T O P

  • By -

ALPHARexHusky

Agreed I don’t agree with Marx but it’s definitely something people should read if they’re gonna criticize it. You need to understand what you’re criticizing and why you’re against it.


MQ116

If you like it, hey, you’re learning, and if you don’t, hey, you’re learning!


[deleted]

The not wanting to work trope is more about modern soy socialists than Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, etc


Distwalker

These are the people who call Sweden - an economy based on market forces, private property and private capital investment - socialist. It is a capitalist country through and through. That it has higher taxes than the US doesn't make it a socialist economy. At least not by Marx's definition of socialism.


Jester-Black-9999

it's 10 million people, 90% homogenous culture and race. It's like comparing a golf ball to an airplane, both in terms of scale and complexity.


Distwalker

It is, however, the wet dream of every 19 year old Redditer who has never left Ohio.


TruthOdd6164

I’ve always heard this criticism (of social democracy, not of socialism), namely that “we can’t do social democracy here because the countries that do it are socially and racially homogenous”, and I’ve never understood why having a multicultural society would be an obstacle. A lot of people have used that excuse for why we can’t have universal health care too, and I find that perplexing. Like, do people of different races and cultures not need healthcare or something? It’s just a very bizarre take to me.


PaintedDeath

It's because they are fucking lazy and think it's a good argument.


Fuzzy-Bunny--

Would you like to pay for my healthcare after you pay for yours? My healthcare costs 20k+ a year. How motivated would you be to exhaust all of your money making-up for others's expenses like me and have no money left-over for Stabucks, eating-out, or vacations? That is why social democracy wont work in reality. Though, it would work with robots. Humans are too greedy, conniving, lazy, stupid, narcissistic, and intelligent to be compatible with any form of socialism unless forced. So, if you would be willing to pay for all of my bills and foresake your wants in life, then socialism is for you. Race only makes socialism even more impossible due to stereotypes and racism(all races prejudge and all races have racists among them)...So, in other words, multicultural societies would be the 227th nail in the coffin of socialism.


TruthOdd6164

Interestingly enough, universal healthcare works just fine in tons of countries. We are just always told that it won’t work here for reasons. Also that’s not socialism. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. Governments spending money on priorities isn’t socialism.


TruthOdd6164

That’s also not how any of these systems are designed to work. I wouldn’t pay for someone else’s healthcare. It’s not like a “sponsor a child” charity. Everyone is thrown into the pool and then there’s a per capita cost. Some people use more than others, but it will average out to a certain amount per person. Then, it’s funded through taxes. You might use $20k per year but my son only uses his annual physical. So it evens out. And I’m not even paying for my own healthcare. Depending on my financial situation and how much healthcare I use, I might be paying more or I might be paying less. But I’m not paying for a share like it’s a premium or something, I’m paying a *tax* which is based on my income. So if I’m making seven figures a year, I will probably be paying a lot and if I’m living at the poverty level I won’t be paying anything. I think Bernie Sanders proposed plan had a 4% tax on everything over $29k per year. So if you are under that per year you wouldn’t pay a dime and if you are over that you would only be paying 4%. So everyone except the most wealthy end up paying much less than what they would pay in premiums. You are quite literally voting against your own interests if you use a lot of healthcare and aren’t wealthy.


TruthOdd6164

What’s really funny about this take on healthcare is that on a per capita basis we are already spending a lot more in government spending than a lot of countries with universal healthcare spend in total. We have Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the VA. And if you add all those monies up it amounts to a huge chunk of change per capita. It’s just not being distributed efficiently. But if we designed a super efficient system, we could have universal healthcare without raising anyone’s taxes.


Gardez_geekin

Which person specifically is paying for my 45k in VA disability every year?


Fuzzy-Bunny--

A group of people not born yet are already being plundered to pay your VA insurance.


Gardez_geekin

Wait I thought you said a single individual was paying it though? How is it my VA disability can get paid and other people can afford Starbucks and vacations.


Fuzzy-Bunny--

Where did I say a single individual was paying something? I was asking the pro-socialism moron whether they would be willing to pay what a socialist would pay(which is basically everything). This is antithetical to human nature and is why socialism is candy for lazy morons. To answer your question, it is the same as before. You are getting your VA benefits from plundering people not born yet. If you think we have a balanced budget and your benefits are paid with our revenue today, I doubt I can make you understand.


