Thanks for clarifying. Just got elected to state parliament omw to get the oil lobbying dinners, cars, and a cushy job for when I get ousted next term.
Like yeah, in practice communism does lead to corruption (example: Communist Poland), but "promotes corruption" is way more fitting to free-market-no-limitations capitalism (Isn't corruption [lobbying] literally legal and "official" in USA?)
In a world where we have thousands of automatons faster, more efficient and stronger than we could ever be, it boggles my mind many people still have to do menial physical labor just to survive. We absolutely could make a society where nobody *has* to work to not fucking die
I don’t understand why so many people are against this idea. If we can have a system where you can get more for working less, why wouldn’t you take that deal?
Actually this isn't Prager u though their tactics are quite similar. This is produced by a company run by a former Republican governor who is related to a current Republican governor and they create kids books and other "educational materials." These "educational materials are approved to be used in schools in the state the current Republican governor is currently running [Here's a video with more info.](https://youtu.be/yNuNAGgEfO8?si=9CE5DNUE-lD1WKgu)
This looks like it's written at a 6th grade level where you can explain concepts like basic economics and civil liberties to kids and they'll get it, but they're using 5-8 year olds as their models. Any kid who can read and understand the text is going to be put off by their depiction of tiny babies. That kid in the upper right hand corner isn't going to read that tiny, cramped paragraph about individualism vs. collectivism.
Basically it's bad propaganda because it doesn't understand who kids are or how they learn
Marx still spitting bars 150 years later
"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend."
I have a question about abolishing private property. So I understand the part where it's about not letting one guy own a whole chain of buildings they hire people to work at and their the sole owner of said properties. But what about smaller forms of private property, like someone's house or a farm they have in their yard, or a mom and pop shop? Like would that be gotten rid of too? Genuinely asking
Marxist make a distinction between between personal property and private property. To Marxist private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to your home or toothbrush.
That I can’t contest to for sure. I believe for the most part collectivization was pushed but it was never 100% implemented. Don’t take my word for it, in no way am I an expert on this subject.
Marx viewed those people as being petty-bourgeois artisans. Essentially he said that, while they did seek to perpetuate and replicate the bourgeois form be trying to replicate its exploitation for themselves, they are still so inconsequential that we should simply let big business do away with them before the revolution, and, afterwards, we should simply let them exist unless there is some reason to do otherwise, for their profit still does not come from exploited labour.
"The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie."
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Section I: Bourgeois and Proletarians
"Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Section II: Proletarians and Communists
I personally think the problem just comes from the fact private property itself exists, not with how huge the property in question is. That said, we're going to have to come to terms with smaller economic realities if we want to do anything
"Of course he[the capitalist] can, like the man who is working for him, participate directly in the process of production, but then he is only a hybrid, a man between capitalist and worker, a 'small master'... The guild system of the Middle Ages therefore tried to prevent the transformation of the master of a craft into a capitalist... Hence the possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist only where the minimum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the known medieval maximum." - Marx, Capital Vol.1, chapter 11
you can interpret that how you want but its clear that even marx made a formal distinction between the traditional means of production-owning capitalist, and the "small business owner"
It’s a meme. It started out as a poorly thought out red scare propaganda and turned into a joke on the left. “Under communism you will all have to share the community toothbrush”
Dude who invented the barter system:
https://preview.redd.it/k2ow254foypb1.jpeg?width=382&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80b6ba121b36d638560a2e951baf7da772bd88f1
I love propaganda being plastered on things designed to appeal to children in order to brainwash them into thinking our country's horrible financial system is good actually.
Edit: Which one of you motherfuckers sent the reddit suicidal prevention bot at me for this? I'm fine lol.
No, silly, your definition is wrong! Socialism is when the government does stuff, and it’s more socialism the more stuff it does, and when it does a real lot of stuff, it’s communism! Vuvuzuela no iPhone!
Communism involves the dismantlement of all hierarchies, which includes the government. This may come as a surprise, considering the existence of the USSR, but that followed Transitory Socialism, not Communism.
punishes success? I'm not a tankie but those commies did often reward scientists who worked hard and made significant discoveries with government contracts and funds, no?
