While I like the idea of socialism to an extent, it hardly has an appealing track record.
What track record are you looking at, the one I’m seeing is a much lighter shade of gray than the capitalist track record.
How so? Do you think tools turn people evil or cease working if they are owned by the collective?
By “socialism”, are we talking:
A. Worker-controlled economic system, or
B. What American liberals think is socialism, ie just a capitalist state with welfare.
Aka socdem vs demsoc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1]
[1] Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
1 ↩︎
In practice, social democracy takes a form of socially managed welfare capitalism
Today I learned that Socialism is when you do Capitalism in a nice way.
Oh wait, no I didn’t, because Capitalism and Socialism are completely different modes of Production.
No, they’re not.
They’re economic systems, not modes of production.
Today, you’re still refusing to accept reality.
It’s right there before your eyes. You’re too brainwashed to see it.
In your own words, they are economic systems. What do you call a system built on Capitalism, but with a slightly larger welfare net? Socialism? No, you call it Capitalism.
You’re calling me brainwashed for correctly pointing out that Capitalism is Capitalism, even if you dress it up nicely?
“system built on capitalism”
You still don’t even understand what I mean when I say you’re conflating “capitalism” and market economies.
You think when people buy and sell things, that’s “capitalism.”
Is Finland a social democracy? Yes
And what does this say about what school of thought does social democracies belong to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
#Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[
“wää wää wää no it’s not socialism, it’s capitalism, but I refuse to believe it and I don’t have to explain myself”
- you
Please define socialism for me.
Because this an official definition
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED BY the community as a whole. “we want a real democratic and pluralist left party—one which unites all those who believe in socialism”
Even the US has socialist policies, because “pure” capitalism is completely unworkable, because it kills the economy stone dead
Believe me, I’m not conflating Capitalism with markets. Capitalism is a specific form of market economy by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Means of Production, or Capital, by which they can pay Workers to use and create commodities via wage labor.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Examples of Socialist Market Economies do not include Capitalist Social Democracies, because the primary defining feature of Social Democracies is Capitalism with generous social safety nets, a kind of “human-centric” Capitalism.
You on the other hand are making the misconception that Socialism is simply when the government does stuff. You’re wrong, of course, as countless people here have pointed put.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
OP is definitely in camp B…
Why? OP clearly states “worker controlled systems,” it’s not difficult to see what they’re talking about.
Neolibs are very easy to spot, comrade.
I agree, but nothing in this post is calling for deregulation and privatization, rather the opposite.
A.
Either.
Worker-controlled economic system
“Worker-controlled” isn’t a requirement.
Socialism is wheb and the government owns or regulates the means of production.
Which brings me to your “B”.
No, we Nordics aren’t “capitalist systems with strong welfare policies”.
We’re socialist nations with strong market economies. Market economies =/= capitalism.
We have stronger regulation of the means of production. We’re also social-democrats which is a school within socialism.*
Nope.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
The Nordic Countries are in fact Social Democracies, not Socialist Democracies. Social Democracy is Capitalist in nature.
Wrong wrong and wrong.
Honestly, why won’t you do 30s of Googling to check what you’re saying?
Communism is when the state owns the economy and you have a planned economy.
Socialism is the ownership OR regulation of the means of production.
Yes. We are social democracies.
But no, social democracies aren’t capitalist, dingdong. Let’s look at the very first sentence here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
#Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1]
#WITHIN SOCIALISM
You’re just conflating market economies and capitalism, like I already explained
Your greatest source is misinterpreting a line in Wikipedia? You think that means your Capitalism is actually Socialism despite relying on Capitalism, because the welfare net is larger? Lmao
“I refuse to look or acknowledge any data on the subject, so I’m correct”
Is the little kiddo having to backpedal and ignore the facts because he made a bit of a boo-boo in his rhetoric?
Please do elaborate on how I misunderstood something such as: “Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism” to mean what it says. Im sure you’ve a really good reasoning on how it ACTUALLY means that “social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within capitalism”
Your data is Wikipedia. That’s it. Read perhaps any Socialist literature and you’re immediately debunked.
If Social Democracy was truly under Socialism, then the Workers of your country would own the Means of Production.
