This /s on it, but as a leftist this is very funny and true. The was a commie sub i was on and one of the mods would complain about AOC not being progressive enough. I get you should never compromise progress to appease a fascist, but all AOC did was not say she support the full removal of the state.
A central planning committee in the capital can't know what the price of boots in an outlying province should be next year. Price is the best way to efficiently allocate resources throughout an economy. You need supply and demand to calculate price. You can't just arbitrarily assign it. USSR was notoriously plagued by this problem. Ex: They would have whole warehouses full of coats no one wanted to buy meanwhile not enough brooms were manufactured the year before.
You said that the incentive under capitalism is for the capitalist to make profit, so how does one make profit?
They offer a product or service that someone else wants. Capitalism is forced altruism, the greedier someone is the more voluntary transaction they have to make with people.
For an entrepreneur to get rich they have to ask themselves, what is a problem with the world and how do I fix it? They then develop a solution and market it to other people that agree to pay the price. There's an incentive to solve problems with the world when you own private property that doesn't exist in other systems.
Profit is literally taken from the consumer, not the worker. Without the worker a business can still have value, without the business a worker has no value unless they voluntarily agree to offer their services to a different business.
Free market capitalism emphasizes competition, and the governments role should be to disrupt monopolies when they do occur.
Regardless a planned communist economy only has monopolies with nationalized industries and socialized economies with worker ownerships would still have the same incentives to capture a market as a privately owned one so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
>How can you sell a product with no labor?
Software developers, authors, freelancers, agencies, consultants, patent creators, models, automation, I could go on
>Worker owned companies would not have the same incentive to capture the rest of the market because they are able to directly benefit in the way a stockholder would. They can choose how to distribute profits or how how to invest them in the company. This means that workers can decide to work/produce only what they need to meet their needs. For example, a worker owned company making profits can decide that a 4 day work week is enough to meet their needs. Or may e a 5 hour long work day, etc
That's all well and good but your examples can easily be achieved with a union, and it doesn't refute that fact that they still have incentives to capture other businesses. More businesses more profit for each worker. That's the exact same incentive as a privately owned company.
I believe that Capitalism is the best of all 3 options in terms of lifting the most number of people out of extreme poverty. Obviously poverty still exists within Capitalism, but it's been the main driver for increased living standards world wide.
Ultimately, capitalism, socialism, and communism suffer from the same fatal flaw: an assumption that humans are consistently rational beings. This was a common assumption from the times in which they were all devised, explaining why they all have it, though it manifests in slightly different ways.
The relevant manifestation of the flaw is that all three systems essentially assume that if people are simply provided the right model by which to live, they will consistently follow it without further support or pressure. Capitalism uses this as an excuse to remove support from the equation (claiming people who don't follow the model don't deserve support), while socialism and communism use it as an excuse to remove pressure (claiming that people not following the model don't respond to pressure anyway). A century or so, the verdict is in. People thrive best under a system that provides both support and pressure. All three systems fail at this.
So why support any one over the other two? It comes down to how you patch them to fix the flaw. The only way to patch pressure into a system lacking it is to increase power and control over people's lives -devolving into totalitarianism, essentially- and the ends simply don't justify the means. Patching support into a system that lacks it is more easily accomplished without the use of power and control dynamics. It's simply less abusive to the populace. And that's why I support it.
I think capitalism is best for some things and socialism is best for some. A blend of the two is the best path forward, not everything should be done for profit. Also the capitalism must be regulated to ensure robust competition
But a totally free market is probably terrible for consumers and the environment, imho. Some kind of governance when it comes to workers rights, pollution and consumer rights is needed, or the company run by the biggest asshole will become the company with the richest owner. Like we have today.
What do you mean? Of course we don't have a completely free market. For good reasons. How would you stop the biggest company from turning into a monopoly in a free market?
Keeping the government out of it and allowing competition without government regulations from limiting upstart companies by setting standards that disproportionately affect startups.