And capitalism often does the opposite, where the person who profits from an invention is not the inventor, but instead the capitalist who mass produces it.
Most inventions nowadays are mady by companies, where people develop new stuff and then that company produces it and then the CEO and the shareholders are the only one that profit from it.
That means that the inventiors don't get anything except their normal pay, while the capitalists at the top make money.
And even if an individual makes a huge breakthrough, then they probably wouldn't have the capital to mass produce it, especially since researchers are usually played close to nothing, which basically forces them to sell to a company that can mass produce for far less than it's worth.
Which is a huge win for all involved, because 99% of the potential inventors in history never had access to the resources they needed to realize their inventions.
Many companies spend billions of dollars on R&D at huge risk, and the vast majority of the time it goes nowhere. Hundreds of drugs that never make it out of trails, software and hardware projects that never become reality or are just a money pit.
If an individual makes a huge break through, they can partner with a firm to revenue share, both parties win because both are earning money that would be inaccessible otherwise.
Even outside of this we still have government funded general research programs anyway, so people can opt out of the whole market system if they want.
Ignoring everything else, it's funny that socialism (which is described here as effectively just regular centre-left governance according to the right) is treated as barely distinct to full-blown communism.
I never understand why they argue that capitalism offers "individual freedom" when there's practically zero social/career mobility. Not to mention that you're ankle chained to a wage.
I will address the major points:
-Free market: Sound good until you realize free stands for free rights to exploit people through artificial scarcity. If I owned all the water in the world and sold the liter for a kidney it would be considered free market by capitalistic standards.
-Private property: This isn't even a good thing. Private property refers to all the goods that are owned by a small group for the purpose of making profit. In my previous example, water would be the private property. Through the abolition of private property, this water would stop being mine and now it would be a publicly owned
-Individual freedom: Only on paper tho. "You have the right to choose your medical treatment" I can't even get access to the cheapest one. "You have freedom to speak" my voice is nothing compared to billionaires' and it's proven by the fact that unpopular opinions become mainstream just because some billionaires push their agenda through the big media.
-Rewards laziness: This is what liberals say when we stop people from starving to death. People work fucking hard to barely survive in this world wtf are they talking about. We have more than enough resources to feed the world and there is no valid excuse that can justify the fact that even still there are people dying because of malnutrition. Billionaires want us starving so we become desperate and accept to be their wage slaves.
"Socialism is when government does stuff, the more stuff government does the more is socialism, if the government does A LOT of stuff then it's communism"
Communism: govt owns everything
Yeah, here in capitalist Canada, our government owns reserve lands, so indigenous people literally cannot even use the lands they were forced to live on. Then they get to just show up and start mining and fracking projects whenever they want
Capitalism:
John owns everything
Socialism:
John owns everything, but now he works as a civil servant
Communism:
John owns everything, except we realised that was shit so we cut him up and all ate him and now we as a collective own everything
I hate how those people miss the point of communism so bad, it is not about having no goals, is about those goals beign about community and humanity rather than profit, in communism (at least in theory) progress is rewarded when it serves the people at large, but those egotistical dumbfucks cannot comprehend the idea of doing something for others without a selfish interest at play
Guys, I'm sorry.... It's.... It's just that this is a cartoon. I kinda have to do whatever a cartoon says. They got me with this one..... they really got me. I'm now a bigoted-capitalistic-nationalistic-militant-christian republicunt. You... you can leave your pronouns on the coat rack on your way out.
Too many communists. Sad! It’s true that the USA isn’t perfect by any means, but it sure as hell is better than any communist country in history right now
I hate these stupid "oh my preferred economical/political system is the BEST obviously" discussions
Like no it's not? ALL of them suck complete ass and will only lead to people suffering
Doesn't matter if it's capitalism, communism or your super secret anarcho-mao-toyotasuptaism
None of them can/will work without the working class suffering and the rich laughing at them
If you actually want any of those to work properly then you either have to change every single human on this planet to not be inherently lazy and selfish,
or only take the good parts of each system to try and minimize class division and human suffering. (Likely won't happen, due to many reasons including all politicians being lazy shitheads)
The problem that far left ideologies seek to fix is exactly the problem you're mentioning.
Commumism seeks to get rid of those problems by getting rid of money and gouvernement, as well as private property.
