Socialism is the people. If you are afraid of socialism, you’re afraid of yourself.
- Fred Hampton
Rest in Power Fred Hampton, a brave Marxist-Leninist that tried to do what was right and got murdered by the US police for it.
The same folks I know who wouldn’t even consider a conversation about socialism are not going to be swayed when I quote any black man to them, much less a panther.
Totally fair. The trick is to meet them where they’re at, and then work from there. The folks you’re thinking about will take a lot of effort, but if union organizers can do it then so can you
But the talking head on Fox told me what to think about socialism, using no facts or common sense.
What am I supposed to do? NOT believe them?
Socialism has been tried many times in all forms but pure unregulated capitalism hasn’t yet.
Pure unregulated Capitalism can’t exist though, there’s no such thing as a “pure” system to begin with.
The impure regulations corrupt the free hand of the market.
Is the market some form of holy spirit? Regulation comes from the market, not despite it.
Regulation opposes the market.
Regulation restricts competition, and is a natural result of companies using accumulated Capital to institutionalize their own positions and maintain a given edge. Capitalism erases its own existence.
I think we’re both saying the same thing.
Maybe, but you phrase it like we can have unregulated Capitalism for any period longer than an afternoon, and I’m explaining why we can’t.
It has, actually. Got overrun by a bunch of bears
I wish I had the confidence to just say whatever shit I pulled out of thin air like that
It’s a well known opinion in McCartney-Lennonism.
Every single form of socialism has been tried?
Even Christian anarchism? Even Posadism? Even Queer anarchism?
Also, your answer is anarcho-capitalism?
socialism has had huge positive impacts where it’s been tried and massive negative consequences when it’s been replaced with capitalism.
what’s your evidence that “pure unregulated capitalism” is worth trying? glassing the entire surface of the earth with nuclear weapons hasn’t been tried yet either but that doesn’t make it a good idea.
Oh yeah? List the forms.
In this case wouldn’t it make more sense to list the forms it hasn’t been tried in?
No
How is this a meme?
You won’t get it if you’re taking the old bloke and his words at face value.
The meme value comes from the context, being a scene from LOTR.
The gandalf pictures, it’s humourously describing the process of pitching Socialism to Americans. Simple.
How is this not a meme?
sorry, the first time I saw it the image didn’t load on my instance, so I thought OP was saying the title text alone was the meme.
Oh lol of course not, that contextualizes your confusion lol
I mean, a purely text post does seem like the type of meme a Marxist would post. Haha
Fair, lol
I love how people act like their knowledge alone somehow makes them better than their peers, just utilizing knowledge to appear aloof, or above it all, when in reality, if capitalism shot itself in the chest and socialism took over tomorrow, we would still have the same rich 1% families stealing from the working class and none of us would actually be in any better a position because no damned political system to date has figured out how to keep the rich from sacrificing the poor for their own selfish ends. End of story. Time to change.
That’s not historically accurate, though. Socialist states have made dramatic improvements to the lives of the working class and generally dramatically reduced wealth disparity, such as in the USSR. This seems to be more political apathy than genuine analysis.
Not only is this ahistorical, it’s self-contradictory. If the same rich 1% still owns the means of production and is still expropriating the working class’ surplus value, then capitalism never died and socialism never took over.
deleted by creator
“but you’re gonna take my private property !”
That’s the People’s Toothbrush!
I think “private property” isn’t well defined in socialist discourse and this idea of no private property gets a lot of backlash from some. A distinction between personal and private property needs to be made where one is used to generate capital in exchange for wages and the other is your dildo. The dildo is your personal property and no one is going to take it. A piece of land can be someones private property when they employ you and pay you a wage to work it - you get payed a pittance and they, without work, take the cream.
Its well defined IMO, but anti-communist propaganda intentionally spreads the wrong definition of it to make communists look scary.