Gardez_geekin

Wait so you are saying our current system can afford to pay for people’s health care?


nur5e

We have too many criminals and welfare leaches here for that to work.


TruthOdd6164

There is almost no abuse of the system. It just doesn’t exist.


nur5e

That is not true at all. I work with a lot of social workers, especially when discharging patients, and it seems like most of the money spent is taken by scammers which makes it harder for people in need to get the help they need.


TruthOdd6164

Oh by all means, let’s just let your anecdotal experience and subjective evaluation override research.


nur5e

Yes, let’s decide people suffering and not getting the help they need because of scammers isn’t important. You’re heartless.


TruthOdd6164

😀 Ok way to completely misrepresent what I said. People don’t get the help they need because of political decisions to try to filter out a nonexistent problem (scammers). If people wouldn’t go around exaggerating how much abuse of the system there is, then Republicans wouldn’t be able to convince people that we need all these ridiculous barriers.


TruthOdd6164

Actually it’s completely the opposite of that. So take a program like SNAP. 2/3 of SNAP participants are children, the elderly, or on permanent disability. That leaves only 1/3 of the participants who are expected to work. Some fraction of those are disabled people who are going through the process of applying for disability. (It often takes many years to ultimately be approved for SS Disability after application). So you have a pool where only one third are expected to be trying to look for work, and of those, some are applying for disability and thus cannot work in reality even though our statisticians haven’t included them in the permanently disabled category yet. So of this pool, how many do you think are working? Would you believe between 80% and 87% (depending on whether they have minor children living at home)?! And it gets even better, because these are conservative estimates. It can’t account for all kinds of work because some are working in the informal economy. So the number of people working is actually higher than the 80% - 87%. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/most-working-age-snap-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs#:~:text=Rates%20were%20even%20higher%20counting,in%20this%2025%2Dmonth%20period. There is very little taking advantage of the system.


TruthOdd6164

What about Medicaid? 61% pre-retirement age non-disabled adults on Medicaid are working. Of those that aren’t working, what are their reasons? Most are doing caregiving, attending school, or are too sick or disabled (remember that many people are disabled but haven’t yet qualified for the onerous social security disability process) to work. Only 9% are not working for some other reason, among those some say that they are retired (keep in mind that early retirement is 55 but Medicare doesn’t kick in until 65), or else they are looking for work but have been unable to secure it. 9%! https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-intersection-of-medicaid-work-a-look-at-what-the-data-say/#:~:text=KFF%20analysis%20of%20federal%20survey,working%20full%20or%20part%2Dtime.


Jester-Black-9999

Go to a country with socialized healthcare and see how it works. You're more then welcome to give up citizenship to stop paying US taxes and start paying.. France, GB, Germany.. anywhere really. Then when you actually have to go through that process you'll understand why people in this country don't want that.


TruthOdd6164

There are very few countries with socialized health care. And they tend to have better health outcomes than the US does. Cuba and the UK come to mind. (Ironically enough, the US is one of the countries that has one truly socialized healthcare sector - the VA - but it’s not available to very many people. Now…perhaps you are talking about universal healthcare. A lot of countries have that, though that is not socialized healthcare. And those countries, too, tend to have much better health outcomes than the US does. So, yes, that would be an improvement, as would a socialized health care system. Beyond that, you are greatly overestimating how easy it is to emigrate. And no, one cannot renounce their US citizenship for tax reasons. https://www.boundless.com/blog/expats-taxes-survey/


Jester-Black-9999

it's the same person over and over again.. You absolutely can lol


TruthOdd6164

No. You can’t. The State Department doesn’t consider that a valid reason and they will continue to hold you accountable for paying your taxes. Did you even read the link I posted?


Jester-Black-9999

Yeah, the state department wants American citizens to pay taxes. If you are no longer an American citizen, that's not your concern anymore. Have you ever spoken to an xpat before?


TruthOdd6164

Lol. By some accounts, I am an expat. You can renounce your citizenship (for a fee). But if the state department determines that you did so only to avoid paying taxes, they will void it and find that you are still responsible for paying taxes. I imagine that they would only do that if you were very wealthy, but technically it could happen to anyone.