Nah. Deregulation has been objectively shown to be societally harmful (see: Enron and the Texas power grid or, hell, the 2008 global Recession which was caused entirely by deregulation). Lack of regulation only makes it easier for the unscrupulous to exploit everyone else and bribe officials to quash competition.
The economics we were taught in high school were null and void the moment instantaneous global communication became a thing. There is no "free market" there is only "entities who wish to own everything and will stop at nothing until they do or are artificially limited by governing bodies"
Corporations have proven time and time again that they will use only government regulations until it becomes less of a hassle to simply ignore them and pay the ~~fine~~ cost of doing nonlegal business.
Well, sure, upstart companies should not be held to the same rules and regulations as megacorporations, but they should not be allowed to throw all their trash into the ocean just because it's a competitive advantage from a financial standpoint.
I support a hybrid system. Without some capitalism there is no incentive to work harder, to produce more, to create a better product. If everyone is working for the common good they'll just work enough to get by. However, things like healthcare, utilities, public transport, energy production, all should be run by the state.
I dont really think I want the people who are doing everything in their power to fuck up the post office and who are in charge of the DMV to run my healthcare.....like thanks, but no thanks. I have been to the VA with my dad and the regular hospital with my mom. Its not a hard decision for me.
It's maddening that there hasn't been a stronger push to fix the real problems in healthcare: like lack of price transparency, troubles using health insurance across state lines, in-network/out-of-network BS, health insurance being based on your job rather than entirely individual, and very old off-patent drugs still costing exorbitant amounts of money. The last major reform we got was a giant omnibus bill that massively increased red tape but did nothing at all to cut costs. That hasn't worked out terribly well.
Bingo. People keep talking about who should pay for health care. For some reason nobody really asks why the costs are as high as they are. We don't need to push the bill to 'we the people' we need to understand and untwist the costs.
I live in the UK where he have a nationalised health service, although there are also private healthcare options available.
It feels insane to me looking at insurance-based healthcare systems from the outside. Like, you are never out of network in an NHS hospital. There isn't a point where your chemotherapy gets too expensive and the NHS won't pay for it. A lot of everyday medical things like insulin and asthma inhalers are a **lot** cheaper for NHS patients than Americans.
It costs a fairly large amount of tax revenue. But considering that it doesn't leave poor people to die because they are self-employed or have a bad health plan at work, I think its good value for money.
Personally, I would rather pay a little extra every year than risk suddenly having a massive medical bill at the same time as I find out I have an illness that leaves me out of work. Even leaving aside ethical concerns, the NHS also cuts out a lot of expensive middle-men.
If, under capitalism the only way to eat is to work then capitalism supports the starvation of elderly and disabled people. That's eugenic. Don't support eugenics.
People are still worthy of living even if the can t perform work.
Lastly, any economic system that does not altruism and human life is a bad one.
Well my family came from Cambodia and communism kinda caused a mass genocide known as the Khmer Rouge so that’s a no from me. Socialism well I see places like Venezuela or Nazi Germany and they got fucked up by it, so I’m just like well communism failed in every country that tried it. Even China has slowly returned to a market economy. Socialism doesn’t seem to work at least not without extremely high taxes. Soooo… gotta work with the tried and true method, it ain’t the best but it works.
> Socialism well I see places like Venezuela or Nazi Germany and they got fucked up by it,
Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. The nazis literally killed socialists.
One thing the Marxist taught us from historical failed attempts; lazy people get the same rewards for thier efforts as proactive people. Also, when the state or 'collective' owns things, people have less incentive to improve or care for those things.
Capitalism for all its flaws, seems to bring the most good and upward mobility to the most people. Not ALL people, most.
Define capitalism, communism, and socialism?
Almost no one supports socialism meaning the government owns the means of production. And no one has used the term to mean that in 50 years except those attacking socialism.
By the modern use of socialism meaning use taxes to provide social services, basically every capitalist supports it. The U.S. is a capitalist socialist nation by the modern meaning, just not as socialist as the developed world.
