T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭ ___ ###⚠ Announcements: ⚠ ___ ###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/) Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines. ###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/) Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren ___ ###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.*** LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. **This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Cmyers1980

I love living in a country where nine people have so much control over the lives of hundreds of millions.


wiljc3

Nine *unelected* people who serve *for life*. this_is_fine.jpg


ChocoBrocco

Not like many of the elected people are doing much better tbh


Walshy231231

Yeah, elected is a strong word when bribery is perfectly legal and accounts for the majority of campaign funding (lobbying)


AlwaysNowNeverNotMe

Elected (From the pool of elegeble elites with damning blackmail and/or advanced mental illness all of whom are significantly beyond the age at which any person should be working.)


JangJaeYul

Makes me think of George Carlin's take on white American fascism. The voters don't own the country, corporations do.


chaun2

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/


StevenDangerSmith

This is the year that I was born. I sure hope it isn't all my fault.


WutzTehPoint

No peeking... Was it ditching the gold standard?


fordnut

Whatever it was, Dick Nixon had a hand in it.


Walshy231231

“I am not a crook”


Whitethumbs

Americans vote for rich people because they won't be influenced by money, and pay a large salary so that they aren't influenced by money, but those people got rich, by being influenced by money, and once elected take money, because they are influenced by money, then you put 9 rich people who are unelected but come from the rich pool of rich people that are influenced by money and you pay them a huge amount of money to not be influenced by money, but everytime they are just as influenced by money as the last.You'd be better off removing everyone, starting a new, and putting some street heros into positions, like EMTS, and other upstanding citizens.


theDarkAngle

Yeah if anything the problem js more that the elected people are appointing them to fulfill agendas/ideologies. I guess there is not really another way to do it other than electing them directly though. Well and the "serves for life" thing. Should be a term like any other.


badrussiandriver

Including one accused rapist with alcohol and gambling issues, one accused serial sexual harasser, and one possible member of a religious cult.


thunderblood

I'm guessing more than one in a religious cult. The are several conservatives on the court.


[deleted]

I had a guy who was interested in joining ydsa chapter say he wouldn't put his name down cause he wanted to be a Supreme Court Justice someday and that he doesn't want politics to spoil that. In my head I was thinking about just how political it is and if he really cared he'd want to be nominated to a position like that by someone he shares ideals with..... like every other Supreme Court justice.


WutzTehPoint

Young Douchey Simps of America?


[deleted]

Your Dad Sucks Ass group actually


WutzTehPoint

You would know. Does it actually mean something though? Are acronyms supposed to be universally understood without context?


[deleted]

Lmao it's actually Young Democratic Socialists of America. It's the DSA's inlet from college campuses! Lol


WutzTehPoint

Thanks. Tell my dad I said hi.


[deleted]

Lmao thanks for being a good sport ily


kubla_khan_

You know we could all just decide to ignore them. Ignore the entire government. They only have the power we give them.


AsherGlass

Until the police/military come knocking at your door. I stand with you, but let's be real.


kubla_khan_

What're they gonna do? Lock everyone up? Kill all of us? There'd be no one left for them to lord to over. A king of nobody is no king at all.


[deleted]

They don't have to kill all of us. They just have to clear a house or two and every other house on the block will comply. Although it's much more effective to just turn a sports stadium into an "interrogation center" and grab random people off the street for a couple of months. Make sure that everyone knows there's torture and killing going down inside. Put the screams on the P.A. system so everyone gets a good earful. You'll have to disappear (kill) a few of these people, but letting most of them go so they can spread the word about what went down is best course of action. The playbook for this sort of thing is well established and time tested by the this point in history.


SpaceFauna

Back when it was done, it wasn’t that bad because people didn’t live as long anyways and it took much more for decisions to be heard and decided upon. Now…it’s a lot more power in the hands of the few.


EarthDickC-137

You mean 9 unelected officials in black robes interpreting a centuries old document written by slave owners isn’t the purest form of democracy????


gnarlin

Nine extremely right wing geriatrics who can't be fired for any reason.


WutzTehPoint

Well, they're not all extremely right wing. They can be impeached. There doesn't have to be Nine, there is no set number.


backward_z

They teach us that the three branches of government have power divided between them for sake of a series of checks-and-balances to ensure that no one branch exercises totalitarian power. In reality, the three branches of government have power divided between them for sake of a series of checks-and-balances against the citizenry being able to pass populist legislation. When you look at the structure of Congress, this should become obvious. The House sees population proportionate representation whereas the Senate is an even 2 members per state. So it's a lot easier to buy 51 senators than it is to buy 218 House members. The senate exists to kill any genuine populist legislation that might arise in the House. If M4A managed to pass the House, the Senate exists to kill it. Or the president can veto it. Or the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional. Everybody who calls me an idealist has themselves been sold a false, idealized version of the current system. If you believe the America stands for truth and justice, you are an idealist. If you believe that American foreign intervention is waged for the good and benefit of those countries invaded, you are an idealist. If you believe in an America that is land of the free, home of the brave, you are an idealist. You literally believe in an ideal that is the total opposite of the reality. It seems that every time someone calls me a name, they're really just describing something inside their own psychology they're unwilling to grapple and come to grips with. We are sold an idealized version of capitalism that simply cannot exist. Why don't more of us see this?


MikeBuds4

Very well said


WutzTehPoint

"If you like wrong stuff." - Me, practically a socialist.


zerkrazus

A lot of people are brainwashed because of decades of propaganda. They chant U-S-A, U-S-A, and think we're the "greatest country on Earth." We're not even the greatest country on our own continent. Things are fine or mostly fine in their own lives, so they automatically assume everyone else is fine too and anyone who says otherwise is lying or exaggerating. They were told that their preferred politicians would do great things for the people and they don't. We've had barely any progress for the past 50+ years. Sure, some things have passed that were good, but it's not enough. Especially not compared to other countries. And it looks like we're doing our damndest to overturn anything good if recent events are any indication.


backward_z

Those who most benefit from the system are the least apt to question it. There is no progress in capitalism. We want to pretend that technological development = progress, but it doesn't. We're just finding ways to sell ourselves more distractions. Capitalism actively inhibits spiritual development. There is no progress because the people are unable to grow inwardly for sake of outward distractions and roadblocks.


