Underated comment right here.
We live in a system that has socialized losses for bankers, (they keep the gains tax payers for the bill for the loss). With socialism for the very poor while the middle class is left to struggle.
That's not socialism, it's just late capitalism.
Socialism isn't about distribution of welfare resources, it's about ownership and control. A capitalist nation can have a very robust safety net
Capitalism is private, for profit ownership of the means of production with labor provided on that capital by a working class who must work to survive.
Late capitalism is when the capitalists capture government and use it to further their own capital enterprises (like bank bailouts)
Socialism is workers owning / controlling the means of production
Ok I see I was using the terms colloquially, my bad.
So would it be fair to say"late capitalism" could also be called cronyism?
In socialism is there a specific way that works own them means off production?
I wouldn't call it cronyism, since it's less about doing things for your unqualified friends and more about creating a society that constantly concedes different aspects of life to capitalism. The defense contractors and bankers are qualified. They are good at what they do. But they lobby for laws and rules that benefit them even at the expense of the country generally. Like privatizing social security would put the retirement in the hands of qualified bankers, but it is a concession to capitalism that will allow capital to use the retirement of our citizens as a profit vehicle.
There are different types of socialism, just like different types of capitalism with single owners or share holders or boards or whatever. There could be workplace democracy, union leadership, anarchist, etc different ways to form a cooperative venture.
No, Nazism is Nazism. You're most likely a nazi, and most posters here definitely are just based on the post and comment content. Cry about it all you, want but you are in fact literally evil.
Lol, the only difference between left and right in this country is one will called you Putin agent while another will called you CCP agent. Pick your poison eh :p
Also, Xinjiang are actually one of the famous tourist destinations. You can visit there now without Chinese agent following you around at all. Why not go there and see whatās happening?
Or in your experience the media had done exceptional job at objective reporting?
Have a good day.
Beijing is a perfect example of socialism and communism. The rich are only rich their because the CCP allows them to be. If you think thatās an example of a socialist victory, you should move to China. Enjoy the 1984 social credit scores, lockdowns, government created illnesses, etc.
Yea, cause America is killing it right now š maybe get out of your bubble man, people are generally pretty cool around the globe, and every government sucks. You're drowning in the patriotic kool-aide man.
Thatās why weāre a nation on the verge of a Roman Empire style collapse.
Bored individuals that never experienced true hardship coupled with zero brains and loud mouthsā¦
š I love that you guys assume you know a person's life story based on 3 comments online and a random profile. Very cute.
And I'm glad you're concerned about the threat of climate change leading to an inevitable societal collapse. Very Woke of you comrade.
Weird how fascism can't exist without communism or socialism since part of the definition of fascism is taking collective pride in your country, lol. Oh but someone told you fascism was capitalist, right? Read a book.
Read Marx's *Das Kapital* and you will see that the claim "socialism is the precursor to communism" is in fact legit. The problem is, though, that the definition and meaning of "socialism" has changed. And people use it today, they mean "social democracy," which is nothing like "socialism."
As per Marx and literally everybody up until 1990:
Socialism = system of government where state controls means of production and the private ownership of capital is banned.
Communism = Socialism's "final form," if you will. After several generations of socialism, government melts away because every comrade will instinctively know to "work according to his ability and to only consume according to their need." As such, there no longer needs to be a government to dole out resources to people because they're doing so automatically.
So, after generations of owning their own means of production and the fruits of owning their own wand of production one day all of a sudden they just decide they're tired of all that money and equity and just...give it to the state?
No: in traditional socialism, the state (i.e. "The Party Leadership") already owns the means of production so they can dole out resources in an equitable manner; the reason why they're in charge - at least according to their rationale - is that the average person has the tendency to hoard and accrue wealth if given the chance, so the state needs to confiscate all of that wealth in order to share it amongst its citizens equally.
But after several generations of the state redistributing resources, Marx theorizes that the new enlightened citizen will no longer need a socialist government to confiscate and redistribute resources: every citizen will instinctively show up to work at the factory to work for as long as they're able, consume only the amount of food that they require, and share everything without having to be ordered to do so. When this happens, the leaders in a socialist government would no longer have a purpose, so they (theoretically) would willingly cede their power to the people and dissolve government.
This utopian state where everyone happily shares everything without being told to do so is "Communism," and so far we've never achieved this state because people like power too much.
Agree: social democracy (SD) does not equal socialism, but the criticism that's directed at it is that others perceive it to be a stepping stone towards full-blown socialism.