A more accurate reading of what you are claiming is that Social Democracy takes influence from Marxism while rejecting the conclusions and thus the necessity for Socialism, instead relying on Capitalism.
Tell me, plainly, how you can have Socialism with Capitalists and Capitalism. Or, does Nestlé not exist in the Nordic Countries?
“yOuR dAtA iS wIkIPeDiA”
No, it isn’t.
Here’s my source: Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
Want to go and read those books? No? I’m schocked.
The information from those books is listed on Wikipedia, yes. Are you so childish that you’ll now pretend “you can’t find real information on wikipedia”?
Weirdly enough, you don’t have ANY sources for the things you pull out of your arse. Almost as if you didn’t know what you were talking about and didn’t HAVE any sources for your faulty claims, because like I said, you’ve conflated market economies and capitalism and think socialism equals communism, because you don’t understand communism is just one form of socialism.
“How can you have socialism with capitalism”
Since I’ve already explained you keep conflating “capitalism” with “market economies”, the question is then translated into “tell me, plainly, how can you have socialism and market economies”, for which the answer is really quite simple for anyone literate. However, since you also conflate “socialism” with “communism”, then the question becomes “how can you have communism with market economies”, to which the answer is “you can’t, since communism relies on planned economies instead of market economies”.
That’s where your confusion comes from.
Due to our good regulations because of our social demoractic, well governed economies, capitalist companies can participate, but they can’t do the shenanigans they can do in less regulated markets. The degree of regulation is the question. Even the US doesn’t have “pure” capitalism. Things like the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies, but this doesn’t mean the US is socialist in any way. It just means even they understand the necessity of regulation over “pure” capitalism, because “pure” capitalism is unsustainable as it leads to monopolies which then kill the economy.
This is why for example I can actually drink my tapwater and eat raw eggs that don’t even have to be refrigerated. This is why the quality of all products here is higher, and why it’s more expensive for companies like Nestle to try their bullshit here, which is why they mostly aim for developing countries. To avoid the regulation that comes with properly functioning social democracy.
How is fascism in your country btw? Seems that capitalism has it fine to me.
There are specific definitions and I’m sticking to them. If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something. I don’t know the common typical structure for a nordic company.
You haven’t even read a single “basic definition” my man.
Here’s one :
Socialism
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
socialism
noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.
If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Youre refusing (or unable, lol) to understand that “capitalism” does not equal market economies.
Selling things doesn’t mean capitalism. Trading goods doesn’t mean capitalism. Owning a company doesn’t mean capitalism. Having companies with workers doesn’t mean capitalism.
Jesus fucking God I’m tired of explaining concepts that my 8 year old niece could google and learn by her self in five minutes
“unless you have a planned economy you’re not socialist”
Yeah, exactly the point I’m making. Brainwashed morons think socialism means full planked economy, when it’s no such thing.
Fucking spend 2 min on Google, is it so much to ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
Fucking perpetuating shitty 70’s red scare propaganda mf sides are hurting.
I said nothing about a planned economy, now you’re putting words in my mouth.
Ever hear of libertarian socialism?
“I never said anything about a planned ecnoomy”
Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something. I don’t know the common typical structure for a nordic company.
You’re really pretending that talkign about cooperatives isn’t referring to communism? What are you, 12?
And what, you think co-ops didn’t have hierarchies?
What the fuck are you smoking, because I want to be equally fucked up.
If you’re going to continue to insult me and gaslight me, we are done here. Have a good day.
How am I “gaslighting” you?
You literally said “Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something [it’s not socialist]”.
You’re referring to the collectives of the Soviet union. A distinct feature of PLANNED ECONOMIES.
“I never anything about a planned economy.”
Yes, you did. And now you’re pretending you didn’t. Like pretending reality isn’t what it actually is. Trying to convince me something that happened didn’t happen. Is there a word for behaving like that…?
Removed by mod
Do you guys realize the world is larger than the memeverse and there are real people who lived under “socialist” governments?
Jesus H. Christ, all you need my dear is a holiday in Cambodia.
So… Your answer is no?
I may not want the USSR at all, but a large majority of Russians want it back: https://www.statista.com/chart/7322/25-years-soviet-union-collapse-ussr/
Now, a large part of this is also obviously due to wanting to be a part of a more powerful state, which the USSR was in comparison to the Russian Federation, but this point isn’t great. I could make the same point and say that we should send pro-Capitalists to Somalia, it just doesn’t work well logically.