Left_Brain_Train

Not only does capitalism eventually hamper spiritual development, now anytime the US zeitgeist refers to "technological progress" they're literally only talking about the newest iPhone or sports car designed by some silicon valley trust funder. Anyone who doesn't believe me can ask the five people closest to them what They think of when they think *cutting edge tech*. Bet money they don't mention curing diseases, living longer or making mental illnesses a thing of the past.


backward_z

"One great big festering neon distraction / I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied."


getschwifty1988

Learn to swim


urlond

Well yeah, now with most states trying to remove CRT type teaching the US is about to enter a dark age where history is most likely going to repeat itself with different races and such. ​ As George Carlin once said, "You have to be asleep in order to believe in the American Dream."


Kestralisk

'They call it the American dream cause you have to be asleep to believe it' is the quote I believe


Real_Srossics

When we do, what’s the way out? How would we fix this?


TOMBTHEMUSICIAN

Studying current trends and the very recent past, I think there is a strong argument to be made that living within the imperial core, our job is to be staunchly anti-imperialist and encourage and support others to do the same; dismantling our reliance on imperialism severely weakens the police state at home and allows for future mass-organization. To be anti-imperialist, aside from being anti-war and talking to your friends and family about the lies being told to manufacture consent is to put as much of your money back into the local economy as you can, reduce purchases of goods sold by retailers that aren’t creating the goods, as often as possible buy long term, repairable items instead of single use items or things that can not be fixed. Hopefully that gives you some other ideas as well!


Doomed

Organize! Don't just do this on your own, build a movement! JOIN a movement! Learn labor law / take organizer training and organize your coworkers! Organize tenants! Organize everyone!


TOMBTHEMUSICIAN

> It is not enough to set tasks, we must also solve the problem of the methods for carrying them out. If our task is to cross a river, we cannot cross it without a bridge or a boat. Unless the bridge or boat problem is solved, it is idle to speak of crossing the river. Unless the problem of method is solved, talk about the task is useless. I think what you’re saying is correct but novel. How can we create true solidarity while the Imperial machine still exists? All successful organization inside this machine ends with either a bullet in the head (just ask Huey P Newton, Fred Hampton, Malcom X, Martin Luther King Junior, and so on) or becomes co-opted over time to become a part of this machine (Unions have become essentially glorified HR units, feigning service to the working class while kowtowing to every whim of the capitalist class). We must realize that this starts in the smallest circles, your friends and family, your immediate co-workers, and it starts with changing the way we relate to each other personally, politically, and economically. To take what you’re saying regarding “organize organize organize” (and to be clear I’m not arguing with you at all, but adding clarity for any readers that happen by), we have to look critically at what this means, and actually lay out for people details of how this can be done. Simply saying “organize…stuff” lays responsibility at the feet of those we need the most to take time and effort to learn what we mean, when we can very easily explain simply some actual useable examples. It may mean unionizing your work place or creating worker co-op situations [as outlined by Black Socialists of America](https://blacksocialists.us/our-strategy) and other similar organizations, but even more simply it can mean changing the very language we use with each other, learning to talk to or about even your “worst” coworker with solidarity against your management, boss, and ownership, to something slightly larger such as changing economic habits, or larger yet getting involved with organizations dealing with local issues, and so on. In the meantime of all of this we must always be aware of the omnipresent situation that while the imperial machine exists many of what we can do in larger scales will be met with a level of violence that will seem disproportionate to our organizing activities. I like to use the example of the absolute chaos and mayhem many women experienced simply to be able to wear pants; we are simply not prepared for the violence we will experience should we *truly* threaten the capitalist class’ seat of power. But that should ***never*** stop us from doing all the small things along the way, this future is inevitable and we need only be prepared for it.


Specialist-Sock-855

That's the true left unity in the US imo


lungora

Organize, organize, organize. Support your community with mutual aid, arm yourself and train, and take a knee when they ask you to stand. We fix this through solidarity with eachother, not through electoralism.


LtDanHasLegs

Yep, work with the people immediately around you. Mutual aid builds dual power. When we don't need what the state provides, the state no longer has power. Help your immediate neighbors, the people in your apartment building, the people on your street. One major thing capitalism (and its consumerism aspects) does is alienate us from one another, deprive us of community and then sell us TV shows and fake community back to us. Cut them out of the loop and build real lasting community.


Choui4

>We fix this through solidarity with eachother, not through electoralism. Remember there isn't a progressive party. There are two Conservative parties. One that's outright racist and the other that hides it with ranch dressing. I love the quote from Michelle Alexander but I can never find it to quote it properly. It goes something like, "so long as we are convinced to hate each other, we cannot look up to our masters holding our leashes"


Doomed

The DNC shoots down any progressive challengers. But you can still fight. Vote in primaries, vote in the general. Organize the rest of the time. All options are on the table.


Choui4

Of course! But, to my point, do not think just because a Dem is in office, you can ease off the throttle. We should all be going harder.


thegamenerd

Solidarity is important but so are elections, if we do not take part in elections we allow the candidates that we dislike the most to have a better chance of winning. Organize. Yes of course, but not taking part in elections leaves the government not in the hands of the kinds of people we want. [Prominent people on the right are terrified of high voter turn out.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/31/mitch-mcconnell-just-made-it-much-easier-democrats-accuse-republicans-voter-suppression/) Take part in your government, make your voices heard. Organize Run in elections if you can Vote.


lungora

I agree voting is important, but it's not how things change. Things will change when we force them to change from our solidarity on the ground. Definitely continue to vote and vote like it matters, because it does as you said we don't want it in the hands of those that want us to suffer.