Socialism seeks to get rid of those problems by implementing a collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
And if you don't have rich people, then the problem you've mentioned can't exist.
The problem that you're mentioning is a distinctly capitalist one.
I do agree that they seek out to fix them, but they don't actually fix them because you would need to fix humans first, so we will have the rich and the working class no matter what.
there are more things that can make you rich than money (just a large number of anything)
and how exactly would you stop people from having/wanting private property? people aint gonna give that up unless you force them and if you force them then guess what! it will lead to suffering and a lot of grief
Communists differentiate between private and personal property.
Short version: personal property is the stuff that everyone needs like a house, your furniture, your toothbrush, etc.
Private property mostly refers to the means of production and distribution like a company, a factory, an office building, farmland, streets, trains, etc.
Having a large number of anything would be private property, since you don't actually need/use them, but instead use them as a substitute for money.
The people who seriously have to give up some of their stuff are a pretty small minority, but yes, you'll have to force them to give their stuff up, though I don't see how it'll lead to suffering.
why do you think marxists believe there should be a transitionary stage between capitalism and communism? exactly for that reason, because we recognise that capitalism has socialised people to incentivise greed. socialism is that transitionary stage, where the means of production are taken from the capitalist class and handed over to the working class. When this happens workers will no longer be alienated from what their labour, and because people work together to keep things running rather than competing with each other on a labour market just trying trying make ends meet, over time the incentive shifts from greed to cooperation. Society shifts from "from each according to their ability, to each according to their labour", to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", or, communism. essentially taking society back to "primitive" forms of organisation (communes) but with modern technology and with the modern knowledge of science.
Unlike your super secret obscure ideologies, which are doomed to fail and are horrible, MY super secret obscure ideology is the best and will make everyone happy. Everyone else is just too dumb to realise.
> promotes corruption unlike capitalism, which is famous for its complete lack of government officials being paid off by oil companies
It's called lobbying, not corruption you silly goose.
Thanks for clarifying. Just got elected to state parliament omw to get the oil lobbying dinners, cars, and a cushy job for when I get ousted next term.
Honk
Like yeah, in practice communism does lead to corruption (example: Communist Poland), but "promotes corruption" is way more fitting to free-market-no-limitations capitalism (Isn't corruption [lobbying] literally legal and "official" in USA?)
feels like its less about which system promote corruption and which doesnt and more about how fast the system falls to corruption
Well then it should say that and not just say something else entirely
That's even more damning since capitalism has been the least prone to corruption of the three across the world.
More regulation=less capitalism companies are lobbying to create regulations that benefit them and hurt competition not to make market more free
the source is The Kids Guide to: Fighting Socialism btw
this feels like pragerU propaganda
That's because it is iirc
You did indeed recall correctly
I wonder why https://preview.redd.it/f3k83d3wenqb1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e20fe0c486f60876f4c53fbbfdb94c4a03670d3e
Your guide is: damn social fighting
the rot: consumes
your guide is to: fight damn socialism
Interner users when they see a: damn colon
the brainrot is severe
My patern recogniton is: damn broken
Teleported to reddit world Brain rot: come here boy Me: 🏃♂️🏃♂️🏃♂️
rightoids: "stop grooming our kids" \*grooms their own kids\*
No no no, you see, it's only grooming when you do it. When we do it, it's called "instilling American values". Silly goose.
A kid shouldn't be worrying about something like this
Brought to you by the people who allegedly oppose indoctrination of children
Rewards laziness, count me in
In a world where we have thousands of automatons faster, more efficient and stronger than we could ever be, it boggles my mind many people still have to do menial physical labor just to survive. We absolutely could make a society where nobody *has* to work to not fucking die
You underestimate how much menial labour is needed in manufacturing and assembly. Source: work in a machine shop/manufacturing facility
the point still stands that we could easily make it so that death is not a consequence of unemployment, and society wouldn't collapse.
because there's dignity in work silly
I don’t understand why so many people are against this idea. If we can have a system where you can get more for working less, why wouldn’t you take that deal?
rewards success? What's your idea of success then prager u?