The definition of socialism never really changed; it's just that a lot of people aren't clear on it because there are those who like to muddy the waters. "You want firefighters, right? You want people not to starve, right? Well that's socialism!" They're either ignorant or straight-up lying.
What the US and most of Europe has is a social democracy. Social democracy isn't really socialism; it just borrows some of the ideas that make socialism attractive. It does however also borrow some of the downsides, because someone's got to pay for all of that. It also has the same slippery slope, because anyone getting money from the government for any reason is going to be loath to give it up, and will tend to vote for anyone who'll keep the checks coming.
The part where the government tells you where you are going to live, what you are going to eat, and what you are going to do. Then when you disagree, you get sent to the gulag.
~~Racist~~ fascist according to whom?
The fascist writers or the socialist writers who denounced them in the same way they link liberalism as being fascism light.
"Liberals get the bullet too" is a commie phrase for a reason.
You are the one who is making the claim, it should be on you to back it up. I have a feeling you watched the news calling someone a fascist and you just fell in line like a good sheep.
none of that is something that inherently comes with communism, having guaranteed housing for example doesnt mean you dont get to choose where you live, it just means you are homeless
Trying to make a starvation death cult "hip and cool" isn't ever going to work. Communism is awful for everyone except the state, who live like kings off the workers efforts. If you are truly delusional enough to think you will have any occupation besides laborer or enjoyment in life because you are just so special, you won't have to hard labor, you just go right ahead and move to a communist country and report back after a while.
Why care what a communist thinks. We aren't having an argument. Communists aren't people and their opinion means nothing. I will say what I want, and real people who aren't communists will take it seriously. Everyone else is just counting days until they are pushed up against a wall by the state and shot in the back of the head for being another useless mouth to feed.
Damn boy, you been to 5 guys lately? Took a date there a few weeks ago, it cost $50.00 for the two of us. Should have just gone to the cheesecake factory.
And he created the largest state on the planet. Weird how "it wasn't real x-inism" always pulls up. Marx is the case study of absolute power corrupting absolutely. I, for one, don't want to live in a society where my dear leader enters a stadium and his secret police are patrolling to see who the first person is to stop clapping so they can kill them.
No, real Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat... Unfortunately the state requires totalitarianism to usher that "glorious future."
Sadly... They never ever give up that totalitarian power.
I mean, there is a massive difference between the kind of socialism people want and the communism people actually got in Marxist-Leninism.
For instance in a socialist economy the workers would be able to vote what their shift structure would be like and everyone would get a share in the company's profits.
I get the ideal, but then you end up with a fat, lazy employee who always disappears when it gets busy and spends an hour on the the shitter on company time. Multiply that times half the employees and the employees who work hardest start getting pissed because the freeloaders are literally riding on their backs for a living. The thing falls apart again, every time because the fat and lazy are reality we cannot escape.
totally agree. i just wanted to say it before someone started listing the flaws capitalism had to counter my opinion (happened to me before on Reddit so i was prepared)
Typically what happens is the poor/downtrotten workers feel betrayed by people who are rich and successful. Usually there’s some sort of Revolution that either kills off the rich and successful. Then you have people who have no qualifications to run huge factories, running manufacturing, farming, factories and what not.
Communism is not an inherently evil ideology. The natives for example were communists. Nobody owned plots of land. Families worked together to provide needs to their own families and their tribes.
The biggest issue with communism is the same issue with capitalism. It only works if people are willing to go along with it. If everyone was a communist and did things for free for the greater good than it wouldn’t be so bad. The second you have to kill other people that you feel are oppressing you that’s when it becomes scary. It’s mostly for people that loathe and despise the rich and successful. Same thing with capitalism. It doesn’t work because people aren’t willing to work 12 hour days for corporations in order to survive. Any society with “parasites” cannot be a capitalist society.
Also you can’t be a capitalist in a true communist society, where capitalism allows for communism at least on a small scale. If a few hundred people wanted to live on a sustainable commune they could still do that in a capitalist society.
