- cross-posted to:
- anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com
- memes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com
- memes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Yes exactly.
Removed by mod
We don’t have a lot of dyed in the wool capitalists on Lemmy
*dyed in the wool liberals
Liberalism is the philosophy of capitalism, capitalists are people who owns significant amounts of capital.
Capitalism is owning the means of production - which isn’t limited to billionaires. Almost everybody who has a retirement plan is a capitalist because retirement funds invest in stocks, bonds, etc. Everyone with a savings account is a capitalist - they are supplying money the bank loans to other people, which is where savings account interest comes from. To honestly avoid being a capitalist you’d have to have no money or keep it in a mattress.
everybody who has a retirement plan is a capitalist because retirement funds invest in stocks, bonds, etc.
The term you’re looking for is petite bourgeoisie: people who do get some income by owning slivers of the means of production, but who also have to live by selling their labor. Someone who has investments purely for retirement purposes is straining the lower bounds of that definition.
Everyone with a savings account is a capitalist
Change in your pocket is not anywhere close to owning the means of production.
If you really think about it anyone with hands is a capitalist.
Usually complaining about “tankies” is just another way to hate Socialism, the Red Scare never ended and being aware of it doesn’t make you immune to its effects in any capacity. “Left” anticommunists have a long legacy and have done immense damage to Socialism worldwide.
Blackshirts and Reds is phenomenal in total, but specifically the subsection Anticommunism & Wonderland should be necessary reading.
My friend, there is an ideological ocean between “workers should collectively own the means of production” and “we need an authoritarian state with a monopoly on violence to enforce communism.”
There’s an ideological ocean between utopian socialism and actually-existing socialism, yes. There’s a reason why there’s not been a successful historical instance of socialism in which workers collectivised without taking the power of the state in their hands.
Calling it “authoritarian state” kinda portrays lack of knowledge at democratic power structures and mechanisms in former socialist countries. Examples for the USSR: highest unionisation rates in the world, announcement/news boarboards in every workplace administered by the union, free education to the highest level for everyone, free healthcare, guaranteed employment and housing (how do the supposedly “authoritarian leaders” benefit from that?), neighbour commissions legally overviewing the activity and transparency of local administration, neighbour tribunals dealing with most petty crime, millions of members of the party, women’s rights, local ethnicities in different republics having an option to education in their language and widespread availability of reading material and newspapers in their language… Please tell me one country that does that better nowadays
Current western Europe (Germany in particular) still has free education, free Healthcare, guaranteed housing, legalized LGBT marriage and weed, and many things more, and you don’t go to Siberia for making a joke about the leader.
Union and party membership were obligatory BTW, if you didn’t want to be labeled as a troublemaker.
European countries are under fascist rules right now it’s terrible. And many still die of hunger or improper housing or hygiene. I’m thinking particularly about France because I’m from there, but Germany has similar issues
Harz IV, bro.
Lmao, Germany has guaranteed housing?! Germany has Vonovia, a company that hoards real estate and rents it in terrible conditions, and own about 500k+ houses. In what universe does Germany have guaranteed housing when Berlin tried to implement a directly democratically voted rent cap on housing and it got repelled by the tribunals a year after it began?
Free healthcare in Germany is absolute bullshit. Yes, it’s free, but the quality of healthcare is astonishingly low. I’ve had the misfortune of living there for a few years, and the whole system is horrendous, especially for how ludicrously expensive it is compared to other European countries. In Germany, you have sick senior people queuing at 7AM in frosty winter mornings STANDING ON THE STREETS to be able to see the family doctor, you can consider yourself lucky if you can wait sitting in a stairwell indoors while waiting for the doctor. It’s beyond me how German people aren’t constantly on the street complaining about this bullshit, again especially given the absurdly high costs of public healthcare there.
Funny that you also mention freedom of speech, when in Germany they are literally arresting Jewish people for expressing antizionist and pro-Palestinian points of view. The actual Nazis run rampant though, friends of the police if not outright members of it, with an extreme rise of the far right.
Harz IV guarantees housing.
Damn, you should tell that to the 700k homeless people in Germany, I’m sure they’ll be happy to know that
I mean this with all sympathy, after all, I used to share views similar to your own before I started taking Marxism seriously, and to dismiss you would be to dismiss myself, and thus the capacity for change. When you simplify Marxism to “workers should collectively own the Means of Production,” you remove the entirety of Marxism, as such a thought was common even pre-Marx. When you simplify AES to “authoritarian states with a monopoly on violence to enforce Communism,” you assume greater knowledge of the practice of building Socialism than the billions of people who have worked tirelessly to bring it into existance for the last century from the inside, not criticizing from afar.