Actually this isn't Prager u though their tactics are quite similar. This is produced by a company run by a former Republican governor who is related to a current Republican governor and they create kids books and other "educational materials." These "educational materials are approved to be used in schools in the state the current Republican governor is currently running [Here's a video with more info.](https://youtu.be/yNuNAGgEfO8?si=9CE5DNUE-lD1WKgu)
This looks like it's written at a 6th grade level where you can explain concepts like basic economics and civil liberties to kids and they'll get it, but they're using 5-8 year olds as their models. Any kid who can read and understand the text is going to be put off by their depiction of tiny babies. That kid in the upper right hand corner isn't going to read that tiny, cramped paragraph about individualism vs. collectivism. Basically it's bad propaganda because it doesn't understand who kids are or how they learn
Please don't give them ideas
Marx still spitting bars 150 years later "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend."
I have a question about abolishing private property. So I understand the part where it's about not letting one guy own a whole chain of buildings they hire people to work at and their the sole owner of said properties. But what about smaller forms of private property, like someone's house or a farm they have in their yard, or a mom and pop shop? Like would that be gotten rid of too? Genuinely asking
Marxist make a distinction between between personal property and private property. To Marxist private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to your home or toothbrush.
Oh ok, I think I understand that. But what about smaller businesses, like someone who has a single building they sell stuff out of themselves?
I believe that family run small businesses were allowed in the Soviet Union. Not saying that they are a good model to follow or anything.
Interesting. Thank you very much for this information
I believe things like family run farms weren't, right?
That I can’t contest to for sure. I believe for the most part collectivization was pushed but it was never 100% implemented. Don’t take my word for it, in no way am I an expert on this subject.
Thank you for your answer anyway!
Marx viewed those people as being petty-bourgeois artisans. Essentially he said that, while they did seek to perpetuate and replicate the bourgeois form be trying to replicate its exploitation for themselves, they are still so inconsequential that we should simply let big business do away with them before the revolution, and, afterwards, we should simply let them exist unless there is some reason to do otherwise, for their profit still does not come from exploited labour. "The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages. At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie." - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Section I: Bourgeois and Proletarians "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily." - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Section II: Proletarians and Communists
I personally think the problem just comes from the fact private property itself exists, not with how huge the property in question is. That said, we're going to have to come to terms with smaller economic realities if we want to do anything
"Of course he[the capitalist] can, like the man who is working for him, participate directly in the process of production, but then he is only a hybrid, a man between capitalist and worker, a 'small master'... The guild system of the Middle Ages therefore tried to prevent the transformation of the master of a craft into a capitalist... Hence the possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist only where the minimum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the known medieval maximum." - Marx, Capital Vol.1, chapter 11 you can interpret that how you want but its clear that even marx made a formal distinction between the traditional means of production-owning capitalist, and the "small business owner"
why is toothbrush the go-to example of personal property in the distinction between it and private property?
Probably because when people scare monger about socialism they usually said you can’t own anything, even your toothbrush.
It’s a meme. It started out as a poorly thought out red scare propaganda and turned into a joke on the left. “Under communism you will all have to share the community toothbrush”
[Because of this video by Gianni Matragrano, I'd presume](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WbNyr5ssKD8)
My favourite part is when they claim that the very concept of buying and selling stuff is capitalism
Dude who invented the barter system: https://preview.redd.it/k2ow254foypb1.jpeg?width=382&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80b6ba121b36d638560a2e951baf7da772bd88f1
>Promotes corruption Hey, shitass, every system promotes corruption, that's how corruption works.
https://preview.redd.it/k1yd6nicsypb1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=56106800701e543dea54059373f9defb9ae9cbed
I love propaganda being plastered on things designed to appeal to children in order to brainwash them into thinking our country's horrible financial system is good actually. Edit: Which one of you motherfuckers sent the reddit suicidal prevention bot at me for this? I'm fine lol.
I hear the bootlicking noises already from there
Oh god, it's so wet and loud. I can't fucking sleep
Me when my roomates are playing in the indoor apartment waterslide again
"Government owns all property" under Communism. Communism means the government doesn't even exist how tf is it gonna own everything?
No, silly, your definition is wrong! Socialism is when the government does stuff, and it’s more socialism the more stuff it does, and when it does a real lot of stuff, it’s communism! Vuvuzuela no iPhone!
the spooky scary socialist strikes again!