Large majority of Russians also want Ukrainians dead in a moist fascinating ways. Weak argument.
Large, overwhelming majorities of Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians (hope it’s a word), Moldovans, Estonians, Poles don’t want to let USSR come closer than a shot distance.
My argument isn’t that Russians want good things, but that many people who lived under systems that can be considered Socialist absolutely do want them back. Of course the Ukranian war is unjustified, but that doesn’t mean that we can make up ideas about what people living in now-Capitalist states believe.
Again, this is the Somalia argument. You can find people in Capitalist nations that hate it too, does that nullify your point?
Ok let’s try to revisit it again. Of all the countries that freed themselves of a Soviet dictatorship literally zero want back, or are building ‘socialist’ economies. How about taking their experience as a measure?
Full disclosure, I’m living in a Western social democratic nation and am horrified by the capitalist and/or neoliberal ideologies. I am of a strong belief that neither of opposite ends of political philosophies bring good and prosperity for ordinary people.
Many do want the USSR back, because it was generally a better organization of the economy than what Capitalism and in some cases fascism has done for these countries. People who lived farther from Moscow had it far worse under the USSR, of course, but the people legitimately seem to have more of a longing for the USSR than anything else.
If approval rating was anything to go by alone though, then we could say Mao, Putin, and Kim Jong Un were some of the most successful leaders in history, and I don’t think either of us are saying that.
My point is firmly against the idea that Socialism is bad because many people who lived in one form of Socialism hated it, that’s an incomplete logical chain.
For what it’s worth, I’m firmly pro-Socialist, just not pro-USSR. I firmly believe that workers should own and control the Means of Production.
Primo, I respect you and your point of view even if I find it wrong.
Secondo, first sentence is factually incorrect and there are plenty of evidence. In particular about soviets, for starters I recommend you reading memories of Zara Witkin.
Tertio, you find opinions of russians valuable, and simply discard reference to the half a dozen of Independent nations who (willingly or not) share origin story with USSR
I’ll mirror your point and say I respect you and your point of view, even if I find it wrong.
Secondly, I’ll also mirror you and state that the majority of Russians that lived in the USSR that are alive today want it back. 1932 was just the beginning of the USSR, barely a quarter century from Feudalism! Absolutely nobody is saying they want to go back to a developing country.
A more accurate look would be what the USSR looked like post-WWII, pre-collapse.
Blackshirts and Reds is a pretty good book, not too long, that might give you a different perspective. Additionally, Robert Thurston is a historian who actually lived in the USSR and participated in local elections, despite not being a citizen, because he was a Worker. Additional, conflicting views, if you want to check.
Again, I’m not pro-ussr, but I am trying to dispel some myths here.
Do the actual Russian citizens want that, or are they just silenced? I remember hearing about protests in Russia over the Ukrainian war, but that just leads to a bunch of arrests.
Hur Hur Hur Russians good Putin bad. This argument aged like milk since before any of the commenters here were born.
Let me know where in my comment I lost you. I didn’t say Russians good Putin bad. I said there are Russians that don’t agree with the Russian authoritarian government. What a revolutionary concept.
Information provided by the Levada Center, which is currently declaring an 82% approval rating for Putin.
Gonna go ahead and say that this isn’t a reliable statistic.
Putin is a dictator, and a terrible fascist leader, but he does legitimately have a high approval rating, mainly because you can’t go against him without putting yourself in trouble. I would not say that that means an unrelated question isn’t reliable, especially because Putin is a fascist and the USSR was Socialist, if anything it’s anti-putin to want the USSR back,
That… isn’t legitimate.
fuck you tankie shithead COMMUNISM WILL NEVER RULE ESTONIA AGIAN
No, because the majority of people do not live in the US.
So the amount of influence is the same from the US and Russia and China.
We aren’t as uninformed as this meme suggests about the concept. We know it has positives, but we also know the negatives, of which there are many.