With all due respect, and no “I’ve read more than you so my power level is higher” nonsense, have you read Marx?
With all due respect to theory, I’ve seen too much of it shit all over people who lack education, context, or ability to understand, and basically leaves those people out of the conversation and acts like their opinions don’t matter because they haven’t read the right books or have the right education.
The differences between academic unions and blue-collar unions were always stark to me, and when there was ever any connection between the two, the academics would roll their eyes and be dismissive of the blue-collar people, who may have not always been theory conscious but were good people, a la Samwise Gamgee (in terms of Tolkiens ideas of the kind of good, kind, but simple people he met in WWI). Constantly telling those people that they don’t know enough to be involved isn’t ever really a positive way forward, in my opinion, and anything where it’s forced from the top-down on those people instead of having their input is something I’m against, sorry. You can’t explain away taking away people’s right to input in their own governance with theory, to me.
I’ve read some Marx, but never got my hands on an unabridged copy of Capital, nor did I finish it because it was pretty tedious. I personally think Debord had way more profound things to say, and Society of the Spectacle is the most dog-eared book I own. Mixed with McLuhan’s Understanding Media, I’m actually partial to think communications might actually be neck-and-neck with commodities in terms of importance of understanding them. I mean, Debord thought that too, which is why he thought he would be remembered for his board game Kriegspiel, (a war game focusing on lines of communication) not for SotS.
I am not trying to tell you that your opinions are “invalid” or “worthless.” You raise a good problem well known by actual, practicing Marxists about Western “Marxists” that seek to endlessly critique society without changing it. However, it would be a mistake to not learn from Socialists in the past and present who have a wealth of experience and lifetimes of analysis to draw from. Rather, my goal isn’t telling you that you don’t know enough to be involved, but that I think you are making a critical error in attacking Socialists based on what I believe are misconceptions and misunderstandings, and this hurts leftist movement.
I think if you made an effort to understand what these billions of Socialists believe in and are committed to, you would better understand if their ideas and systems are valid or not. I think without reading theory that you are only going to have an incomplete and partial view, and this, while not delegitimizing your opinions and views, certainly harms the integrity. Celebrating an “end to theory” was something the Socialist Revolutionaries adhered to pre-revolution in Russia, and this was proven a mistake, while the Bolsheviks’ strict adherence to theory and mass worker organization proved correct.
Bud, I’m reading theory, and you’re literally telling me I’m not reading the right theory.
Kinda? If you want to have an opinion of Marxists, I would read Marx and historical accounts by Marxists to even understand better what they are trying to do better, rather than Anarchist critiques of Marxism. Your initial comment came out attacking Marxists, so I tried to contextualize that more.
ve seen too much of it shit all over people who lack education, context, or ability to understand,
It kinda irks me seeing comrades engage with people assuming they’re arguing in good faith and immediately it turns out it’s just unabashed western chauvinism. The fact that you refer to Debord is just the icing on the cake.
I’ve read Debord, guy had a good fifteen page essay hidden inside The Society of the Spectacle and then over a hundred pages of masturbatory inscrutability of the kind Zizek perfected and good old french chauvinism. I put more stock in the works credited by people who actually achieved revolution and then a better quality of life for their nations through them. A social science requires falsifiability.
On the other hand, there is Lenin boiling down in a hundred pages a very thorough understanding of Marxist thought and the critical steps the revolution must take to defend itself as well as the reasons for it. No fluff, no academicist posturing, just keeping in the Marxist tradition of making the subject only as complex as it needs to be. Then he went and fucking proved it with his practice.
Capital isn’t an entry level text, it is a thorough study of the mechanisms of capital, the value form, the objects of financial speculation and their interaction with the real material economy. Critique of the Gotha Programme, The Poverty of Philosophy, The German Ideology, even Socialism: Utopic and Scientific by Engels are thorough, clear, and concise. And they work.
Yea, I try to make it a rule to engage in good-faith almost regardless of what the other person is saying unless it’s clear that nothing can come from it, be it reaching the other person or reaching onlookers. In this case, it was more for the latter.
when there was ever any connection between the two, the academics would roll their eyes and be dismissive of the blue-collar people, who may have not always been theory conscious but were good people, a la Samwise Gamgee
Samwise Gamgee isn’t a good person, he’s a fictitious character in a fantasy novel.
You can’t explain away taking away people’s right to input in their own governance with theory, to me.