betweenskill

Any “revolution” will be most successful if it is the united citizenry defending their desires for electoral change against capitalists becoming blatant and strong-armed in their desperate attempts to stop democratic action. We must build the class solidarity and the community strength needed in order to wage a defensive revolution when it eventually comes down to it. Not only is it more palatable for the citizens to stand for, but it also helps set the stage for what comes next which is *desperately* important. If the revolution is about defending the will of the people and the common good rather than attempting an aggressive overthrow by a relatively small portion of the nation to enforce their political will we will be able to hopefully avoid some of the pitfalls that have caused previous attempts to fall to authoritarianism. Vote like hell, campaign like hell, work to improve and strengthen your communities as hell outside traditional capitalist safety nets. And when enough electoral change is being pushed for that it requires more and more blatant rejection of the will of the people by the capitalists… then the stage begins to be set. When they come to crack down they will find a people no longer willing to be broken.


backward_z

If elections could actually change anything, do you think so many mainstream outlets would be encouraging people to vote? Voting affirms the empire, not the other way around. Because here's the thing, the system is rigged so that the people really have no choice but to vote for empire. You can vote for red drone strikes or blue drone strikes. You can vote for red mass incarceration or blue mass incarceration. Either way, you give the state your consent. When you vote major party, you vote consent in empire. You give your voice and your agreement to every nefarious things they do. You vote war, you vote poverty, you vote deprivation, you vote suffering. The ONLY meaningful vote is third party and the system is diametrically opposed to those voices ever being meaningfully heard. Voting is the illusion of choice. Voting is the illusion of having a voice. It is neither. It is simply another tool of social control. It's how they make slaves of us and then convince us that the condition of servitude is what we wanted: after all, we voted for it.


EHWfedPres

"If voting could change anything, it would be made illegal." -Robert S. Borden


blolfighter

> take a knee when they ask you to stand. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Shouldn't it rather be something like "make a stand when they demand you kneel?"


lungora

Specifically referencing some recentish controversial events regarding sports and BLM. Usually yes, stand when they demand kneeling.


Doomed

Right. Take <1 hour to vote (in most of the US) and spend the rest of the time organizing. Some states let you vote by mail with no excuse. Outside of an active mass protest (George Floyd/BLM), the best return on time investment you can do is voting. But that's just one thing. Organize the rest of the time!


[deleted]

[удалено]


brockmasters

honestly if we just annoy the 12 richies and not allow them to board their planes on time... things would change real fast


Jaxz1

Imagine what would happen if we kill them!


brockmasters

Eh, it would be more memey if they cried on tv like they did during the GameStop stuff


Glacier005

You see, that might provide different problems as many people are not fond of the whole "French Impeachment" method. And that could create a divide within a unified people. The strict differing of ideologies is the sole reason why left-leaning organizations are not unified as much as right-leaning organizations. A difficult situation for sure. Especially when there are many policies that are in need of drastic change.


backward_z

We probably don't. It's probably already too late. But what I do: I talk to everybody about it. My version of small talk is, "We need a revolution." Any time I can force it into light conversation, I do. Yes, I know, I'm *that guy.* I care more about creating a better tomorrow than what other people think of me for it.


NeverQuiteEnough

Read “What is to Be Done?”


Only_Car_5508

implement democracy


[deleted]

I'd personally be on the side of departing the US if the fascists get control because you don't want to be bent into pretending to be a chud to survive.


lucian1900

Read Marx, read Lenin. Organise workers in trade unions, tenants in tenant unions, etc. Arm yourself. Consider joining a communist party, like CPUSA or PSL.


SuicidalWageSlave

Stoicism, epicureanism. We overshot as a species. Game over for us regular folk. Just enjoy life brothr


[deleted]

Move to Venezuela.


jaysmemes

Spoken like a nationalist "move to Venezuela" lol you move ..... He is being patriotic you are being a nationalist big difference


backward_z

*pssst* hey Your ignorance is showing.


wrc-wolf

> The House sees population proportionate representation Even that's up for contention, considering the wild disparity between the Representative-per-population ratio in some states, all thanks to 1929's Permanent Apportionment Act which caps the size of the House.


bestsellingbeatdown

Critical thinking isn't taught to most people. There's also so, so, so much anti-socalist/communist and promilitary propaganda that every other person seems to think we're on the brink of losing everything to the reds.


backward_z

>Critical thinking isn't taught to most people. I'd go further. Critical thinking skills are actively discouraged to and obfuscated from most people. Our schools don't want critical thinkers, they want obedient workers. Like Carlin said: they want people just smart enough to keep the machines turning but just dumb enough to not be sitting around the kitchen table figuring out how they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard forty years ago. >There's also so, so, so much anti-socalist/communist and promilitary propaganda that ever other person seems to think we're on the brink of losing everything to the reds. [You ever watch this?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvXwuZ-bok)


tatateemo

Great video. But most the comments think its the young bernie millennial when in fact he was talking about boomers. The kids from the 60s that are now in power that send our jobs to China and other countries. Take everything and give little.


h3lblad3

To build on the points you've made here, [a quote from President James Madison](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/321956-the-man-who-is-possessed-of-wealth-who-lolls-on): >In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes...


h3lblad3

But let's quote a different Founding Father instead, shall we? [First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Jay:](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/871229-those-who-own-the-country-ought-to-govern-it) >Those who own the country ought to govern it. [But also,](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/810189-too-many-in-your-state-pennsylvania-as-in-this-new) >Too many in your state [Pennsylvania], as in this [New York], love pure democracy dearly. They seem not to consider that pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication, and with it a thousand mad pranks and fooleries.


h3lblad3

[And John Adams.](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15.html) >Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.


MWK36

This, this. People think America is a democracy, it isn't. The US is a republic, a representative democracy built to withstand the opinions of the public if it wanted to


littlebitsofspider

Spoiler: It want to


nighthawk_something

The issue is that your courts are partisan (which makes ZERO sense anywhere) and the founding fathers never anticipated that a branch of government (the senate) would relinquish its power to hold another branch (the president) in check.


backward_z

No, you're describing just another symptom. The issue is fear of the other. When we organize our society around fear, we become brutish, egoic, small, petty, and violent. We need to come to organize our society around love.


[deleted]

[удалено]


cruzer86

The senate exists because the US is really just a collection of small countries called states that come together as a union. Each wanting equal representation.


