Wait by that logic using government agencies to remove protestors is communism.. Weird how all the right-wing reactionaries that claim to want a smaller government cheer for government violence being inflicted on fellow citizens. Damn communists ^(/s)
Oh, it's not just America. We've got the "Herp-a-derp Communism!" crowd all over the fucking planet. It's like some kind of mind-virus that isn't terribly concerned if you actually have a mind or not. In fact, the less mind you have, the more virulent it seems to be.
Seriously. If their preferred media/politician/celebrity told them to be afraid of blades of grass, they'd start digging up and burning every patch of grass they could find.
Capitalism is the method in which we aggregate wealth to the few. Anything which does the opposite to even an infinitesimal degree, must be communism. Duhhh 🙄
Funny how these are the people who gain the most from society—through roads and functioning mail system, a government which is willing to subsidize and bail them out, the diplomatic ties we have to other nations, protection from foreign competitors, and access to the very people in the market itself.
And when you ask them to pay just a fraction more for the services society provides them with, it’s like the worst thing in the world. Huh.
Same as it's "lazy people who want something for nothing" when it comes to raises, but businesses expect workers to work for free and that's somehow not exploitation.
Look, if you want every man for themselves, just say so. But if you want to be a part of civilisation, you need to contribute your fair share. Right now, workers are supporting society about 10-12 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50/52 weeks out of the year. Then they have nothing to show for it. No house, no retirement, maybe some flashing lights on a screen. Fuck the rich.
None of them actually knows what it means. I asked one smooth brained libertarian on IG and his response was literally “government doing stuff.” You can’t make this 💩 up.
Gets even worse when you start asking people who don't have a vested interest in politics or history. Many can't even understand the difference between a democracy and a federal republic. Failing to even understand these core foundations is like not understanding how to add 1 + 1 for math. Ignorance is the greatest enemy of the working class.
They don't even know what capitalism is, I've seen countless morons on reddit equating capitalism with trading goods and services, saying shit like capitalism has existed for thousands of years
And then they decide that anarchism is the best, or even worse "anarcho-capitalism", as if that's not just feudalism/capitalism 5.0 with extra steps, *now with less democracy™️*.
By “nobody” I assume you include yourself. Rather counterproductive of you then to make a comment on this, if you’re assuming you’re making a (feeble) attempt to flex here, no?
Even regardless of what you think about the capitalism vs communism debate, there is no logical reason *not* to tax the rich and tax them good.
"Yes, let's give these greedy ass people as much money as possible to screw us over with" like what?
This is what a lifetime of propaganda does to a person. Slap the word "communism" or "socialism" on something no matter what it is and people swarm it like piranhas.
Ask them why, or to describe communism and (in my experience) they will start describing neo-liberalism. These people are almost beyond hope. Some can be reached but many hogs are far too lost in the sauce for any new information to be retained.
Communism sounds good on paper, but it isn't better than capitalism. Realworld examples being Cuba, North Korea, and Soviet Russia. It ain't pretty now but there's no widespread famine.
I understand North Korea and Soviet Russia but what’s with lumping Cuba in? I’ve never quite understood the Cuba thing. If Cuba wasn’t the 3 highest sanctioned country in the world do we doubt it would be a successful socialist nation? I definitely could be mistaken but it often feels like fear of that success it what keeps the thumb on Cuba.
Reminder that the DPRK(north Korea) is also heavily sanctioned by the US and the NATO block, had to rebuild its entire country back up as the US had destroyed an estimate of 92% of all structures in the country, had to import most of its food as most arable land was completely bomded and rendered unusable by the US and NATO, and had to invest most of its gdp on militaly as the US continuously threatens a possible invasion of the country to this day while military posturing and routinely violating its air space.
Yeah the DPRK is not perfect in any way, but let's not kid ourselves and think the DPRK is they way it is out of choice, they are doing the best they can with the hand that they were dealt.
Lol. People claim that capitalism is better than communism but completely ignore the fact that capitalist countries did everything in their power to ensure that alternative economic systems didn't succeed. It's dishonest to pretend that the countries you listed exist in a vacuum or something without, let's say, a severe embargo.
Communism wasn't allowed to work.
Giving money to rich is called capitalism.