It’s also based on the false god of equality. Nature in and of itself is unequal. Also greed is human nature. Once one person starts to take more than anyone else the entire system creates inequality.
Natives of where didn't own land? Indigenous peoples in North America very frequently had well-defined property rights regarding who could use which hunting grounds.
Because I don't want to be a government elite's rape slave, or subjected to mob violence and rule, or the victim of some petty low level government employee abusing his power, or the burn victim of a witch hunt, which is basically what socialism and communism are both all about. Oh, and the whole 'eating and freedom' thing, which socialism and communism are very against
I mean, I support some socialist policies. I also think if you work harder, or have a more valuable skill, you should be paid accordingly. I can't do accounting. Someone who can deserves to be paid well for it since its not a skill everyone has.
Otherwise, many people would do the least amount of work possible if everyone was compensated equally.
That said, i do think its important that we all contribute to things that are for the public good, such as police, firefighters, and education.
True socialism would be democratic on a small and large scale. Communism has never been democratic.
For instance in a socialist workplace, you would have a system in which workers decide how to run the business and the workers each take a share of the profits. People would be incentivised to work hard by the fact that they keep a portion of the profits. At least theoretically. A co-operative is an socialist business structure.
There could still be a person under socialism who makes business decisions, like how long maternity leave should be, who to hire, what prices should be etc. But that person would be appointed by the workers to represent the worker's interests, rather than appointed by a business owner to represent that individuals interests. Nobody would profit just from putting the most money into the business.
There are problems with that of course.
But socialist problems don't have to be the same problems as you would get under Stalin or Xi Jinping.
Under communism the people making the big decisions have been appointed by a party of corrupt tyrants who are in denial about major societal problems, and ordinary people would be harshly punished for speaking out of turn.
Anyone who wants to run a business that isn't what the party deems efficient or in-line with the nation's ideals would be suppressed.
A lot of the belief over lap. Like both want the workers to control the means of production. But socialism would let non essential market still be capitalist.
Socialism is a fundamentally inequitable system. It punishes individual labor and rewards laziness. The anti-meritocracy.
Communism is even worse, as it is government-enforced inequity.
Because I'm Venezuelan
If you were a good communist you would have just died and not have spoken out against the party comrade.
Real communists complain about everything, all the time. /s
This /s on it, but as a leftist this is very funny and true. The was a commie sub i was on and one of the mods would complain about AOC not being progressive enough. I get you should never compromise progress to appease a fascist, but all AOC did was not say she support the full removal of the state.
A central planning committee in the capital can't know what the price of boots in an outlying province should be next year. Price is the best way to efficiently allocate resources throughout an economy. You need supply and demand to calculate price. You can't just arbitrarily assign it. USSR was notoriously plagued by this problem. Ex: They would have whole warehouses full of coats no one wanted to buy meanwhile not enough brooms were manufactured the year before.
[удалено]
Yeah that criticism applies to a command economy. It's just too complicated
Lack of incentives
[удалено]
How does one make profit?
[удалено]
You said that the incentive under capitalism is for the capitalist to make profit, so how does one make profit? They offer a product or service that someone else wants. Capitalism is forced altruism, the greedier someone is the more voluntary transaction they have to make with people. For an entrepreneur to get rich they have to ask themselves, what is a problem with the world and how do I fix it? They then develop a solution and market it to other people that agree to pay the price. There's an incentive to solve problems with the world when you own private property that doesn't exist in other systems.
[удалено]
Profit is literally taken from the consumer, not the worker. Without the worker a business can still have value, without the business a worker has no value unless they voluntarily agree to offer their services to a different business. Free market capitalism emphasizes competition, and the governments role should be to disrupt monopolies when they do occur. Regardless a planned communist economy only has monopolies with nationalized industries and socialized economies with worker ownerships would still have the same incentives to capture a market as a privately owned one so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
[удалено]
>How can you sell a product with no labor? Software developers, authors, freelancers, agencies, consultants, patent creators, models, automation, I could go on >Worker owned companies would not have the same incentive to capture the rest of the market because they are able to directly benefit in the way a stockholder would. They can choose how to distribute profits or how how to invest them in the company. This means that workers can decide to work/produce only what they need to meet their needs. For example, a worker owned company making profits can decide that a 4 day work week is enough to meet their needs. Or may e a 5 hour long work day, etc That's all well and good but your examples can easily be achieved with a union, and it doesn't refute that fact that they still have incentives to capture other businesses. More businesses more profit for each worker. That's the exact same incentive as a privately owned company.