I think it’s generally well-understood amongst Socialists, the issue comes from those first learning about Socialism and thinking it is applied as dogmatism to the strictest degree, and isn’t a drawn out process of iterative improvement following revolution. For such people, they need to know if “going along with” Socialism means they can’t have a gaming PC or something, but the reality of Socialism is that it isn’t nearly as rigid or strict as it is stereotyped as.
A distinction between personal and private property needs to be made where one is used to generate capital in exchange for wages and the other is your dildo
That’s always the definition. It is well defined, the problem is that there are national propaganda machines outright lying to the people.
This is a reasonable explanation, similar to the ones I write on the spot when attempting to explain things. Made more difficult by the fact many signs barring entry to owned land say “private property” (or some variation on it, at least in France and the US)
the fear for good, is the fear for change or admitting they where wrong. it is pride, as well as lazyness, combined with stupidity and weakness. because weakness is not how strong one seems(or lack there of) but weakness, is how little a person would be their real self, as well as how much they assume that in order to be strong they need to supress others so they are in a worse state than them. supressing people is a sign of the weak, because they are blinded and can only destroy.
My dad: “Yeah, maybe a good solution to the problem of not being able to pay rent would be government-provided housing”
Also my dad: “Socialism is horrible! If it wasn’t, then why would EVERYONE be trying to leave Communist countries like Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe???”
I wonder what the modern world would look like had the USSR not been dissolved, and repaired its relationship with the PRC.
Probably like Europe
To me the biggest hypocracy in general when it came to forms of communism.
It’s a failed ideology, it will always collapse in on itself as soon as it grows.
Followed with
We need to destroy it at all costs to keep it from taking hold anywhere in the world.
You don’t need to stop something that’s self defeating. It’s like the tower of babel story in the bible. Mankind was building up a great tower because they thought uniting they would be a powerful as gods, so god knocked over their tower, scrambled their languages to divide and conquer the world… Isn’t that kind of an admission that, God believed without his interference man can be as strong as he is?
Yep, really US foreign policy purely supports that which it can profit from, and it can’t do that if the population starts using its own resources for its own benefit rather than allowing them to be stolen by the US.
God ? Really ? Self-defeating, oh yes via spending billiins of dollars funding coups & sanctioning & bombing them in the name of Freeeeeeedom
At the end of the day, there is a reason the USSR dissolved. Generally related to bread lines, gulags, all that fun stuff
Ever tried Sabotage ?
I disagree with the reasons you gave, feeding those in need didn’t hurt the USSR and the GULAG system was abolished several decades prior to the dissolution of the USSR. It’s ultimately a complicated issue, but one that I believe ultimately had to do with rejecting much of the world economy, which resulted in a form of Siege Socialism.
Can we put the combined efforts of every capitalist market and oligarchy who’s power has reigned uninterrupted since centuries before communism was formally theorized?
Or nah it was probably the… checks notes
prisonsgulags, right glad those are gone.Or the bread distribution? Yea didn’t work for Rome either.
If the USSR had dissolved due to issues like the ones you’re talking about (Gulags being basically entirely dismantled after WW2 so 45 years before the dissolution, and breadlines being nonexistent until the 1980s liberalisation during Perestroika), it would have been dissolved with the popular consensus. There was a referendum in 1990 that asked the citizens of the Soviet Union if they wanted to maintain their country under communism and 70% of voters (admittedly a few republics didn’t participate) voted yes, so the USSR was extremely popular and people didn’t want it dissolved. The reasons for the illegal and antidemocratic dissolution of the USSR are much more complex than that.
Removed by mod
I’m getting a little tired of hot takes from those who don’t know shit about fuck.
If an election shows a socialist country’s government is unpopular, it’s a clear sign of oppression. If an election instead shows a socialist country’s government is popular, well that’s clearly rigged, another clear sign of oppression.
Did… Did you just equate the former socialist state that was the Soviet Union to the contemporary proto-fascist and capitalist Russian Federation that literally emerged out of the dismantling and auctioning of the former??
