I've played civilization and I'm pretty sure there's other forms of government besides Communism and Monarchy that have low corruption, albeit lacking the ability to force the citizens into war on the leader's whim.
I never rejected anything, maybe try reading again and this time not just seeing what you want. And what was successful before doesn't mean it will be successful today. People just don't understand context or nuance. That's you dog.
Both extremes on display those examples, seems like they both end up in the same place in the end. Maybe it would be reasonable to use any system that is a mix of things, instead of focusing on pure capitalism or communism.
There's really no such thing as a pure system, any mix is still going to have either the public sector as principle or private, ie which controls the state, large firms, and key industries. There's no way to keep them "balanced," one will have power over the other, and its best for it to be the public sector.
You're not going to overthrow fascism, white supremacy or capitalism with random acts of adventurism. If you're not more organized than your enemy they will crush you.
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.
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.
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.
The desire to dominate and the willingness to act on it has existed in a fraction of the population since before humans were human. This is the root of all evil, capitalism is a specific manifestation of this impulse that has only existed for some 400 years. If your analysis starts and ends at "capitalism bad" you miss the vast majority of oppression that has existed or will exist.
I never mentioned genetics, strange that you would bring it up. Sex isn't even fully determined by genetics, something as complex and fragile as your personal values certainly can never be reduced to genetics.
Humans brains are stochastic and the values we eventually settle on depend both on our environment and on somewhat random walks through possible values. Some people will land on violent domination as a social strategy just through randomness. I believe an environment where everyone is cared for and has the ability to flourish will minimize the people who randomly end up on violent domination, but it is not possible through environmental changes to completely prevent this. Thus we cannot allow any positions of power, since those will attract and eventually be captured by people who have chosen domination as their preferred strategy.
The vast majority 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.
I guess you can say Ukraine is now worse off than in the USSR, Back then they weren't at war. The current situation isn't exactly the fault of capitalism (or Ukranie for that matter)
It's still well-documented and consistent. Socialism worked better than Capitalism. Plus, no press is ever "free," either private interests dominate it or public interests do.
Oh my fing god, I thought lemmy is only full of extreme liberals, but it's also full of wannabe comunists. Dude, have you ever asked yourself why USSR fell if everything was better than in the west? Why people risked their lives jumping over the Berlin wall? Why there was a whole black market of importing goods from the west into ussr? Why people didn't enjoy being sent to Siberia by the millions to die of hunger and of forced labor?
Lemmy is developed by Communists, the Communists were here first.
Secondly, 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.
People left the DDR after getting good educations for free, and higher wages in West Germany. They got the best of both worlds.
Millions were not sent to Siberia.
Cuba is a resilliant success story given its brutal embargo and sanctions, yes. It has astounding metrics in areas like life expectancy despite being intentionally impoverished by the US Empire.
Private interests do align, but rarely. Meaning you have more chance at opposing narratives forming. Public is monovoiced. Without an opposing voice its data becomes suspect.
Private is controlled by large corporations, and often gets state funding. All press has bias. Really, you don't have anything against the data other than you feel like it could be wrong.
That's not how AES states function, in any capacity. Further, people get paid in Socialist states, so I really don't know what strawman you're fighting here.
I'd say all AES states have broadly managed to achieve their goals. There have been troubles and struggles faced internally and externally, none have been dreamlike utopian wonderlands, but seemingly only non-Marxists are the ones that require that of Marxist movements.
I had to google that first. Had no idea what the sahel states had to do with socialism or communism.
Those AES states are mostly highly corrupt though. I wouldn't refer to north Korea as a livable place, plus the leaders are bathing in money while the populace dies from hunger. In Vietnam, if you know someone in politics, you can get whatever you want. I know this (nearly) first-hand. Laos, lol. And why the hell is China on that list? They're way too deep in the capitalist game to be on that list, no? People also don't mean shit to the ones in charge. Their people are executed by the thousands every year and they like to keep minorities in concentration camps. I'm sorry, those states are failed states in my opinion.
And as long as there is corruption, communism is not going to work. It's a nice theory, but it just takes one black sheep to fuck it up for everyone. I wish it weren't that way. It'd be nice to live in a world where people work for a purpose and everyone gets the same and no one has to suffer. Not going to happen.
Capitalism is plain evil though, I'll give you that.
AES as in "Actually Existing Socialism." The Sahel States are a quasi-Socialist national liberatory alliance. Burkina Faso was briefly Socialist under Sankara, but that time has passed.
The struggles faced in the DPRK are more due to sanctions and embargo than anything else, kinda like Cuba. Unlike Cuba, the US slaughtered 20% of their population and destroyed 80% of their buildings, yet they were economically ahead of South Korea until the 80s. The leadership is not "bathing in money" either.
Vietnam is rising rapidly. It isn't a Utopia, but is dramatically improving. Same with Laos.
The PRC is more classically Marxist than they were under the late Mao period and Gang of Four, I elaborated on that, here. Further, you're repeating state department propaganda about them, very silly.
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%?
Please explain how "one black sheep" would ruin Socialism/Communism. Given that you clearly aren't familiar with Marxist theory nor how AES states function, this is a telltale sign that your critiques are of strawmen.
Russia is a shit hole and has failed in every type of government they’ve ever had.
The soviets found themselves in a feudal shithole, and elevated it to a global super power.
China was also doing no better before “communism”.
Not sure who claims that China is communist, but it's definitely not the chines. They have a market socialist system (or more accurately SWCC), which still has class society and its own contradictions.
Educate yourself on basic facts before you speak on a topic and stfu until you do so shitlib
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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)
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.
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
Seems to me that about once a generation people allow the states they live in (and corporations they work for) to concentrate power to a point where it cannot be overlooked anymore? Kinda feel like you already have an answer you want tho (apologies if that's not the case).
Human nature. We need living people to tell us what happened the last time something happened society-wide, else we forget and repeat the same mistakes. It's the whole hard times make strong men thing. It's on about an 80 year cycle. The good news is that we're right at the point in the cycle where real changes are easy to make.
Read the book The Fourth Turning for many examples of the pattern repeating.
So's the 👌hand sign, I suppose I'm going to get dogpiled for that too?
Look outside, (big ask for this website), we're literally in hard times made by weak men.
I swear, this site is worse than 4chan about groupthink. Someone uses a slightly weak example or a cancelled idiom and all your minds just shut off and you start parroting your self selected propaganda.
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
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.
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.
It is better for the economy to be controlled by the public than by private interests, yes. You can study the democratizations of the economy made in AES states, and how the lives of the working class made the largest improvments.
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.
First, a societal organization outside the Western norm has no bearing on if it will be successful or not. The "middle" has no superior intrinsic characteristics.
Second, we know Socialism works, the PRC is now becoming the de facto world power as the US falls, all while providing dramatic improvements for its people and increasing levels of satisfaction.
Either way, Zenz is a known liar, works for the "Victims of Communism" propaganda outlet, and was commisioned by the BBC to fight China, which he believes is the "Anti-Christ." Moreover, he misrepresents numbers, such as 8% new IUD rates as 80% new IUD rates, to give an idea of forced steralization that doesn't exist. As for XPF? Check out https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en, then the glasses picture, https://www.xinjiangpolicefiles.org/wp-content/uploads/dt_imgs/20180515184435950_653121197306.jpg, pretty damning. BBC recieved these photos straight from Zenz, a known liar. We know there are camps, either way, but Zenz is a serial liar and you trust him, why?
Pretty sure I'll only become more Communist, haha. From the Chinese ex-pats I've spoken with, it's very pleasant to live in, and far easier for those without money than in the US.
Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.
The USSR did fairly well until liberalizing part of its economy, as well as struggling to recover from the immense cost it paid to win the Eastern Front and beat the Nazis while under the oppression of the Cold War.
The Marxist-Leninist tradition is still carried forward by many states, including the PRC, which is on its way to surpass the US as world superpower.
The PRC is more classically Marxist than under the Gang of Four, when they abandoned materialist analysis and attempted to implement Communism through fiat. Large firms and key industries of the PRC are firmly in the public sector, while small firms, cooperatives, and sole proprietorships make up most of the private sector.
Marx didn't think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn't about decentralization, but centralization.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can't just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn't to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
As for the USSR, its economy worked quite well for most of its existence. I recommend reading Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowens, who goes over what went right and what went wrong in the Soviet Economy, including why it was dissolved. Further, GDP growth was positive throughout the near entirety of its existence, collapsing when it liberalized:
I recommend doing more research on Marixsm and the economies of the PRC and former USSR.
PRC is Marxist, and the USSR's economy was flawed, but ultimately worked rather well given its conditions. Read the comment for the justifications for both claims.
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
The Soviet Union was not a dictatorship. They had a form of council-based democracy, read Soviet Democracy for more. It looked like this:
The DPRK is not a monarchy, either. It isn't even a one-party state, it has 3 that form a coalition government. It's quite a comprehensive system, and works based on the concept of approval voting.
Even while the Castros were presidents, they were overwhelmingly popular and supported by the people. Further, its democratic model has led to one of the most queer-friendly countries on the planet.
According to American ethnographer and Professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania Kristen Ghodsee, efforts to institutionalize the "double genocide thesis", or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and the victims of communism (class murder), in particular the push at the beginning of the 2007–2008 financial crisis for commemoration of the latter in Europe, can be seen as the response by economic and political elites to fears of a leftist resurgence in the face of devastated economies and extreme social inequalities in both the Eastern and Western worlds as the result of the excesses of neoliberal capitalism. She says that any discussion of the achievements by Communist states, including literacy, education, women's rights, and social security is usually silenced, and any discourse on the subject of communism is focused almost exclusively on Joseph Stalin's crimes and the "double genocide thesis", an intellectual paradigm summed up as such: "1) any move towards redistribution and away from a completely free market is seen as communist; 2) anything communist inevitably leads to class murder; and 3) class murder is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust." By linking all leftist and socialist ideals to the excesses of Stalinism, Ghodsee posits that the elites hope to discredit and marginalize all political ideologies that could "threaten the primacy of private property and free markets".
