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.
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
Probably like Europe
At the end of the day, there is a reason the USSR dissolved. Generally related to bread lines, gulags, all that fun stuff
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.
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.
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.
Ever tried Sabotage ?
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.
I didnt know i was living in a communist country
Its also strange that there are anti-communist stickers in a communist country
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.
“No, no, they tries to tricks us, precious [capitalism]! They wants to take you from us, stop you from helping us, precious, gollum!”
“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.
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)
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?
All you have to do is come up with a new name for it. It’s not like any of them have a clue about what socialism actually entails.
Historically, such a strategy doesn’t actually work. Sooner or later, you get accused of being a godless commie or a tankie anyways. You can either stand firm in your beliefs and attempt to sweep away the dirt of the Red Scare to accurately contextualize Socialism and AES states, or fail to support them at all, leading to issues like Trotskyism (poor understanding of theory and a lack of support for AES) or PatSocs (Nationalist Socialists in the Imperialist countries).
You can try acknowledging that people have actual differences of opinion instead of referring to different ideological tendencies as a result of poor understanding. Doesn’t really help your cause to always come across as pretentious and arrogant, even to people who would otherwise be your allies.
There’s a difference between a difference in opinion, and a difference in understanding of what is clear-cut. I specifically singled out Trotskyism as an example because it’s an overwhelmingly western ideology, hasn’t seen any real practical success, and the fact that Trotskyists have historically ended up indirectly supporting Capitalism by attacking AES with the same or sometimes even greater vigor. I don’t denounce Trotskyism out of arrogance or pretentiousness, most Trots spend more time fighting Leftists than working to overthrow Capitalism, and can therefore not be seen as genuine allies.
Are there good Trots? Yes, many in fact. The Party for Socialism and Liberation has Marcyite roots, but due to adopting a strong, pro-AES internationalist position, they end up, despite differences in opinion and what I consider clear-cut theoretical shortcomings, as actual allies worthy of support. In fact, that’s why many Marxist-Leninists end up joining PSL. I also get along quite well with many Anarchists, as I used to be one myself, and many Anarchists get along quite well with Marxist-Leninist analysis of geopolitics and thus serve as more immediate allies than anti-AES Trots do.
If you mean that I in general am pretentious and arrogant, I try not to be. In fact, I try to always take a positive and gentle approach when correcting misconceptions about Marxism, and try to disengage when it’s clear that that isn’t working. If you have suggestions for how I can be better, I am more than willing to listen. However, I am not going to stop correcting misconceptions when I see them, as to not do so when I know better weakens the movement overall. It’s akin to the Socialist Revolutionaries in pre-Revolutionary Russia denouncing theory as “divisive” and celebrating individual acts of terror as “real victories,” when we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.
In fact, building off that last point, I think we have spoken about this before with respect to Solarpunk as an instance. The lack of actionable theory and the instead focus on “Utopia Building,” ie the process of trying to design a perfect society rather than focusing on working with existing society and what needs to be done in the immediate for revolution and building Socialism, can lead to bad-faith actors taking advantage of it, like traditional conservativism and misogynistic gender roles did with Cottage-core. That’s the key danger of aesthetic-based movements, and why I suggest coming up with a clear theoretical line and list of actionable theory first and foremost. An example of this is China’s clear-cut domination of the solar industry, but many Solarpunks being vehemontly anti-PRC, which is antithetical to the process of building mass sustainable green energy in as short a time as possible.
we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.
To give an example, I disagree on this. Now, if you were to approach this discussion under the pretense that my disagreement is based on poor understanding of history or of theory, that would be pretentious, and therefore unproductive if you actually want to change my mind. Instead, keep an open mind and be willing to entertain an alternative perspective.
In my opinion, the Bolsheviks were oppurtunists who co-opted the revolutionary fervor in order to centralize power and influence in the movement under their control. They did indeed use Marxist theory to guide and justify their actions, but that doesn’t make it right. I understand that Marxist theory advocates for the centralization of power and control, I just disagree with it, which is a view more in line with Trotskyites than Marxist-Leninists.