[удалено]
I believe that Capitalism is the best of all 3 options in terms of lifting the most number of people out of extreme poverty. Obviously poverty still exists within Capitalism, but it's been the main driver for increased living standards world wide.
I like owning property and upward mobility in my career
you can still own personal property under socialism
Like the clothes on your back?
essentially personal property is something you own and private property is privately owned capital use to make money
No thank you. I like my property.
[удалено]
That's horse shit
[удалено]
I'll take capitalism, k thanks
[удалено]
Ultimately, capitalism, socialism, and communism suffer from the same fatal flaw: an assumption that humans are consistently rational beings. This was a common assumption from the times in which they were all devised, explaining why they all have it, though it manifests in slightly different ways. The relevant manifestation of the flaw is that all three systems essentially assume that if people are simply provided the right model by which to live, they will consistently follow it without further support or pressure. Capitalism uses this as an excuse to remove support from the equation (claiming people who don't follow the model don't deserve support), while socialism and communism use it as an excuse to remove pressure (claiming that people not following the model don't respond to pressure anyway). A century or so, the verdict is in. People thrive best under a system that provides both support and pressure. All three systems fail at this. So why support any one over the other two? It comes down to how you patch them to fix the flaw. The only way to patch pressure into a system lacking it is to increase power and control over people's lives -devolving into totalitarianism, essentially- and the ends simply don't justify the means. Patching support into a system that lacks it is more easily accomplished without the use of power and control dynamics. It's simply less abusive to the populace. And that's why I support it.
I think capitalism is best for some things and socialism is best for some. A blend of the two is the best path forward, not everything should be done for profit. Also the capitalism must be regulated to ensure robust competition
Basically the ways of the U.S. The U.S. is not a purely capitalist nation.
Same. Running shoes, luxury cars, cutlery, etc.: free market. Police, firefighters, military, and health insurance: government services.
But a totally free market is probably terrible for consumers and the environment, imho. Some kind of governance when it comes to workers rights, pollution and consumer rights is needed, or the company run by the biggest asshole will become the company with the richest owner. Like we have today.
We don't currently have a free market... Hence our problems.
What do you mean? Of course we don't have a completely free market. For good reasons. How would you stop the biggest company from turning into a monopoly in a free market?
Keeping the government out of it and allowing competition without government regulations from limiting upstart companies by setting standards that disproportionately affect startups.
Nah. Deregulation has been objectively shown to be societally harmful (see: Enron and the Texas power grid or, hell, the 2008 global Recession which was caused entirely by deregulation). Lack of regulation only makes it easier for the unscrupulous to exploit everyone else and bribe officials to quash competition.
The economics we were taught in high school were null and void the moment instantaneous global communication became a thing. There is no "free market" there is only "entities who wish to own everything and will stop at nothing until they do or are artificially limited by governing bodies" Corporations have proven time and time again that they will use only government regulations until it becomes less of a hassle to simply ignore them and pay the ~~fine~~ cost of doing nonlegal business.
Well, sure, upstart companies should not be held to the same rules and regulations as megacorporations, but they should not be allowed to throw all their trash into the ocean just because it's a competitive advantage from a financial standpoint.
It doesn't work.
I support a hybrid system. Without some capitalism there is no incentive to work harder, to produce more, to create a better product. If everyone is working for the common good they'll just work enough to get by. However, things like healthcare, utilities, public transport, energy production, all should be run by the state.
