say Im social with the goverment through them. That would be like saying you’re social with Ronald McDonald by eating a cheeseburger.
I really would prefer the government leave me alone as much as possible and I think most people feel this way. I don’t think people want any organizations bothering them. How many times do you see a sign on someones door reading “solicite please” or see people hanging out down at the DMV talking about rules and regulations, or whatever. Never. People hate going to the DMV, they do it as little as possible.
We’re social with friends (usually people we went to school with), family, coworkers, neighbors, acquaintances, and some people we deal with on a regular basis. Small groups, like Dunbar’s number small.
I think our definitions of social might be the disconnect here, as it seems you’re meaning it in a personal or conversational manner. I acknowledge that by those standards, your point would be correct!
I just think that the term “social” when used in a political context does not carry the same connotation. When you say socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone, it seems you mean that in the sense that you don’t want people bothering you about more than is necessary for you to function as an individual (hence the soliciting or DMV example given). In this case, I don’t think that a more socialist structure would infringe on that at all actually.
Your day to day life would likely not change drastically. It’s not like the government would suddenly be knocking on your door monthly saying “hello would you like to give me your documented monthly contribution to society? Here is your monthly allowance”. In the day to day it would function as it was currently and the government would basically “leave you alone” as much as they already do. The government currently does already take taxes after all on property, income, sales, capital, even gifts! They also require you documents for many things such as driving a car or owning property or getting healthcare.
To continue your point made based on the definition you gave, though: People may have “no soliciting” signs posted, and hate going to the DMV. Yet, I know of MORE people who upon encountering an automated system to reduce the social interaction to be done for government transactions, complain that they “hate these stupid robots and want to just talk to a real person”.
That’s a clear projection
Well, can you explain your perspective then?
Considering capitalists are the ones ACTUALLY hellbent on turning you into a product & suceeded in it (E.g: Selling your personal information)
Eh, Capitalism will do what it can to turn a profit, which includes things that are good for society. People are fucking dumb and they do not read ToS or EULA, they just sign up for “free” shit and get advertised to while companies track them, spy on them, etc.
Even when you tell people about their data, they don’t care. I literally have a shirt which reads “they sell your data” by the way, I take it more seriously, and I feel like a fucking nut. I mean, I feel like the only sane person but you know, if every room smells like dog shit check your shoes.
What reading ToS gonna do? For many people, if they want to find a job they have no option but to network via LinkedIn. You get blocked from many many services just because you use private browsing or a VPN. These services are so well integrated with modern society that you are basically at a huge disadvantage if you don’t use them.
“No, no, they tries to tricks us, precious [capitalism]! They wants to take you from us, stop you from helping us, precious, gollum!”
That’s right, they aren’t going to overcome their irrational fears. They’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future until it becomes normal and they realize the sky didn’t fall. I actually had hope that we were on the verge of a strong progressive wave, but then millions of people decided not to show up because Harris wasn’t perfect enough for them. So basically fuck y’all, and good luck with the whole People’s Front of Judea vs the Judean People’s Front deal. The thing about MAGA is they fucking show up, and they’re gonna keep showing the fuck up. Idiots need to figure out that you don’t make change happen by turning away when your ideal options don’t appear on a menu so you can click on one and go back to scrolling. /end rant
I think what you’re missing is that for most Socialists, electoralism has already been proven as a losing game to begin with, and is far below the minimum requirements to enact change. Real power comes from organizing, which is why Leftists always push for it (and when it happens, they get results).
I think what people are missing is Trump/Vance being the worst possible outcome. But yes, real power does come from organizing - not from sitting in front of a screen “raising awareness”.
The worst possible outcome is really perpetuating this horrible system to begn with.
I agree, which is exactly what refusing to participate does. Lazy rationalizations help the oligarchs as much as money and brainwashing.
Participating in the electoral system also perpetuates it, the Capitalists don’t care who wins because they already approve of both major parties.
Okay if changing the system through the system is impossible then what’s your plan?
Revolution, which requires worker organization and the building of dual power, as has been done successfully in many countries.
Socialism has been tried many times in all forms but pure unregulated capitalism hasn’t yet.
I wish I had the confidence to just say whatever shit I pulled out of thin air like that
It’s a well known opinion in McCartney-Lennonism.
Every single form of socialism has been tried?
Even Christian anarchism? Even Posadism? Even Queer anarchism?
Also, your answer is anarcho-capitalism?
It has, actually. Got overrun by a bunch of bears
socialism has had huge positive impacts where it’s been tried and massive negative consequences when it’s been replaced with capitalism.
what’s your evidence that “pure unregulated capitalism” is worth trying? glassing the entire surface of the earth with nuclear weapons hasn’t been tried yet either but that doesn’t make it a good idea.
Oh yeah? List the forms.
In this case wouldn’t it make more sense to list the forms it hasn’t been tried in?
No
Pure unregulated Capitalism can’t exist though, there’s no such thing as a “pure” system to begin with.
