- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
I thought memes were supposed to be funny… this just looks like a propaganda poster
Thank god I’m not the only one.
Removed by mod
Socialism allows for both public and private ownership, individual freedoms, and democratic decision-making, while still aiming for social equality. Communism, in contrast, tends to involve total state control and often limits personal freedoms.
Tell me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists without telling me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists.
Jesus what a mess of a sentence. You really tried to hamfist that one in there.
Removed by mod
The bourgies owning the means of production means a handful of evil vampires have all the power
Makes it always shit
Removed by mod
Well I will agree that your average 16 year-old is more well read then the person I replied to.
That doesn’t even make sense…
😘 be well
be better
You should go back to Reddit, you’d be happier there
Both Capitalism and Socialism have room for public and private ownership, the difference is which sector controls the state, large firms, and key industries. The Nordic Countries are dominated by Private Capital, ie it is Capitalist, while the PRC is dominated by Public Ownership, ie it is Socialist.
Communism limits the personal freedoms of the bourgeoisie. All Communism is, is a more developed and global form of Socialism, where the small firms that once were private have all grown into the public sector or collapsed.
Limits personal freedoms only for the owning class. If you’re not a landlord or ceo you have nothing to fear.
All this things sound great, we just need humanity to not be shitty to each other.
Workers of the world unite!
Edit: not that I’m into that sort of thing… I’ve taken history classes, I’ve read about, I’ve watched documentaries, I understand that communism is not to be desired or
Communism is to be desired, though it’s understandable that you’d be opposed if your major exposure is through western education and western documentaries.
Communism is shit based on facts… not opinion.
What “facts?”
Look you dirty Marxist, I’ve looked at your bio. Pushing for the extremes you push is crazy. Why don’t you dial it back from 11. Why push past socialism. That’s the way to go if anything.
Communism is just a later stage of Socialism, ie Socialism of a more developed character, similar to how the Capitalism of today is a more developed version of what it was in the 1800s. All Communists are advocates of Socialism, because Socialism is a necessary prerequisite. There’s nothing “crazy” about that at all.
Further, “dirty Marxist?” Is this the 1950s? Yes, I am a Marxist, there are a lot of us on Lemmy, including the developers. I don’t hide being a Marxist-Leninist, I put it on my bio because I want to make it available information for those who want to know.
If you don’t mind, what country are you from? An d how old are you?
I’m going to look into the developers of lemmy… if that’s true, I won’t be staying on lemmy.
I’m a working adult, not doxxing my exact age. I live in the US Empire. Neither of those detract from the hard data and historical texts I read regularly as a part of my continued self-study.
As for the devs, yes, they are Marxists. Here is a list of essays and compiled resources from the lead developer of Lemmy. You’ll find FOSS projects in general have many Marxists and Anarchists, and few liberals.
Haha
It is terrible to see so many comments here celebrating communism. Communists were ruining our country (Czechia) for over 40 years and led it to economical collapse. When we tried to reform the regime in 1968, the Russians invaded to stop it. Communism doesn’t really work, and it has already been proven.
Also, I have to say the country worked in a bizzare way. The government robbed everyone of their property, so in return, people were stealing from public supplies.
So please try to study something first about communism in Eastern Europe before you start to celebrare this regime.
So please try to study something first about communism in Eastern Europe before you start to celebrare this regime.
If anyone has a sincere interests in studying this in detail its other communists, perhaps you should do more study on modern conceptions of communism (China) and the informative post made by Cowbee.
While the Soviet Economy did begin to stagnate towards the end of the Soviet Union’s lifespan, it did not collapse due to economic failure. The economic collapse happened right after the USSR was dissolved, leading to spikes in poverty, food insecurity, a loss in healthcare, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths. The reasons the USSR collapsed were more nuanced than simply saying the Soviet Model “didn’t work,” because fundamentally it did, and it worked quite well for most of its existence. Stephen Gowens’ essay Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? goes into detail on what legitimately worked quite well, and where it started to falter and eventually was dissolved from the top-down.