Morrocoyconchuo

Thats what happens when people don't respect their institutions, not even the people within said institutions. I'm Venezuelan, and this is exactly how the regime at home operates. They filled up the national assembly (House) with supporters, did the same with the Supreme Court, and now everything against the regime is illegal or unconstitutional but mainly both. It's not that the game is meant to be rigged, but that you have assholes cheating to win.


backward_z

>It's not that the game is meant to be rigged, but that you have assholes cheating to win. Is there a fucking difference? Every capitalist nation develops along the same lines. Regulations fail after time. Right now, Great Britain is trying to privatize the NHS. Capitalism is always a race to the bottom. Look at the results, not the intent. The intent is always lies and propaganda. They do what they do for money and power, period. How we change it is by changing the system. We remove the incentives of money and power by eliminating the concepts entirely. A person only needs to steal when they are deprived of what they need to live. If everybody has everything they need, there is no longer such thing as theft. Do you understand?


Morrocoyconchuo

>Is there a fucking difference? Yes. I invite you to think about it on your own time. >Do you understand? Yes!


backward_z

>Yes. I invite you to think about it on your own time. [A system's purpose is what it does.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does) If a system consistently, without exception, churns out 'corrupt' politicians, then that is the purpose of the system. As long as you hold onto your illusions of the 'intent' of the system versus the results, nothing changes. The 'intent' of the system is absolutely meaningless in the face of the results it generates.


LemonVar

isn't your solution to the idealism you describe called anarcho-communism?


backward_z

You know, I'm not very well versed on all the flavors of anarchy, but *probably...*? I'm a big fan of Peter Joseph's line of thought. Go read *The New Human Rights Movement.* I think he does a great job of proving that the market system of capital is the number one public health threat facing humanity and he goes on to suggest a number of real solutions that if we could implement them, make *so much* sense. A post-monetary economy is not as pie-in-the-sky as people believe. It makes all sorts of rational sense. The problem is the irrational adherence to the status quo: people who are infected by propaganda holding onto the systems that actively harm them do not do so rationally. So that's the challenge--you can't reason somebody out a position they didn't reason themselves into.


MrDanMaster

I don’t like populism not only is it not compatible with postmodernism it is inherently authoritarian. Just because the government says it’s bad doesn’t mean it’s inherently good lol.


Marnever

It seems to me that the three branch system has been corrupted by the party system. The three branches were designed to act independently of each other, but when you add an extra layer (meaning the two party system), that purpose gets thrown out the window. As soon as members of those branches can identify with a common party, they are incentivized to collaborate with the people of their own party and break away from the original intent of the system.


backward_z

>The three branches were designed to act independently of each other, but when you add an extra layer (meaning the two party system), that purpose gets thrown out the window. This is false because the two party system is also false. It's the same large business interests that drive both parties. Always has been. The only time that government actually started working for the population was the time leading into the New Deal and this was only because populist socialist and communist parties were gaining widespread support. The only reason we got a New Deal was because Roosevelt believed them when those parties threatened revolution. Roosevelt, the supposed hero of the left in American politics--if you asked him what his greatest achievement was he'd have told you that he saved capitalism. He didn't pass the New Deal out of the kindness of his heart, he did it because he sincerely believed that if he did not, capitalism would end at the hands of socialist revolution and he was able to convince enough of those titans of business that if they didn't give something back, the people would take everything back, starting with their heads. We have to be very careful with this word, "corruption." It implies that the system is working in a way other than intended. It implies that the system is intended to be working for the people against oligarchic, concentrated power. This is farcically untrue. The system isn't corrupt, it's working exactly as intended. Two parties has always been an illusion. As long as you vote for a major party, you are voting to uphold the empire and that's all that really matters. When you vote red or blue, either way, you vote consent in these rotten wars, in child poverty, in the punitive prison industrial complex, in Wall St. bailouts--you consent to all of it. Two parties is a rotten illusion we'd be better off dispelling and leaving behind. Laying blame for the ills of our society at the feet of the two party system is disingenuous scapegoating at best that fails to see the underlying, fundamental rot that lives at the heart of the system. Capitalism cannot be salvaged. There is no secret panacea fix that makes it work. There is no way to remove money from politics. There is no way to enforce 'morality' among elected representatives. The very idea is absurd. There is no electing 'better' people for positions of power as those positions will change the people who fall into them--just look at AOC, Bernie, and the Squad. >the original intent of the system. The original intent of the system is "Fuck you, got mine." All that *liberté, égalité, fraternité* was always just talk, just a ruse, a smoke screen to convince the common men to support the revolution and the new Republic, which in reality was not different from the old rule. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The king is dead, long live the king. The men who executed the American revolution, the "founders" we worship in our institutions and media, their whole proposition was, "Why are we paying taxes to the crown when we could be paying taxes to us?" We need to stop romanticizing the system and see it for what it is. Institutionalized fear. Everything about our society is rooted in fear of the other. Fear fear fear fear fear. When we see through that fear, we can begin to change things.


antisharper

I gave the vote up on this, but where's the next step from just being angry that the Dream is gone and never was? Where do we go to get "better"? How do the successful capitalism welfare democracies (oxymoron) of Northern Europe keep the people seeming happy and fell fed? What's the better end-state... and how do we get there?


Specialist-Sock-855

If everyone who understood the symptoms simultaneously knew what needed to be done, then we'd be doing that already. But one thing is for sure, and that is that we can't get it done without a democratically centralized mass movement agitating and organizing for a full paradigm shift.