I should have clarified that I'm not against socialism, just the hierarchy of states. We should instead pursue more egalitarian socialist expressions like social ecology or kinds of anarchy.
socialism >> communism is a evolving process, but every time it starts growing and developing, capital asserts itself to dominate and destroy it
the only Actually Existing Socialisms today have nuclear deterrents to avoid this fate, they also have to develop counter-intelligence defenses because just nuclear weapons are not enough to protect from all the myriad threats that capital engages in towards anti-socialist >> anti-communist goals
if you can not understand this material reality of history, and use it to analyze the struggle for liberation in this world, you are lost
...how could that possibly be your takeaway from what I said? I literally never even compared them to the Nazis, just said they weren't socialist enough
The Soviet prison system varied quite a bit, some with open visitation and no outer walls. They varied quite dramatically in conditions, but many were fairly progressive for the time. I recommend reading Russian Justice.
You're spot on. Those who uphold the USSR as an overall force for good don't think it was a magical utopia, but look at the hard metrics and see that, unlike Western powers, ultimately played a liberatory role globally and a progressive role domestically. Looking at geopolitical conflicts, they were almost always on the "correct" side, the one siding against colonialism, Nazism, and more.
Siding against colonialism: I guess its not colonialism when you're colonialising your neighbouring countries and using your military to keep them in line / end liberation movements by force?
Siding against national socialism: At first they collaborated to take Poland together, and they made a deal to not attack each other. Only after Hitler broke that deal and attacked, forcing them to fight them, the USSR turned against Nazi-Germany.
The USSR never colonized anyone. Further, it supported movements in Cuba, Angola, Algeria, China, Vietnam, Korea, Palestine, and more.
As for Poland, rather than let the genocidal Nazis take all of Poland, the Soviets stopped them from taking all of it. We see the difference in treatment when the Nazis exterminated Polish people and the Soviets did not.
1939 - August - USSR - Molotov-Ribbentrop Non Aggression pact - the only ones libs care about
Stalin with regards to this said:
"Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at an attack upon the USSR. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that."
"The Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany after the British and French rejected Soviet offers to establish a military alliance against Germany"
Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’
As if they were ever going to.
The Cold War & Its Origins, Vol. I, Denna F. Flemming, 1961, Chapter V:
Final Procrastination. This explicit warning did not increase the tempo in London. It was not until July 31 that Chamberlain finally announced the naming of a military mission to Moscow, to arrange the concrete terms of the proposed alliance. Molotov had named his top military men to negotiate, but instead of Lord Gort and General Gamelin the British-French delegation was headed by an obscure British Admiral, Sir Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, and by a French General of comparable obscurity. Nor did this mission fly to Moscow as fast as planes could take it, to concert measures with desperate speed against the pitiable crucifixion of Poland which was boiling up on the horizon. While the sands were running out for Poland by the minute, the Allied mission took a slow Baltic boat, on August 5, and did not reach Moscow until August 11. Then it transpired, once again, that these men had no power to conclude an agreement.
The portrayal of the Communists and Nazis as "twin evils" exaggerates the sins of the Communists in quantity and quality, while minimizing the sins of the Nazis in quantity and quality, in order to show them as relatively equal problems. In other words, its Nazi apologia, and historical revisionism. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
The Nazis executed the Communists, Socialists, gay people, trans people, disabled people, Jewish people, Slavic people, and many, many more. It wasn't simple opposition, it was a racially supremacist ideology.
The Communists executed Tsarists, fascists, and terrorists to the state. They did not create a systematic industrialized murder machine like the Nazis did in order to keep up with how many people they needed to kill.
The Hammer & Sickle is the symbol of Marxism-Leninism, not just the USSR. There are several Marxist-Leninist states to this day, including the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and the DPRK.
Cool agitprop posters like what OP posted rarely give you a particularly nuanced perspective due to their limited space. The intended effect is to spark conversation, not to beam Marxism into the heads of anyone who sees it.
If I write an essay, people don't genuinely read it, if I write short responses I either over-simplify or manage to raise more questions than I answer... at least, it feels that way sometimes, lol
Thanks, I appreciate it! I know there are people who do, some of them send me DMs or reply directly to me so it all justifies the efforts I do, I just wish the human brain worked better with direct argumentation than it does when viewing a debate from the outside. Ie, I wish those I carefully spend time writing for took it to heart more than onlookers tend to, but the net result is still positive so I keep with it.
Your comments are consistently high quality and there's plenty of people reading without engaging who will be influenced in small but meaningful ways. You're planting good seeds.
Thank you, I appreciate it! I do it more for others than the people I directly interact with, who have largely made up their mind already. That's generally my strategy, people looking to argue online aren't going to change their minds, they see it as a "win/lose" situation. Instead, I focus on refutation of absurd claims and well-sourced information more for onlookers to engage with. I really like Nia Frome's articles on Red Sails called Marketing Socialism and On Dialectics, Or How to Defeat Enemies. They really help shape how I engage with others online, decisive and sharp refutation is very useful for onlookers to see.
For more fun articles on why people believe what they do, I'm a big fan of Roderic Day's "Brainwashing" and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing." Those help dramatically with seeing that, really, there's little convincing others directly in online debate, but there is hope for others whose material conditions have opened them up to new ideas to see and engage with more information they are curious about.
It reminds me of how people hated on “defund the police” messaging. I got into an argument with someone that focused on the phrase alone and was completely uninterested in a genuine discussion about what it means. Like what do they expect? An entire novel written on a poster or a tweet to appease them? The point is to kick the conversation off, not spoon-feed you.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head! Effective agitprop sparks conversations and forces engagement, not just people immediately dismissing it or accepting it before going on with their days.
A river floods every year. If someone builds a house next to it and the river takes it, is the river evil, or is the person suffering the consequences of their own ignorance? The consequences of capitalism are predictable and inevitable. The behaviour of a dollar is almost as predictable as that of an electron. Why do people pretend like we don't know what is going to happen?
The caricature in your head of Socialism in practice does not exist. I recommend you read Anticommunism & Wonderland, which despite its title does show a nuanced view of the Soviet Union.
You don't really have free speech in Capitalism, all of the important media is entirely controlled by private interests to begin with. Further, with what freedoms we do have, why deliberately plug your ears? Do you just want the freedom to ignore inconvenient truths?
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.
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, ...
I don’t get why every Reddit alternative needs to be filled with these weird political ideas. Communism, Fascism and every other form of extremism only leads to misery.
I’m sure capitalism is flawed, but you can make it work better. Any of the Nordic countries works as a great example. And no they aren’t perfect but nothing ever will be.
What are you on about with “red scare”? You can simply look at the poor attempts made in the name of communism to see how well that idea succeeds in practice. Simple solutions to complex issues never work. Communism is an extreme ideology based on the oversimplification of complex like every other form of populism.
Well don’t you think it’s a bit simple to pin every single problem in the world on property rights and a conspiracy theory level class divide between proletariats and “bourgeoisie”? It’s ann exhausting ordeal to hear all these complaints when humanity has never been at a more advanced point than it is now despite all its flaws.
Are you serious? Do you not understand the concept that you can be an employee today and business owner tomorrow? How do you not understand the irony that suddenly once you start your own business you’re an exploitative devil and as long as you stay as an employee you’re somehow a better person? Don’t you realize what moronic baiting that is? Humanity never learns from populists it seems, whether it’s Trump or Lenin, it’s all the same.
You’re saying it’s not simplistic just because it has a lot of words. Please refer to my other post on why it’s Marxism is a ridiculous and frankly childish theory.
No, I'm saying it's not simplistic because I've read a lot of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and from many, many, many more Communist leaders and theorists since them.
For your first question, Lemmy is developed by Communists, and is an answer to the Capitalist failings of Reddit. Simple as that.
For the Capitalism bit, you're waving away the fact thay the Nordic countries are Imperialist. They shift all of the suffering and worst exploitation to the Global South. At the same time, worker's rights and safety nets are being eroded, because Capital controls the state, not the people.
Please explain the way in which the Nordic countries are imperialist and exploitative and which country you personally look for moral guidance? And if there is none what makes you think we are capable of building a system that wouldn’t be exploitative by your grandiose unrealistic standards? Workers rights and safety nets are far beyond any other country in the world and in fact they’ve essentially never been better. The only change is that populists like you have given up on building and improving the system which in fact does require everyone to commit to improving society together, not just whining in a basement about some socialist utopia that is never going to happen.
Essentially, Finland (and Imperialist countries in general) operate on a principle of unequal exchange. By leveraging mechanisms like IMF loans with clauses requiring privatization of resources and industry for foreign capture, to relying on overseas production to super-exploit for super-profits, to simply relying on high interest rates on foreign loans, Imperialist countries consume more of the Global South's value than they provide the Global South.
As for which countries I think are headed in the right direction, I like the PRC quite a bit. It's certainly not perfect and it has a long way to go, but it's making rapid improvements and doesn't rely on Imperialism to provide for its people. And Socialism does exist, already, though nobody is genuinely waiting for a magical Utopian version of it.
Are you joking with China or am I talking with a bot?
China is a massive massive loan shark to emerging economies and is literally one of the largest IMF backers. Although once again you’re sound very conspiracy theorist here blaming the IMF which the entire world is a member essentially. If you look at voting power China alone has more than every Nordic country combined.
China literally exploits not only their own people but everyone who’s weaker than them. You’re seriously commenting in bad faith here.
China doesn't operate in that way. China is a country focused on selling goods it produces, ergo it cares more to have customers. The BRI and BRICs exist purely to build up more customers, it's neither charity nor Imperialism. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren't the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The "Chinese Debt Trap" is a Myth.
The IMF is absolutely to blame for requiring loan recipients to privatize their key industries for foreign plundering, and the US is the worst among the biggest lenders.
No, I'm not being bad faith here. You're stonewalling and relying on false assumptions, which I have already pointed out.