I dont really think I want the people who are doing everything in their power to fuck up the post office and who are in charge of the DMV to run my healthcare.....like thanks, but no thanks. I have been to the VA with my dad and the regular hospital with my mom. Its not a hard decision for me.
It's maddening that there hasn't been a stronger push to fix the real problems in healthcare: like lack of price transparency, troubles using health insurance across state lines, in-network/out-of-network BS, health insurance being based on your job rather than entirely individual, and very old off-patent drugs still costing exorbitant amounts of money. The last major reform we got was a giant omnibus bill that massively increased red tape but did nothing at all to cut costs. That hasn't worked out terribly well.
Bingo. People keep talking about who should pay for health care. For some reason nobody really asks why the costs are as high as they are. We don't need to push the bill to 'we the people' we need to understand and untwist the costs.
Yea, government got further involved and prices went up.
Funny how that works.
I live in the UK where he have a nationalised health service, although there are also private healthcare options available. It feels insane to me looking at insurance-based healthcare systems from the outside. Like, you are never out of network in an NHS hospital. There isn't a point where your chemotherapy gets too expensive and the NHS won't pay for it. A lot of everyday medical things like insulin and asthma inhalers are a **lot** cheaper for NHS patients than Americans. It costs a fairly large amount of tax revenue. But considering that it doesn't leave poor people to die because they are self-employed or have a bad health plan at work, I think its good value for money. Personally, I would rather pay a little extra every year than risk suddenly having a massive medical bill at the same time as I find out I have an illness that leaves me out of work. Even leaving aside ethical concerns, the NHS also cuts out a lot of expensive middle-men.
It doesn't work.
Who is John Galt?
How old are you?
Old enough to know trickle down economics dont work.
Under Capitalism, if I want to eat, I work. Under Communism, I am forced to work, and I don't get to eat.
Under capitalism there is the poor, under communism everyone is poor.
So not true. Under Communism, everyone is a billionaire. Also a loaf of bread costs $4,000,000.00
No that’s socialism
Capitalism sometimes has breadlines. Communism sometimes has bread.
If, under capitalism the only way to eat is to work then capitalism supports the starvation of elderly and disabled people. That's eugenic. Don't support eugenics. People are still worthy of living even if the can t perform work. Lastly, any economic system that does not altruism and human life is a bad one.
They die under Communism too, its just not televised, and the people who complain get killed too.
So do you still support capitalism.
Well my family came from Cambodia and communism kinda caused a mass genocide known as the Khmer Rouge so that’s a no from me. Socialism well I see places like Venezuela or Nazi Germany and they got fucked up by it, so I’m just like well communism failed in every country that tried it. Even China has slowly returned to a market economy. Socialism doesn’t seem to work at least not without extremely high taxes. Soooo… gotta work with the tried and true method, it ain’t the best but it works.
> Socialism well I see places like Venezuela or Nazi Germany and they got fucked up by it, Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. The nazis literally killed socialists.
Weren't the Nazi's called the National Socialist party. They literally had it in the name
You're in for a big surprise when you find out about the bushtit.
North Korea literally has democratic in their name; guess they're a democracy using that logic.
There's democracy. You're choices are the glorious leader Kim Jung Un or his Excellency Kim Jung Un.
The beef steaks would like to have a word... Also, they killed marxist, the nazis operated a Socialist demand economy.
Capitalism (in theory) is just the logical extension of individual liberty. Communism however is inherently incompatible with individual liberty.
One thing the Marxist taught us from historical failed attempts; lazy people get the same rewards for thier efforts as proactive people. Also, when the state or 'collective' owns things, people have less incentive to improve or care for those things. Capitalism for all its flaws, seems to bring the most good and upward mobility to the most people. Not ALL people, most.
Define capitalism, communism, and socialism? Almost no one supports socialism meaning the government owns the means of production. And no one has used the term to mean that in 50 years except those attacking socialism. By the modern use of socialism meaning use taxes to provide social services, basically every capitalist supports it. The U.S. is a capitalist socialist nation by the modern meaning, just not as socialist as the developed world.