You need to have something before it can be taken away from you.
Society of the Spectacle is the most dog-eared book I own.
Then you know the illusion of choice isn’t the same thing as a people’s right to self-governance. And further, that a movement of people in opposition to a media established regime is not stealing their neighbors’ liberty by asserting some of its own.
Not even if all the TVs and radios and newspapers say so.
It’s not because we have a boner for authority, it’s because history has shown us that, under the current conditions of global capitalist/imperialist hegemony, such a state is a necessary step in the process of reaching a classless society. It’s simply not possible to go directly from where we are right now to where all socialists want to end up. That’s why anarchism has never had a win that’s lasted more than few months before capitalist forces crush it.
Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds:
But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.
How could any socialist country protect the workers without a state in 2025?
So you’re saying you only believe hierarchical, authoritarian societies with monopolies on violence are viable societies? Where a strong-man makes the decisions from the top-down for everyone else?
There is no room for decentralization of control or a non-authoritarian dominance? There is no room for socialism grown from the bottom up organically instead of forced from the top down?
Why must the idea of “state” equal “authoritarian state with monopoly on violence?” There is no other such type of state we can imagine? Do we really lack such imagination?
Markets aren’t evil, workers who own the mean of production will still be trading with other groups of workers who own their own means of production. A t-shirt factory will still be trading with a textiles factory. Capitalism just raises the importance of markets to the detriment of pretty much everything else in life.
Hierarchical? Yes, we need administrators, managers, planners, and other forms of necessary hierarchy as we continue to work towards more complex production at larger and larger scales. Even Anarchists concede this point.
Authoritarian? What constitutes “authoritarianism,” any hierarchy? If you oppose all hierarchy, it sounds like you disagree with even mainstream Anarchism, and seek to return to more tribal modes of production, scavenging and whatnot.
Grown “from the bottom-up?” Yes, Marxism has historically been accomplished by Proletarian revolution and organization, it hasn’t succeeded from tiny terrorist cells throwing coups. Mass worker movements are what achieved Socialism.
A “strong-man” making all of the decisions? No, and that’s not how AES states actually existed. Nobody argues for such a method, if that’s a euphamism for full public ownership of property, I ask why you separate the people from the government at that point.
As for the idea of an “authoritarian state with a monopoly on violence,” I don’t know what you specifically mean here. That sounds to me like all states, sans the as-yet undefined “authoritarian” bent. AES is democratic, so there must be something you don’t like but haven’t defined yet. Furthermore, trying to “design” a perfect society is Utopianism, and doesn’t actually focus on how to build Socialism from where we are.
Markets aren’t evil, correct, at low levels of development they are highly useful. However, the goal is full Public Ownership, as Central Planning becomes far more efficient at higher levels of development. A system of “worker coops” would inevitably work towards either a regression into Capitalism or centralization into Socialism, a problem shown and worked out in Anti-Dühring by Engels.
Overall, I think you owe it to yourself to read more historical accounts of AES and how they function, Blackshirts and Reds as I linked earlier is a good start.
A system of “worker coops” would inevitably work towards either a regression into Capitalism or centralization into Socialism
Or have right-wing factions armed and trained by the CIA to overthrow the government and do a bunch of crimes against humanity during the 90s.
I don’t know enough about Yugoslavia’s economy to say whether their coop-centric model was responsible for the stagnation and high unemployment rates.
Yep, that’s the problem with making such a structure the focus of the economy, and not just another element subservient to the Public Sector and government in general. Easy to take advantage of individualists in a cooperative based economy than a collectivized one.
AES is democratic, so there must be something you don’t like but haven’t defined yet.
Well to be fair, I’m probably closer to anarchist than strict socialist because to me decentralization of power and communications is how you solve a lot of this and no societies that exist or have existed have really tried it in the sort of capacities we could try it at this point in history, I believe. There’s just no society who has even come close yet. I do think we were held back slightly technologically and communications have progressed to the level that things can be more decentralized, a la citizen communications like the barbed wire telephone network. I think current iterations of democracy are all really outdated and that there’s been plenty of new options to try but there is no political willpower in any society to pursue those things.
I wouldn’t say I ascribe to Critical Theory, but the general idea of “there is no perfect anything, we must always be critiquing and trying new ways” speaks to me. So hanging our future on 200 year old ideas without any progression or growth of those ideas feels foolhardy to me.