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.
You said it yourself the systems are created by people, the people can be evil. They are the root of the evil aka anyone upholding capitalism because they profit even tho they know exactly how bad it is for the world and people, just like the people creating fascism the fascist are the root of evil.
It doesn't reward greed, it rewards putting your resources into profitable endeavors. This is something you need to do in 100% communism as well, if you wish success.
You have it backwards. Greed is the root of our capitalism epidemic. And you think communist leaders are immune to greed? Just look at NK. The people share what little scraps there are while government officials live very easy lives
I can't look at NK because the world capitalist economy isolated them, so I'm not going to argue about their material conditions. I don't think anyone is immune to greed, but I think having a system that rewards greed is going to turn it from an aberration to an epidemic.
To your first point, let's pretend you're right and look at it in the abstract. What is to be done? Do you want to kill greed? How would you do that?
To your first point, let’s pretend you’re right and look at it in the abstract. What is to be done? Do you want to kill greed? How would you do that?
You're getting somewhere! First, don't point your finger at capitalism as the problem. Second, acknowledge & understand greed and how it is inherent in all human nature. Third, build systems that minimize the damage done by individual or corporate greed. Check against consolidation, monopolization, and short term Wall St like thinking of endless growth. Four, make sure socialist programs exist to support everyone, and capitalism is not the only way to live, it's optional. When you think like that, the European nations seem to be doing things quite alright, but they are still vulnerable to greed. And so they must be vigilant against greed, not capitalism.
First, don’t point your finger at capitalism as the problem.
You already lost me
I know, many here have have an automatic trigger on 'capitalism', but I appreciate you trying. I will try to respond sincerely.
Second, acknowledge & understand greed and how it is inherent in all human nature.
I would rather acknowledge and encourage humans inherent nature to cooperate and grow together.
Me too! Cooperation is the good against the evil of greed. But greed still exists, you can't wish it away, you have to strategize against.
Third, build systems that minimize the damage done by individual or corporate greed.
Like building an economy that doesn’t inherently reward greed? I wonder what that would look like.
Greed is rewarded in every economy.
Check against consolidation, monopolization, and short term Wall St like thinking of endless growth.
These things exist because of capitalism
No, they exist because of greed & corruption and failure of systems to contain those things.
Four, make sure socialist programs exist to support everyone
That’s social welfare. Being socialist means the workers own the means of production
No, socialist systems like free housing, healthcare, education can exist alongside capitalism. Worker owned systems like cooperatives still operate in a market.
capitalism is not the only way to live, it’s optional
It’s so easy to live in the USA and just not do capitalism /s
It's impossible in the USA, I'm with you.
the European nations seem to be doing things quite alright
Do you understand that their wealth was pillaged from the global south?
Yes, the British East India company uprooted my own ancestors and erased all culture. I'm against imperialism as much as you, but this has nothing to do with it.
Can you give me a description of what makes socialism bad solely based on how it works (not referencing any country who may have attempted it)?
Lack of standardization means you can't be sure of what you're getting. Is the milk from this farmer as good as the other farmer?
Same price for same good means lack of incentive to improve / innovate. Why grass feed your cows when milk will only sell for a set fixed price?
Markets will still exist, you can't wish them away. It's human nature. I want to make cake and feed you, but I still need to buy the ingredients, invest the capital, take the risk. Capitalism just rewards that risk.
Greed still exists, maybe I can add a little water to the milk, huh, who will ever find out?
Corruption still exists and without checks & balances, a centrally controlled system is very likely to being corrupted at the core.
The first half of your comment is attributing a static and supernatural quality to the concept of "greed" in a manner that obfuscates the underlying material structures, and why greed is expressed in different ways and degrees depending on the system. This is wrong.
Secondly, Social Programs are not Socialism. Socialism is an economy where Public Ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while Capitalism is where Private Ownership is the principle. Whichever has firm control of the state, large firms, and key industries is the principle aspect. A cooperative in the US is not a single fragment of Socialism, just like a market in the PRC is not simply Capitalism.
Now, for your five points:
This is not a problem with Socialism in any capacity. I truly don't understand what you mean by saying standardization is an issue with Socialism.
Price fixing is not Socialism itself, but a tool. Socialist systems can and do employ price fixing on some goods, but this is a tool that works well in some situtations and not so well in others, and as such Socialist systems can apply them where needed.
Markets are not Capitalism. Markets work well at lower stages in development, but gradually monopolize and centralize over time, making it more effective to publicly own and plan. You agree with Marx when you say you can't wish them away, but you imply they will always be useful based on a biological need to trade, which does not exist.
Regulations and oversight exists within Socialism, directly breaking the law can be punished and audited. This point is silly.
Checks and balances can be better implemented in Socialist systems where private individuals do not weild massive armies of influence. This is another silly point.
I recommend you read up on Marxism, I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out. If you haven't investigated a subject, why speak as though you have?
Cowbee is mostly correct so I'm not going to address everything but there are 2 pieces I want to respond to.
Greed is rewarded in every economy.
That doesn't seem to be true. Like an economy that doesn't funnel money into individuals. Or even moneyless economies like Library or Gift. (Though moneyless economies imply we're achieving actual communism, going beyond socialism)
No, socialist systems like free housing, healthcare, education can exist alongside capitalism. Worker owned systems like cooperatives still operate in a market.
Are you talking about free housing (etc) programs being managed as a cooperative, alongside a commodities market of cooperatives? If yes, that's not capitalism, that's socialism. If no, then you must be talking about a welfare state like what's in Scandinavia, which isn't socialist.
Kind of relevant to both points, there are a few different schools of socialism so you could see if any make more sense to you.
Not trying to simp. Just saying you and I don't know what's really going on over there because of how our dear leaders control all the information that comes out.
Greed is not an intrinsic human characteristic, as I already explained, and further life under brutal sanctions and embargo is difficult for everyone. The DPRK manages to scrape by with what they can, and which is why lifting the embargo and sanctions is the best thing we can do for the Northern Korean people.
The people of the DPRK support the system they have, whether it truly has a dictator or not. To overthrow their system by force, ie what the US did in Iraq, would be greatly opposed by the people of the DPRK and yet again the US would end up slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Korean civilians, just like they did in the 50s.
Lifting the sanctions and embargo would dramatically improve their conditions, all the embargo has done is starve people to death during particularly harsh periods, like the Arduous March in the 90s when the Soviet Union, the DPRK's primary trading partner, dissolved. It isn't showing any chances of hurting the legitimacy of the DPRK's government, it's purely to torture the Korean People into opening up their economy so the US can loot and pilliage it like it did to Iraq.
Estimates on the exact distribution of millitary vs Civilian deaths are not known, though millions died in total. That's just from direct involvement in the war, and not the results of sanctions and embargo or other inflicted terror. I use "hundreds of thousands" because it's
Undeniably correct, even with bourgeois sources alone, and
Still gets across the sheer brutality of the US's genocide on Korea
It's quite possible that civilian casualties do reach the millions, especially if you include the South Koreans killed by the US and the ROK government in areas like Jeju Island.
Every type rewards greed because humans and their predecessors have been trained to be greedy for all of time. Be it corruption or by design...it will always be.
Russia is this dick in this war. Ukraine has not been a saint in its history. No country has. No native American tribe has been a saint either. If you think one has... name it.
capitalism is the system whereby greed is raised above all other human impulses though. in most other systems, sure, people can be greedy, but they aren't rewarded for it, and people who aren't naturally greedy don't get pushed and trained to be greedy as the highest aspiration.
Human aspects like greed are not intrinsic to humanity, but created by the material conditions and mechanisms surrounding them, and are thus malleable and expressed in lower or greater degrees in different systems. Capitalism in particular expresses greed as its entire foundation is the relentless accumulation of profit and exansion of markets and commodification for the purposes of private wealth.
Greed is not the cause of capitalism. Capitalism exists to create value for society. My grandfather, an immigrant, opened a bakery 50 years ago to serve his community and raise his family. I, an immigrant, opened a grocery store 10 years ago to serve my community and raise my family. Capitalism can be honest & hard work. In both cases, community over profits was a core principle.
Greed comes with accumulation and has to be restrained.
Capitalism doesn't really exist soley in the micro, you must factor in the macro. A small gorcery store exists in the context of Capitalism, it isn't Capitalist itself. The purpose of Capitalism systemically is Capital accumulation and the increase in profits through the general process of converting money into commodities, and into a higher quantity of money, thus seeding even more money for more commodoties and even more money after that in an endless loop.
The purpose of Capitalism systemically is Capital accumulation and the increase in profits through the general process of converting money into commodities in an endless loop.
I disagree. The purpose of capitalism systemically is to simply allow for value creation for the entire ecosystem (customers, employees, vendors) and give anyone the individual freedom to do so.
Current Western flavor of capitalism has allowed short-sighted greed to take over because Wall St demands so.
On an ideological level, you and I are the same - community over commerce. I support capitalism only under such principles.
Capitalism did not arise out of ideological reasons, but as a material process with the shift from small manufacturing to large industry. It arised historically, not because it is natural (it's only a few hundred years old) nor because someone thought it was a good idea. The mechanical process is as I described. Ideological justifications for it, ie liberalism, arose after the fact.
Value is created even in non-Capitalist systems, and further, western Capitalism is Capitalism of a more developed stage. You cannot perpetuate small market mechanics, small firms will either grow or die. Once markets coalesce, there really is nowhere to go but revolution and Socialism, or barbarism and collapse.
That's not a solution, though. Cooperatives within Capitalism are subject to the same rules as other firms, only without firm control of the state. These cooperatives will either grow or die, and you end up at the same necessary point, revolution and Socialism, or barbarism. Centralization is a fact of markets that sustain over a long period of time, ergo we should master those laws to make it as democratic and equitable a system as possible. In other words, Socialism.