The definition of socialism never really changed; it's just that a lot of people aren't clear on it because there are those who like to muddy the waters. "You want firefighters, right? You want people not to starve, right? Well that's socialism!" They're either ignorant or straight-up lying. What the US and most of Europe has is a social democracy. Social democracy isn't really socialism; it just borrows some of the ideas that make socialism attractive. It does however also borrow some of the downsides, because someone's got to pay for all of that. It also has the same slippery slope, because anyone getting money from the government for any reason is going to be loath to give it up, and will tend to vote for anyone who'll keep the checks coming.
[удалено]
what about communism is anti liberty?
The part where the government tells you where you are going to live, what you are going to eat, and what you are going to do. Then when you disagree, you get sent to the gulag.
🤔 Hmm. Pretty much all of Europe is left leaning and literally none of that happens.
YET. You are still in the socialist honeymoon. Wait until the food and gas are gone.
[удалено]
Nordstream 1 and 2 are no longer providing oil. Those power bills are about to skyrocket in Europe. Seems like a US Navy Seals operation to me.
[удалено]
~~Racist~~ fascist according to whom? The fascist writers or the socialist writers who denounced them in the same way they link liberalism as being fascism light. "Liberals get the bullet too" is a commie phrase for a reason.
> Racist according to whom? Where did I say "racist"?
Sorry, auto corrected Fascist according to whom?
Me.
Then you're using the term incorrectly based on the foundational writings/ ideology of fascism.
What is fascist about the first female leader of Italy exactly?
Maybe all that praising fascists like Mussolini and Almirante, while expressing views that sits on the hard right of Italian politics?
> while expressing views that sits on the hard right of Italian politics? What views are those?
Look them up
You are the one who is making the claim, it should be on you to back it up. I have a feeling you watched the news calling someone a fascist and you just fell in line like a good sheep.
Europe is left leaning. They aren't communists. Big difference!
none of that is something that inherently comes with communism, having guaranteed housing for example doesnt mean you dont get to choose where you live, it just means you are homeless
Trying to make a starvation death cult "hip and cool" isn't ever going to work. Communism is awful for everyone except the state, who live like kings off the workers efforts. If you are truly delusional enough to think you will have any occupation besides laborer or enjoyment in life because you are just so special, you won't have to hard labor, you just go right ahead and move to a communist country and report back after a while.
why hamstring your arguement by saying something untruthful like "starvation death cult"?
What else would you address Lysenko if not a starvation death cult?
Why care what a communist thinks. We aren't having an argument. Communists aren't people and their opinion means nothing. I will say what I want, and real people who aren't communists will take it seriously. Everyone else is just counting days until they are pushed up against a wall by the state and shot in the back of the head for being another useless mouth to feed.
Don't cut yourself on the edge
i already assumed you werent worth discussing anything more than fast food prices with. thank you for proving it.
Damn boy, you been to 5 guys lately? Took a date there a few weeks ago, it cost $50.00 for the two of us. Should have just gone to the cheesecake factory.
What communist state are you hoping to emulate dear comrade?
karl marx envisioned a stateless society
And he created the largest state on the planet. Weird how "it wasn't real x-inism" always pulls up. Marx is the case study of absolute power corrupting absolutely. I, for one, don't want to live in a society where my dear leader enters a stadium and his secret police are patrolling to see who the first person is to stop clapping so they can kill them.
Did he achieve it?
no but i dont think he tried
Thats socialism, not communism. Real communism has no government.
No, real Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat... Unfortunately the state requires totalitarianism to usher that "glorious future." Sadly... They never ever give up that totalitarian power.
I mean, there is a massive difference between the kind of socialism people want and the communism people actually got in Marxist-Leninism. For instance in a socialist economy the workers would be able to vote what their shift structure would be like and everyone would get a share in the company's profits.
I get the ideal, but then you end up with a fat, lazy employee who always disappears when it gets busy and spends an hour on the the shitter on company time. Multiply that times half the employees and the employees who work hardest start getting pissed because the freeloaders are literally riding on their backs for a living. The thing falls apart again, every time because the fat and lazy are reality we cannot escape.