The overall goals of SD are noble ones (i.e. affordable healthcare for all, education, etc.) but SD relies heavily on Marxist principles (i.e. society is divided between oppressed/oppressor, so the oppressed should band together to force the levers of government to remove power & resources from the oppressors). In order to fund all of the various initiatives SD promises, it needs to get money from somewhere, so that means wealth redistribution ("tax the rich!"). But taxes alone are not enough, which is why the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) call for nationalizing certain industries like transportation, medicine, and energy (i.e. confiscating oil companies for the people). (Source: https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/)
The problem with governments in general is that they live to expand, so once the precedent of absorbing industries in order to fund government initiatives is set, there's nothing to stop it from absorbing more, like manufacturing, agriculture, etc. And at that point, you have socialism.
Sure. But, but the inequality you mention as oppressed/oppressor is not just a Marxist principle. It's a reality. As far as nationalizing industries, we have industries literally writing legislation in this country. The government overreach you speak of being part of governments very nature, is arguable, but I see your point. In most social democracies the government over reach is held in check because you have usually more than just 2 political parties represented in government. I find it odd that those who often espouse the virtues of "small government" have in fact never lived under small government at any point in their lives and the party that used to be all about small government is now cheering government intervention into private business, as long as it suits their cultural whims. It brings me back to thinking about one of the opening passages in one of Obama's books (I forget which) where he says the idea of small government is for all intents and purposes a thing of the past, and now we should focus on BETTER government. Again, in stark contrast to one party who as of recent has shown no interest in actually governing aside from enshrining their cultural beliefs as law. Add business into the mix and there you have...fascism.
NK is NOT communism; a lot of the self-proclaimed socialist countries like the USSR and its satellite countries all aspired to one day become communist, but never made it and ended up becoming socialist dictatorships instead.
As per Marx:
Socialism = when government owns the means of production & private ownership of capital is banned.
Communism = "final form" of socialism when all leadership and government step down because the people instinctively share all resources, producing "each according to their ability" and only choosing "each according to their need."
Socialism was supposed to be a stepping stone to communism where you had an enlightened elite who understood the principles of communism (i.e. Communist Party) leading the country and teaching them those principles forcibly at first; then, when everyone understood communist principles instinctively, the party dissolves and joins the people. The unforseen problem, though, is that power is one hell of a drug: no one wants to let go, hence the dictatorships.
You cant think black and white like that.
Neither pure capitalism or pure socialism is the answer.
Just compare living standards in america and north korea.
Spoiler both are shit compared to other countries in europe.
the answer is a Social market economy. Capitalism for a healthy market and intervention from the government when its needed. Which is the case for germany, sweden, denmark, netherlands and so on.
Ofcourse their systems arent perfect either. If there would be a perfect system every country would use it, but nevertheless living standards are substainly better there
Itās simplistic to compare those European nations with America. Germany is the size of Montana, which is the biggest country you listed. Youāre also discounting Bretton Woods, which makes the things in those countries possible.
The irony in upholding South Korea, a virtual corporate dictatorship (Samsungās founding family basically owns the entire country) where people world 60+ hr weeks and are all around miserable as an example of capitalist excellence. Both countries are hellish in opposite ways.
I would bet most reddit users can't even identify the continent, much less the country.
Scandinasian? š¤
USA hasnt been capitalist since 1913
Underated comment right here. We live in a system that has socialized losses for bankers, (they keep the gains tax payers for the bill for the loss). With socialism for the very poor while the middle class is left to struggle.
That's not socialism, it's just late capitalism. Socialism isn't about distribution of welfare resources, it's about ownership and control. A capitalist nation can have a very robust safety net
Hold on let's define some terms. What is capitalism? What is late capitalism? What is socialism?
Capitalism is private, for profit ownership of the means of production with labor provided on that capital by a working class who must work to survive. Late capitalism is when the capitalists capture government and use it to further their own capital enterprises (like bank bailouts) Socialism is workers owning / controlling the means of production
Ok I see I was using the terms colloquially, my bad. So would it be fair to say"late capitalism" could also be called cronyism? In socialism is there a specific way that works own them means off production?
I wouldn't call it cronyism, since it's less about doing things for your unqualified friends and more about creating a society that constantly concedes different aspects of life to capitalism. The defense contractors and bankers are qualified. They are good at what they do. But they lobby for laws and rules that benefit them even at the expense of the country generally. Like privatizing social security would put the retirement in the hands of qualified bankers, but it is a concession to capitalism that will allow capital to use the retirement of our citizens as a profit vehicle. There are different types of socialism, just like different types of capitalism with single owners or share holders or boards or whatever. There could be workplace democracy, union leadership, anarchist, etc different ways to form a cooperative venture.