Do you have specific issues with the real democratic structures of AES states that you can point to further decentralization helping with? Most AES countries practice a sort of “top-down, from the bottom-up” form of democracy. Essentially, building “rungs” of councils that start at local levels, elect delegates for regional councils, who elect delegates to further levels as necessary. This is both centralized, in that the highest level has the final say, but decentralized in that the higher levels only make decisions pertaining those lower to them, and can change delegates or practice recall elections. It gets more complex than that, obviously, but this seems as decentralized as is practical.
As for your support for “critiquing everything,” you sound like a Marxist-Leninist. Criticism and Self-Criticism are core concepts of Marxism-Leninism, and the practice of repeating the dialectical materialist cycle of turning theory into practice to refine theory and refine practice is the core to Marxist-Leninist knowledge. The base of Marxism isn’t simply 200 years old, but thousands, it’s a cumulative effort of the early materialists, the early dialecticians, Capitalists like Adam Smith and Ricardo, Utopian Socialists like Owen, Dialectical Idealists like Hegel, and more. We keep Marx’s ideas (and Lenins, etc) inasmuch as they are still valid, and by our analysis they overwhelmingly are. We also add analysis as it becomes more applied, and we see where earlier Socialists, even Marxists, went wrong.
Does that make sense?
I swear to god westerners have had over a hundred years to read The State and Revolution and we’re still having the same dumb fucking argument.
In the time y’all take to talk shit about any revolution that actually succeeds you could have read about twenty books on the subject.
we need an authoritarian state with a monopoly on violence
We already have one. Americans just need to keep believing the monopoly is working for them, rather than for their bosses, or the system of compliance falls apart.
Step 1: workers collectively own means of production
Leads to Step 2: yanks attack you
Leads to Step 3: Establish a state with a monopoly on violence to kill all the yanks
complaining about “tankies” is just another way to hate Socialism
Even if you’ve got a legit beef with 1950s Stalinists, the idea that they’ve teleported through time to argue with you in English on a 4th rate social media forum is so fucking self-aggrandizing.
Blackshirts and Reds is phenomenal in total, but specifically the subsection Anticommunism & Wonderland should be necessary reading.
Would that Michael Parenti, David Grabber, and Richard Wolfe had been as ravenously consumed by Americans as Milton Friedman, David Brooks, and Anne Coulter.
Removed by mod
Of course Korea has to be reunited. The south has been under US control since the end of WWII, taking control after the Japanese
Yep, hopefully Korea can be liberated from the US.
I don’t know if something can be done soon with all the shit happening in Republic of Korea
I remain hopeful.
It’s worth noting that I’ve seen far more people thinking of citizens of North Korea as pitiful subhumans than support for the DPRK in general, and fewer still who support the DPRK extending to the ROK. The “tankie” instances end up just being regular Marxist and Anarchist instances.
It’s crazy to see the degree of vile racism aimed at North Koreans. They’re straight up not acknowledged as human beings with any individual intelligence or agency.
Saw a thread over on Sopuli that made me want to throw up, there are many people here that don’t see Koreans as human beings. They speak of North Koreans the same way European colonialists spoke of African peoples (and still do, but in secret usually), and blame the DPRK for being the target of genocide by the US.
Removed by mod
The real crazy genocide denying leftists
We’re right here, actually, and we do indeed deny Western Cold War II bullshit propaganda.
.
It doesn’t reflect well on your media literacy to still be accepting this stuff uncritically, especially given how Western corporate media has been misreporting on an actual, ongoing genocide in our name. Not to mention Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, or the thousand other lies in the twenty years between.I was trying not to name drop, but I was referring to the Stalin-stans over on Hexbear who say that he didn’t do anything wrong, and if he did do it, then they deserved it.
Nor did I say anything about Saddam or Bush’s photos of the bomb from Die Hard that they used as evidence of WMDs, but go ahead and use me as That Guy and go off, queen.
Seeing how this thread is going and what posts and users have been deleted/banned, I can see where this is heading and I’m just gonna go ahead and block .ml. Enjoy your chapo-trap or whatever.
Stalin-stans over on Hexbear who say that he didn’t do anything wrong, and if he did do it, then they deserved it.
Hexbear’s flavor of irony-poisoned humor does confuse some people. But Stalin didn’t do nearly as many things “wrong” as cold war propaganda told us. Even contemporary Western historians see Stalin in a very different light than corporate media, airport books, and popular culture do.
Edit to add: And to be specific, “double genocide theory” was Nazi propaganda, which you’re continuing to propagate.