I think the way forward is to have socialism provide all necessities for people - meal kits, utilities, shelter, transport, free gasoline, healthcare, and so forth that are designed to be boring but effective. Capitalism can be used to obtain luxuries - a wider variety of food, fancier cars, bigger houses, brazilian buttlifts, singing bass decorations, and so forth. Money is solely used for such things.
By doing it this way, people can choose to protest or strike without suffering too much from doing so. Work becomes optional, since survival is ensured. Combined with imposing floors and ceilings on wealth, we can promote democracy and socialism, without sacrificing the vitality of a healthy capitalism.
That's not really an accurate overview of what constitutes Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is not "markets" and Socialism isn't government services, either. They are each determined by which aspect of the economy is principle, ie in control of the state, large firms, and key industries. Private Ownership as principle is Capitalism, Public Ownership as principle is Socialism. Both systems have a private and a public sector, but the trajectory of the system is very different.
It sounds like you're talking about the Nordic countries, ie deteriorating Imperialist states that are seeing crumbling worker protections and rely on super-exploitation of the Global South to subsidize cost of living and safety nets.
Yeah, there's nothing worse than a bunch of billionaire shitheads, using the media they control to keep the lower classes fighting with each other while they . . . the rich . . . run off with all the farking money. Oh wait, that's what's going on Russia, too.
There are no "good guys" here. Just billionaire assholes exploiting everybody.
The point is that it's a class war. It always has been. It's not about "socialism vs capitalism" or "liberals vs conservatives" or The Romulans vs The Federation. It's about billionaires vs everybody else. It's about the cluefull vs the clueless.
Class War is a fundamental part of the Socialist canon, though, while Capitalism affirms that it is unnecessary.
Further, a bit nitpicky, but I don't like framing it as "cluefull vs clueless." People's ideas are a product of their material conditions, we shouldn't downtalk those who don't know more.
The people who told you what socialism or capitalism is, LIED to you. "The good of the people" is a noble-sounding goal. But the reality is that the people who deliberately seek power are . . . for the most part . . . vain, greedy, brutal assholes.
I don't think Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc were lying to me when discussing what they wanted to implement and how Socialism and Capitalism function. I don't think reading speeches and writings of Deng Xiapoing, Xi Jinping, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, or other leaders of AES states were lying about their intended goals or economic policies either.
I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you rejecting analysis of Political Economy, in favor of vibes-based social movements? Genuinely.
Karl Marx said a lot of things about socialism and collectivism a hundred years ago, but he's not in charge anymore. The rich oligarchs who replaced him are saying this. You keep saying "but they SAID they were SOCIALISTS" and all I see is Sponge Bob's eyes, filling up with tears because he just can't believe that some rich assholes are lying to him.
We have people in this country who claim to be "christians" who literally elected the anti-christ. Trump embodies ALL the seven deadly sins, but those folks are just fine with it. So let's quit pretending that belief systems can't be exploited.
Karl Marx was never "in charge." He developed a framework for analyzing Political Economy in a manner useful for the Proletariat to identify the manner in which we are exploited, and how we may go about defeating the Bourgeoisie. There are no rich oligarchs replacing Marx.
Belief systems certainly can be exploited, but that isn't the point you are making here. Your point is that we should disregard analysis of Political Economy in favor of vibes-based action. If you don't do the effort of studying Political Economy, any conclusions you come to will be based on shaky foundations, rather than throwing theory aside, we need to weild it to guide correct practice.
Funny enough, Mao described your error over half a century ago, in On Practice:
The second point is that knowledge needs to be deepened, that the perceptual stage of knowledge needs to be developed to the rational stage -- this is the dialectics of the theory of knowledge.[5] To think that knowledge can stop at the lower, perceptual stage and that perceptual knowledge alone is reliable while rational knowledge is not, would be to repeat the historical error of "empiricism". This theory errs in failing to understand that, although the data of perception reflect certain realities in the objective world (I am not speaking here of idealist empiricism which confines experience to so-called introspection), they are merely one-sided and superficial, reflecting things incompletely and not reflecting their essence. Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherent laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories -- it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge. Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or more unreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructed in the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objective reality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this, vulgar "practical men" respect experience but despise theory, and therefore cannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack clear direction and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth. If such persons direct a revolution, they will lead it up a blind alley.
I disagree with that being an intrinsic quality shared genetically by all of humanity, burned into our DNA. Rather, our ideas are shaped by material conditions, and thus different aspects are expressed more and less in different systems, ergo selfishness is not an iron-clad law.
Further, my point is more about asking why Communism can't work because people are selfish. To me, that's a telltale sign of not engaging with Marxist theory or how AES states are run.
Science shows that humans as a species have been able to develop and thrive due to cooperative pro social instincts. This has been proven in studies of children. Our greed driven society beats this inherent impulse out of people to 'prepare them'.
Sure, cooperation is clearly an evolutionary trait also, and seems like a much more useful one than greed. It seems that socities need a bit of both to thrive, or do you have examples of known societies that worked primarily on co-operation, even for the leaders?
Capitalism breeds fascism. As long as we have capitalism we will fight fascism. Communism is not the answer though nor is any extreme ideology. Social direct democracy or even sociocracy would be better systems.
Social Democracy retains Private Ownership as the principle aspect of its economy, ergo its still Capitalist. Fascism isn't distinct from Capitalism, but Capitalism in certain circumstances, ie when it needs to put on a mask and brutally protect itself from its own decay, before taking off the mask and pretending it's something else, ie it keeps Capitalism's record "clean."
Further, being radical does not equal being wrong. Distance from the status quo does not mean it is not correct, we need to judge legitimately the merits of Socialism/Communism and not just say they are too radical.
Not necessarily. A true sociocracy would value corporations on a system of social good. Not, as now, a measure of how much spare money it has after trade and costs. It should also be very possible to run corporations as co-operatives which spread ownership among the workers.
Unless the Proletariat has control of the state, and thus can implement a "corporation behavior credit score" like in the PRC that isn't in control of private interests, you will see corporations just lobby and get what they want that way. Socialism remains necessary, which is the first step to Communism.
Secondly, cooperative ownership is nice, but it doesn't stop the natural centralizing of markets or prove more efficient than public ownership and planning at higher levels of development.
Really, it sounds like you would like the PRC's model of economy. Companies like Huawei are worker-owned, the Proletariat has control over the state and thus profit isn't the central guiding factor of the economy, and there are checks in place to punish corporations that go against benchmarks and metrics for "good" vs "bad" behavior.
This is the "extreme ideology" you said doesn't work.
nor is any extreme ideology. Social direct democracy
Whoah hold it right there, that's democratic extremism! You're taking away all the representatives of bribery and extortion. Best to leave a few weak points, for balance.
I thought memes were supposed to be funny... this just looks like a propaganda poster
I mean, propaganda is technically a type of meme, isn't it?
And lithobreaking is technically a form of deceleration, but I wouldn't exactly call it a safe way to land a rocket.
who is the anti bad thing propaganda poster hurting?
Thank god I'm not the only one.
Since when are memes just about humor?
Memes aren't just about humour. But this is no humour at all
Don't got to political Memes then. Some of the worst propaganda slop there
Maaaaaaybe the USSR isn't the best example of a better society we want to be building.
I'm watching the whole ideological-purge thing happen in the US and it kinda sucks.
Either build something better or shutup, I say. Unless you're a big fan of Tsarist Russia
I've played civilization and I'm pretty sure there's other forms of government besides Communism and Monarchy that have low corruption, albeit lacking the ability to force the citizens into war on the leader's whim.
Lol, good bit.
Corruption is a matter of individuals rather than the form of government. Any human system is bound to be corruptible since it involves humans.
I think a strong anti corruption culture is the best defense against it.
How does one go about building their own government/economic system?
The Soviet revolution managed it
Yeah, it wasn't one guy on Reddit lol. Why haven't you started the revolution?
And y'all wonder why people rag on .ml.
The whole point was that I don't reject successful revolutions while not having achieved anything myself. That's you dog.
I never rejected anything, maybe try reading again and this time not just seeing what you want. And what was successful before doesn't mean it will be successful today. People just don't understand context or nuance. That's you dog.
Both extremes on display those examples, seems like they both end up in the same place in the end. Maybe it would be reasonable to use any system that is a mix of things, instead of focusing on pure capitalism or communism.
There's really no such thing as a pure system, any mix is still going to have either the public sector as principle or private, ie which controls the state, large firms, and key industries. There's no way to keep them "balanced," one will have power over the other, and its best for it to be the public sector.
Luigi's hand doesn't look anything like that. Someone fix this meme
You're not going to overthrow fascism, white supremacy or capitalism with random acts of adventurism. If you're not more organized than your enemy they will crush you.
I leave that to the plumber's union.
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.
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.
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.
Well I will agree that your average 16 year-old is more well read then the person I replied to.
😘 be well
be better
You should go back to Reddit, you'd be happier there
That doesn't even make sense....
Jesus what a mess of a sentence. You really tried to hamfist that one in there.
All this things sound great, we just need humanity to not be shitty to each other.
The desire to dominate and the willingness to act on it has existed in a fraction of the population since before humans were human. This is the root of all evil, capitalism is a specific manifestation of this impulse that has only existed for some 400 years. If your analysis starts and ends at "capitalism bad" you miss the vast majority of oppression that has existed or will exist.
What's your evidence for your the root of evil is that some people just have an "evil" gene theory?
I never mentioned genetics, strange that you would bring it up. Sex isn't even fully determined by genetics, something as complex and fragile as your personal values certainly can never be reduced to genetics.
Humans brains are stochastic and the values we eventually settle on depend both on our environment and on somewhat random walks through possible values. Some people will land on violent domination as a social strategy just through randomness. I believe an environment where everyone is cared for and has the ability to flourish will minimize the people who randomly end up on violent domination, but it is not possible through environmental changes to completely prevent this. Thus we cannot allow any positions of power, since those will attract and eventually be captured by people who have chosen domination as their preferred strategy.
In what way?
Ask any post soviet country how they liked it during the USSR
The vast majority 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.