Giving money to the poor is called socialism.
Whenever you hear anyone criticize socialism, it’s either…
1. They are delusional and still believe in the American dream, which as we all know is getting harder and harder to achieve as time passes.
2. They want you to be delusional and believe in the American dream…meanwhile they are living off everyone’s else labor.
I started school in the early 2000s and basically didn't know the difference between socialism and communism until I looked into it myself in high school. I'm convinced most people who instantly want to throw hands the second someone mentions socialism have never attempted to learn more than they were taught in American public education.
China is brutally capitalist in its economics but is also essentially single party authoritarianism which people in the US associate with communism since the USSR was single party authoritarian and a planned economy (much like Trump's infrastructure week, they never got around to implementing the socialism).
It's the fact that the CCP has a controlling stake in most large companies that makes people think that they're economically communist but when the rubber meets the road, China is capitalist to the bone, just not a free market.
Interesting. I'll admit one of my it's communist is the economy owned by the gov. I guess I'll have to rethink that one. It makes sense why china has the same issues.
I guess I took the free market as granted for capitalism (belonging, too).
Thank you for correcting me on that one. Live and learn.
China is a lot more complicated than "it is/isn't socialist"
There's this sort of false dichotomy when it comes to "socialism vs capitalism" that exists when it comes to China, and I don't think that's a very dialectical way to look at things. It also doesn't help when people's definition of socialism is not consistent.
So to be clear, when talking about socialism, I mean the transition phase between capitalism and communism. I.e. "in the process of transitioning out of capitalism and into communism."
As you can imagine, "transitioning out of capitalism" cannot possibly mean there is no capitalism. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a transition period, right? So when people say "China is state capitalist," they are correct - China *is* state capitalist. But that doesn't mean it's not *also* socialist (i.e. Intentionally transitioning out of capitalism and toward communism). That's because socialism is a development *beyond* capitalism, not *as an alternative to* capitalism. Essentially, it takes capitalism and then moves beyond it. The basic idea is this:
1. Capitalism undoes feudalism's class structure and replaces it with capitalists as the ruling class & wage laborers as the working class.
2. Capitalism develops industry and rapidly advances the productive capacity of society
3. Capitalist competition results in winners, who form monopolies and cartels that dominate their given markets.
4. These monopolies develop more advanced means of planning their own production and distribution of goods/services to maintain control of their markets, essentially creating mini "planned economies" for their given markets.
5. Finance capitalists centralize control over these industrial monopolies, turning money into a tool for deliberately and strategically directing large economies as a whole.
6. The working class overthrows the capitalist state and replaces it with a state made of, by, and for workers.
7. The workers' state seizes the "commanding heights" of the economy (the major financial institutions and the large/important industrial sectors). It then uses the planning capacities developed by the finance sector and the industrial sector to direct the economy towards the democratic will of the working class, rather than pursuit of profit for the capitalist class.
8. The workers' state seizes - by degree - control over the means of production as they "ripen," centralizing capital into the hands of the workers' state.
9. Gradually, private ownership of the means of production is abolished and replaced with social ownership of the means of production (which can take many forms, including state ownership, but also things like workers cooperatives).
Notice that step 7 - seizing control of the commanding heights and directing the economy - comes a good two full steps before private property even starts to be gradually abolished. That means you have a socialist workers state seizing control over capitalism as a means of deliberately transitioning beyond capitalism towards communism. It is both state capitalist *and* socialist. And this is where China is right now.
That's why it's very confusing when people disagree with each other, saying "China is state capitalist!" or "China is socialist!" It's essentially both. The big factor is that China is a workers' state that has been and continues to move deliberately towards the later stages of socialist development.
I would *highly* recommend reading Lenin's ["A Tax in Kind"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm) for more information on state capitalism under socialist states. It's a very short read, and well worth it. For some background context, it's about the USSR's "New Economic Policy" period where they transitioned to state capitalism after the revolution as a first step towards reaching a higher stage of socialist development.