The first sentence of “Tankies” by Roderic Day over on Red Sails explains that no one actually believes Stalin did nothing wrong. That’s a combination of Hexbear being more of a Communist and Anarchist hangout than a Communist party. It’s the internet. What people generally mean is that Stalin did not kill 100 million people, and his actual historical role was as a leader of the world’s first Socialist state, and as such has had piles and piles of myths distorting the real facts of his life by Western propagandists.
Removed by mod
My sentiments exactly. Couldn’t have said it better.
User: “we don’t have a lot of problems with capitalists here”
Also user: immediately starts to shit on a flavour of socialism
You can be fine with the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism and still favor a wealth cap and abolishing laws like Citizens United that give money undue influence on politics. Extreme wealth concentration actually hurts capitalism by starving the spending economy of money. It’s a defect in the system that eventually spoils the system.
Lots of people on Lemmy forget that the choice between Capitalism and Socialism isn’t binary. Country picks individual policies that are capitalist or socialist in nature. All of the modern countries are a combination of both. Even USA has certain socialist policies. Most of Europe is roughly equally capitalist and socialist.
It’s just making a character build and picking perks. Capitalist policies aren’t bad (for the general public) by default. Depending on how and which ones are implemented, they can be beneficial to everybody.Europe has many more Social policies than the US, but it is nowhere close to equally parts Socialist and Capitalist.
Socialism means that the Workers own the means of production, and there is no country in Europe where that is the case.
Social policies != Socialism.
It’s not about strictly “owning”, it’s about controlling. Control can be achieved in many different ways, including, but not limited to regulations. Socialism is an economic system, of which you can implements certain parts.
I didn’t say “social policies”. Socialist policies are a more specific subset of social policies, so all socialist policies are social policies, but not all social policies are socialist.
Regarding the European countries’ degree of being socialist, it of course depends on the country. But on average, you might be right, and perhaps using “equally” was an exaggeration.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy […] characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
I’m not gonna lie, I don’t think a common-good healthcare regulation or whatever housing plans fall under the definition.
Edit: there’s some merit to this you could’ve brought up, e.g. Germany’s mandating by law of some (limited) worker control in firms ≥500 employees in size (wikipedia link). But even that’s breaking with the definition, since it’s not about ownership, but rather a say in leading the company.
151·2 months agoSocialism is when the government does stuff, and when it does a whole bunch of stuff, its communism.
Hopefully that’s tongue in cheek, but it’s pretty much how a large (voting) segment of the population sees it. Freedom Good, Government Bad.
It’s a quote from (left) professor Richard Wolff. Link
Edit: had gotten the first name wrong
It’s famous quote from professor Wolff who said it incredibly ironically, just watch the clip. But yeah, tons of people actually do believe this.
You’re thinking of Capitalism and Socialism as Private Property and Public Property, and as oil and water. That’s not how systems work in the real world, however. An economic system is determined by what is primary in an Economy, and at scale property relations are entirely mixed and inter-related. Having safety nets doesn’t make the Capitalist EU somehow “a mix,” and having markets doesn’t make the Socialist PRC Capitalist either.
You are partially correct, in that markets are a useful tool at lower stages of development and public ownership and central planning at higher stages, but that doesn’t seem to be where you were going with that.
Thank you, that is such an important point! Many if not most issues in our world are non-binary, but facing this requires thinking beyond memes, which many people don’t want to do. Gotta swipe left or right, those are your two choices, or you’re a shill for the wrong side. It’s really discouraging, almost a New Conservatism - not in a political sense but in an insular thinking and circling the wagons sense.
Funny enough, reducing Communists to rigid thinking devoid of nuance is actually anti-Marxist. Nuance and looking at issues dialectically is core to Communist thought, it’s non-Marxists that paint Marxism as dogmatic and inflexible.
it’s non-Marxists that paint Marxism as dogmatic and inflexible.
Yeah, it’s such a tired trope that it’s almost become a meme.
“Read theory” is already such an all-encompassing meme though, and covers that pretty well. Truly, if every liberal read like 3 or 4 pamphlets on Marxism we’d probably be at Socialism by now, well on our way to Communism.
For real, it doesn’t take much reading to dispell many of the myths and I frankly think most people wouldn’t be content to stop there. Once you begin reading, you hunger for more.
Absolutely, I started taking theory fairly seriously about a year ago and I haven’t been nearly as voracious in my studies or reading since childhood. The process of learning how the world genuinely works and seeing everything click into place is immensely satisfying.
“The truth must lie somewhere in the middle” is one of the most overused and underexamined memes in public discourse this comment is about to collapse upon itself into an irony black hole
Good illustration - binary thinking turns “the truth CAN lie somewhere in the middle” into “the truth MUST lie somewhere in the middle” because there has to be one right answer and one COMPLETELY OPPOSITE AND WRONG answer to everything. Except no, you’re just doing it wrong.