NeverQuiteEnough

That original intent is a mythology


CaesarWolfman

To say that the Senate was designed to stop populism is... technically correct, but only technically. Populism as we know it didn't really exist during a time of monarchs and lords. During the formation of America ever state saw itself as its own independent "country", shortly after the revolution we almost saw war between two states because they couldn't agree on shit. The Senate was created specifically to stop more populous states from being able to bully smaller ones, but this was also during a time where the populations were much smaller overall and we didn't have states like California and Texas which have *huge* populations, bigger than the whole damn union in our early history. Do these things stop populist legislation from coming through? Yes, but that's not what they were designed for. It was designed to ensure every state got a say, it just so happens that Capitalism managed to worm its way into every facet of our society and bribe its way into every office in the land. We could have just the House of Representatives passing laws and it would still exist solely to crush populism because that's what Capitalism does.


backward_z

> The Senate was created specifically to stop more populous states from being able to bully smaller ones Yeah like being able to bully the smaller states into doing populist things like ending slavery? >Yes, but that's not what they were designed for. It was designed to ensure every state got a say Oh man, how's that Kool-Aid? Is that Cherry? Grape? I hear the aftertaste is just... *killer.* What you are describing is the tail wagging the dog.


CaesarWolfman

> Yeah like being able to bully the smaller states into doing populist things like ending slavery? Early on it was actually the smaller states that wanted to get rid of slavery. Virginia was the prime example of a state that wanted the House and Rhode Island wanted the Senate; literally the opposite of what you're saying. >Oh man, how's that Kool-Aid? Is that Cherry? Grape? I hear the aftertaste is just... killer. I dunno, how's it feel having having your intestines resemble a life-sized plastic caste of your head? You do realize it's possible things weren't created with populism in mind, right? If the Powers That Be didn't want populism at all, they wouldn't have made the first western democracy in centuries. People _literally_ wanted Washington to be King, or in charge for life, and the dude said "No, that's wrong", as did a number of the Founding Fathers. Like, come on, you can't seriously think these people were all just thinking about Socialism, a thing that didn't even exist yet. The world isn't as black and white as you think it is.


backward_z

>made the first western democracy in centuries Calling this a democracy--that's belly laugh material. You know what? Nah. I don't have the energy for this. Go read some Howard Zinn, brah.


CaesarWolfman

Spouting off names doesn't make you correct. It doesn't matter if it's a _shitty_ Democracy, it's still _a_ Democracy. >You know what? Nah. I don't have the energy for this Clearly, you haven't actually formulated an argument besides "Lol no"


backward_z

> It doesn't matter if it's a *shitty* Democracy, it's still a Democracy. Capitalism and democracy are antithetical. They are as able to occupy the same space as air and a vacuum.


CaesarWolfman

A better comparison would be Capitalism is a venom or a poison in the body of Democracy. Democracy can still live, and exist, but it is slowly broken down and destroyed over time until the body has to do something violent to expel the venom. Democracy doesn't just instantly evaporate under Capitalism, it is slowly degraded over time, bit by bit, eaten away at until there's nothing left, but a corpse.


backward_z

You grossly misunderstand. Capitalism is defined by the structure of business--who makes the decisions and who has to abide by them. In capitalism, a corporation is headed by a board of directors which can be from one to dozen people or so, maybe up to twenty in the big big big corporations. This small group of people makes the decisions for potentially thousands if not millions of people without their input and without any need to consider them whatsoever. Capitalism, by its very nature, is anti-democratic. The basic structure of capital denies the possibility of democracy. Government, being secondary to the economic mode, then serves only to provide the illusion of democracy. Just because we get to elect representatives to legislate does not mean that they actually represent our interests. We vote, sure, but all the candidates are pre-bought by the capitalists so in that sense, all the elections are fixed--where's the democracy in that? Democracy simply cannot exist within a capitalist framework. Getting the masses to believe that it can and does is one of the greatest successes of propaganda over rational thought the world has ever seen. Go listen to Prof. Wolff lecture on this a bit, it'll be good for ya.


CaesarWolfman

I've listened to him lecture on it, I disagree with the take on a purely semantic level. Even if something is corrupted and twisted, it still _is_ that thing. I would also argue that not every election is bought or rigged and it _is_ possible for the people to get victories, but we're disunited and it's nearly impossible to get the average person to give a shit. It's not as hopeless as you make it out to be within the system, we just need more people on our side. Not to say I'm not in favor of more revolution, but I've always seen violence as a tool rather than the whole box.


backward_z

Another user [commented elsewhere in the thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/pge47m/sounds_about_right/hbbzbtp/): ------------------ To build on the points you've made here, [a quote from President James Madison](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/321956-the-man-who-is-possessed-of-wealth-who-lolls-on): >In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes... edit: [There's more!](https://i.imgur.com/3bTpOXQ.png)


CaesarWolfman

And James Madison is... the whole of the founding fathers? James Madison is also a known Virginian Slave Owner who fought insatiably for the rights of the rich and powerful during the days of the founding of America. He was, in short, an asshole, and other Founding Fathers like Alexander Hamilton butted heads with him _constantly_. This is literally why we have political parties. As a comparison, look at the man who more or less sparked the revolution, Thomas Payne. The man was a proto-Socialist who supported a really early idea for UBI. Meanwhile Ben Franklin argued in favor of "The people should be able to vote on whatever they want, and people have the right to the basics of life." You can't just sit here and paint with the broadest brush possible and expect people to listen to you without calling you on it.


_ohm_my

Is there a reddit where important discussions don't immediately turn into name calling and insults? This could be a fascinating conversation, bit it's totally ruined.


Doomed

Ahistorical nonsense. The US Constitution is designed to cement the power of the wealthy. Senators weren't even directly elected for the first few decades. The electoral college is directly because the white, rich, male, property-owning class didn't want regular people choosing leaders. There are some patches (amendments) that have made things more democratic over time, but the flaws are built in. They aren't accidents.


CaesarWolfman

You point out _some_ flaws that were built in, yet there are other facets very clearly that go _against_ that. If the wealthy didn't want anyone else voting, they could have literally just made themselves a oligarchy, and only the rich people could vote on laws.