I’m not trying to say that you are particularly arrogant or pretentious, but Marx and especially Lenin certainly were, and that is reflected in their work.
If you want to make that point, I would ask that you back that claim up. There are a few important things you need to tackle in order to do so:
-
The mass support for the Bolsheviks among the Working Class, and the Soviet system in general
-
The mass expansion in democratic power under the Socialist system as opposed to the prior Tsarist system
-
You need to prove the cause of the Bolsheviks being “power/control” and not a genuine adherance to the pursuit of Socialism
All 3 of those are hard truths that we can see through commonly accessible historical texts and archival evidence. We can track metrics like the doubling of Life Expectancy, free healthcare and education, the highest literacy rates in the world, massively lowered wealth disparity, a huge emphasis on teaching Marxism to all workers, and more. What we find, is that while not perfect, the USSR was indeed a massive progressive movement for the working class not only in Russia, but the whole world over, from Cuba, to Algeria, to Palestine, to China, to Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more. The presence of the USSR forced the New Deal into existence, among other western concessions, even those not aligned with the USSR benefited.
If you have an opinion and feel confident enough to stand by it, I would hope you also have reasons and experiences that back that up. From what I have shown, and if you want me to link stats and sources I can, I think it’s fair to say that the Bolsheviks were genuine Marxists that upheld and carried through the revolution. Regardless of percieved arrogance of Marx and Lenin, their teachings and theory provided the theoretical backbone for every long-lasting leftist country, even the EZLN who most think of as more Anarchistic (they have their own ideology but much was inspired by Marxism-Leninism).
I highly recommend listening to Michael Parenti’s 1986 “Yellow Parenti” lecture.
-
It worked when people rebranded “falsehoods” to “alternative facts” so why not try it?
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.
BBILBO BBAGGINS
Gandalf really pulled the double consonant in Bilbo’s name, dude was ANGRY
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.
That’s right, they aren’t going to overcome their irrational fears. They’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future until it becomes normal and they realize the sky didn’t fall. I actually had hope that we were on the verge of a strong progressive wave, but then millions of people decided not to show up because Harris wasn’t perfect enough for them. So basically fuck y’all, and good luck with the whole People’s Front of Judea vs the Judean People’s Front deal. The thing about MAGA is they fucking show up, and they’re gonna keep showing the fuck up. Idiots need to figure out that you don’t make change happen by turning away when your ideal options don’t appear on a menu so you can click on one and go back to scrolling. /end rant
I think what you’re missing is that for most Socialists, electoralism has already been proven as a losing game to begin with, and is far below the minimum requirements to enact change. Real power comes from organizing, which is why Leftists always push for it (and when it happens, they get results).
I think what people are missing is Trump/Vance being the worst possible outcome. But yes, real power does come from organizing - not from sitting in front of a screen “raising awareness”.
The worst possible outcome is really perpetuating this horrible system to begn with.
I agree, which is exactly what refusing to participate does. Lazy rationalizations help the oligarchs as much as money and brainwashing.
Participating in the electoral system also perpetuates it, the Capitalists don’t care who wins because they already approve of both major parties.
Okay if changing the system through the system is impossible then what’s your plan?
Revolution, which requires worker organization and the building of dual power, as has been done successfully in many countries.
deleted by creator
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 is your definition of socialism and what makes you say “you become the property”?
Socialism has been tried many times in all forms but pure unregulated capitalism hasn’t yet.
It has, actually. Got overrun by a bunch of bears
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.
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.
Every single form of socialism has been tried?
Even Christian anarchism? Even Posadism? Even Queer anarchism?
Also, your answer is anarcho-capitalism?
Oh yeah? List the forms.
In this case wouldn’t it make more sense to list the forms it hasn’t been tried in?
How is this a meme?
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
The gandalf pictures, it’s humourously describing the process of pitching Socialism to Americans. Simple.
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.