I didnt know i was living in a communist country
Its also strange that there are anti-communist stickers in a communist country
Its also strange that there are anti-communist stickers in a communist country
No it isn’t. Revolution isn’t the rapture. Fascists and liberals don’t just cease to exist.
But there wasnt a socialist revolution since the sticker was placed
Okay…?
why would EVERYONE be trying to leave Communist countries like Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe???
China is empty. Russia is empty. Cuba is empty. Vietnam is empty. South Africa is empty. They’ve all been hollowed out by the scourge of Communism. That’s why nobody lives there anymore.
Meanwhile, the US is the most populous country on Earth. We have the densest cities. We have the largest apartment towers. We have the most-used transit systems. Our nation is full to bursting thanks to all of the people who want to live here. And the more traditionally conservative, the more flagrantly capitalist, the more Christian and Based and Traditional, the larger the US State. That’s right, folks. West Virginia, South Dakota, Utah, and Idaho are the four most densely populated corners of the planet.
BBILBO BBAGGINS
Gandalf really pulled the double consonant in Bilbo’s name, dude was ANGRY
Most people just want to be left alone and socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone. They say there is no private property in socialism but really you become the property.
Wanting to be “left alone” is more a consequence of the alienation caused by the Capitalist system, humans are very social animals. No idea what you mean by “becoming the property,” that doesn’t make any sense.
We’re social with small groups of people not governments or people we have never met. I’m a person by the way, a social one, so I am speaking from experience.
Regardless of our will, increasingly complex production forces further connection. Decentralization only attempts to turn back this clock, it isn’t a solution. You are speaking from your experience as presumably a worker within Capitalism, which necessarily ends up atomizing individuals and destroys the social fabric of society in pursuit of profit. That’s why over time, more people have become fascinated by the idea of moving to Alaska or some remote area and becoming a self-sustainable farmer, but if Socialism is accomplished these desires erode.
I think it’s safe to argue that living in a place like the USA (I am assuming this so, correct me if I’m wrong) you are inherently social with governments or people you’ve never met. It’s just not in the same sense that socialism would allow for. After all, you hear what the government and electoral candidates say to you, make your opinion on it, and respond by a means of voting. That’s a pretty social relationship to me. You’re also currently being social online! With people you have never met. I am also a social person and am speaking from experience.
This definition of “social” from Oxford is probably most accurate, to how I am using the word:
- needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities. “we are social beings as well as individuals”
I interact with the government but I would hardly call it social. They send me paper asking for taxes, I send them taxes. I vote but that’s just filling out a form. It’s transactional, the government provides services. In rare cases I do have conversations with people who work for the government but I wouldn’t say Im social with the goverment through them. That would be like saying you’re social with Ronald McDonald by eating a cheeseburger.
I really would prefer the government leave me alone as much as possible and I think most people feel this way. I don’t think people want any organizations bothering them. How many times do you see a sign on someones door reading “solicite please” or see people hanging out down at the DMV talking about rules and regulations, or whatever. Never. People hate going to the DMV, they do it as little as possible.
We’re social with friends (usually people we went to school with), family, coworkers, neighbors, acquaintances, and some people we deal with on a regular basis. Small groups, like Dunbar’s number small.
I think our definitions of social might be the disconnect here, as it seems you’re meaning it in a personal or conversational manner. I acknowledge that by those standards, your point would be correct!
I just think that the term “social” when used in a political context does not carry the same connotation. When you say socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone, it seems you mean that in the sense that you don’t want people bothering you about more than is necessary for you to function as an individual (hence the soliciting or DMV example given). In this case, I don’t think that a more socialist structure would infringe on that at all actually.