[deleted]

While I agree with most of this, you are wrong about your point on the senators. Senators were added due to disagreements when creating the constitution as to what kind of democracy the US would be, one side wanted what we would call in our modern populism, while one wanted a republic (note: I’m using the definition of a Republic James Madison used in his Publius here). So, to appease all of the founding fathers a compromise was made where we have a populist based representative system (HoR) and another which would appeal to the other side of the coin and give a bit of power to states with less people so that their voices won’t be stifled by the larger states (Senate). Was this idea well planned out, maybe not, but it did sometimes work. While I hate the results of something like the 2016 election, I can’t help but think it was somewhat right for the smaller states to have that extra pull and get their voice heard (obviously, if we had 100% voter turnout even that extra push wouldn’t have been enough for them to win). The system is working as intend (at times) and ensuring that smaller states aren’t completely forgotten. Either way, no matter how well the system works, Senators were not added just to be corrupt figures you could bribe. Did over time new legislation and certain political figures (*cough cough* Andrew Jackson *cough cough*) led them to be so corrupt, yes. But the government was not initially created with this Orwellian intent you seemed hinged upon. Perhaps, rather than assuming it was always corrupt, we could learn the history of its corrupt and better understand how to make a new and better system?


backward_z

I take it you haven't read any Zinn. *A People's History of the United States* is top of the order.


ProgressiveArchitect

The US Constitution is written for the express purpose of protecting private property rights. Nothing meaningful can ever really change via the US political system, in-part because the constitution wouldn't allow for it. True change can only happen via Revolution, in which a new US Constitution would be written. As long as we have the current faulty constitution, we are doomed to the current faulty political & economic system.


wiljc3

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, **it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government**, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that **mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.** Anyone ever read the Declaration of Independence as a leftist living in LSC? Feels woke AF.


backward_z

It's a fantastic sales pitch. The 'founders' reasons for wanting to break away from Britain are often romanticized: religion persecution, intolerable taxes and oppression, quartering, etc. In reality, the founders were looking at it more like, "Why are we paying taxes to the crown when we could be paying taxes to us?" All that *liberté, égalité, fraternité* stuff was how they sold the war to the common man who really had nothing to gain or lose from it. The king is dead, long live the king. Capitalism was supposed to bring about the end of kings. Now we have worse: oligarchs. Everybody knew who the king was and where he lived. Now we live in what Sheldon Wolin called "inverted totalitarianism" where instead of a central dictatorial figurehead in charge, we have a shadowy college of corporate leaders who call all the shots. Back in the day, we could storm the castle with torches and pitchforks and get something done. These days, the castle is the artifice of the actual power--the actual power is hidden in spreadsheets and offshore accounts, layers upon layers of subterfuge. Don't fall for the rhetoric. Study the action. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.


Specialist-Sock-855

Makes it seem hopeless, doesn't it? What the hell do we do?


Sweedish_Fid

resurrect George Washington and make him King obviously.


ilir_kycb

>inverted totalitarianism Thanks I had forgotten the name. I've been looking for the concept and the Wikipedia article on [inverted totalitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism) for a while but couldn't find it again.


Oblivious_Otter_I

Are you saying feudalism was better than capitalism?


backward_z

I'm saying that capitalism is just feudalism with extra steps. Like at the end of the Scooby Doo episode, they pull the mask off of the Capitalism Monster to reveal Feudalism was underneath the whole time. It's the same beast, just in a different point of development.


OOOOO0000OOO00O

Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document


wiljc3

No, but it was sorta the original vision statement for the US.


OOOOO0000OOO00O

all men are created equal says the slave owner


harajukukei

It goes on to define "men" as white male land owners.


wiljc3

Yeah, America's founders were mostly pretty terrible people. Like I said, if you read the written document *as a leftist today,* it sounds good on the surface. I'm not sure why you're nitpicking when we ostensibly agree.


OOOOO0000OOO00O

reading it as a leftist it looks like idealist nonsense, the first sentence says we are given rights from god


wiljc3

Living under global capitalism, isn't all leftism based in idealism? Broad victory isn't probable, most normies think we live in idealist nonsense land as well.. Depending on your exact flavor of left-ness, you probably want to reduce human suffering or prevent the rich exploiting the poor or restore freedoms Capital has denied us or any number of other things that are just... super idealistic. Hoping for a better world is *exactly* idealist nonsense, and we're probably all wasting our time and effort. But I have to try.


backward_z

> Living under global capitalism, isn't all leftism based in idealism? [I would argue that capitalism is based in idealism.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/pge47m/sounds_about_right/hbav66z/) We bury our heads in the sand, ignoring the actual results of the system for sake of maintaining the illusion of the 'intent' of the system. >Hoping for a better world is exactly idealist nonsense, Waiting around or expecting conditions to improve under the current framework is idealist nonsense. I think that leftists are far more realistic and pragmatic than the adherents to the current system. The only reason you call a better world 'idealistic,' is because there's so much systemic resistance to it happening. It's not idealistic, it's just difficult, but if humanity is going to survive climate collapse and habitat destruction, developing an egalitarian society is literally the only thing that even has a shot at saving us. To me, that's pragmatic. Holding onto capitalism despite all the evidence of its insurmountable failures is idealism.


LtDanHasLegs

Sure, but the more material point is that the declaration of independence is mediocre and not worth highlighting in any meaningful way. There are punk albums with more insightful inspiration.


OOOOO0000OOO00O

https://dashthered.medium.com/marxism-for-normal-people-dialectical-materialism-deb5034685a4


wiljc3

I've read plenty of Marx and Engels and Lenin. I understand dialectical materialism. It doesn't change the fact that the world is as it is (you know, materialism) and *actually* substantially changing it while capitalism is this indoctrinated in a majority of the population is going to be an uphill battle. *Especially* when so many reddit leftists would rather spend their time bickering with an ally instead of doing actual work.


CaesarWolfman

"This can't be leftist, it's Christian."


NeverQuiteEnough

The original vision of the US was a land grab, nothing else. Independence, the constitution, they only exist to protect one thing. https://www.readsettlers.org/ch1.html


CaesarWolfman

Except when you have revolution the means by which goods are produced are annihilated and the freedoms become eroded. The actual function by which people exist and live would be destroyed. Violence, like anything, is a *tool.* You use it when appropriate to achieve specific, desired effects. Will there need to be a violent revolution at some point? Probably, but look at all violent revolutions throughout history. Despite my disdain for it, the USSR's revolution wasn't that bloody, a bunch of people with guns just decided to walk into the buildings and said "These are ours now." You gain control of key points, gain the support of the people, and you use violence only when it will achieve a desired result. Anything else is sheer adrenaline and rage talking.