When the hinges on the door to your mind palace have rusted shut “Um actually false dichotomies are themselves a false dichotomy!”
The US has a bunch of socialist policies, it’s just that the people who complain about socialism don’t know what it means.
The US doesn’t have any socialist policies.
But when government has social programs it’s socialism. It’s in the name!
I don’t think this needs a /s, but the world doesn’t fucking make any sense.
Arguably, The US does have several socialist policies, albeit implemented very badly. For instance, public education. Does capitalism stick its grubby fingers into it from every possible angle? Yes. But at its core it has collective funding through taxes (therefore owned/controlled by the state), universal access, and the prioritization of public welfare over profit (at least on paper). Those principles are strictly socialist and not capitalist.
Socialism does not mean controlled by the state, that is just a state service, which can be capitalist.
Socialism, and I cannot stress this enough, is not when the government does stuff
Where did I say “government does stuff”? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it’s socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist.
No, this type of thinking is anti-dialectical. Capitalism is a system where private property and commodity production is primary, and socialism is a system where collective ownership and planning is primary. This does not mean systems are partially Socialist and partially Capitalist, but that property relations are not uniform in most systems. I think reading Marx would be helpful for you.
This may help clear up much of where you are butting heads with MLs in your comments.
If you think the US has “socialist policies,” I wouldn’t be so sure you know what Socialism means either. It’s worth reading theory IMO.
Those have been withering away. They’re trying to get rid of the postal service, we’ve never had national health…I was reading about Slovenia who now has a mixed economy, with the government heavily involved in planning. The only way I see capitalism working at all is social democracy, but I’d much rather see socialism. Luxury goods for profit, necessities as service, progressive taxes with the top incomes, corporate and private, being taxed in the 90th percentile, to fund services, and heavy sanctioning of nations that hide wealth from non-citizens and lifting of sanctions on nations that do the same, as well as not trying to overthrow their governments as long as they are no threat to us. And arms de-escalation.
Classic example: “I don’t want Big Government Socialism messing with my Medicare!”
Or farm subsidies
Innovation and entrepreneurship is not exclusive to capitalism. People innovated and undertook ambitious projects before capitalism, and they will be doing so after it.
There is nothing inherent to the private ownership of the means of production and the wage exploitation/human rental system we have now that mandates innovation and entrepreneurship. In fact the opposite is visible today, with big companies stifling innovation.
The flaw in capitalism and the flaw that makes it unmanageable is how over time capitalism will find ways to extract more for less.
This will always fall to the workers. The recent recession had tax payers bail out the banks as well as pay bonuses. all because banks got very greedy.
Its not a flaw, its working as planned. But yeah, our “market solutions”, basically any problem created by capitalism just gets exploited for profit. Even when the economy crashes its actually a good thing for the very rich, as it " disciplines" labor, moves people down and out of the middle class which lowers wages systematically, takes out a few competitors, etc.,
Even when the economy crashes its actually a good thing for the very rich, as it " disciplines" labor, moves people down and out of the middle class which lowers wages systematically, takes out a few competitors, etc.,
If you look at it, every crisis always results in transfer of wealth up. Covid was the biggest up to date.
There are other things unmanageable.
Like a nuclear superpower with vast fertile southern lands fit for growing grapes, sea access with fishing fleet, and all such, which had a significant part of population under threat of scurvy. Because capitalism makes logistics work, it’s the reason European colonial empires could exist.
Or the same nuclear superpower, which boasted widespread literacy and all that, except that conveniently ignored Central Asian areas mostly busy with growing, collecting and processing cotton. Damn right, my dear. These were, ahem, not very developed even in 1991.
Or the same nuclear superpower, which had a powerful standardization apparatus, but when you look at its tank models or anything else, the components which could be interchangeable were just slightly incompatible. They were designed by people with the same kind of education and understanding and context, for the same purpose, but, first, every defense plant or research institute or something wanted to have their standard and they did get it, second, due to secrecy and vertical administrative structure there were little communication between them.
Or a system of logistics, that turned into shit the moment that superpower decided to leave the chat, leaving populations of whole countries foraging for wood to not freeze at winter.
Capitalism works differently, because it (any human actually, you included) tries to get more with less. Non-market instruments are supposed to constrain it to doing that only honestly.
That’s a main feature dude!