I guess you can say Ukraine is now worse off than in the USSR, Back then they weren't at war. The current situation isn't exactly the fault of capitalism (or Ukranie for that matter)
This data was pre-Russo-Ukrainian war.
A Medium.com post isn't a source, dude
Medium.com isn't the source, it references the sources. Here's Wikipedia referencing many of the same sources.
As opposed to the source you provided, which was nothing
Over 15 year old data at this point. And in countries that don't have a free press.
It's still well-documented and consistent. Socialism worked better than Capitalism. Plus, no press is ever "free," either private interests dominate it or public interests do.
Oh my fing god, I thought lemmy is only full of extreme liberals, but it's also full of wannabe comunists. Dude, have you ever asked yourself why USSR fell if everything was better than in the west? Why people risked their lives jumping over the Berlin wall? Why there was a whole black market of importing goods from the west into ussr? Why people didn't enjoy being sent to Siberia by the millions to die of hunger and of forced labor?
Or was Cuba a success?
Lemmy is developed by Communists, the Communists were here first.
Secondly, 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.
People left the DDR after getting good educations for free, and higher wages in West Germany. They got the best of both worlds.
Millions were not sent to Siberia.
Cuba is a resilliant success story given its brutal embargo and sanctions, yes. It has astounding metrics in areas like life expectancy despite being intentionally impoverished by the US Empire.
Private interests do align, but rarely. Meaning you have more chance at opposing narratives forming. Public is monovoiced. Without an opposing voice its data becomes suspect.
Private is controlled by large corporations, and often gets state funding. All press has bias. Really, you don't have anything against the data other than you feel like it could be wrong.
if you gave a shit what they wanted you wouldn't have overthrown them in a violent coup
gives way too much power to the govt and replaces monitary incentive systems with ones based on fear and coruption
That's not how AES states function, in any capacity. Further, people get paid in Socialist states, so I really don't know what strawman you're fighting here.
I'd say all AES states have broadly managed to achieve their goals. There have been troubles and struggles faced internally and externally, none have been dreamlike utopian wonderlands, but seemingly only non-Marxists are the ones that require that of Marxist movements.
I had to google that first. Had no idea what the sahel states had to do with socialism or communism.
Those AES states are mostly highly corrupt though. I wouldn't refer to north Korea as a livable place, plus the leaders are bathing in money while the populace dies from hunger. In Vietnam, if you know someone in politics, you can get whatever you want. I know this (nearly) first-hand. Laos, lol. And why the hell is China on that list? They're way too deep in the capitalist game to be on that list, no? People also don't mean shit to the ones in charge. Their people are executed by the thousands every year and they like to keep minorities in concentration camps. I'm sorry, those states are failed states in my opinion.
And as long as there is corruption, communism is not going to work. It's a nice theory, but it just takes one black sheep to fuck it up for everyone. I wish it weren't that way. It'd be nice to live in a world where people work for a purpose and everyone gets the same and no one has to suffer. Not going to happen.
Capitalism is plain evil though, I'll give you that.
AES as in "Actually Existing Socialism." The Sahel States are a quasi-Socialist national liberatory alliance. Burkina Faso was briefly Socialist under Sankara, but that time has passed.
The struggles faced in the DPRK are more due to sanctions and embargo than anything else, kinda like Cuba. Unlike Cuba, the US slaughtered 20% of their population and destroyed 80% of their buildings, yet they were economically ahead of South Korea until the 80s. The leadership is not "bathing in money" either.
Vietnam is rising rapidly. It isn't a Utopia, but is dramatically improving. Same with Laos.
The PRC is more classically Marxist than they were under the late Mao period and Gang of Four, I elaborated on that, here. Further, you're repeating state department propaganda about them, very silly.
Further, China is democratic. It doesn't have a western liberal democracy, but it does have a comprehensive Socialist democracy. You can read this article talking about why the Chinese democratic model is in place and why the people support it, or this article on how the Chinese model of democracy works in contrast to western democracy, or this short video on how it works, or this video on how elections work, or this article on the makeup of the NPC.
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%?
Please explain how "one black sheep" would ruin Socialism/Communism. Given that you clearly aren't familiar with Marxist theory nor how AES states function, this is a telltale sign that your critiques are of strawmen.
The soviets found themselves in a feudal shithole, and elevated it to a global super power.
Not sure who claims that China is communist, but it's definitely not the chines. They have a market socialist system (or more accurately SWCC), which still has class society and its own contradictions.
Educate yourself on basic facts before you speak on a topic and stfu until you do so shitlib
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’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:
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.
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.
"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.
I appreciated this read, thanks.
No problem!
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.
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.
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
(Hierarchical) Power in general is the root cause, not Capitalism in particular
What gives us these 80 year cycles in the west where everything turns to shit?
Seems to me that about once a generation people allow the states they live in (and corporations they work for) to concentrate power to a point where it cannot be overlooked anymore? Kinda feel like you already have an answer you want tho (apologies if that's not the case).
Human nature. We need living people to tell us what happened the last time something happened society-wide, else we forget and repeat the same mistakes. It's the whole hard times make strong men thing. It's on about an 80 year cycle. The good news is that we're right at the point in the cycle where real changes are easy to make.
Read the book The Fourth Turning for many examples of the pattern repeating.
Which is literal fascist propaganda
So's the 👌hand sign, I suppose I'm going to get dogpiled for that too?
Look outside, (big ask for this website), we're literally in hard times made by weak men.
I swear, this site is worse than 4chan about groupthink. Someone uses a slightly weak example or a cancelled idiom and all your minds just shut off and you start parroting your self selected propaganda.
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.
yeah instead of having all the money controlled by a few billionares, lets have an extremely powerful govt have that kinda power. great idea /s
It is better for the economy to be controlled by the public than by private interests, yes. You can study the democratizations of the economy made in AES states, and how the lives of the working class made the largest improvments.
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.
what does this have to do with this post
Ah yes, get rid of extremism with different extremism. I think we've been there already. Spoiler: Didnt work.
First, a societal organization outside the Western norm has no bearing on if it will be successful or not. The "middle" has no superior intrinsic characteristics.
Second, we know Socialism works, the PRC is now becoming the de facto world power as the US falls, all while providing dramatic improvements for its people and increasing levels of satisfaction.
What, specifically, doesn't work?
Well, first, as far as i know China is known to miss report its economical report. But even if that would not be the case.
Human rights dont work there. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/china
Human Rights are overall good in China, and improving steadily.
HRW has ties to the US government, is a revolving door, and refuses to critique US foreign policy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62744522
Funny that you link the BBC, given their historical willingness to lie on the subject and continue to report the ludicrous 10,000 dead at Tian'anmen figure that was the sole claim of a British diplomat that fled the square before the PLA arrived, and later was confirmed to have been a fabrication. Hundreds died that day, maybe low thousands, not 10,000, yet the BBC both knows that and reports otherwise. BBC also got caught doctoring images to make China seem "depressing" that they swapped back after getting called out.
Either way, Zenz is a known liar, works for the "Victims of Communism" propaganda outlet, and was commisioned by the BBC to fight China, which he believes is the "Anti-Christ." Moreover, he misrepresents numbers, such as 8% new IUD rates as 80% new IUD rates, to give an idea of forced steralization that doesn't exist. As for XPF? Check out https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en, then the glasses picture, https://www.xinjiangpolicefiles.org/wp-content/uploads/dt_imgs/20180515184435950_653121197306.jpg, pretty damning. BBC recieved these photos straight from Zenz, a known liar. We know there are camps, either way, but Zenz is a serial liar and you trust him, why?
Not paid by China, I'm just a Marxist-Leninist. I would love to visit or live in China for a year or more, but would want to be back with my family.
Pretty sure I'll only become more Communist, haha. From the Chinese ex-pats I've spoken with, it's very pleasant to live in, and far easier for those without money than in the US.
Chinese people are not in constant fear of execution, lmao, that goes directly against polling results from western pollsters:
As if intensity is what makes ideologies bad. 🙄
Last I checked the USSR didn't do so well financially, and Russia is basically a criminal empire.
The USSR did fairly well until liberalizing part of its economy, as well as struggling to recover from the immense cost it paid to win the Eastern Front and beat the Nazis while under the oppression of the Cold War.
The Marxist-Leninist tradition is still carried forward by many states, including the PRC, which is on its way to surpass the US as world superpower.
The PRC is barely communist nowadays, and the USSR did not do well, the liberalising was a last-ditch attempt to save it.
The PRC is more classically Marxist than under the Gang of Four, when they abandoned materialist analysis and attempted to implement Communism through fiat. Large firms and key industries of the PRC are firmly in the public sector, while small firms, cooperatives, and sole proprietorships make up most of the private sector.
Marx didn't think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn't about decentralization, but centralization.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can't just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn't to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
As for the USSR, its economy worked quite well for most of its existence. I recommend reading Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowens, who goes over what went right and what went wrong in the Soviet Economy, including why it was dissolved. Further, GDP growth was positive throughout the near entirety of its existence, collapsing when it liberalized:
I recommend doing more research on Marixsm and the economies of the PRC and former USSR.
Tldr
PRC is Marxist, and the USSR's economy was flawed, but ultimately worked rather well given its conditions. Read the comment for the justifications for both claims.
Your boos mean nothing. I've seen what makes you cheer.
No you haven't, you're too lazy to read enough to.
I didn't downvote you, for what it's worth. I save that for more unreasonable people.
uhh, anarchism clears lol
It is the symptom, not the cause. Greed is the cause and it has been around a LOT longer than Capitalism.
Power not Greed. People don't hoard wealth just to look at a pile of coins, they do it to control other people
I call bullshit on this one
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
Amazing! (commenting so there aren't 88 comments 😤)
🫡
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.
To paraphrase Bernard Shaw, Communism might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it.
Many places have, like the PRC, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, Cuba, and former USSR.