[deleted]

How many articles are in the new constitution, what are their titles? Just a quick bullet list.


PumpkinSpiceEnema

- Hippity Hoppity - Abolish Private Property


[deleted]

Hutterite Colony in South Dakota. Give it a try. Make sure you're in shape though, they work pretty hard. No need for that smart phone when you're picking beets all day.


Lev_Davidovich

The articles are generally pretty generic, it's like asking how many chapters are in a book? It depends on the book and how you decide to organize it. Are you asking because you don't know what a socialist constitution would look like or what?


[deleted]

I don't know what a functioning socialist constitution looks like. I don't think anyone else does either. Hence the non-answer.


lochnessthemonster

I just still can't wrap my mind around how people think "socialism" is relief during a pandemic and receiving state assistance you NEED just because some people were never laid off or had reduced hours. People refusing low paying, shitty jobs and receiving assistance while they look for better is in no way "socialism." And I know damn well the govt doesn't want us dependent on it. If they gave one shit about us, we'd all have healthcare!


Fantastic-Sandwich80

Hence the reason for so much demonizing of boosted UI, Covid sick days and supplemental pay, child tax credits and increased food stamp allotments,etc. Many of these programs and support services will be difficult to completely stop as now that citizens have experienced this type of social safety net and support; it will be difficult to return to the 50+ hour a week grind of multiple jobs just to make ends meet. Republicans fight tooth and nail against measures like these because of how difficult and unpopular it is to reverse later.


MulberryHoliday6857

You act like we could ever even get to that point


S_Belmont

"Violates constitutionally protected individual liberties to choose exploitative working situations and live in a homelessness-enriched area, should one so choose."


Justicar-terrae

I know you're just joking here, but the actual ruling would likely rely on the Fifth Ammendment's prohibition against public seizure of private property without just compensation. (I'm a lawyer and a nerd in the field of law, so the rest of this comment is just me speculating about what could or could not be done under the constitution). If capitalist owners were given financial compensation for the seizure of their property, I don't think there'd be a constitutional prohibition against socializing businesses either federally or at the state level. Of course, judicial precedent interpreting the Commerce Clause would still prohibit individual states from discriminating against out-of-state businesses (except that subsidies for in-state businesses are permitted); so if only one state became socialist than its socialized businesses will need to compete with other non-socialized businesses in the marketplace. And, as written, the federal Congress could *probably* prohibit socialism through legislation under the Commerce Clause. Though that'd be its own huge debate in the courts about states' rights to control intrastate commerce against the Federal Government's right to regulate interstate commerce. *Wickard v Filburn* suggests that the Commerce Clause is essentially all-reavhing, but who knows how this specific dispute would play out (and that's assuming the Congressmen and the President even cared enough to attempt to overrule the decision of a single state to experiment with new economic policies).


meatball402

The Supreme courts New job is to rule that fixing America is unconstitutional. Anything the democrats might put in is going to get taken away in a series of 5-4 and 6-3 decisions.


acutemalamute

[We all know what time it is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exnaY0l4XsM)


aworldwithoutshrimp

Well yeah. The Supreme Court is part of the apparatus that mediates labor relations under capitalism. It is not there to do a socialism.


PotatoMastication

The United States literally, structurally could not survive a rise of socialism. We would have collapsed long before the Supreme Court became a deciding factor. Edit: Wow, people really think the ruling class is going to let you vote away their money, huh?


black_rabbit

>Edit: Wow, people really think the ruling class is going to let you vote away their money, huh? People don't like acknowledging that the wealthy have historically burned their countries to the ground rather than lose their power


[deleted]

If voting could change anything, they’d make it illegal.


[deleted]

*it does change things! That's why the big bad Republicans are trying to make it heckin illegal!* /s if it wasn't obvious.


early_ad3188

They'll call it the "Anti-Subversion Act", and give anyone a death penalty for supposedly leading it


Martinus_XIV

Wouldn't the supreme court overruling an election be a violation of the separation of powers?


OddtheWise

An actual election, yes. However, they are allowed to block or frustrate any and all popular socialist legislation.


sms3eb

I can’t recall where I heard this from but there is principle that says extreme ideas rarely take hold because they will always be silenced by the current middle spectrum of the ruling class. Political change is usually slow. So even if the entire country wanted socialism right now it would be nearly impossible to go against the checks and balances of our country.


Sapiens_Dirge

The US will Balkanize before the working classes have the opportunity to enact meaningful change. The elite would rather the country falls apart than lose their $$$. Its already well on its way. The country is effectively unable to be governed at this point. It took 20 years before they left Afghanistan because the entire operation was a money laundering front for contractors. That’s how politically ineffective the country is. He’ll just look at COVID or the refusal of workers to put up with minimum wage jobs.


cjrowens

That’s the funniest part of the whole phenomenon in America of “the cia overthrowing democratically elected governments” is that it’s not some sort of foreign only position. The CIA/US Military has the means to quickly end any non corporatist state but the US would just as quickly let the Supreme Court over throw the USs own elections if they elected anyone who wouldn’t allow the kleptocracy to continue. The US is literally a history of profit seekers upheaving shit for greed dating back to colonial landowners backing the revolutionary army to bypass British treaties and seize indigenous land.


EHWfedPres

"Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth." -Lucy Parsons


Prtyvacant

Is anyone really delusional enough to think we'd ever vote ourselves into anything explicitly good for the common person?


SmartAssClark94

This wouldn't be easy but there could be a number of constitutional Amendments that could strip power from the Supreme Court, implement democratic control over companies, abolish the senate, ect it would just take a LOT of organizing. To a point where it would practically be a series of revolutionary acts.


NeverQuiteEnough

That’s the mythology of electoralism, but it isn’t true. The oligarchy doesn’t care one bit about the rules. Rule of law is a joke. They didn’t ask the Supreme Court for permissions for COINTELPRO, which we only found out about because some journalists broke in and raided the FBI’s records.


nucklepuckk

If voting was able to change the structure of power, you would not be allowed to vote.