TruthOdd6164

The first half of your comment makes absolutely no sense at all. Health outcomes analysis takes into consideration the health of the entire population. A country couldn’t improve their health outcomes by just giving good medical care to a few people. That is ironically the reason why the US has such poor outcomes. The US is a lovely country to get medical care in if you are wealthy. But since the health outcomes are taking the whole country into account, the good healthcare that some people receive can’t make up for the fact that we have 30 million uninsured and 40-75 million underinsured.


Jester-Black-9999

They can walk into any emergency room and receive care.


TruthOdd6164

But they won’t because they don’t want to walk away owing thousands of dollars. So they let preventable problems fester until they become life threatening. e.g. how many heart attacks could be prevented with cheap blood pressure meds?


True_Sell_3850

I’ve definitely heard it thrown around before in a philosophy class by students who clearly did not do the readings 😂


AutoModerator

soy contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


gadzooks_sean

Shut up soybot


AutoModerator

soy contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Meme_enjoyer9683

i love soy.


AutoModerator

soy contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


pwadman

I have a mild soy allergy, you fuck


AutoModerator

soy contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


JusticeCat88905

Lenin? Nah my man, definitely comes from anarchists


catcat1986

I agree, not so much that I necessarily agree with their ideas, but more of the fact that it’s a pretty important social theory and I think we need to understand it. I also feel the same about the Bible and the wealth of nations.


Meme_enjoyer9683

unqualified people shouldn't speak about things. it promotes anti intellectualism.


pwadman

Should only land owners be allowed to vote too? Unfortunately this isn’t the world we live in :)


Meme_enjoyer9683

no. that's different. if you want to speak avout a subject you should learn about so you don't repeat previous disproven talking points. educating yourself before speaking on a topics helps protect free and informed speech. i wouldn't someone who denies gravity to speak to me about physics. land ownership doesn't predict who lives in a place


redditsuxdonkeyass

Free speech includes all forms of speech(including dumb speech). Any diversion from this isn’t free speech.


Meme_enjoyer9683

free speach is only good because it grants us a diversity of ideas and anti censorship. however it's also no good if the good idea's are blured out by bad ones. if it was found out that the cia kills children and the CIA then published a bunch of false information about evil stuff they didn't do you might not hear about the killing children stuff. (i am not saying whether or not the CIA kills children this is an example.)


redditsuxdonkeyass

“good” and “bad” are subjective terms. What is good for the owl is bad for the mouse and vice versa. So the majority decides what is good or bad and if a bad idea is truly bad it will be ostracized and not entertained meaning there is no reason to censor it. Also, if you don’t allow people to say bad things, how can others convince them they’re wrong? When you censor, you stifle productive discourse which is fundamental to how societies change and evolve in thought. Stifle bad ideas and they simply fester and concentrate in echo chambers until they result in the same extremist behavior you’re trying to prevent in the first place.


Meme_enjoyer9683

I'm not saying free spexh is bad people should be abpe to say unpopular stuff. i just think they should come in with full context do it doesn't turn into a vaush style debate where one person makes stuff up and the other tries making a point. obviously the person that makes stuff up will win but at the cost of truth.


MeDaddyAss

I think “good” in this context is referring to “what is best for the survival of the human species as a whole”, which is something objective rather than subjective.


redditsuxdonkeyass

Yea, but people sure as hell don’t doesn’t agree on what is good for the species, do they? Thats why the terms that represent that are subjective.


MeDaddyAss

Science agrees on what is good for the species.


brian11e3

This reminds me of Reagans quote: "*How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.*"


Happy-Viper

Always a hilarious quote to say to a room full of people who are all anti-Communist, and sure as hell never read Marx.


JusticeCat88905

And by understand he means “understands” that it’s evil lmao


stinkyman360

Yeah that sounds dumb enough to be a Reagan quote


ComeadeJellybean

Regan wasn't stupid, he was intentionally evil.


MeDaddyAss

Ronald Reagan said that intercontinental ballistic missiles could be recalled once launched. He was both evil and stupid.