No, everyone doesn’t hate capitalism.
but everyone hates the big companies and the rich people
its just that the right has been told that the left are the rich people (and then the left say that the neoliberals are the rich people, etc)
Yeah alot of them love capitalism so hard, while simultaneously bemoaning every single part of capitalism, while being too stupid to be convinced the two are connected.
what no class consciousness does to a mf
It can definitely be argued that capitalists themselves fucking hate capitalism.
That was a brilliant read.
I appreciated the nuance, and it even added a lot of perspective to the notion that Adam Smith’s “capitalism” concept was not the evil and inhuman machine we experience today.
I’ve noticed this move to “technofeudalism” everywhere but didn’t have a name for it. It’s exhausting seeing how many services, products, businesses, whatever, all simply want to coast on monthly payments and lock-ins for what amounts to merely keeping the lights on.
The PetsMart thing was insidious. This surely solidifies the definition of “human resources”: Seeking to control people as “assets” that generate profits like (proprietary) batteries.
It seems it should be a priority goal to undermine the corporate and wealthy’s dominion over “assets.” They’d be terrified of this, as they might actually have to do something besides acquire everyone else’s hard work for a change!
Strong “I can fix him” energy out there.
Things I hate were present where I live through half of USSR and then till now, and replaced things even scarier present since the revolution.
Tell me it’s capitalism, mofo, I beg you.
USSR had a state capitalist economy
I fully agree. So when you are against capitalism, what is your alternative that doesn’t devolve into state capitalism?
That’s something you can write a book about.
In my opinion it has to come from a bottom up movement, that puts emphasis on the sort of types of organization a socialist movement ultimately aims for.
The Leninists tried to disconnect the means and the ends of the movement, using the tools of the bourgeoisie to try and build a new system, which failed.
Marxist-Leninists did not “disconnect means and ends.” The goal of Marxism is liberation of the proletariat, the means of which being working towards Communism, a fully publicly owned, centrally planned world republic free of classes, the state, and money. Marxism-Leninism adds analysis of Imperialism, Capitalism as it spreads internationally (which was not developed yet in Marx’s time), as well as strategic advancements like Democratic Centralism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he wanted full centralization and public ownership, not a horizontal network of Communes. Engels even argued against such a system in Anti-Dühring.
The USSR moved out of State Capitalism with the end of the NEP. It is technically correct that they had a State Capitalist economy, but they moved on to a traditional Socialist economy relatively early on.
What things are you talking about, “mofo”?
I think the flaw is human nature. All governments and organizations are corrupt. All implementations are always twisted to suit the greed of individuals.
It’s entirely possible to create policy and enforcement mechanisms that would mitigate or eliminate excessive greed but nobody with anything votes for it because they’ll lose out on their own personal greed by their measure. They want that chance to fleece the masses even if they aren’t in the club that’s already doing it.
Blame humans.
All implementations are always twisted to suit the greed of individuals.
So it would be best to live under a system that doesn’t encourage and reward such behavior, no?
I’d love one, I don’t think humans are capable.
In very small organization sizes it’s possible but as people come and go eventually someone will get control to make decisions that put their interests or their connections interests ahead of the masses.
I think it is possible
In what way does this graph say humans are not corrupt and taking advantage?
Even under communism the 1% had 4% of assets, that’s not 1% of assets like true communism should be. That in and of itself proves corruption to me. The fact that the USSR fell and a handful of 1%ers got the majority of industries for pennies on the dollar is egregious corruption. None of this is a criticism of communism. This is criticizing the actions of individuals who decided to be corrupt.
It’s just human nature. Some people call it “enlightened self interest” others call it nepotism, some call it survival of the fittest. Some call it gaming the system. In all cases it’s the same problem. Sometimes things can go well for a while but on a scale of even just a hundred years when an organization has more than a couple hundred people it simply goes sideways.
Even under communism the 1% had 4% of assets, that’s not 1% of assets like true communism should be.
In the US, the top 1% has over 30%. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because a socialist state hadn’t yet reached some Platonic ideal doesn’t mean it should be thrown out with the bathwater. You can’t go from a decimated, war-ravaged, illiterate, feudal agrarian backwater to some socialist utopia overnight.
I think the flaw is human nature. All governments and organizations are corrupt. All implementations are always twisted to suit the greed of individuals.
Please take your nickname seriously for a moment and do some critical thinking about what you just said.
“Human nature” being greedy and corrupt is a completely horrible and wrong argument that only serves to keep us desillusioned about change. Saying that human nature is greedy and corrupt while currently living in a capitalism system is the same as studying human nature inside a coal mine and coming to the conclusion that it must be human nature to cough your lungs out. Our environment have a deep influence on us and you can’t just ignore that.