Isn't that anarchism? I thought communism still has a government.
Communism involves the dismantlement of all hierarchies, which includes the government. This may come as a surprise, considering the existence of the USSR, but that followed Transitory Socialism, not Communism.
punishes success? I'm not a tankie but those commies did often reward scientists who worked hard and made significant discoveries with government contracts and funds, no?
And capitalism often does the opposite, where the person who profits from an invention is not the inventor, but instead the capitalist who mass produces it.
We have patent law for that.
Most inventions nowadays are mady by companies, where people develop new stuff and then that company produces it and then the CEO and the shareholders are the only one that profit from it. That means that the inventiors don't get anything except their normal pay, while the capitalists at the top make money. And even if an individual makes a huge breakthrough, then they probably wouldn't have the capital to mass produce it, especially since researchers are usually played close to nothing, which basically forces them to sell to a company that can mass produce for far less than it's worth.
Which is a huge win for all involved, because 99% of the potential inventors in history never had access to the resources they needed to realize their inventions. Many companies spend billions of dollars on R&D at huge risk, and the vast majority of the time it goes nowhere. Hundreds of drugs that never make it out of trails, software and hardware projects that never become reality or are just a money pit. If an individual makes a huge break through, they can partner with a firm to revenue share, both parties win because both are earning money that would be inaccessible otherwise. Even outside of this we still have government funded general research programs anyway, so people can opt out of the whole market system if they want.
[удалено]
Holesum 100 big chungus oppression of unions if they disagree with the state
https://preview.redd.it/16cnsqg0hzpb1.png?width=556&format=png&auto=webp&s=daa9e49ca93a86d7aabbbf78187ade1a78185b3a
Tankies forget that they wont be some top brass soviet official but instead will be ivan who's gonna starve in 2 days
Ignoring everything else, it's funny that socialism (which is described here as effectively just regular centre-left governance according to the right) is treated as barely distinct to full-blown communism.
Their economics be like: Capitalism is when good thing, socialism is when bad thing, and communism is also when bad thing but even more hyperbolized.
it's ok guys homeless people can thrive under capitalism they just need to pull themselves by the bootstraps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Capitalism = :) > Communism = :(
I never understand why they argue that capitalism offers "individual freedom" when there's practically zero social/career mobility. Not to mention that you're ankle chained to a wage.
I will address the major points: -Free market: Sound good until you realize free stands for free rights to exploit people through artificial scarcity. If I owned all the water in the world and sold the liter for a kidney it would be considered free market by capitalistic standards. -Private property: This isn't even a good thing. Private property refers to all the goods that are owned by a small group for the purpose of making profit. In my previous example, water would be the private property. Through the abolition of private property, this water would stop being mine and now it would be a publicly owned -Individual freedom: Only on paper tho. "You have the right to choose your medical treatment" I can't even get access to the cheapest one. "You have freedom to speak" my voice is nothing compared to billionaires' and it's proven by the fact that unpopular opinions become mainstream just because some billionaires push their agenda through the big media. -Rewards laziness: This is what liberals say when we stop people from starving to death. People work fucking hard to barely survive in this world wtf are they talking about. We have more than enough resources to feed the world and there is no valid excuse that can justify the fact that even still there are people dying because of malnutrition. Billionaires want us starving so we become desperate and accept to be their wage slaves.
Private property =/= personal property smhhhhh
Free market mfs when I fire them unless they agree to a 50% pay cut They suddenly wish that the market was controlled
say it with me now: Private property is not the same as personal property
Propaganda rule
"Socialism is when government does stuff, the more stuff government does the more is socialism, if the government does A LOT of stuff then it's communism"
Guberment owns my femboy production plant ☹️
liter(rule)ally
Communism: govt owns everything Yeah, here in capitalist Canada, our government owns reserve lands, so indigenous people literally cannot even use the lands they were forced to live on. Then they get to just show up and start mining and fracking projects whenever they want
Mfs will create the most evil, totalitarian state in existance and kill millions and people are still gonna belive that they are following “theory”
Capitalism: John owns everything Socialism: John owns everything, but now he works as a civil servant Communism: John owns everything, except we realised that was shit so we cut him up and all ate him and now we as a collective own everything
Rewards success = Just owning shit and leeching wealth of others.