The Soviet Union was not a dictatorship. They had a form of council-based democracy, read Soviet Democracy for more. It looked like this:
The DPRK is not a monarchy, either. It isn't even a one-party state, it has 3 that form a coalition government. It's quite a comprehensive system, and works based on the concept of approval voting.
Even while the Castros were presidents, they were overwhelmingly popular and supported by the people. Further, its democratic model has led to one of the most queer-friendly countries on the planet.
i want memes, not politics
Greed is the evil.
It's either socialism or barbarism. That's why we are back here again.
And unfortunately, USSR falls smack damn on the barbarism side of that divide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_genocide_theory#Memory_politics_and_the_Holocaust_in_Eastern_Europe
I should have clarified that I'm not against socialism, just the hierarchy of states. We should instead pursue more egalitarian socialist expressions like social ecology or kinds of anarchy.
this is you rn
socialism >> communism is a evolving process, but every time it starts growing and developing, capital asserts itself to dominate and destroy it
the only Actually Existing Socialisms today have nuclear deterrents to avoid this fate, they also have to develop counter-intelligence defenses because just nuclear weapons are not enough to protect from all the myriad threats that capital engages in towards anti-socialist >> anti-communist goals
if you can not understand this material reality of history, and use it to analyze the struggle for liberation in this world, you are lost
Indisputably the opposite, the Soviet Union was the first big Socialist state.
you're just mad they stopped the holocaust
...how could that possibly be your takeaway from what I said? I literally never even compared them to the Nazis, just said they weren't socialist enough
reading between the lines
Soviet propaganda is a good thing, and it's on the mark here. Socialism is necessary and Capitalism is clearly on the downhill.
Was the USSR good?
Yes.
yeah gulags were really great and the world needs more of them
The Soviet prison system varied quite a bit, some with open visitation and no outer walls. They varied quite dramatically in conditions, but many were fairly progressive for the time. I recommend reading Russian Justice.
yeah gulags were great, really progressive.
Read the book.
I think so, relatively.
Weren't they better than the Tsarist rule?
Like, public healthcare, education and other policies leading to high literacy rates, longer lifespans, low infant and mother mortality etc.
And if we compare them to the other major powers at the time, aren't they better than those since they made progress without colonies?
You're spot on. Those who uphold the USSR as an overall force for good don't think it was a magical utopia, but look at the hard metrics and see that, unlike Western powers, ultimately played a liberatory role globally and a progressive role domestically. Looking at geopolitical conflicts, they were almost always on the "correct" side, the one siding against colonialism, Nazism, and more.
Siding against colonialism: I guess its not colonialism when you're colonialising your neighbouring countries and using your military to keep them in line / end liberation movements by force?
Siding against national socialism: At first they collaborated to take Poland together, and they made a deal to not attack each other. Only after Hitler broke that deal and attacked, forcing them to fight them, the USSR turned against Nazi-Germany.
... and more?
The USSR never colonized anyone. Further, it supported movements in Cuba, Angola, Algeria, China, Vietnam, Korea, Palestine, and more.
As for Poland, rather than let the genocidal Nazis take all of Poland, the Soviets stopped them from taking all of it. We see the difference in treatment when the Nazis exterminated Polish people and the Soviets did not.
The USSR never sided with the Nazis. They hated each other. The liberal democracies of Europe made similar agreements with Hitler before the USSR, and shot down Stalin's suggestions of an anti-fascist alliance. Furthermore, US industrialists were directly inspired by Fascist Germany and Italy to carry out the failed Business Plot against FDR. The USA also paid reparations to German industrialists for their destroyed property after the war was over (Yes, even German industrialists who used Holocaust slave labor, like Krupp).
1933 - UK, France, Italy - The four powers pact
1934 - Poland - Hitler-Pilsudski Pact
1935 - UK - Anglo-German Naval agreement
1936 - Japan - Anti-Comintern pact
1938 - September - UK - German-British Non Aggression Pact (Munich Agreement )
1938 - December - France - German-French Non Aggression Pact
1939 - March - Romania - German Romanian Economical Treaty
1939 - March - Lithuania - Non aggression ultimatum
1939 - May - Italy - Pact of Steel (Friendship and Alliance)
1939 - May - Denmark - Non aggression pact
1939 - June - Estonia - non aggression pact
1939 - July - Latvia - non aggression pact
1939 - August - USSR - Molotov-Ribbentrop Non Aggression pact - the only ones libs care about
Stalin with regards to this said:
"Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at an attack upon the USSR. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that."
Even the US state department confirmed Stalin's rationale for a pact with Hitler
"The Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany after the British and French rejected Soviet offers to establish a military alliance against Germany"
CIA declassifies its dealings with ex nazis
Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'
How the Allied multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War II
As if they were ever going to.
The Cold War & Its Origins, Vol. I, Denna F. Flemming, 1961, Chapter V:
The portrayal of the Communists and Nazis as "twin evils" exaggerates the sins of the Communists in quantity and quality, while minimizing the sins of the Nazis in quantity and quality, in order to show them as relatively equal problems. In other words, its Nazi apologia, and historical revisionism. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
The Nazis executed the Communists, Socialists, gay people, trans people, disabled people, Jewish people, Slavic people, and many, many more. It wasn't simple opposition, it was a racially supremacist ideology.
The Communists executed Tsarists, fascists, and terrorists to the state. They did not create a systematic industrialized murder machine like the Nazis did in order to keep up with how many people they needed to kill.
Yeah communism isn't any better so the both can fuck off
Every -ism is bad when bad people are in charge.
This would go harder without the hammer and sickle. Communism didnt fail; the ussr did.
The Hammer & Sickle is the symbol of Marxism-Leninism, not just the USSR. There are several Marxist-Leninist states to this day, including the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and the DPRK.
None of those countries are examples of "good"
Is the PRC still communist though?
Yes. They are more classically Marxist now, than they were in the late Mao and Gang of Four period. I elaborated on that, here.
No
It wasn't to start with
I'm not sure you know what "pedantic" means
That wasn't a zinger, I actually don't think you do
Why?
"X is good, Y is bad." It rarely is that simple.
Cool agitprop posters like what OP posted rarely give you a particularly nuanced perspective due to their limited space. The intended effect is to spark conversation, not to beam Marxism into the heads of anyone who sees it.
rip marxists, the one type they make a meme with fewer than 100 words and people still complain :0
For real... 🫠
If I write an essay, people don't genuinely read it, if I write short responses I either over-simplify or manage to raise more questions than I answer... at least, it feels that way sometimes, lol
I read them. I have learned a lot on Lemmy.
Thanks, I appreciate it! I know there are people who do, some of them send me DMs or reply directly to me so it all justifies the efforts I do, I just wish the human brain worked better with direct argumentation than it does when viewing a debate from the outside. Ie, I wish those I carefully spend time writing for took it to heart more than onlookers tend to, but the net result is still positive so I keep with it.
Thanks again!
Your comments are consistently high quality and there's plenty of people reading without engaging who will be influenced in small but meaningful ways. You're planting good seeds.
Thank you, I appreciate it! I do it more for others than the people I directly interact with, who have largely made up their mind already. That's generally my strategy, people looking to argue online aren't going to change their minds, they see it as a "win/lose" situation. Instead, I focus on refutation of absurd claims and well-sourced information more for onlookers to engage with. I really like Nia Frome's articles on Red Sails called Marketing Socialism and On Dialectics, Or How to Defeat Enemies. They really help shape how I engage with others online, decisive and sharp refutation is very useful for onlookers to see.
For more fun articles on why people believe what they do, I'm a big fan of Roderic Day's "Brainwashing" and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing." Those help dramatically with seeing that, really, there's little convincing others directly in online debate, but there is hope for others whose material conditions have opened them up to new ideas to see and engage with more information they are curious about.
It reminds me of how people hated on “defund the police” messaging. I got into an argument with someone that focused on the phrase alone and was completely uninterested in a genuine discussion about what it means. Like what do they expect? An entire novel written on a poster or a tweet to appease them? The point is to kick the conversation off, not spoon-feed you.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head! Effective agitprop sparks conversations and forces engagement, not just people immediately dismissing it or accepting it before going on with their days.
"capitalism is evil"
so what's not evil?
"a totalitarian socialist shithole, where you got no freedom or human rights"
A river floods every year. If someone builds a house next to it and the river takes it, is the river evil, or is the person suffering the consequences of their own ignorance? The consequences of capitalism are predictable and inevitable. The behaviour of a dollar is almost as predictable as that of an electron. Why do people pretend like we don't know what is going to happen?
The caricature in your head of Socialism in practice does not exist. I recommend you read Anticommunism & Wonderland, which despite its title does show a nuanced view of the Soviet Union.
no thanks, I like my free speech
The proper response to being offered something to read, indeed.
You don't really have free speech in Capitalism, all of the important media is entirely controlled by private interests to begin with. Further, with what freedoms we do have, why deliberately plug your ears? Do you just want the freedom to ignore inconvenient truths?
You don't have free speech either way. And in capitalism you may not even know that you don't have free speech
I like when nazis don't have free speech
what a cowardly thing to say. you could have just walked away, but your fragile ego wasn't done humiliating you.
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, ...
I don’t get why every Reddit alternative needs to be filled with these weird political ideas. Communism, Fascism and every other form of extremism only leads to misery.
I’m sure capitalism is flawed, but you can make it work better. Any of the Nordic countries works as a great example. And no they aren’t perfect but nothing ever will be.
Communism is no more extreme than capitalism. They just stand in opposition of one another. The red scare is back I guess.
I would say we have seen both extremes and we like neither and some people think a third alternative is "killing everyone else" can we not?
What are you on about with “red scare”? You can simply look at the poor attempts made in the name of communism to see how well that idea succeeds in practice. Simple solutions to complex issues never work. Communism is an extreme ideology based on the oversimplification of complex like every other form of populism.
Communism is not a simple solution, nor does it oversimplify the problem. What do you mean when you say this?
Well don’t you think it’s a bit simple to pin every single problem in the world on property rights and a conspiracy theory level class divide between proletariats and “bourgeoisie”? It’s ann exhausting ordeal to hear all these complaints when humanity has never been at a more advanced point than it is now despite all its flaws.