The reasons included the following problems:
-
Liberal reforms that gave the Bourgeoisie power over key industries (such reforms were actually a major desire of the 1968 Dubcek platform, in even greater quantity, hence why it was shut down by neighboring Warsaw Pact countries)
-
A firm dedication to planning by hand even as the economy grew more complex and computers too slow to be adapted to the planning mechanisms
-
A huge portion of resources were spent on maintaining millitary parity with the US in order to dissuade US invasion
-
80% of the combat done in World War II was on the Eastern Front, and 20 million Soviets lost their lives, with no real economic support from the West in rebuilding despite taking the largest cost of war
-
An enclosed, heavily sanctioned economy relied on internal resource gathering, closed off from the world market
Countries like the PRC have taken to heart what happened in the USSR. As an example, the PRC shifted to a more classically Marxist economy, focusing on public ownership of only the large firms and key industries, and relying on markets to develop out of private ownership. This keeps them in touch with the global economy without giving the bourgeoisie control of key industries, and thus the bourgeoisie has no power over the economy or the state.
Moreover, as a consequence of collapse, polling from Pew Researcg suggests 77% of Czechs believe they are worse off economically than under Socialism. This is generally true in various degrees across the other post-Soviet states, had the USSR not been dissolved, it would have likely continued to improve conditions at a faster rate than modern Capitalism, and the misery it has brought.
-
Because at then end ,power over the people is given to the state. When you give the state the means of production and that state falls under the sway of humans with power, you get corruption and death.
Once a place has enough people, anonymity happens. We stop knowing our neighbors and leaders. We don’t see the corruption they can now hide. Communism gives an easier way to leverage that corruption and power more easily
Socialism, more specifically forms of democratic socialism ( and with today’s tech it can be one vite one person), is far more scalable and stable
We need a new constitution with more power given to the people and LESS to the state
Communism gives no more anonymity or room for corruption than Capitalism or Socialism. Further, Communism is Socialism developed to a higher stage. Socialism itself is an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect, ie has control over large firms, key industries, and the state. All Socialism is democratic, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, I don’t see why you say it’s more scaleable when Communism is a global and fully publicly owned version of Socialism, ie Socialism developed to its natural higher stages. Even further, the government is made up of the people, assuming proper measures are in place, you can’t give more power to private interests and keep it democratic.
I’m sorry history has proven you wrong. You’re glossing over so many issues in this statement, I really don’t know where to begin
I sincerely hope you have a great day. I’m not disengaging because of anything you said, I just don’t have the energy. Please. Have a great day
History has proven me correct, from the data I’ve looked over and the books I’ve read. If you specify, then we can go over what I think is relevant to the conversation, rather than me just regurgitating facts and book recommendations. I am oversimplifying, but it was a response to an oversimplification to begin with, specificity helps direct conversations.
Hope you gave a good one too, but for future reference, disengaging right after saying “you’re entirely wrong” isn’t really disengaging, I still have to respond to what I think is a directed attack. You don’t have to respond if you don’t want to, but disengaging while doing so is ceding the last word, so to speak.
Stop. I don’t have patience for bloviation and self aggrandizing I sincerely wished you a good day. I do not care at all what you think of my disengagement. That farewell was your hint that I don’t have patience for this fantasy that has been tried , failed and regurgitated.
Please honor my wishes and simply go Have a good day. If you have to get the last word, so be it. I won’t be responding
Insulting me then telling me to have a good day is childish behavior. If you don’t want to have a conversation, don’t try to exit it by trying to suggest whatever I have to say is devoid of value.
Communist parties have successfully built Socialism throughout the world, and this continues to this day. The PRC is now the largest economy on the planet when adjusting for Purchasing Power Parity, and has seen the greatest alleviation of poverty in human history. The USSR may have dissolved, but during its existence it brought a doubling of life expectancy, tripling of literacy rates to 99.9%, dramatically lowered wealth inequality while rapidly growing the economy, provided free healthcare, education, and childcare, and dramatically improved women’s rights.
No Socialist state has been a mythical wonderland, all have faced great struggles both internal and external, but we know it works because we can track metrics and gauge trajectories. Facts and history do not align with your assertions.
41·14 days agoAs cowbee said, you can’t disengage and then continue to engage. Either disengage and do not include your arguments against what the other has said, or continue to engage.
I call bullshit on this one
Its actually pretty smart if you think about it. Some flowers bloom at the end of their lifecycle. Nazism is at the end of capitalism’s lifecycle. But if you only hack off the visible parts of the flower, it will come back next year. So the flower is capitalism and the soviet union only managed to hack off the upper part, nazi germany, while the lower part, the capitalist empire was still there. Now 80 years later, the flower blooms again, this time as usa, and the picture suggests we rip it out at the root by destroying the whole system, instead of just hacking it off by, like, occupying washington or something.