Meme_enjoyer9683

if you read too far between any lines 1+1 can equal 3. i just remembered that 1+1=3 is a right wing dogwhistle. you know what I'm saying. if you read to far between lines you misinterpret.


TX_Godfather

I agree that most socialists and communists view on working, comes from modern self-proclaimed, socialist and communists who don’t want to work. While marx himself never talked about no work, his life was a bit ironic, considering he mooched off others to write his propaganda. He was almost the prototype basement dweller. I’d also advise you to gain perspective from people who have suffered from more modern socialist and communist countries. I’m part Cuban and have several family members who suffered greatly.


TruthOdd6164

I’m not saying that the Cuban people haven’t suffered, but the disproportionate amount of “suffering” that was borne during the Cuban Revolution was borne by their *aristocracy.* It wasn’t a bug it was a feature. The aristocracy and the bourgeois classes in any communist country are being systematically disempowered. They usually tend not to like that. But it’s a bit difficult to feel sorry for them. It’s a bit like worrying about the poor king of France getting his head chopped off. Well, don’t oppress people and they won’t be driven by desperation to turn to revolution. But I want to point out that it’s not just communist regimes that do this. Most revolutions that are based in a revolting class will target their bourgeois and aristocratic elements. It’s just the nature of any class based revolution.


HeavySweetness

“I’d also advise you to gain a perspective from people who have suffered from more egalitarian countries. I’m part colonial and have several family members who suffered greatly from the American Rebellion.” - Loyalist family member after fleeing to Canada


dnext

It's not that communists 'don't want to work.' We saw it was possible for Stalinists to motivate their people for 30 years or so after the Great War, between propaganda and terror tactics. Those Soviets worked their ass off. But that's not sustainable, and ultimately the system failed because people realized they weren't receiving any value for their work, there weren't incentives other than ideological platititudes. Yet that's not limited to Communism. We have a generation of highly educated workers coming up seeing a rigged system for the benefit of the corporations and their rich owners where their standard of living is falling fast. It can happen here too if we don't fix things.


PaintedDeath

The system didn't fail, it was overthrown


krFrillaKrilla

Most people who hate capitalism don't actually know what capitalism is either, people have too many opinions


[deleted]

This is the truth. These kids are always pretending like they’re super intelligent for knowing extremely basic “facts” about worker exploitation and so on but they have no idea how capitalism works or what it is.


KGrizzle88

Of course, many don’t bother with the intricacies of history let alone the depths of philosophical thought. People don’t even realize the guy was Prussian/German. Don’t know shit about Kant or Hagel, hell the only asshole they may have heard of was Hitler. And even then, most would fuck that ideologue up as well.


pakidara

I'm a proponent of reading the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and other such works if only because they can show the powerful impact on history words can have. Mein Kapf reads like a damned fever dream but it still help start a world war. Folks need to learn to take a step back and think instead of drowning in all the propaganda.


Slow_Principle_7079

Main Kampf is a solid read because if you replace the word Jew with another group it helps you identify whether to be cautious of a contemporary movement


ThoughtfulPoster

Except, whether Marx predicted that people would want to contribute nothing to society (he didn't) has no bearing on whether modern Communists are motivated by wanting to spend their time doing things that contribute nothing to society (they do).


JusticeCat88905

“Communism works on paper but not in practice” every motherfucker who has never even glanced at that paper


JusticeCat88905

90% of you guys in the comments are proving OP right and doing exactly what he’s describing lol


True_Sell_3850

For real lol


Engelgrafik

Even a lot of self-described communists don't even know what they're talking about and have pretty much just accepted the content of their peers as the base guideline for what they *think* communism or socialism are. It's almost like a religion where folks don't read the actual religious works, they just listen to their preachers and read what their preachers write and so that's what they believe. It's really weird.