How on Earth is it a conspiracy theory to say that business owners and employees exist? What exists in your mind palace?
Plus, Marx notes that Capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, but has come with its own new problems that Socialism resolves.
Are you serious? Do you not understand the concept that you can be an employee today and business owner tomorrow? How do you not understand the irony that suddenly once you start your own business you’re an exploitative devil and as long as you stay as an employee you’re somehow a better person? Don’t you realize what moronic baiting that is? Humanity never learns from populists it seems, whether it’s Trump or Lenin, it’s all the same.
Marx never for a single second suggested that Class is an immutable characteristic.
Oversimplification
The bible is also a long book, does that make it believable to you?
You said Communism was based on oversimplification, now you're saying it's suspicious for being long? Make up your mind.
You’re saying it’s not simplistic just because it has a lot of words. Please refer to my other post on why it’s Marxism is a ridiculous and frankly childish theory.
No, I'm saying it's not simplistic because I've read a lot of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and from many, many, many more Communist leaders and theorists since them.
Reddit is state controlled media. You're seeing weird ideas outside of it because you're allowed to now
For your first question, Lemmy is developed by Communists, and is an answer to the Capitalist failings of Reddit. Simple as that.
For the Capitalism bit, you're waving away the fact thay the Nordic countries are Imperialist. They shift all of the suffering and worst exploitation to the Global South. At the same time, worker's rights and safety nets are being eroded, because Capital controls the state, not the people.
Please explain the way in which the Nordic countries are imperialist and exploitative and which country you personally look for moral guidance? And if there is none what makes you think we are capable of building a system that wouldn’t be exploitative by your grandiose unrealistic standards? Workers rights and safety nets are far beyond any other country in the world and in fact they’ve essentially never been better. The only change is that populists like you have given up on building and improving the system which in fact does require everyone to commit to improving society together, not just whining in a basement about some socialist utopia that is never going to happen.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
Essentially, Finland (and Imperialist countries in general) operate on a principle of unequal exchange. By leveraging mechanisms like IMF loans with clauses requiring privatization of resources and industry for foreign capture, to relying on overseas production to super-exploit for super-profits, to simply relying on high interest rates on foreign loans, Imperialist countries consume more of the Global South's value than they provide the Global South.
As for which countries I think are headed in the right direction, I like the PRC quite a bit. It's certainly not perfect and it has a long way to go, but it's making rapid improvements and doesn't rely on Imperialism to provide for its people. And Socialism does exist, already, though nobody is genuinely waiting for a magical Utopian version of it.
Are you joking with China or am I talking with a bot?
China is a massive massive loan shark to emerging economies and is literally one of the largest IMF backers. Although once again you’re sound very conspiracy theorist here blaming the IMF which the entire world is a member essentially. If you look at voting power China alone has more than every Nordic country combined.
China literally exploits not only their own people but everyone who’s weaker than them. You’re seriously commenting in bad faith here.
China doesn't operate in that way. China is a country focused on selling goods it produces, ergo it cares more to have customers. The BRI and BRICs exist purely to build up more customers, it's neither charity nor Imperialism. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren't the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The "Chinese Debt Trap" is a Myth.
The IMF is absolutely to blame for requiring loan recipients to privatize their key industries for foreign plundering, and the US is the worst among the biggest lenders.
No, I'm not being bad faith here. You're stonewalling and relying on false assumptions, which I have already pointed out.
Capitalism is a form of extremism
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.
That's like saying
"Nazism is a system and just that, it has no moral, therefore cannot be evil."
or
"The Transatlantic slave trade is a system and just that, it has no moral, therefore cannot be evil."
What are you talking about? Systems are created by people; they don't just pop into existence.
You said it yourself the systems are created by people, the people can be evil. They are the root of the evil aka anyone upholding capitalism because they profit even tho they know exactly how bad it is for the world and people, just like the people creating fascism the fascist are the root of evil.
Ah, you must be one of the people who say "guns don't kill people"
Guns have no moral yes
Greed, not capitalism is the root of evil. Fight me.
Capitalism rewards greed, thus perpetuating it and entrenching it. So capitalism is the root of our greed epidemic
It doesn't reward greed, it rewards putting your resources into profitable endeavors. This is something you need to do in 100% communism as well, if you wish success.
No it doesn't, the workers who put their labour into profitable companies aren't rewarded for it
the reward is wages and if the workers unionize they can increase them
Wages are necessarily lower than the value created by them on average.
You have it backwards. Greed is the root of our capitalism epidemic. And you think communist leaders are immune to greed? Just look at NK. The people share what little scraps there are while government officials live very easy lives
I can't look at NK because the world capitalist economy isolated them, so I'm not going to argue about their material conditions. I don't think anyone is immune to greed, but I think having a system that rewards greed is going to turn it from an aberration to an epidemic.
To your first point, let's pretend you're right and look at it in the abstract. What is to be done? Do you want to kill greed? How would you do that?
You're getting somewhere! First, don't point your finger at capitalism as the problem. Second, acknowledge & understand greed and how it is inherent in all human nature. Third, build systems that minimize the damage done by individual or corporate greed. Check against consolidation, monopolization, and short term Wall St like thinking of endless growth. Four, make sure socialist programs exist to support everyone, and capitalism is not the only way to live, it's optional. When you think like that, the European nations seem to be doing things quite alright, but they are still vulnerable to greed. And so they must be vigilant against greed, not capitalism.
You already lost me
I would rather acknowledge and encourage humans inherent nature to cooperate and grow together.
Like building an economy that doesn't inherently reward greed? I wonder what that would look like.
These things exist because of capitalism
That's social welfare. Being socialist means the workers own the means of production
It's so easy to live in the USA and just not do capitalism /s
Do you understand that their wealth was pillaged from the global south?
Can you give me a description of what makes socialism bad solely based on how it works (not referencing any country who may have attempted it)?
I know, many here have have an automatic trigger on 'capitalism', but I appreciate you trying. I will try to respond sincerely.
Me too! Cooperation is the good against the evil of greed. But greed still exists, you can't wish it away, you have to strategize against.
Greed is rewarded in every economy.
No, they exist because of greed & corruption and failure of systems to contain those things.
No, socialist systems like free housing, healthcare, education can exist alongside capitalism. Worker owned systems like cooperatives still operate in a market.
It's impossible in the USA, I'm with you.
Yes, the British East India company uprooted my own ancestors and erased all culture. I'm against imperialism as much as you, but this has nothing to do with it.
The first half of your comment is attributing a static and supernatural quality to the concept of "greed" in a manner that obfuscates the underlying material structures, and why greed is expressed in different ways and degrees depending on the system. This is wrong.
Secondly, Social Programs are not Socialism. Socialism is an economy where Public Ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while Capitalism is where Private Ownership is the principle. Whichever has firm control of the state, large firms, and key industries is the principle aspect. A cooperative in the US is not a single fragment of Socialism, just like a market in the PRC is not simply Capitalism.
Now, for your five points:
This is not a problem with Socialism in any capacity. I truly don't understand what you mean by saying standardization is an issue with Socialism.
Price fixing is not Socialism itself, but a tool. Socialist systems can and do employ price fixing on some goods, but this is a tool that works well in some situtations and not so well in others, and as such Socialist systems can apply them where needed.
Markets are not Capitalism. Markets work well at lower stages in development, but gradually monopolize and centralize over time, making it more effective to publicly own and plan. You agree with Marx when you say you can't wish them away, but you imply they will always be useful based on a biological need to trade, which does not exist.
Regulations and oversight exists within Socialism, directly breaking the law can be punished and audited. This point is silly.
Checks and balances can be better implemented in Socialist systems where private individuals do not weild massive armies of influence. This is another silly point.
I recommend you read up on Marxism, I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out. If you haven't investigated a subject, why speak as though you have?
Cowbee is mostly correct so I'm not going to address everything but there are 2 pieces I want to respond to.
That doesn't seem to be true. Like an economy that doesn't funnel money into individuals. Or even moneyless economies like Library or Gift. (Though moneyless economies imply we're achieving actual communism, going beyond socialism)
Are you talking about free housing (etc) programs being managed as a cooperative, alongside a commodities market of cooperatives? If yes, that's not capitalism, that's socialism. If no, then you must be talking about a welfare state like what's in Scandinavia, which isn't socialist.
Kind of relevant to both points, there are a few different schools of socialism so you could see if any make more sense to you.
It's a hereditary dictatorship that isolates itself to control all information its public can access.
Simping for alternative authoritarian regimes is NOT an effective way of fighting the tyranny of Capital.
Not trying to simp. Just saying you and I don't know what's really going on over there because of how our dear leaders control all the information that comes out.
Whose dear leaders? When reporters visit North Korea, who is controlling their movements and managing what they are allowed to see?
Greed is not an intrinsic human characteristic, as I already explained, and further life under brutal sanctions and embargo is difficult for everyone. The DPRK manages to scrape by with what they can, and which is why lifting the embargo and sanctions is the best thing we can do for the Northern Korean people.
I think the best thing for the people of North Korea is to not force them to live under a brutal dictator.
The people of the DPRK support the system they have, whether it truly has a dictator or not. To overthrow their system by force, ie what the US did in Iraq, would be greatly opposed by the people of the DPRK and yet again the US would end up slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Korean civilians, just like they did in the 50s.
Lifting the sanctions and embargo would dramatically improve their conditions, all the embargo has done is starve people to death during particularly harsh periods, like the Arduous March in the 90s when the Soviet Union, the DPRK's primary trading partner, dissolved. It isn't showing any chances of hurting the legitimacy of the DPRK's government, it's purely to torture the Korean People into opening up their economy so the US can loot and pilliage it like it did to Iraq.
I thought the US killed millions, not 100,000s?