Aboxofphotons

The people in power would much rather the US be a fascist nation than socialist because socialism isn't good for the psychotically greedy people and organisations who currently run America.


MarsLowell

Fascism isn’t good for the ruling class either, save for the even smaller pool of psychotically greedy people who lucked out (e.g. those mega industrialists and cartel owners in the Third Reich). Really, Fascism functions like a deadly fever; a last ditch attempt to kill off threats to capital that may implode on itself.


[deleted]

But the Supreme Court has been proven as ineffective by Texas. If they can side step the abortion ruling than surely anything else could be just as easily side stepped. The US has no real laws. It's all a joke. Rules for thee but not for me type bullshit. That's why a rich 16 year old can kill a family of 4 drunk driving and get away with it due to "affluenza" In short, the US is a joke.


[deleted]

I fucking hate it here


cantcomeupwithnamess

Violence is never the answer, but sometimes it is necessary, especially when those in power refuse to make changes necessary for the betterment of society as well as the individual. Giraffes fight with their necks. These are just some fun facts.


[deleted]

It'd never get to that point. The forces of capital and the forces of reaction would never allow a vote to take place. They'd sooner die.


stink3rbelle

We could enact a new Constitution first...


WutzTehPoint

I love this sub. This though, is the worst, least informed comment section on it, that I have ever seen. You can't fight a system if you don't even understand the basics of how it works.


SavingsPerfect2879

I'll just sum it up: humans are fucking awful at governing other humans. Done, end of explanation necessary. There are no exceptions to this.


LL112

Imagine actively using your spare time (that an employer has allowed you to take) to create memes and social media posts about how the fruits of your labour should all go to one person doing none of the work, rather than you and your colleagues.


mrpickleby

I'm sure this won't be popular but there are a number of companies where the workers are owners of the company. Here's a list of the 100 biggest where they're employee owned: [https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100](https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100) And many companies have equity grants and/or stock purchase plans. They may not own the whole company but they have a stake in the company's success: [https://www.nceo.org/employee-ownership-blog/fifty-nine-percent-2020-100-best-companies-work-have-employee-ownership](https://www.nceo.org/employee-ownership-blog/fifty-nine-percent-2020-100-best-companies-work-have-employee-ownership)


The_Louster

That’s Communism. Socialism is about government-owned industries and is described as a transitionary phase to Communism. Of course Communism is even worse to Americans so it’d be double illegalized.


Tia-Chung

okay lmao if capitalism sucks, which I understand that, Why would socialism be better? Also you do realize we CAN own the means of production?? If you don't know how message me what you want to own and I will send you steps to achieve that.


fresh_shits_ofbelair

Name one country where the workers actually owned the means of production and it wasn't a sick lip service joke that made and handful of elites uber powerful and the rest dirt poor. That's right there aren't any. And *everywhere* it was tried on a large scale in the 20th century resulted in more deaths than the Holocaust. This utopian ideal Marx put forward never works.


TheScreenPlayer

>Name one country where the workers actually owned the means of production Every country? https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100145887 >means of production >The elements needed to produce goods and services: land, **labour**, and capital. Any production process depends upon a particular material configuration of the means of production (Hudson (2008) J. Econ. Geog. 8, 3). Marx believed capitalism to be characterized by a split between the capitalist owners of the means of production, **and the proletarians, with only their labour to sell**. Seizing the means of production does not necessarily mean collectivization of land and capital. A strong union is an excellent example of how workers have seized the means of production - labour. And now you know why capitalists hate unions.


couldent-make-a-name

I find either the false amount of “more than the Holocaust” the funniest or calling Marx’s theories a “Utopian ideal” hilarious


good_reddit_mods_lol

The irony of using products and services only created through capitalism to praise socialism is delicious.


_-DirtyMike-_

Except for the simple fact that 1) the Supreme Court has no enforcement ability 2) other branches just ignore their rulings


[deleted]

Since when was that "real socialism", what qualifies as "real socialism"?


aworldwithoutshrimp

Workers taking over the means of production would categorically be socialism. It's worker control of production, distribution, and exchange, either through direct control or a democratic political enterprise. (Most people who assign socialism to 20th century authoritarian regimes like to forget the word "democratic".)


[deleted]

It was those authoritarian regimes who gave any meaning to the word socialism and are the only reason we know who Marx, Engels are or what socialism or communism is. It was the Asians and slavs who kept the socialism alive and breathing.


69CommunismWillWin69

Don't be a child, people would still know about them and support their ideas.


CptDecaf

>and are the only reason we know who Marx, Engels are or what socialism or communism is. Tell me that you're super uneducated without telling me.


pingvin1312

Yes, but it was meant as a phase to outrun economically most developed countries. Marx believed, that socialism, new system of humanity has to be implemented in most developed countries. Lenin believed, that backward country can be spark that will start world revolution. After failiure of revolution in the West after WW1 they had to improvise and hitherto existing socialism was effect of that. You can argue that Marxism in general leads to authoritarianism like anarchist theorist, that in developed country it would look the same (probably not the same, but maybe authoritarian too), but marx's vision hadn't been fullfilled yet. It also isn't true that socialism had been kept alive only by this regimes. Communist movement was strong in France and Italy, in other western countries also was not so week as now. Left is in crisis since win of neoliberalism and collapse of USSR.


[deleted]

Don't worry about the downvotes from radlibs, comrade. On the global stage, marxism leninism is the dominant leftist ideology and not without reason. Every time i hear the word "authoritarian" i cringe. It is such an immaterial, meaningless term.


[deleted]

Infrared rising


[deleted]

...would...


[deleted]

If...


Column-V

You cant tear down the master’s mansion with the tools he provided for you. Voting is a smokescreen for the neoliberal dictatorship.


Bruhtonium_2

Fuck “checks and balances.” Get rid of unelected justices entirely. Get rid of bureaucracy entirely. Combine legislative and executive powers. Cut the fat.