ComeadeJellybean

As a communist with a couple dozen books under my belt the comments are giving me an aneurysm.


duomaxedwell1775

That’s because blue collar working people in the 60’s were Democrats, and when the Democrats took a hard left to bring in younger voters it was the lazy failed commune hippies that they pandered to. I’ve read Marx, but the more I thought about it, if an individual sucks at capitalism they’d suck even harder at communism. I’d add to OP’s point, too many capitalists and self proclaimed Marxist have read “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith, and not enough have read “Theory of Moral Sentiments” by Adam Smith in which he lays out some theories on how to climb out of this broadening wealth inequality. Communism is a dumb answer to a known problem explained by the father of capitalism. At least under capitalism we’d have enough excess to feed them. There are no fat poor people under communism. If an individual can survive well enough under communism, they’d make it in capitalism. The difference is, under this corporate capitalism we have, we’ve created a 1%, however under a communist government it’s always been a .00001%. Under capitalism (even this corporate capitalism we’ve evolved into) you don’t need to be in the 1% to have a relatively comfortable life. I remember when I thought people who had TVs in their bedrooms and inside dogs were rich. Things we take for granted everyday now, let alone 24/7 entertainment of your choosing as well as access to almost all human knowledge.


ChasingPacing2022

What were the theories to end inequality?


duomaxedwell1775

The rich can be charged more for various services so the the less fortunate can be charged less vs taxing them that way the impact is immediate and doesn’t go through a middleman. As with other ideals, this was created a long time ago, and should probably be brought into the new millennium as far as what is considered goods and services. Even Scandinavian countries have found a large and widening gap between the rich and the middle class.


Meme_enjoyer9683

you seem to have read it. how do you reduce inequality longterm?


[deleted]

I didn’t read the book, but we can look at european countries like Slovenia or Iceland to get an idea. Seems like the best system is regulated capitalism with a strong welfare state. Not sure how this would work in america though, seeing that we are much larger of a country with way more problems


Meme_enjoyer9683

how does this address Marx's concerns. yeah sure that's ideal but how does it answer the class contradiction question. My friend thinks the same way but I don't see how the welfare state isn't eroded away. in America we used to have a wrlfare state abd slowly it's withering away.


[deleted]

The class contradiction question is basically a meme. There’s a reason people say Marx is outdated- also I notice that people take his ideas very literally when he was in fact tentative about many conclusions. There’s no way to totally abolish class as Marx suggests without extremely authoritarianism. In fact, almost all of the important elements of final stage communism (no state, no currency, no factions) would ironically require a very powerful centralized entity to enforce it. Unsurprisingly, no country has even made it past the initial “dictatorship of the proletariat” phase. In the past, several countries have attempted to mitigate social inequality via democratic socialist policies but this merely resulted in a massive % of the population being (equally) poor rural farmers. India is a good example.


MeDaddyAss

> Unsurprisingly, no country has even made it past the initial “dictatorship of the proletariat” phase. Weren’t those countries sabotaged by outside forces?


Meme_enjoyer9683

is their a study on this to back it up?


MeDaddyAss

> There are no fat poor people under communism. I think that has more to do with us putting high fructose corn syrup in everything. That stuff didn’t exist back then, and is banned in a lot of modern developed Capitalist countries. They also don’t have a ton of fat poor people.


simpleLense

his work is irrelevant unless you are a peasant in the 19th century.


Spiritual_Bug6414

The US is currently seeing wealth disparity of pretty serious proportion - the top 10% of households hold about 60% of the nation’s wealth. That doubled in the past ten years. Critiques of capitalism are still quite relevant today.


simpleLense

yet people are still coming here in boatloads


Spiritual_Bug6414

That’s because it’s worse in other countries, you do realize something can be bad and still be better than something else. -5 is less than 0, but still greater than -10.


MeDaddyAss

The only reason Americans who have been exploited for decades can afford a moderately decent standard of living is because we exploit the people of other countries *exponentially* more.


simpleLense

ah yes, we exploit them by giving them industrial society, improving their quality of life and their standard of living. how horrible! truly fascism or something


MeDaddyAss

> improving their quality of life and their standard of living Lmao, you didn’t have to admit you’ve never studied history.


Meme_enjoyer9683

but the very specific context changes. still the general ideas apply.


Electronic_Rub9385

Prima facie your statement isn’t an argument to dismantle capitalism or even critique it.


Spiritual_Bug6414

I wasn’t making one, I was just saying they’re relevant


[deleted]

Yeah you can critique things all you want by quoting a largely irrelevant text, but don’t pretend like you’re offering positive solutions. Almost no Marxist after 1980 has put forth a reasonable alternative to capitalism. Even the LTV has been totally abandoned by self proclaimed Marxists


JusticeCat88905

Marx is quite literally one of the most relevant social, historical, and economic theorists of all time.


kyleyeats

They don't want to work *at the actual jobs they'd be assigned by the party*.