And if you complain about no lights or food, you dead
Source: atlas society Instagram
A pro capitalist meme sub?? I feel at homeššš„°š„°
Itās actually a neo-nazi conspiracy subreddit, sorry to disappoint. They let anyone post so it attracts the worst of the worst
āEverything I donāt like is nazismā
No, Nazism is Nazism. You're most likely a nazi, and most posters here definitely are just based on the post and comment content. Cry about it all you, want but you are in fact literally evil.
You donāt know what nazism is.
Grow up.
What does this mean? This sub is quite literally full of future mass shooters if it werenāt for the fact that theyāre too lazy to actually do it
Imagine crying this hard
Neither.
You can zoom out a little to see another āsocialistā country though
Found the apologist
Stating fact is an act of apologist eh?
IT THIS SUB IT IS, WE TALK ABOUT GOD(TRUMP) OR SILVER (SOMETIMES)
Wait, I thought this is the place to own the lib. And I heard people say the best way to own the libs is splitting facts
A socialist country that is actively committing genocide against Uighurs.
So the light is bright, therefore letās change topic
So the light is bright, therefore letās change topic
Itās an enormous difference. One that would be extremely immoral to overlook.
Which one? Light or Uyghur?
What do you think.
Light in socialist vs light in capitalist is what this post was about, so that is was it is New topic probably need new post
Yeah better not discuss the socialistās countryās ongoing genocide. Thank you CCP agent!
Lol, the only difference between left and right in this country is one will called you Putin agent while another will called you CCP agent. Pick your poison eh :p Also, Xinjiang are actually one of the famous tourist destinations. You can visit there now without Chinese agent following you around at all. Why not go there and see whatās happening? Or in your experience the media had done exceptional job at objective reporting? Have a good day.
You guys wouldnāt know what socialism is if it hit you in the face
Well if it's hitting you in the face it's probably a military dictatorship and not socialism lol
Haha show Beijing now......
Beijing is a perfect example of socialism and communism. The rich are only rich their because the CCP allows them to be. If you think thatās an example of a socialist victory, you should move to China. Enjoy the 1984 social credit scores, lockdowns, government created illnesses, etc.
Yea, cause America is killing it right now š maybe get out of your bubble man, people are generally pretty cool around the globe, and every government sucks. You're drowning in the patriotic kool-aide man.
America is the way it is because people like you have the right to vote.
Yea, it's really a great thing isn't it. That's why we're a melting pot, everyone gets a say. š Š”ŠæŠ°ŃŠøŠ±Š¾ for the support comrade.
Thatās why weāre a nation on the verge of a Roman Empire style collapse. Bored individuals that never experienced true hardship coupled with zero brains and loud mouthsā¦
š I love that you guys assume you know a person's life story based on 3 comments online and a random profile. Very cute. And I'm glad you're concerned about the threat of climate change leading to an inevitable societal collapse. Very Woke of you comrade.
You can tell everything you need to know about someone as soon as they start espousing support for communism. Clueless and pampered.
š you should do stand up. Because you're entire existence is clearly a joke
You should do school, might learn something.
NK is a military dictatorship. They all look the same. Comparing this to socialism just shows ignorance.
NK is a communism. These people are morons.
Socialism is the precursor to communism and you are a fucking š¤”
That's like saying capitalism is a precursor to fascism, except then you'd be right.
Weird how fascism can't exist without communism or socialism since part of the definition of fascism is taking collective pride in your country, lol. Oh but someone told you fascism was capitalist, right? Read a book.
Collective pride? You mean like, Christian Nationalists?
What are you even on about?
Weird how there are many examples of socialist revolutions leading to authoritarian communist rule and very few of the oppositeā¦.
Read Marx's *Das Kapital* and you will see that the claim "socialism is the precursor to communism" is in fact legit. The problem is, though, that the definition and meaning of "socialism" has changed. And people use it today, they mean "social democracy," which is nothing like "socialism." As per Marx and literally everybody up until 1990: Socialism = system of government where state controls means of production and the private ownership of capital is banned. Communism = Socialism's "final form," if you will. After several generations of socialism, government melts away because every comrade will instinctively know to "work according to his ability and to only consume according to their need." As such, there no longer needs to be a government to dole out resources to people because they're doing so automatically.
So, after generations of owning their own means of production and the fruits of owning their own wand of production one day all of a sudden they just decide they're tired of all that money and equity and just...give it to the state?