Yeah communism isn’t any better so the both can fuck off
Communism is absolutely better 👍
yeah all of the mates I have from Latvia, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary… they really lived through it and tell me is shit so I’m just going to go ahead and believe those who have lived under it rather than a random dude on the internet who’s just a lumpen
The vast majority of post-Soviet citizens believe they are worse off now than under Socialism, which makes sense because the reintroduction of Capitalism resulted in skyrocketing rates of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, homelessness, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths around the world.
Don’t know why you’re calling me a lumpen, tbh.
Removed by mod
Ah, the good 'ol “facts and data don’t matter, actually, because I said so” special. The fact that Socialism was better than Capitalism is today isn’t just in some studies, but repeated over and over again. It’s thoroughly well-documented.
Further, you have no real proof of anything. Why on Earth would the sharp increase in poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, crime, wealth inequality, homelessness, and starvation occur because of the previously stable system? The dissolution of the USSR was driven instead by numerous complex factors:
-
Liberal reforms that gave the Bourgeoisie power over key industries
-
A firm dedication to planning by hand even as the economy grew more complex and computers too slow to be adapted to the planning mechanisms
-
A huge portion of resources were spent on maintaining millitary parity with the US in order to dissuade US invasion
-
80% of the combat done in World War II was on the Eastern Front, and 20 million Soviets lost their lives, with no real economic support from the West in rebuilding despite taking the largest cost of war
-
An enclosed, heavily sanctioned economy relied on internal resource gathering, closed off from the world market
Countries like the PRC have taken to heart what happened in the USSR. As an example, the PRC shifted to a more classically Marxist economy, focusing on public ownership of only the large firms and key industries, and relying on markets to develop out of private ownership. This keeps them in touch with the global economy without giving the bourgeoisie control of key industries, and thus the bourgeoisie has no power over the economy or the state.
Further yet, your casual queerphobia, assertion that I am both somehow lumpen and bourgeois, the incorrect claim that I’m a college student, and more baseless insults really just adds to the fact that you have no counter to the hard data, so you resort to personal attacks.
The fact is, under Socialism, necessities were taken care of, and luxuries were shorter in supply. Luxuries increased for those who could afford them after Capitalism came, while many of those who couldn’t enjoyed their new “freedom” starving to death. You insult them.
Unsurprisingly, you defend the fascist Bukele here. Entirely unsurprising, the anticommunism from you suddenly clicks when we see what makes you cheer.
-
Sad to say, but humans are the root of evil. Atrocities have been done in the name of all sorts of things, but it’s always humans carrying it out.
Removed by mod
It’s not really about defending the bad stuff. It’s about trying to get some more nuance on perhaps the most propagandized topic of the 20th century.
There are all sorts of interesting discussions to have about the various failings of these countries amongst other leftists who have the relevant context as a starting point for a reasonable discussion.
But when talking to libs/conservatives, they’re coming into the conversation with an already extremely warped, un-nuanced perspective. “These are all evil dictatorships that were also super incompetent and that shows why communism is bad.”
Some of the stuff they base this on is either exaggerated or just straight up wrong. Some of it is completely valid criticism, but without the context to understand the issue or provide a useful critique.
How do you have any meaningful conversation about these countries without acknowledging things like:
- All of these countries were previously agrarian, un-democratic societies.
- Most of them were formerly exploited colonies who had to fight fairly brutal wars for their independence.
- Even after leaving, the imperialists kept messing with them through economic and diplomatic isolation and espionage including supporting right wing coups.
We don’t have the counterfactual where we see what these countries would have turned out like without these challenges, but it’s an incomplete analysis to not at least consider the ways which they impacted both their economic success and their political developments. Maybe you could argue there were better ways to respond to all of this, but hindsight is 20-20.
No actual leftists want to have to argue “authoritarianism was good actually.” But it’s hard for the conversation not to appear that way when we’re arguing with people who’ve been conditioned to think they’re somehow as bad or worse than Nazis and ending the thought there.
Great comment! You hit the nail on the head, proper conversation requires a factual starting point, and just conceding to conservatives and other anticommunists off the bat just so they are less hostile to you just hands them free rhetorical wins on that very basis.
you need to know who you are talking to. you’re already assuming a position of hostility and conflict at base.