Estimates on the exact distribution of millitary vs Civilian deaths are not known, though millions died in total. That's just from direct involvement in the war, and not the results of sanctions and embargo or other inflicted terror. I use "hundreds of thousands" because it's
It's quite possible that civilian casualties do reach the millions, especially if you include the South Koreans killed by the US and the ROK government in areas like Jeju Island.
Found the problem
I don't follow, Communism in the Marxian sense has administration and thus leadership. Are you suggesting a different structure?
Every type rewards greed because humans and their predecessors have been trained to be greedy for all of time. Be it corruption or by design...it will always be.
Not our recent predecessors, they had communal social structures.
They did war with each other which included plundering, rape, and slavery. All humans are dicks
Just like Ukraine is warring with Russia, making Ukraine a dick, right?
Russia is this dick in this war. Ukraine has not been a saint in its history. No country has. No native American tribe has been a saint either. If you think one has... name it.
which one(s) haven't been and why weren't they?
capitalism is the system whereby greed is raised above all other human impulses though. in most other systems, sure, people can be greedy, but they aren't rewarded for it, and people who aren't naturally greedy don't get pushed and trained to be greedy as the highest aspiration.
Human aspects like greed are not intrinsic to humanity, but created by the material conditions and mechanisms surrounding them, and are thus malleable and expressed in lower or greater degrees in different systems. Capitalism in particular expresses greed as its entire foundation is the relentless accumulation of profit and exansion of markets and commodification for the purposes of private wealth.
Greed is not the cause of capitalism. Capitalism exists to create value for society. My grandfather, an immigrant, opened a bakery 50 years ago to serve his community and raise his family. I, an immigrant, opened a grocery store 10 years ago to serve my community and raise my family. Capitalism can be honest & hard work. In both cases, community over profits was a core principle.
Greed comes with accumulation and has to be restrained.
Capitalism doesn't really exist soley in the micro, you must factor in the macro. A small gorcery store exists in the context of Capitalism, it isn't Capitalist itself. The purpose of Capitalism systemically is Capital accumulation and the increase in profits through the general process of converting money into commodities, and into a higher quantity of money, thus seeding even more money for more commodoties and even more money after that in an endless loop.
I disagree. The purpose of capitalism systemically is to simply allow for value creation for the entire ecosystem (customers, employees, vendors) and give anyone the individual freedom to do so.
Current Western flavor of capitalism has allowed short-sighted greed to take over because Wall St demands so.
On an ideological level, you and I are the same - community over commerce. I support capitalism only under such principles.
Capitalism did not arise out of ideological reasons, but as a material process with the shift from small manufacturing to large industry. It arised historically, not because it is natural (it's only a few hundred years old) nor because someone thought it was a good idea. The mechanical process is as I described. Ideological justifications for it, ie liberalism, arose after the fact.
Value is created even in non-Capitalist systems, and further, western Capitalism is Capitalism of a more developed stage. You cannot perpetuate small market mechanics, small firms will either grow or die. Once markets coalesce, there really is nowhere to go but revolution and Socialism, or barbarism and collapse.
The problem of 'growing big' has to be solved via cooperatives operating in the same markets, not by disbanding the entire system.
That's not a solution, though. Cooperatives within Capitalism are subject to the same rules as other firms, only without firm control of the state. These cooperatives will either grow or die, and you end up at the same necessary point, revolution and Socialism, or barbarism. Centralization is a fact of markets that sustain over a long period of time, ergo we should master those laws to make it as democratic and equitable a system as possible. In other words, Socialism.
I think the way forward is to have socialism provide all necessities for people - meal kits, utilities, shelter, transport, free gasoline, healthcare, and so forth that are designed to be boring but effective. Capitalism can be used to obtain luxuries - a wider variety of food, fancier cars, bigger houses, brazilian buttlifts, singing bass decorations, and so forth. Money is solely used for such things.
By doing it this way, people can choose to protest or strike without suffering too much from doing so. Work becomes optional, since survival is ensured. Combined with imposing floors and ceilings on wealth, we can promote democracy and socialism, without sacrificing the vitality of a healthy capitalism.
That's not really an accurate overview of what constitutes Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is not "markets" and Socialism isn't government services, either. They are each determined by which aspect of the economy is principle, ie in control of the state, large firms, and key industries. Private Ownership as principle is Capitalism, Public Ownership as principle is Socialism. Both systems have a private and a public sector, but the trajectory of the system is very different.
It sounds like you're talking about the Nordic countries, ie deteriorating Imperialist states that are seeing crumbling worker protections and rely on super-exploitation of the Global South to subsidize cost of living and safety nets.
That sounds lovely to me!
Yeah, there's nothing worse than a bunch of billionaire shitheads, using the media they control to keep the lower classes fighting with each other while they . . . the rich . . . run off with all the farking money. Oh wait, that's what's going on Russia, too.
There are no "good guys" here. Just billionaire assholes exploiting everybody.
The Russian Federation ceased being Socialist in the early 90s, the Hammer and Sickle is a symbol of Marxism. Not sure what your point is.
The point is that it's a class war. It always has been. It's not about "socialism vs capitalism" or "liberals vs conservatives" or The Romulans vs The Federation. It's about billionaires vs everybody else. It's about the cluefull vs the clueless.
Class War is a fundamental part of the Socialist canon, though, while Capitalism affirms that it is unnecessary.
Further, a bit nitpicky, but I don't like framing it as "cluefull vs clueless." People's ideas are a product of their material conditions, we shouldn't downtalk those who don't know more.
The people who told you what socialism or capitalism is, LIED to you. "The good of the people" is a noble-sounding goal. But the reality is that the people who deliberately seek power are . . . for the most part . . . vain, greedy, brutal assholes.
I don't think Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc were lying to me when discussing what they wanted to implement and how Socialism and Capitalism function. I don't think reading speeches and writings of Deng Xiapoing, Xi Jinping, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, or other leaders of AES states were lying about their intended goals or economic policies either.
I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you rejecting analysis of Political Economy, in favor of vibes-based social movements? Genuinely.
Karl Marx said a lot of things about socialism and collectivism a hundred years ago, but he's not in charge anymore. The rich oligarchs who replaced him are saying this. You keep saying "but they SAID they were SOCIALISTS" and all I see is Sponge Bob's eyes, filling up with tears because he just can't believe that some rich assholes are lying to him.
We have people in this country who claim to be "christians" who literally elected the anti-christ. Trump embodies ALL the seven deadly sins, but those folks are just fine with it. So let's quit pretending that belief systems can't be exploited.
Karl Marx was never "in charge." He developed a framework for analyzing Political Economy in a manner useful for the Proletariat to identify the manner in which we are exploited, and how we may go about defeating the Bourgeoisie. There are no rich oligarchs replacing Marx.
Belief systems certainly can be exploited, but that isn't the point you are making here. Your point is that we should disregard analysis of Political Economy in favor of vibes-based action. If you don't do the effort of studying Political Economy, any conclusions you come to will be based on shaky foundations, rather than throwing theory aside, we need to weild it to guide correct practice.
Funny enough, Mao described your error over half a century ago, in On Practice:
Yeah it's the super rich vs everyone else.
I really think you should maybe watch some youtube essays on Marxism and what it means, I think you might like the things you learn from it.
And communism doesn't work because we're selfish
Why?
Why are we selfish? Some sort of a mistake of evolution perhaps.
I disagree with that being an intrinsic quality shared genetically by all of humanity, burned into our DNA. Rather, our ideas are shaped by material conditions, and thus different aspects are expressed more and less in different systems, ergo selfishness is not an iron-clad law.
Further, my point is more about asking why Communism can't work because people are selfish. To me, that's a telltale sign of not engaging with Marxist theory or how AES states are run.
Science shows that humans as a species have been able to develop and thrive due to cooperative pro social instincts. This has been proven in studies of children. Our greed driven society beats this inherent impulse out of people to 'prepare them'.
Sure, cooperation is clearly an evolutionary trait also, and seems like a much more useful one than greed. It seems that socities need a bit of both to thrive, or do you have examples of known societies that worked primarily on co-operation, even for the leaders?
I think it can work because of the same
I know that selfishness will make atleast some try to do any evil for a profit.
Capitalism is highly risky then.
Better to highly regulate it or try to develop out of it, right?
if we have learnt one thing from the past it is that hammer and sickle countries are in dire need of agriculture products.
Capitalism breeds fascism. As long as we have capitalism we will fight fascism. Communism is not the answer though nor is any extreme ideology. Social direct democracy or even sociocracy would be better systems.
Social Democracy retains Private Ownership as the principle aspect of its economy, ergo its still Capitalist. Fascism isn't distinct from Capitalism, but Capitalism in certain circumstances, ie when it needs to put on a mask and brutally protect itself from its own decay, before taking off the mask and pretending it's something else, ie it keeps Capitalism's record "clean."
Further, being radical does not equal being wrong. Distance from the status quo does not mean it is not correct, we need to judge legitimately the merits of Socialism/Communism and not just say they are too radical.
Not necessarily. A true sociocracy would value corporations on a system of social good. Not, as now, a measure of how much spare money it has after trade and costs. It should also be very possible to run corporations as co-operatives which spread ownership among the workers.
Unless the Proletariat has control of the state, and thus can implement a "corporation behavior credit score" like in the PRC that isn't in control of private interests, you will see corporations just lobby and get what they want that way. Socialism remains necessary, which is the first step to Communism.
Secondly, cooperative ownership is nice, but it doesn't stop the natural centralizing of markets or prove more efficient than public ownership and planning at higher levels of development.
Really, it sounds like you would like the PRC's model of economy. Companies like Huawei are worker-owned, the Proletariat has control over the state and thus profit isn't the central guiding factor of the economy, and there are checks in place to punish corporations that go against benchmarks and metrics for "good" vs "bad" behavior.
This is the "extreme ideology" you said doesn't work.
Social democracy is an extreme ideology
Whoah hold it right there, that's democratic extremism! You're taking away all the representatives of bribery and extortion. Best to leave a few weak points, for balance.
Of course something simillar to Switzerland's model.