What negatives? Do people turn evil, or do tools stop working, if tools are owned by a collective?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This thread is lit. I’m going to list 4 arrangements of the economy. If you are interested in participating, name what you think each one is:
1: A small group of people own the lands that are worked by another group of people. The leader of these owners is chosen via divine right. The people who work the land keep what they make, however for protection they must work other lands and do not keep what is made from them
-
A small group of people hold dominion of a large group of people. The large group must work for food, lodging, etc. and are forced to do so by the threat of death and physical punishment. They do not get to keep what they make, the economic situation is determined by the generosity of those who hole dominion over them
-
A small group of people own the majority of wealth in the form of businesses, factories, goods, etc. They purchase the time of a much larger group of people who sell their labour to make ends meet. The small group decides what to do with the excess goods, services, and money.
-
A large group of people own the businesses, factories, goods, etc. These people work to make ends meet and decide collectively (democratically or through other means) what to do with the excess goods services, money, etc.
I hope these are both clear and vague enough. Good luck!
-
Yeah, of course I have.
In particular, I’ve noticed how the pro-capitalist people don’t seem to realize that we’re not living in a pure capitalist system. Instead we’re living in a mixed economy where key elements are socialist: road building, firefighting, postal services, food and drug safety testing, old age pensions, even ambulances (except for one minor exception).
A 100% socialist (a.k.a. communist) system might not be possible (at least not yet) due to human nature. The few times that it has been tried, at least in theory, it has quickly become an authoritarian system instead. But, AFAIK, it’s so obvious that 100% capitalist would fail completely that no society has even bothered to try it. Hundreds of years ago there were brief experiments with things like capitalist fire services, and Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly that nobody even thinks of going back.
So, instead we quibble about “capitalist” vs “socialist” when we’re really just arguing about whether the mix should be 80% capitalist, 20% socialist or 60% capitalist, 40% socialist.
Oh there are people who dream about going back. Mostly people who would profit and/or gain power.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism and capitalism are. Simplified it’s who owns the means of production, that is basically the “capital” in the name “capitalism”, in socialism these means of production have a shared ownership. Now you can have a discussion of what that means, if state ownership counts or whatever but as long as individuals own the means of production it’s not socialism no matter how much you tax them(it would still be an improvement to tax them more it’s just not socialism)
I can’t tell if your agreeing or disagreeing with op comment.
Ummm excuse me, no, the CIA is an extremely based communist organization because taxes.
This understanding of capitalism is a misunderstanding that both Marxists and neoclassical types share. It is not capital ownership that gives the employer the right to appropriate a firm’s whole product. The employment contract is what gives them that right. Sure, capital ownership affects bargaining power, but the root cause is that contract. Abolishing the employment contract while still having individual ownership is possible (i.e. a market economy of worker coops)
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? Is it a socialist country because most workers have 401(k) plans containing index funds, so they own a tiny portion of every major company? The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.
What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state, is that whole system capitalist? To me, it’s clearly not. You could argue that it’s mixed, but I’d say if it’s 99.9% not capitalist, it’s not capitalist.
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? […] The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.
How did you mess up this badly? A “public company” [sic, the correct term is “publicly traded company”] is a regular private company where the owners are hundreds or even thousands of individuals. A publicly owned company is one where every single citizen owns the company simply by being alive or every single worker owns the company simply by working there.
What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state
I don’t even understand what you mean by this…
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
No, they’re not, and this shows a very serious hole in your knowledge of economic and social systems. While, informally, it’s sometimes said to be the case, that’s strictly an oversimplification to communicate a different idea. Countries like the US simply use a government-assisted capitalist model. Places like the Nordic countries have a more transitional system, but are ultimately still just capitalist.
Of course they are. How can you be so confused. Countries like the US are a mix of socialist and capitalist systems. Some things are owned and run by the government (socialism), other things are owned and run by private individuals (capitalism). No society has ever worked where it was 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
Are you illiterate? I specifically pointed to why that’s not the case…
Are you dumb? I specifically pointed out how you’re wrong.
You couldn’t specify your breakfast if you were in the middle of eating it. Grow up.
Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly
uhh you might want to brush up on your history there, the pinkertons are still around, still quite closely tied to the government, and still being used (among other things) to suppress union organizing at places like amazon and starbucks! Kinda ridiculous to hear that our government is somehow ‘socialist’ when it does stuff like this.
I didn’t say they weren’t still around, just that they’re not the police.