I did not call you a conservative, if that’s what you’re implying. My point aligns with theirs, in that demonization of AES is usually a result of accepting bourgeois narratives uncritically. To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves), we need to dispell the thick layers of Red Scare fearmongering first.
Dispelling myths and finding the hard truth is where we can look at what went right and what went wrong, not just agreeing that Socialism is when everyone starves or other such nonsense. Why support an ideology that truly is as bad in practice as anticommunists say it is, after all?
no, i’m not implying that. it would also be fine if you did. depends on the day and topic.
“To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves)”
lol XD it’s saying shit like this that tells me you’re not connected to reality.
even so, i hear what you’re saying. my feedback, as an outsider, is you’re overcompensating. imo, it would go a long way to start with presenting a fair view of a couple pros and cons, acknowledging the concern of your interlocutor. what i see instead, almost universally, is kneejerk defense of AES and leaders, and just telling non-Leftists that they’re wrong, stupid, propagandized.
You’ll find me critical of AES all the time, but I won’t cede ground for what I know to be false just for optics. I take a rigorous approach to rhetoric, I cede no ground that isn’t rooted in fact, and I do my best to encourage accurate critique. When you see me defending AES and seemingly not critiquing them as much, it’s usually in the context of someone repeating the same bog-standard state department anticommunist mythos that have existed for decades, and thus should be treated as such.
Go ahead and ask me for critiques of AES, and I can do so, but I won’t lie about them either.
that’s good. don’t lie, have standards.
i wouldn’t say it’s for “optics,” but you have to know your interlocutor. if the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, acknowledging failures openly is more honest and real than dancing about to make excuses for them. owning failings is human, and would be a distinct departure from capitalism, that’s for sure.
but i get you, capitalism as a system is unironically constantly using force to extinguish you. i get it. it’s not an enviable position.
i hear what you’re saying.
what i’m saying is, for myself, and at least a few “Left-curious” neo/libs/progs, we don’t want to trade one shit tyranny for another. and it’s obvious, documented history of some pretty glaring failures in AES. if you like, think of ppl like us as trauma victims. it’s probably true anyway.
it can go a long way to offer the olive branch and reassurance that, yes, you don’t want to just “red-wash” that all away, or that you aren’t just enamoured with Red aesthetic and lip-service while being YET ANOTHER group of mastubatory elitists who will trample the out-group-du-jour given the opportunity.
The problem typically arises from the necessity for confrontation of anticommunist myths about AES. Anyone growing up in the West is bombarded with Anticommunism, and simply being aware that that process exists doesn’t actually make you immune to it. Confronting the myths surrounding Communism is an important first step. “Red-washing” is a much, much smaller problem than you likely realize.
cool bro. you do you. you’re just not the guy i’m looking for, i guess. maybe the next one.
What would the person you’re looking for, so to speak, do that I’m not?
be an an anti-communist.
Seems like it, sadly.
they would be able to engage me, the human in front of them, without all the baggage of the movement establishing preconceptions.
In an ideal world, the Red Scare would not have existed, and we could discuss the genuine merits and struggles faced internally and externally in AES without that clouding discussion. Its why I prefer talking with comrades about the shortcomings in AES, as I know they aren’t doing it to undermine the achievements but to legitimately identify problems to solve.
I think, despite all of the struggles, that I do an okay job with engaging people open to listening.
communism isn’t bad, it just doesn’t scale up. after awhile someone wants everyone else’s stuff. When enough people gather together then anonymity becomes a thing. then those people start taking everyone else’s stuff and we end up with Russia.
Communism is a fully publicly owned and planned global economy, I’m not sure what you’re trying to critique but it isn’t Communism.
‘It doesnt scale up’
China has the largest high speed rail network on the planet?
I’m not dancing around anything, if you want to discuss, then please, do so.
The DPRK is far from a paradise, but at the same time, much of its issues are externally driven.
Xi is not president for life. Term limits are removed, but he can also be removed. He’s overwhelmingly popular among the party and people.
For your last point, I recommend you read Marketing Socialism. I defend what is misrepresented or demonized unjustly, because these are problems every Socialist project recieves, to varying degrees.