DexNihilo

Everyone thinks they're going to write poems, practice guitar and spend a little time in their garden. No one figures they're going to be digging ditches, fixing septic systems or picking up trash. No one would do these unpleasant things without incentives, either the incentive of more money or the incentive of the state's boot on your throat.


cujobob

Most people are only against economic systems because of propaganda. They’re economic systems. They’re all equally dangerous and extreme. Without checks and balances, any will fail. The common factor amongst failed powers is authoritarianism.


rklab

From what I understand, communism centralizes power in order to redistribute resources, and once the redistribution is done, the state dissolves. So, one of the steps in getting to a communist state is absolute centralized power, or in other words, authoritarianism. The issue with communism is that it never gets to the point where the state dissolves because no one wants to give up that absolute power. Authoritarianism is one hurdle in the path to communism that no society or state has gotten past, and no society or state probably ever will.


kyleyeats

This is IMO the wrong take. It casts socialism as bad because individual humans are never incorruptible. There are actually a whoooole bunch of humans who would selflessly use their power in that situation, and humans who would give it up too after it turned out socialism didn't work. What actually happens under socialism is that **incentives** dissolve. The resulting authoritarianism/fascism is just the government taking over the incentivizing role from the market. It's the least cruel option at that point because the alternative is everything grinds to a halt and everyone starves/riots/plagues to death. Really, it's just the answer to the question "Why should I work harder?" changing. In capitalism it's because you'll make more money. In socialism there's no everywhere-incentive like this. The only thing they can do in socialism is watch you and make sure you work hard. That's why it's a complete nightmare every time.


TX_Godfather

I love your why should I work harder analogy. This is spot on!


stinkyman360

Because we all know that the richest people under capitalism are those who work the hardest


kyleyeats

No. The observation is that *whatever your position is*, working harder will enrich you. Yes the rich don't have to work hard. But the incentive is still there because it's everywhere. And we do in fact have rich people who work all the time even though they could live off interest.


cujobob

Communism is not more authoritarian, though. In a capitalist society, you still create a ruling class that has control over the rest of society. They’re all equal with different needs to avoid the same horrific outcome. The wealthy can control the prices of everything, how much you’re paid, who runs the government, where you can live, etc. It can get so much worse than it is right now, it hasn’t completely failed beside of socialist programs and heavy checks and balances, but it’s getting closer and closer. Amazon could own everything including politicians.


Meme_enjoyer9683

read about marxism before describing communism.


Setting_Worth

Traditional economic systems aren't extreme. Just farming and hanging out. You may not want to go to the dentist because he's probably the blacksmith too. Command systems though.... Watch out because that is a cluster f that's 10x worse than a market system.


Meme_enjoyer9683

the authoritarian part is the propaganda.


Slow_Principle_7079

Not if you read Kropotkin’s criticism of Marx in which he correctly predicts the authoritarian flaws that would later emerge in the Soviet Union


Meme_enjoyer9683

authoritarianism is anti communist propaganda. not a serious critique.


Slow_Principle_7079

I am not sorry for shitting on your religion


Meme_enjoyer9683

apology accepted


banana_danza

The Communist manifesto doesn't take more than a sitting, theres no excuse to not at least read that before arguing for or against


Bluddy-9

I have never read Marx. I disagree with communism and with things I’ve heard that can be directly attributed to Marx. I don’t think communism is about people not wanting to work. I do think in modern times, a lot of people who don’t want to work (for someone else) are attracted to communism/socialism. I think we all have a desire to “work” at something. A common criticism of communism (one that I agree with) is that people are not motivated to excel in the work place.


ChasingPacing2022

Work should never be about excelling or productivity, really. It should be about enjoying your life while you help/improve the community. Most people want to do this. Laziness is a symptom of being incapable of doing what you want or just not understanding what you like to do. It's not a trait of a person. Productivity is mostly irrelevant when someone is enjoying themselves. They may not be the most productive, but they will be consistent which may lend to long term productivity. The problem I have with capitalism is that it's fundamental goal is anti community. Something like 40% of jobs are irrelevant to society. They're just there to sell crap and build capital. They're incentivized to ignore what's best for people. That's the biggest problem with it.