If you really want to argue about human nature, the simple fact that we are social creatures that often help each other out of empathy and compassion already negates your argument.
It’s entirely possible to create policy and enforcement mechanisms that would mitigate or eliminate excessive greed but nobody with anything votes for it because they’ll lose out on their own personal greed by their measure.
Voting will not change the system, you cannot change it from within. The capitalist class might give us a few breadcrumbs here and there to keep us from revolting, but they will always do everything to keep the system as it is because it benefits them as a class.
This is not an individual issue. As much as some individuals are horrible pieces of shit, these interests are collective and shows the class struggle in society.
No
You’re wrong.
No, take your fascist misanthropy elsewhere.
Based on your comment history and how negative you are about absolutely everything… have you looked in the mirror lately?
Also keep in mind that I have simply made a hypothesis that humans are incapable of not being corrupt in organizations at scale. How in the fuck is that any one political leaning? The system itself is irrelevant. Even in communes where everyone “shares equally” there’s usually someone in leadership getting special exemptions and special treatment.
No, take your fascist misanthropy elsewhere
I would argue this is more an issue of when citizens get complacent and stop holding those who govern them accountable. This is when any form of government will eventually start turning to the corruption. Those in power can change the rules while citizens are going about their lives. It works even better if the citizens are too busy and stressed out to worry about “silly things like politics”.
Getting everyone to be involved and knowledgeable about absolutely everything and to fight to make things right is beyond the capabilities of current humans. The more I know the more I understand I don’t know a lot about so many things beyond what i’ve experienced. Ignorance drives so many reactions (including the personal attacks from my comments here.)
I have met many individuals in this world who get very, very angry that someone else is doing x, y, or z - even if it has zero impact on them. Some of the reactions to my comments here about a very logical challenge that could have solutions with technology are attacked with illogical non-arguments and are a perfect example of how impossible it is to get humans to think critically about things when they have their own biases.
Not everyone. Capitalists love capitalism. It’s the people who aren’t capitalists but think they are because they love capitalism.
Sort of like how people think they are Christian’s because they go to church believe in Jesus, but don’t actually follow the teachings.
People think they are all sorts of things they are not and make themselves and or other miserable because of their fantasies.
We haven’t had capitalism in any sense of the word for about 60 years at this point. What we have seen is government interventionism in a protection of certain businesses that align with the interests of the sitting politicians - in other words, a form of Oligarchy.
What has transpired is an increasing degree of government deficits to fund entitlements, that drive inflation, which create more dependency on the entitlements and a call to do things like raise minimum wages.
The actual solution is: Trim federal spending, go into deflation, and drive the buying power of the currency up. This would allow people to pay down debts while maintaining standard of living, and allow for a reduction of dependency on hand outs - which would allow for a further reduction in government spending. The problem here is that the first step ABSOLUTELY SUCKS for a LOT of people - but it needs to be done.
From here: The big hedge funds, and such need to be ripped apart systemically.
You’re just describing how Capitalism has reached its later stages, its death throes. You can’t turn the clock back, we have to turn it forwards to Socialism.
This is so fractally wrong that it would take two hours to untangle this hodge-podge of confusion. So I’ll just say, the only way out of neoliberalism’s problems is to do neoliberalism even harder. 😂
-We haven’t had capitalism.
Continues on with Capitalistic solutions.
I think capitalism is fine in principle, but like anything else that needs limits and rules that people are willing to enforce.
Here’s a nice quote from The Communist Manifesto:
What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen…
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people…
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.
Ah shit, never mind. This was from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations
That’s partially because like many other words and names (just consider Isis, an important goddess of ancient egypt), “socialism” to most people means the type of absolute control that communist countries usually feature. But of course, as a word/concept, socialism is just the application of socialist policies, not even remotely alluding to some absolute end goal or so. And naturally as a part of society except a tiny minority at the top, most people would benefit from more socialist policies.
Socialism isn’t really as simple as “socialist policies.” Such a character classification into binaries like “Capitalist policies” and “Socialist policies” doesn’t make much sense, Capitalism and Socialism describe much larger systems and what drives an economy. Social programs are good, yes, and Socialism is a good thing too, but they aren’t the same.
Regarding OP’s image…
- They make blanket statements
- They tell you what your problem is and they think they are more qualified than you, to know what your problem is
- They think they have the perfect solution for you, if only you weren’t in the way
Naturally the government they favor would have the same perspective, no?