Authoritarianism and imperialism, concentration of power are the root cause, money is just a symbol of power, under stalinist russia this nefarious corrupting power had another symbol, shape but this society was just as helpless toward this tendency of power, you can see the end point of passive demobilisation and assassination of the few how dare oppose it today in Russia.
I think there needs to be constant pressure of deterritoroalisation, of putting decision and responsibility in the hands of the people, always at the smallest scale that it can be realistically pushed down.
And that’s not the individual if that’s not an individual matter. The level at which decisionnal responsibility is dependant on the context of tgat decision rather than agglomerated bodies of decision when power naturallies tries to concentrate.
It should always be easy for lower echelons of power and locality to repatriate a delegated aspect of their life.
(Then I stuffed this line of thinking into chatgpt to take it further)
https://chatgpt.com/share/6803f4ba-eebc-8005-919f-3b896dce2e0f
I don’t think you’ve actually backed up your thesis, just asserted it. There’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” there’s evidence that systems like Capitalism reward corruption.
Interesting, you wish to make the widely repeated, ancient wisdom that power corrupt into a revolutionary statement against the null hypothesis ?
Very well, would you state your null hypothesis ?
Perhaps something more charitable than the following
“Power is not a problem actually, it’s a matter of having the right group of elites with good and pure hearts and everything will be honky dory forever”
@Cowbee
Please choose your null hypothesis or provide your own
Improved suggestions
🔹 1. Structuralist Null Hypothesis
“Power, in itself, is not inherently corrupting. It is the structure and incentives of a given system (such as capitalism) that determine whether power is exercised corruptly.”
This frames corruption as a product of external conditions, not the mere possession of power.
🔹 2. Neutral Power Hypothesis
“Power is a neutral tool—it amplifies pre-existing tendencies in individuals or institutions, whether for good or ill.”
This positions power as neither good nor bad, just a multiplier.
🔹 3. Contextual Corruption Hypothesis
“Corruption occurs not because power corrupts, but because oversight, accountability, and community control are absent.”
Here, the claim is that power can exist without corruption if institutions around it are healthy.
🔹 4. Power-as-Delegation Hypothesis
“Power is not inherently corrupting when it is transparently delegated, revocable, and tied to responsibilities rather than privileges.”
This implies a democratic or anarchist framework where corruption is a result of opacity and lack of accountability.
🔹 5. Evolutionary Incentives Hypothesis
“Corruption is not caused by power, but by systems that reward short-term gain over long-term cooperation.”
This introduces a behavioral economics or game theory angle, where corruption is a rational response to poorly designed rules.
Concepts being old do not make them real. Few worship the gods of ancient Greece these days. Trying to appeal to the notion of “power,” or some other concept of people occupying administrative, managerial, supervisory, etc roles automatically turning “corrupt,” ie bad, evil, etc on the notion of common sense gets us no closer to the truth.
What matters, and what I find to be far more observable, is societal organization around the basis of class. Your schoolteacher has power, but likely isn’t some evil person. Likewise, managers in factories play vital roles, as do government administrators.
Where the idea of power corrupting comes from, in my view, is a misanalysis of class society and its organizational superstructure. We can move beyond class while retaining administration, organization at a central level, etc. It isn’t about finding “pure” humans, but about altering the base so the superstructure can be altered in turn.
Yes,
But it happens continuously, it is being revealed continuously.
Wherever your find unchecked concentrations of power, at every scale, from schoolyard bully to the presidency.
We cannot afford institution once again to abdicate our lives to another greedy black hole of power to digest us for another half-century
ENOUGH already
Is your problem with power corrupting, or unchecked power? What counts as a significant check?
What’s interesting here is that we’ve got at least three different axes being discussed:
Power and Corruption – Whether corruption is an emergent property of power itself (a kind of inevitability), or whether it’s a structural consequence of specific systems like capitalism. Commenter C raises a fair challenge here: maybe it’s not that power always corrupts, but that certain systems disproportionately incentivize and reward corruption. Commenter B replies with a sort of philosophical challenge: “Well, if not that power corrupts, then what’s your null hypothesis?” That’s a good tension.
Systemic Design vs. Human Nature – If authoritarianism and imperialism are recurring outcomes across radically different ideological systems (capitalist, communist, etc.), that suggests there’s something deeper than just the ideology itself at play. Maybe it’s the concentration of decision-making power over large scales, which B is arguing against by advocating for radical subsidiarity—push decisions down to the smallest functional unit, always. But that still requires a theory of how larger-scale coordination happens, especially with externalities in play.