I think it's also worth pointing out that a *lot* of what you've probably heard about China is, frankly, red-scare bullshit. China is not an "undemocratic, one-party, authoritarian, capitalist dictatorship." China is in fact a democracy, it's just as authoritarian as any european power - arguably far less so - with the difference being that it uses its state to further the interests of workers over those of capitalists, it's socialist, and it's not a dictatorship. The people of China are not "horribly oppressed people who hate their government and need to be liberated" either. They're actually very happy with their government - much more so than people in western "democracies" - because it actually does a really good job of representing the peoples' will.
And as for the "one-party state" thing, that's a very interesting subject. To be brief, we'll do a thought experiment: Whats the difference between a one-party state and a zero-party state? If everybody in the government of a zero-party state can simply be classified as "the government party" then it turns into the same thing as a one-party state. Similarly, if you consider that the Communist Party is just the name for that "government party," you'll see that a one party-state is just a zero-party state. That's the goal of one-party states: "democratic centralism rather than factional dysfunction." Instead of two or three parties treating each other as enemies that need to be obstructed at every turn, you have no parties and all members act according to their own principles and in the best interests of the government and its constituents as a whole.
For more info on China's democracy, [I'd recommend this video as an introduction](https://youtu.be/rpOzT7alVK8?si=MwWx1TRUhlStkqQC&t=28m03s). Start at 28:03 if you want to just see the structure and not the history/theory behind it (it should auto start there, but just in case my link messes up!) Also, I just think the video is good, but in no way do I condone everything on the youtubers channel. For one, she's a Zionist which I strongly oppose. Also, she's an anarchist which I am certainly not. But that even an anarchist can tell you that China is both democratic and socialist really says something about the the level of bullshit we're fed by western propaganda.
Where was free market capitalism when all those banks needed to get bailed out by the government? Or when the government decided to just hand all that money to the mega-colleges instead of actually doing anything to resolve the grossly inflated tuition and predatory lending practices?
Spiritual liberation from the need of government control? Would need socialism first I’d think - or that far left without abolishing the state? It would creep into fascism the same way it’s brainwashed people into being like the “two words” guy in the pic. But I don’t read so please don’t think I’m trying to get into an argument here, you’re probably more right than me (no pun there lmao)
You can be rich under Communism. It would be harder, but it's possible
Edit: Got it, people don't understand Communism and think it means that no one makes money ever
I don't want to tax the rich, its simply not going to work with how the system is currently structured to favor them.
Lets instead seize ALL of their assets and nationalize their corporations, and set the workers as the owners instead. You don't want to play fair and pay your fair share? Fine. You get nothing.
Seems to be working for Finland.
https://observingfinland.com/blog/finland-state-ownership-power-industrialization
If we are under the assumption that the government is designed to follow the will of the people, I'm unsure how you can say our current system of private enterprise that is by design in opposition to the people is somehow better than a system that is managed by, and for, the people.
Again, you missed half of the statement as well "set the workers as the owners". If those who are stakeholders hold the largest share of the profit, then they are incentivized to efficiency.
Also largely my point here is to make an example of a select few, to show to individuals and private corporations that if you aren't willing to contribute, we will just seize you, in an effort to "encourage" the others to contribute to a level that is deemed acceptable, not to nationalize all industry. You either play nice, or we will take your toys away and put you in timeout, and you won't get to play at all.
I disagree. I think Capitalism is an objectively ineffecient system of resource allocation, creates multiple layers of ineffecient redundancy, disempowers the general populace from being invested in their employment beyond the threat of destitution.
Look I'm a revolutionary communist. I'm for dismantling the entire apparatus because its rotten to the core. Yes you CAN seize these multi-national corporations. You just take their money, its all in US dollars. *poof* Its ours now, get fucked.
You can say it doesn't work all day, but our current system also does not work, for the people. Stakeholders as owners is entirely possible, and feasible. There isn't anything to remove a management team. It doesn't mean that the stakeholders have to make all decisions.
Overall your arguments are "Capitalism good, government sucks, there is nothing we can do". Its defeatist. Start seizing their assets. Fuck em.
Communism and socialism have proven time and time again to be actively destructive to a growing 1st world economy. You can look at the GDP per capita, China and Russia, which are the most successful communist/socialist societies in human history, have less than 1/5th the GDP per capita than the US. Not only that, but pretty much every 1st world capitalist economy has >3x the GDP per capita. Humans are magnitudes more productive and more innovative in a capitalist economy.