The impure regulations corrupt the free hand of the market.
Is the market some form of holy spirit? Regulation comes from the market, not despite it.
Regulation opposes the market.
Regulation restricts competition, and is a natural result of companies using accumulated Capital to institutionalize their own positions and maintain a given edge. Capitalism erases its own existence.
I think we’re both saying the same thing.
Maybe, but you phrase it like we can have unregulated Capitalism for any period longer than an afternoon, and I’m explaining why we can’t.
But the talking head on Fox told me what to think about socialism, using no facts or common sense.
What am I supposed to do? NOT believe them?
How is this a meme?
How is this not a meme?
sorry, the first time I saw it the image didn’t load on my instance, so I thought OP was saying the title text alone was the meme.
I mean, a purely text post does seem like the type of meme a Marxist would post. Haha
Fair, lol
Oh lol of course not, that contextualizes your confusion lol
You won’t get it if you’re taking the old bloke and his words at face value.
The meme value comes from the context, being a scene from LOTR.
The gandalf pictures, it’s humourously describing the process of pitching Socialism to Americans. Simple.
My dad: “Yeah, maybe a good solution to the problem of not being able to pay rent would be government-provided housing”
Also my dad: “Socialism is horrible! If it wasn’t, then why would EVERYONE be trying to leave Communist countries like Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe???”
I didnt know i was living in a communist country
Its also strange that there are anti-communist stickers in a communist country
Its also strange that there are anti-communist stickers in a communist country
No it isn’t. Revolution isn’t the rapture. Fascists and liberals don’t just cease to exist.
But there wasnt a socialist revolution since the sticker was placed
Okay…?
why would EVERYONE be trying to leave Communist countries like Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe???
China is empty. Russia is empty. Cuba is empty. Vietnam is empty. South Africa is empty. They’ve all been hollowed out by the scourge of Communism. That’s why nobody lives there anymore.
Meanwhile, the US is the most populous country on Earth. We have the densest cities. We have the largest apartment towers. We have the most-used transit systems. Our nation is full to bursting thanks to all of the people who want to live here. And the more traditionally conservative, the more flagrantly capitalist, the more Christian and Based and Traditional, the larger the US State. That’s right, folks. West Virginia, South Dakota, Utah, and Idaho are the four most densely populated corners of the planet.
I wonder what the modern world would look like had the USSR not been dissolved, and repaired its relationship with the PRC.
Probably like Europe
At the end of the day, there is a reason the USSR dissolved. Generally related to bread lines, gulags, all that fun stuff
If the USSR had dissolved due to issues like the ones you’re talking about (Gulags being basically entirely dismantled after WW2 so 45 years before the dissolution, and breadlines being nonexistent until the 1980s liberalisation during Perestroika), it would have been dissolved with the popular consensus. There was a referendum in 1990 that asked the citizens of the Soviet Union if they wanted to maintain their country under communism and 70% of voters (admittedly a few republics didn’t participate) voted yes, so the USSR was extremely popular and people didn’t want it dissolved. The reasons for the illegal and antidemocratic dissolution of the USSR are much more complex than that.
Because if there is one thing Russia is known for, it’s free and fair elections 🤡
I’m getting a little tired of hot takes from those who don’t know shit about fuck.
Did… Did you just equate the former socialist state that was the Soviet Union to the contemporary proto-fascist and capitalist Russian Federation that literally emerged out of the dismantling and auctioning of the former??
If an election shows a socialist country’s government is unpopular, it’s a clear sign of oppression. If an election instead shows a socialist country’s government is popular, well that’s clearly rigged, another clear sign of oppression.
Can we put the combined efforts of every capitalist market and oligarchy who’s power has reigned uninterrupted since centuries before communism was formally theorized?
Or nah it was probably the… checks notes
prisonsgulags, right glad those are gone.Or the bread distribution? Yea didn’t work for Rome either.
I disagree with the reasons you gave, feeding those in need didn’t hurt the USSR and the GULAG system was abolished several decades prior to the dissolution of the USSR. It’s ultimately a complicated issue, but one that I believe ultimately had to do with rejecting much of the world economy, which resulted in a form of Siege Socialism.
To me the biggest hypocracy in general when it came to forms of communism.
It’s a failed ideology, it will always collapse in on itself as soon as it grows.
Followed with
We need to destroy it at all costs to keep it from taking hold anywhere in the world.
You don’t need to stop something that’s self defeating. It’s like the tower of babel story in the bible. Mankind was building up a great tower because they thought uniting they would be a powerful as gods, so god knocked over their tower, scrambled their languages to divide and conquer the world… Isn’t that kind of an admission that, God believed without his interference man can be as strong as he is?
God ? Really ? Self-defeating, oh yes via spending billiins of dollars funding coups & sanctioning & bombing them in the name of Freeeeeeedom
Yep, really US foreign policy purely supports that which it can profit from, and it can’t do that if the population starts using its own resources for its own benefit rather than allowing them to be stolen by the US.