Historical Context and Propaganda – A’s original comment brings in the crucial reminder that many critiques of leftist regimes are made through lenses already deeply distorted by decades of Cold War propaganda and ideological framing. That doesn’t make all critiques invalid, but it does mean any honest analysis needs to start with historical humility. These regimes didn’t arise in a vacuum—they were born into extreme conditions, from colonial trauma to war to internal underdevelopment.
But maybe the most compelling common thread here is that no system seems immune to the gravity of concentrated power. Whether it’s wealth in capitalism, political power in Stalinist regimes, or technocratic control in liberal democracies, the same dynamics often emerge.
So maybe the real question is: What kinds of social, political, and economic designs actively resist centralization? And is there a way to build those that also remain resilient and cohesive, rather than fragile and fragmented?
Because yes—pulling out the dollar-rooted swastika-flower is powerful imagery. But the hard part is asking: What do we plant in its place?
https://chatgpt.com/share/6806d381-678c-8005-854f-77741e1ec651
I think the concept of positive/negative externalities could serve as a north star in deciding the all important question of the appropriate scalevat which a discussion is taken.
While I think we shoild try to empower and give autonomy to the local they always are within a larger community of externalities. The local should also no to inform and defer to a higher scale when their decision is “larger then them”.
The local is not thought as isolated or unaccountable, but it is given preference as a scale. We want the local to choose how to live in harmony with the whole and their neighbours.
All this is well but it would be really easy to fall back into the grooves of individualist isolationnist and collectivist absolutist.
I don’t think the ideal exist at the middle of these extremes but rather toward tge lower scale without bottoming out
“Far from paradise” seems pretty generous for what i perceive as a dystopian nightmare state. they are cut off from outside information. there is retribution on families if ppl try to leave. also, you can’t leave. this is insanity. outside forces don’t make them behave that way.
Xi: whether that popularity is real or not is a question, though, when he can push for the suppression of dissent or critique in the social sphere. one CAN’T challenge him. that doesn’t seem legitimately representative.
i’m looking over your reading list. we can add that to the list. but there’s a reason i block hexbear and lemmygrad but not .ml. tankies fucking suck and i Socialism will never be taken seriously as long as it’s important to ppl to defend fucking Stalin.
See, the problem is that you’re generally wrong, factually, which is why you have such knee-jerk reactions to people saying that maybe AES states aren’t hellholes, actually. As an example, it’s mostly western sanctions that limit freedom of movement from DPRK residents, and the myths about collective family punishment are largely unsubstantiated. Repeating Red Scare myths uncritically is a huge problem.
People can challenge Xi, what they cannot do is use large private media apparatus to push anti-government propaganda.
Regarding your last point, you’re generally wrong. Socialism is increasing in popularity globally, including Marxism-Leninism. Funny enough, Nia Frome, the author of “Marketing Socialism,” has another quick article called “Tankies” that would be perfect for you to read, IMO.
mate, i know ppl who literally risked their lives to flee from the USSR. your talking points are just academic. the reality is otherwise. trying to paint legitimate observation of tyranny in AES as some kind of capitalist conspiracy only makes you look more insane offputting.
i’m literally TRYING to reach you, and all Leftists can do is bend over backward to defend tyrants.
The vast majority of post-Soviet citizens believe they are worse off now than under Socialism, which makes sense because the reintroduction of Capitalism resulted in skyrocketing rates of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, homelessness, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths around the world.
AES states are not perfect, I don’t paint all critique as Capitalist conspiracy, only what I know is in fact a myth based on the sources I have provided. You uncritically accept the bourgeois narrative despite mountains of evidence to a more nuanced position than “every Communist leader ate spoonfuls of babies for breakfast” or other nonsense.
I’m hoping I reach you too.
“You uncritically accept the bourgeois narrative”
you don’t know anything about me to make such claims.
citizenry can feel nostalgia for lots of reasons, and i’m not defending capitalism here. but that doesn’t erase the real lived trauma of the ppl in my life who have fled both the USSR and Venezuela.