What “Human Nature” goes against the idea of sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them?
Why do chimps kill chimps from other groups that come into their territory? Why do some chimps use aggression against other chimps to manipulate them, while other chimps use grooming?
A certain degree of sharing is part of our human / animal nature, but so is a certain degree of claiming ownership over things, and certain individuals have more sway over decisions than others. Flat hierarchies with nobody in command seem to work in theory, but in practice it’s different.
That’s the Naturalistic fallacy at work, though. We aren’t chimps, nor is doing what humans did in the past necessarily better than what we do now. By that chain, you would be an Anarcho-primitivist.
We’re apes, even if we’re not chimps.
But we aren’t chimps, and you shouldn’t judge the effectiveness of economic structures on what chimps do.
Nor should you pretend that we’re not apes, and that ape behaviour has no relevance to humans.
Let me know when you start eating bananas naked in the woods and let me bring my camera.
It has about as much relevance as the behavior of any other mammal, circling back to my comment about rats.
We could study what various apes do, and try to use that to guess at possible human behaviour - or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly. Surely the direct observations of what humans do is going to give us a more accurate and useful model of human behaviour compared to observations of other species.
You’re a mammal, a rat is a mammal - should we just consider you the same as a rat?
We can learn a lot about humans by studying rats. It doesn’t mean that humans are the same as rats, but clearly we’re not completely different either.
Yes?
As humans, we are greedy by nature. Not always, but when push comes to shove, we are.
This is nonsense. Communal sharing and common property was absolutely vital for survival for most of human history.
What part of that goes against sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them? Doesn’t your point mean that we shouldn’t have Capitalism at all?
Exactly, this argument is so weird, even if the assumption was true. “People are naturally greedy so we should have a system that allows them to do as much damage as possible”
I don’t think the poster who was down voted meant anything of the sort. They were just elaborating on their view of human nature.
The view shoved into their brain by the oligarchy, which is why it’s the most unoriginal cope out there.
In any society, some people will be leaders, some will be followers, this is natural. You cannot have a society without someone organizing the work and setting the course.
Of those who are naturally leaders, some will be much greedier than most. Some will also be ambitious, corrupt, two faced etc.
These people will do their best to gather wealth and power for themselves, be it in a capitalist or communist system. In the capitalist system they’ll become entrepreneurs if they also have good business acumen. In the communist system they’ll become managers and state officials if they can also navigate politics well.
At the end of the day, the same people will get to power and will hold dictatorial control over the means of production. In communist countries a literal dictatorship seems inevitable, while capitalist ones usually favor democracy (can be better for business) but they can also descend into dictatorship.
If you disagree, show me an example where all this is not the case. I’m honestly curious
Capitalism is the opposite of democracy. In a capitalist firm, the managers are not accountable to the governed (i.e. workers). The employer is not a delegate of the workers. They manage the company in their own name not in the workers’ name. Managers do not have to have dictatorial control. It is entirely possible to have management be democratically accountable to the workers they govern as in a worker cooperative.
Capitalism v. Communism is a false dilemma. There are other options.
Capitalists aren’t leaders, but owners.
Secondly, you are just tying Socialism and Communism with dictatorship without proving why you think it’s necessary. It’s purely vibes for you.
Tell me this: why do you think a system where Workers have no say, only Capitalists do and serve as mini dictators, is more democratic than a system where Workers vote on how to run production?
Socialism is not when the government does stuff, so those institutions are not examples of socialism. Anti-capitalists are arguing for the complete abolition of exploitative capitalist property relations that violate workers’ human rights.
This is a false dilemma. There are other alternatives to capitalism besides communism. It is entirely possible to have a non-capitalist non-communist system (e.g. an economy where every firm is democratically-controlled by the people that work in it)
Socialism is not when the government does stuff
Socialism is when the “means of production” are owned by the people as a whole rather than individuals. Capitalism is when the “means of production” are owned by individuals. Every modern state contains a mix of both.
If the US is 100% capitalist, then explain how the fire department is a capitalist institution.
Capitalism is not just when the means of production are owned by individuals. For example, in an economy where all firms are democratically-controlled by the people that work in them, the means of production can be owned by individuals, but such an economy is not capitalist because exploitative property relations associated with capitalism are abolished
Maga and libertarians seem to want to go back.