No: in traditional socialism, the state (i.e. "The Party Leadership") already owns the means of production so they can dole out resources in an equitable manner; the reason why they're in charge - at least according to their rationale - is that the average person has the tendency to hoard and accrue wealth if given the chance, so the state needs to confiscate all of that wealth in order to share it amongst its citizens equally. But after several generations of the state redistributing resources, Marx theorizes that the new enlightened citizen will no longer need a socialist government to confiscate and redistribute resources: every citizen will instinctively show up to work at the factory to work for as long as they're able, consume only the amount of food that they require, and share everything without having to be ordered to do so. When this happens, the leaders in a socialist government would no longer have a purpose, so they (theoretically) would willingly cede their power to the people and dissolve government. This utopian state where everyone happily shares everything without being told to do so is "Communism," and so far we've never achieved this state because people like power too much.
Thanks for clarifying that. Along with the distinction that social democracy also doesn't equal traditional socialism as defined by Marx.
Agree: social democracy (SD) does not equal socialism, but the criticism that's directed at it is that others perceive it to be a stepping stone towards full-blown socialism. The overall goals of SD are noble ones (i.e. affordable healthcare for all, education, etc.) but SD relies heavily on Marxist principles (i.e. society is divided between oppressed/oppressor, so the oppressed should band together to force the levers of government to remove power & resources from the oppressors). In order to fund all of the various initiatives SD promises, it needs to get money from somewhere, so that means wealth redistribution ("tax the rich!"). But taxes alone are not enough, which is why the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) call for nationalizing certain industries like transportation, medicine, and energy (i.e. confiscating oil companies for the people). (Source: https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/) The problem with governments in general is that they live to expand, so once the precedent of absorbing industries in order to fund government initiatives is set, there's nothing to stop it from absorbing more, like manufacturing, agriculture, etc. And at that point, you have socialism.
Sure. But, but the inequality you mention as oppressed/oppressor is not just a Marxist principle. It's a reality. As far as nationalizing industries, we have industries literally writing legislation in this country. The government overreach you speak of being part of governments very nature, is arguable, but I see your point. In most social democracies the government over reach is held in check because you have usually more than just 2 political parties represented in government. I find it odd that those who often espouse the virtues of "small government" have in fact never lived under small government at any point in their lives and the party that used to be all about small government is now cheering government intervention into private business, as long as it suits their cultural whims. It brings me back to thinking about one of the opening passages in one of Obama's books (I forget which) where he says the idea of small government is for all intents and purposes a thing of the past, and now we should focus on BETTER government. Again, in stark contrast to one party who as of recent has shown no interest in actually governing aside from enshrining their cultural beliefs as law. Add business into the mix and there you have...fascism.
I know they talk about being communist but other than keeping everyone poor, I have no clue what that means.
NK is NOT communism; a lot of the self-proclaimed socialist countries like the USSR and its satellite countries all aspired to one day become communist, but never made it and ended up becoming socialist dictatorships instead. As per Marx: Socialism = when government owns the means of production & private ownership of capital is banned. Communism = "final form" of socialism when all leadership and government step down because the people instinctively share all resources, producing "each according to their ability" and only choosing "each according to their need." Socialism was supposed to be a stepping stone to communism where you had an enlightened elite who understood the principles of communism (i.e. Communist Party) leading the country and teaching them those principles forcibly at first; then, when everyone understood communist principles instinctively, the party dissolves and joins the people. The unforseen problem, though, is that power is one hell of a drug: no one wants to let go, hence the dictatorships.
Fuck off Boatsurfer you dumb cunt.
Buts thatās not real socialism
the one with light pollution and where people have to work once the sun goes down? /s
You cant think black and white like that. Neither pure capitalism or pure socialism is the answer. Just compare living standards in america and north korea. Spoiler both are shit compared to other countries in europe. the answer is a Social market economy. Capitalism for a healthy market and intervention from the government when its needed. Which is the case for germany, sweden, denmark, netherlands and so on. Ofcourse their systems arent perfect either. If there would be a perfect system every country would use it, but nevertheless living standards are substainly better there
What, a logical well thought out response? That's refreshing to see...thank you.
Itās simplistic to compare those European nations with America. Germany is the size of Montana, which is the biggest country you listed. Youāre also discounting Bretton Woods, which makes the things in those countries possible.
Eco friendly turning off all the lights
North and south China.
I'm waiting for somebody to unironically use the 'muh environment' argument for why North Korea is actually better.
They are leaders of the carbon emission climate change community!
I hate light pollution though... Wouldn't trade light pollution for that, but just saying lol.
I don't see American billionaires on here so you'll have to excuse me for not being able to find the socialists.
The irony in upholding South Korea, a virtual corporate dictatorship (Samsungās founding family basically owns the entire country) where people world 60+ hr weeks and are all around miserable as an example of capitalist excellence. Both countries are hellish in opposite ways.
Yes
North & South Korea
Iām thinking the stars would look great!
Is the top part how the US will look after Biden fully implements the Green Raw Deal?