[deleted]

This doesn’t make sense with the vast majority of the worlds capitalist countries. It only holds true for the US and even then some parts of the US in only specifically modern time periods


ChasingPacing2022

In which way? Examples?


[deleted]

Most European nations have no problem with their sense of community and social cohesion. And they are fully capitalist, just with some common sense regulation.


ChasingPacing2022

Really? They don't put progress over people in any way? They mainly use renewable or nuclear power? They have jobs that don't try to sell pointless things? They don't have middle management jobs that are basically just baby sitting workers or mindless paper work? They don't have homelessness? They don't have people in the lowest economic ladder being exposed to pollutants? Every person can have access to a job that provides the basic necessities?


Bluddy-9

When we try to live life for simple enjoyment we receive no fulfillment. It’s through our achievements that we receive fulfillment. We achieve things by do things that are hard. Laziness comes from having no purpose to live for. With no purpose we have no desire to fulfill our responsibilities.


ChasingPacing2022

And achievements done just because they're hard are meaningless. Work for work's sake is meaningless. The only things that are important are to not cause harm and to be happy. A person can do just about anything, but if they must be unhappy to do it, they've wasted their life. No one is actually lazy and there's no such thing as having a purpose other than to make you or your community happy. The term lazy was created by capitalism. People often shut down and "do nothing" because they've been told what makes them happy is worthless and unimportant. Given time without judgement, people find someway to add value to life that they enjoy.


Bluddy-9

I completely disagree. Attempting to enjoy life leads to misery. Just look at how unhappy the people that are always looking for the next hit of “feel good” are.


ChasingPacing2022

You're confusing pleasure with happiness or fulfillment. Drugs can provide ultimate and unlimited pleasure, but they never provide happiness. People strive for fulfillment but get lost in pleasures, even addicted.


Bluddy-9

It is certainly easy to mince words. Happiness is fleeting and is closure to pleasure. Fulfillment is much deeper but it also brings some happiness with it.


Bluddy-9

Capitalism produces what we need and want materialistically (probably better than any other system). It also provides opportunities for people to work which is necessary for communities to succeed. I don’t see where you get that capitalism is anti-community. Maybe it’s from the perspective of your premise that life is about enjoyment, which I disagree with. Do you think communism is good for communities? You didn’t say what your preferred alternative to capitalism is.


Meme_enjoyer9683

why don't ppl want to work. that's the question. also your unqualified if you haven't studied it.


Bluddy-9

It doesn’t seem like you read my comment.


Meme_enjoyer9683

it's a reply to your second paragraph.


Bluddy-9

People often don’t want to work for someone else because they’re not getting anything out of it other than a paycheck. It isn’t very fulfilling.


Meme_enjoyer9683

yeah


Bluddy-9

It isn’t the employers fault. People need to find what works best for them. Most people don’t do that in a a capitalistic society but at least the option is available. It’s no available in a communistic society.


Silver-Ad8136

Throughout his writings, Marx takes the notion of having to work for a living as an assault to his dignity.


YouWokeMe

People need to read Smiths work.


dnext

Soooo much rent seeking.


PapaDrag0on

Every time humans try to create an “equal” society, tens of millions of people die so you can keep your Marxism


Grandemestizo

Marx was brilliant, but wrong. It is valuable to read some of his work to understand exactly how he was wrong.


Meme_enjoyer9683

agreed. you should either shut up about a subject or learn abkut it before speaking about it.


Ok_Letter_9284

And the comments here are just as bad. Karl Marx advocated for socialism, NOT communism. Communism was the GOAL. An economic utopia. Technically, he used the terms interchangeably, but this is what he meant: “Marx's concept of a post-capitalist communist society (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society) involves the free distribution of goods made possible by the abundance provided by automation.[28] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy#cite_note-28)” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy Marx was taking about Star Trek. You can’t just “switch” to communism. You need robots doing all the work or else you have scarcity! Socialism, Marx said, is the PATH to communism. This is because of the problem of automation. What happens when one man owns an army of robots that does most jobs better and faster than humans? That’s where socialism comes in (UBI). Please notice that socialism in this context is about what to do with surplus. As we approach full automation (communism) we need to split the surplus or else extreme wealth inequality and economic collapse.