Your day to day life would likely not change drastically. It’s not like the government would suddenly be knocking on your door monthly saying “hello would you like to give me your documented monthly contribution to society? Here is your monthly allowance”. In the day to day it would function as it was currently and the government would basically “leave you alone” as much as they already do. The government currently does already take taxes after all on property, income, sales, capital, even gifts! They also require you documents for many things such as driving a car or owning property or getting healthcare.
To continue your point made based on the definition you gave, though: People may have “no soliciting” signs posted, and hate going to the DMV. Yet, I know of MORE people who upon encountering an automated system to reduce the social interaction to be done for government transactions, complain that they “hate these stupid robots and want to just talk to a real person”.
That’s a clear projection
Well, can you explain your perspective then?
Considering capitalists are the ones ACTUALLY hellbent on turning you into a product & suceeded in it (E.g: Selling your personal information)
Eh, Capitalism will do what it can to turn a profit, which includes things that are good for society. People are fucking dumb and they do not read ToS or EULA, they just sign up for “free” shit and get advertised to while companies track them, spy on them, etc.
Even when you tell people about their data, they don’t care. I literally have a shirt which reads “they sell your data” by the way, I take it more seriously, and I feel like a fucking nut. I mean, I feel like the only sane person but you know, if every room smells like dog shit check your shoes.
Ah a fellow privacy enthusiast
What reading ToS gonna do? For many people, if they want to find a job they have no option but to network via LinkedIn. You get blocked from many many services just because you use private browsing or a VPN. These services are so well integrated with modern society that you are basically at a huge disadvantage if you don’t use them.
what is your definition of socialism and what makes you say “you become the property”?
Ignore what politicians say, look at what they do.
Both is good. Sometimes politicians are quite honest in an explanatory way for their actions, both need to be taken into account. They don’t have to be honest, but their stance is usually projected clearly.
Although when someone tells you how terrible they are, listen.
The phrase is ‘When someone shows you who they are believe them’ and has nothing to do with their words because people say all kinds of shit.
Well in some ways there’s double meanings.
Fact is almost universally people lie to make themselves sound better. When someone says “I like to backstab people who put their trust in me, and I love to take loans and never pay them back, by the way can I borrow $200”. You probably don’t need to loan the person the money to find out if he was really just lying.
I’m not really knowledgeable enough to contribute to the discussion going on here.
I just wanted to say I’ve seen you engaging in good faith discussion all over Lemmy, and I really, really, appreciate that. Whenever socialism, communism, Marxism and the like come up, people are quick to jump to ad hominem and flinging shit-covered sarcasm at each other, and you consistently engage thoughtfully in the discussion, even when your interlocutors don’t. Thank you.
Thank you! I really appreciate it, I do try to be level headed when engaging with people. I know I used to have a lot of the same misconceptions so I try to correct them when I can. Thanks!
Please share your wisdom, I always get snarky as hell and I don’t like that about myself
I dissuade Party members from putting down people who do not understand. Even people who are unenlightened and seemingly bourgeois should be answered in a polite way. Things should be explained to them as fully as possible. I was turned off by a person who did not want to talk to me because I was not important enough. Maurice just wanted to preach to the converted, who already agreed with him. I try to be cordial, because that way you win people over. You cannot win them over by drawing the line of demarcation, saying you are on this side and I am on the other; that shows a lack of consciousness. After the Black Panther Party was formed, I nearly fell into this error. I could not understand why people were blind to what I saw so clearly. Then I realized that their understanding had to be developed.
If I’m being honest? Reading Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist (also in the reading list on my profile). A good part of it stresses the importance of maintaining a level head and trying to maintain good relations with “wrong” but well-meaning comrades.
Humans are brainwashed into thinking it’s “Human nature” to be greedy and self-centered, so when someone comes offering help those stuck in this condition can’t help but think “What’s the catch?”
And the clearer it is that the person has good intent, the more dangerous the catch must be.
People aren’t really “brainwashed” in the traditional sense, they seek license to confirm their biases that they think they benefit from. A good article on the subject is Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.”