In advocating for privately owning and operating a business without excessive state interference, you highlight a core tenet of capitalism. This economic system champions individual freedom and autonomy, allowing entrepreneurs in a free-market environment to introduce innovative products, with relative ease and without burdensome regulatory approval.
However, concerns about state intervention under socialism introduce a nuanced perspective. While socialism aims to address issues of inequality and social welfare, it often involves more centralized control over economic activities. This centralized approach could potentially impact the entrepreneurial freedom to choose what products to sell and how to manage a business.
This dichotomy underscores an ongoing debate, weighing the advantages of a free-market capitalist system that fosters entrepreneurial independence against the goals of socialism, which seeks to address social and economic inequalities through collective decision-making and regulation. It prompts consideration of the trade-offs between individual liberty and the pursuit of societal equality and welfare.
Moreover, criticisms of socialism often include the potential for increased economic inequality. Centralized control might lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and disparities in resource allocation. Additionally, concerns about AI companies taking advantage of stringent regulations add complexity, as the regulatory landscape could inadvertently favor larger corporations, potentially exacerbating economic imbalances and hindering smaller businesses, including startups in emerging fields like AI, from thriving and innovating. The multifaceted nature of these concerns contributes to the ongoing dialogue about the merits and drawbacks of different economic systems.
Yikes. I know it shouldn’t surprise me anymore, but I’m still shocked at how deeply so many people have absorbed this nonsense.
What did I get wrong?
My guess? Watching too much CNBC or Fox Business.
Your understanding of regulation only considers freedom on the side of business and not the freedoms of everyone those regulations protect from corporate malfeasance. You don’t get that “socialism” includes things like worker cooperatives that should be the ideal of market commerce. Your concept of freedom seems to exclude the concept of positive freedoms. Your idea of capitalism ignores the coersive reality that workers without the means of production live under. I could go on but I’m not sure I could ever stop finding new issues, which is quite amazing.
In short, your comment contains nothing that isn’t straight up corporate propaganda from someone with not enough curiosity about the world and privileges that have allowed you to remain ignorant.
Nah I wanna keep all the money I make from my private business and I don’t want state approval to sell product or following some burdensome bullshit regulation. Socialism is dog shit compared to capitalism, I wouldn’t want to give up any of my individual freedoms. If you don’t like the system, simply go move to another country that has it. No need to get all upset.
LOL, that’s not anger. At best it’s exhaustion, which has become my typical reaction to people taking a dump on a thread and demanding answers to tired old bullshit that’s been answered a thousand ways before.
No one can prove me wrong still
You can lead a horse to water, but when his health fails or his business burns down he’ll be looking to the big bad government for a handout.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
This propaganda is coming from the most prosperous, overachieving nation in the history of mankind, so it seems like there might be something to it. Now the propaganda coming from impoverished, third world countries saying how all their problems can be solved through communism, just doesn’t have the same luster for some reason.
Now if you can point me to an example of a utopic nation where everything is wonderful and workers run the show, I’m all ears.
I dunno man, anytime a power-hungry fascist wants power the terms Communist, Socialist and Leftist apply to political opponents, brown people, Jews, intellectuals, gays, athiests, immigrants etc.
They’re said to be poisoning the blood of the nation and enemies of god. The fascists call the “right denonination of religion”, patriots, and other nationistic jingoistic terms the true and pure blood of the country.
Go back and listen to Hitler’s and now Trump’s speeches if you want to see for yourself.
The propaganda from the “most powerful empire” didn’t start that, it’s human trash like Hitler, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce, Father Coughlin, and Joesph McCarthy.
And now we get Chinese and Russian int ops perpetuating shit memes like this when they are more to blame for current shit perceptions than the horseshit blame contained within their memes.
And yea agreed, fuck corporate interests too right along with it.
Nazi Germany was modelled on America.
This was literally the next post in my feed, lol:
You can also take deductions for costs relating to criminal activity!
That’s it, I’m done for today. Nothing can top that.
I like this new meme format
Maybe, but they’ve also been well assisted by those countries which are shining examples of SC&L but have failed to get their messages across the world. Perhaps replies to this comment could indicate which countries those are, for some independent research.