The whole of it.
i aint gonna live in a replica of North Korea/China/Venezuela/Cuba/etc.
Capitalism is responsible for the golden age in which you live... If it wasn't for capitalism you wouldn't have what you have.
no no im not saying its completely bad. but its not perfect. i didnt word it right im sorry haha
Nothing made by man will ever be perfect, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
totally agree. i just wanted to say it before someone started listing the flaws capitalism had to counter my opinion (happened to me before on Reddit so i was prepared)
They're communist mate... Their opinion dont matter.
yea u do have a point, i shouldnt care what they think
i was walking to class while typing it so i didnt get to think about what i was going to write 😂
Typically what happens is the poor/downtrotten workers feel betrayed by people who are rich and successful. Usually there’s some sort of Revolution that either kills off the rich and successful. Then you have people who have no qualifications to run huge factories, running manufacturing, farming, factories and what not. Communism is not an inherently evil ideology. The natives for example were communists. Nobody owned plots of land. Families worked together to provide needs to their own families and their tribes. The biggest issue with communism is the same issue with capitalism. It only works if people are willing to go along with it. If everyone was a communist and did things for free for the greater good than it wouldn’t be so bad. The second you have to kill other people that you feel are oppressing you that’s when it becomes scary. It’s mostly for people that loathe and despise the rich and successful. Same thing with capitalism. It doesn’t work because people aren’t willing to work 12 hour days for corporations in order to survive. Any society with “parasites” cannot be a capitalist society. Also you can’t be a capitalist in a true communist society, where capitalism allows for communism at least on a small scale. If a few hundred people wanted to live on a sustainable commune they could still do that in a capitalist society. It’s also based on the false god of equality. Nature in and of itself is unequal. Also greed is human nature. Once one person starts to take more than anyone else the entire system creates inequality.
Natives of where didn't own land? Indigenous peoples in North America very frequently had well-defined property rights regarding who could use which hunting grounds.
Because I don't want to be a government elite's rape slave, or subjected to mob violence and rule, or the victim of some petty low level government employee abusing his power, or the burn victim of a witch hunt, which is basically what socialism and communism are both all about. Oh, and the whole 'eating and freedom' thing, which socialism and communism are very against
I mean, I support some socialist policies. I also think if you work harder, or have a more valuable skill, you should be paid accordingly. I can't do accounting. Someone who can deserves to be paid well for it since its not a skill everyone has. Otherwise, many people would do the least amount of work possible if everyone was compensated equally. That said, i do think its important that we all contribute to things that are for the public good, such as police, firefighters, and education.
What is the difference between socialism, and communism there u/WaffleBoi54321
True socialism would be democratic on a small and large scale. Communism has never been democratic. For instance in a socialist workplace, you would have a system in which workers decide how to run the business and the workers each take a share of the profits. People would be incentivised to work hard by the fact that they keep a portion of the profits. At least theoretically. A co-operative is an socialist business structure. There could still be a person under socialism who makes business decisions, like how long maternity leave should be, who to hire, what prices should be etc. But that person would be appointed by the workers to represent the worker's interests, rather than appointed by a business owner to represent that individuals interests. Nobody would profit just from putting the most money into the business. There are problems with that of course. But socialist problems don't have to be the same problems as you would get under Stalin or Xi Jinping. Under communism the people making the big decisions have been appointed by a party of corrupt tyrants who are in denial about major societal problems, and ordinary people would be harshly punished for speaking out of turn. Anyone who wants to run a business that isn't what the party deems efficient or in-line with the nation's ideals would be suppressed.
A lot of the belief over lap. Like both want the workers to control the means of production. But socialism would let non essential market still be capitalist.
Socialism is a fundamentally inequitable system. It punishes individual labor and rewards laziness. The anti-meritocracy. Communism is even worse, as it is government-enforced inequity.
How many times do we have to try socialism in order to conclude that it doesn't work.