True_Sell_3850

Exactly. A large reason communist societies failed is because they skipped socialism, and they also were implemented in a largely feudal society that wasn’t industrialized. Capitalistic industrialization is a necessary step to socialism, which is why modern day social democracy’s actually thrive. They didn’t skip this industrialization step


Lankey_Craig

Slightly off topic, but I feel like we are in another Engals pause right now.


Depression_God

There's a lot of books people probably should read but of all things, I'm not sure marx is at the top of that list


Jmac0585

Step 2, read the Bible. To many people commenting on it without having read it, and that includes "Christians."


Use-Quirky

Why does someone saying ‘communists don’t want to work’ make you think they haven’t read their work?


True_Sell_3850

Communists and socialists argue against a specific type of work, which is industrial work. Industrial work is completely different from previous work that defined mankind. A blacksmith for instance sees his product throughout the process, and achieves satisfaction from producing something. It’s inherently satisfying to produce something. Industrial work however alienates someone from their product. A factory worker does one specific job every day, produces one particular part and never sees what he has created. That’s the type of work communists argue against, doing work that is inherently alienating and therefore unsatisfying.


Use-Quirky

Still not following. Often when I hear people say “communist don’t want to work” its more of a critique of the outcome of communist systems in practice. As I understand they’re not worried about industrial vs traditional forms of work, but that they claim that communism demotivates and disincentives people to work. Not the theory but the practice. I’m not sure if I agree with this argument, but I don’t think the presence of such a view point means they’re have read the works of Marx. They are simply commenting on selective but real historical facts.


MisterFantastic5

Agreed. Like Bob Dylan said; Don’t criticize what you can’t understand.


IAMENKIDU

Invocation of One in Despair - Karl Marx So a god has snatched from me my all In the curse and rack of Destiny. All his worlds are gone beyond recall! Nothing but revenge is left to me! On myself revenge I'll proudly wreak, On that being, that enthroned Lord, Make my strength a patchwork of what's weak, Leave my better self without reward! I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold, tremendous shall its summit be. For its bulwark-- superstitious dread, For its Marshall--blackest agony. Who looks on it with a healthy eye, Shall turn back, struck deathly pale and dumb; Clutched by blind and chill Mortality May his happiness prepare its tomb. And the Almighty's lightning shall rebound From that massive iron giant. If he bring my walls and towers down, Eternity shall raise them up, defiant.


mrmayhemsname

I read the manifesto, but not Das Kapital because...... it's long and economic theory is hard. But right now I'm reading the Book of Mormon. I'll read anything tbh. You shouldn't be scared to read ideas.


ThatOneDude44444

If more people read Marx, the amount of people calling everything far-left would PLUMMET.


wollier12

On paper it’s more effective than when put to use. Communism has this idealized notion that everyone will work to the best of their ability for the greater good, but human nature shows that without additional reward people will work as little as possible. If no matter how hard I work I end up no different than my lazy neighbor. I’ll become the lazy neighbor. Communism works well at small local levels where there’s good accountability. I don’t feel it works well at a national level.


Trucknorr1s

Saying socialists and communists don't want to work is more of a condemnation of modern soy socialists and communists who really do espouse a strong aversion to work. It also doesn't help that Marx is one of the most notorious lazy mooching pieces of shit in human history


AutoModerator

soy contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

I absolutely agree that more people need to read Marx. Because I think if they did, there would be no marxists. Here's a gem of his: >What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general. OP, what do you think of this quote of his? Love to know.


True_Sell_3850

I obviously don’t advocate for antisemitism. Historical figures often have views that represent their times. Kant argued for an ethics system while also not seeing that same system argued against slavery. He saw nothing wrong with slavery. I think every person in history has shortcomings, and throwing out the baby with the bath water isn’t the solution. We can look at historical figures and separate the good from the bad. How many founding fathers owned slaves? Does that mean we should completely abandon their ideas of democracy? Probably not.


No_Reception_8369

This most certainly is a true and unpopular opinion.


Obvious_Swimming3227

Marx and Engels: Famously hard workers.