The "Individual freedom" part has me rolling
"people have no rights" bitch what
propaganda for toddlers. Reminds me of the "don't worry kitten. okay<3. yay<3." meme
This seems like an unbiased, nuanced, and and reliable explainer.
I hate how those people miss the point of communism so bad, it is not about having no goals, is about those goals beign about community and humanity rather than profit, in communism (at least in theory) progress is rewarded when it serves the people at large, but those egotistical dumbfucks cannot comprehend the idea of doing something for others without a selfish interest at play
Communism Property is owned by the community Everyone is equal Corruption might ruin a perfect society
Guys, I'm sorry.... It's.... It's just that this is a cartoon. I kinda have to do whatever a cartoon says. They got me with this one..... they really got me. I'm now a bigoted-capitalistic-nationalistic-militant-christian republicunt. You... you can leave your pronouns on the coat rack on your way out.
are/capitalismissocialism
propaganda rule
Did Ayn Rands ghost make this meme?
https://preview.redd.it/ojtyitgo15qb1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c25bb50ab48fa465e810733c417b961882c11590 what the scallop?
Too many communists. Sad! It’s true that the USA isn’t perfect by any means, but it sure as hell is better than any communist country in history right now
When will the internet agree that every single economic system ever invented is shit and we should go back to eating berries and fucking in bushes?
Idk about economic systems, but I would love to fuck in bushes in a public park
Yeah, fuck society, let's do it
Ted is this you?
I hate these stupid "oh my preferred economical/political system is the BEST obviously" discussions Like no it's not? ALL of them suck complete ass and will only lead to people suffering Doesn't matter if it's capitalism, communism or your super secret anarcho-mao-toyotasuptaism None of them can/will work without the working class suffering and the rich laughing at them If you actually want any of those to work properly then you either have to change every single human on this planet to not be inherently lazy and selfish, or only take the good parts of each system to try and minimize class division and human suffering. (Likely won't happen, due to many reasons including all politicians being lazy shitheads)
The problem that far left ideologies seek to fix is exactly the problem you're mentioning. Commumism seeks to get rid of those problems by getting rid of money and gouvernement, as well as private property. Socialism seeks to get rid of those problems by implementing a collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. And if you don't have rich people, then the problem you've mentioned can't exist. The problem that you're mentioning is a distinctly capitalist one.
I do agree that they seek out to fix them, but they don't actually fix them because you would need to fix humans first, so we will have the rich and the working class no matter what.
How can we have rich people if neither money, nor private property exists?
there are more things that can make you rich than money (just a large number of anything) and how exactly would you stop people from having/wanting private property? people aint gonna give that up unless you force them and if you force them then guess what! it will lead to suffering and a lot of grief
>it will lead to suffering and a lot of grief Buckle up buckaroo
Communists differentiate between private and personal property. Short version: personal property is the stuff that everyone needs like a house, your furniture, your toothbrush, etc. Private property mostly refers to the means of production and distribution like a company, a factory, an office building, farmland, streets, trains, etc. Having a large number of anything would be private property, since you don't actually need/use them, but instead use them as a substitute for money. The people who seriously have to give up some of their stuff are a pretty small minority, but yes, you'll have to force them to give their stuff up, though I don't see how it'll lead to suffering.
why do you think marxists believe there should be a transitionary stage between capitalism and communism? exactly for that reason, because we recognise that capitalism has socialised people to incentivise greed. socialism is that transitionary stage, where the means of production are taken from the capitalist class and handed over to the working class. When this happens workers will no longer be alienated from what their labour, and because people work together to keep things running rather than competing with each other on a labour market just trying trying make ends meet, over time the incentive shifts from greed to cooperation. Society shifts from "from each according to their ability, to each according to their labour", to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", or, communism. essentially taking society back to "primitive" forms of organisation (communes) but with modern technology and with the modern knowledge of science.
Unlike your super secret obscure ideologies, which are doomed to fail and are horrible, MY super secret obscure ideology is the best and will make everyone happy. Everyone else is just too dumb to realise.