I know that based on the hard data I’ve seen, the people I have spoken to, the history and critique I have read, that a good amount of what you have said is disconnected from reality, and closer to what the US State Department claims is the truth. I understand that you may have anecdotal experiences shaping your opinions, but I also know that it isn’t simple nostalgia like the Wikipedia entry suggests, but coincides with the massive increase in poverty and the difficulty of life in a Capitalist world after the dissolution of Socialism.
i read your Marketing Socialism post. It just seems beside the point and is looking for a way to justify itself when all you have to do is admit that tyranny and gulags bad. It’s not a big ask. The fact that it is TAKEN to be a big ask, is a massive, if you will, red flag. XD
The problem arises when people distort quantity or quality of struggles in AES states that would logically exist in any Socialist state. Ie, all Socialist states will have prisons, and all Capitalist countries are going to do their best to portray them in as negative a light as possible, no matter what they look like in reality.
i get, but it’s not a NECESSARY component of communism. the DPRK is shit for a lot of reasons, mostly due to the consolidation of power in the hands single insane family. trying to rehabilitate their image or reclaim them is fucking insane. XD and just not helpful to the cause, imo. i certainly makes me care less about everything you’re trying to say, and i’m really giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
What, specifically, is not a necessary component of Communism? The version of AES that exists in your mind, full of anticommunist prejudice and red scare mythos clouding your judgement, or the version that exists in real life, with far more nuanced issues applicable to all of Socialism, past, present, and future alike?
Further, the Kim family does not have all of the power in the DPRK. A critical examination of the structure and history of the DPRK proves that isn’t true. That’s like saying the Bush and Kennedy familys have all of the power in the US.
I’d say 1 person owning most of the money made at the company is the problem
To solve it everyone just needs to form or join a private unionized cooperative that doesn’t go on stock market for sustainable growth and so everyone at the company is making a lot of money too
Then collectively you all grow the pot that is available for all of you. Better to all be making 1,000,000 each and then grow it together to become 10,000,000-100,000,000+ for each of you
That is the root issue. Not enough of that
This doesn’t solve the systemic pressures within Capitalism, nor does it describe how to get from A to B. Your idea still depends on your one firm outcompeting other firms, which is difficult in saturated markets.
I recommend you look into Marxist theory, I have some recommendations I can make.
True but at least it’s a good step to take. More stuff will be useful as well
I’d say it would be a good step to take if I thought it was legitimately possible in the current system. If it succeded, it would be good, but such a strategy has never worked before and there’s no evidence that it will.
Removed by mod
In what way?
Removed by mod
Nope!
Capitalism is a system and just that, it has no moral, therefore cannot be evil. The red hand without the ussr symbol would make this image more unified.
Removed by mod
That’s the plan! Though I want to aid in turning my own country Communist, as that would benefit the most people globally, or at least take down the US Empire.
Ableism aint cool either.
Read my comment on this post. Think Capitalism mixed with Socialism would be good alternative for everyone
I responded to it, but I want to respond to this as well. There’s really no such thing as “mixing” Capitalism with Socialism. Private and Public property can be mixed, but what determines Capitalism or Socialism is if the former is the principle aspect of the economy, or the latter. By principle, I mean which controls the state, large firms, and key industries.
That’s what most European countries (social democracies) are doing. Safety net so you don’t randomly become homeless (you keep getting a part of your salary for a while, and even without any money there are enough places to sleep for all homeless people, at least in Austria), free healthcare, …
There’s no socialism in social democrats, only capitalists doing concessions so the people don’t demand socialism
I’m going to university for 27€ per semester while getting free healthcare and subsidised housing and lunch. If I were to become homeless I could go to a shelter for sleeping and food. Additionally you get a certain percentage of your salary (starting at ~80%, becomes less as the months pass, but it’s plenty of time to find a new job) after getting fired. Schools are free and there are basically no private schools because there’s simply no need, public education is good. After childbirth you also get money until you can work again, for up to 3 years. There are regulations against monopolies and cartels. Etc etc.
imo this is the ideal system
The whole problem is that your system is built on the backs of super-exploiting the Global South. You’ve exported the bulk of the hard labor that allows you to live comfortable lives, and maintain it through the domination of private financial Capital.
"My men enslave people in africa to get rubber and murder them if they dont gather enough rubber and then we ship it here and then we have lots of rubber in belgium and the suffering happens somewhere else where I’ll never be
imo this is the ideal system"
- king of belgium, probably
What about not enslaving people?
And of course people in weaker economies get paid less, they also need less since everything is cheaper.
Removed by mod
Why?