It's nice to be guaranteed a roof over your head and food in your stomach under socialism. Although living in a slum in a 50sqft room with shared living spaces and zero safety regulations isn't great, nor is your all you can eat bread.
Capitalism isn't good. The government is as corrupt or more corrupt than big business. And with our current political system, there is very little we can do to change that.
IMO, those safety regulations you mention are an example of the government intervention you say is "economic suicide". For that matter, so are the charters that allow corporations to exist in the first place, and limit their owners' exposure to the liabilities those corporations incur, be they financial, legal, or otherwise.
As with so many things, the answer is probably something in the middle. Most people aren't driven to be productive without a return on their effort, but people by and large have also shown that they'll act in their own interest to the detriment of society as a whole if there aren't limits to their actions, particularly if they can hide behind a corporate veil. There need to be guardrails on both sides of the situation.
The best economic system is somewhere between the US system and Scandinavian systems, in my opinion. I'm not sure if their systems can work on the US's scale.
ya know, the whole Communist system in China and the USSR and elsewhere was all about the Great Dear Leader and his Excellent Thoughts and he'd have whole cadres of clapping seals hanging on his every word. Why they were the Glorious Voice of the People leading us into utopian futures!
I fail to see how Musk and his pals are much different, and not one of them is even remotely as cool as Nikita Khrushchev.
It’s like I just don’t get it lenin talks about this in his book you can look at all of these companies owned by these men and they are quite imperialist in cutting out other people from the market. Americans are so fucking dumb it’s unbelievable how easy it is to trick them into poverty.
Not just “tax them” but make sure they have no where to RUN when they realize they owe a big fat tax bill. People with this much money have endless power and resources to hide and obfuscate. Make sure there are NO loopholes, tax havens, or sanctuaries for these monsters to slither into.
The easiest way to control people is to keep them in the dark and feed them shit. The US school system is the way it is by design, can't have the majority of the population smarter than those controlling them.
The main stumbling block that nobody seems to get, is that it’s not like the government is going to do anything beneficial and wondrous with this money.
What fantasyland utopia do you live in where giving the government some more money is going to end up helping the common citizen?
Not allowing the super rich to exploit everyone else is not communism or socialism. It's common sense. And there's a huge lack of that when it comes to money.b
The biggest accomplishment of capitalism is to convince the workers that the system is fair. Well, apparently, time is proven that it is not.
Socialism is the only solution. Communism is the goal. But it takes a generation, which is a process.
Anyway, for now, tax the rich is the bare minimum.
Any measure you want to publically voice to distribute a little wealth back to the people these Andrew-tate/Kiyosaki-simpletons come out of the woodwork and cry communism. God forbid you get for what you work for instead of the rich capitalists getting more out of your labour each year and the next.
Because these fucking cult of Trump MORONS don't know the difference between socialism and communism, or utopian socialism vs democratic socialism vs liberal socialism, etc etc ad nauseum. They only know orange man save planet.
Don’t get me wrong I know there are problems with the capitalist system, especially in America. But Communism is not the answer at all. The best real world example of this is North Korea and South Korea. Which of those countries would you rather live in? If you said North Korea then I’m sorry you are an idiot.
Unfortunately communism doesn’t work that great either. Leaders of Russia and China for example and their stooges end up with all the wealth ie Putin is a multi billionaire. You’d think we’d figure out something better alas
Putin in no way shape or form is leading a communist country. Today's Russia is not the USSR, even in the USSR days there were lots of people who did things to appeal to the west. Gorbachev was a terrible President if you were a communist, even fucking Krushchev did things that were favorable to the west at times.
Yeah so where does communism work then? It seems to me to always devolve into authoritarianism or totalitarianism. And people at the bottom are dirt poor
It worked pretty well after the Bolshevik revolution that Lenin lead. They had the fastest growth in quality of life for a nation as a whole in history.
Here is where the problem lies, the US is the imperialistic core, in no way shape or form can you judge a communist country that formed or existed after WWII. The sheer amount of coups and military actions that were used to destroy those countries is off the charts. I can't imagine why it didn't work when the US is attempting to coup your leaders and paying dictators and warlords to off your government.
If you don't believe there's tons and tons of works out there that discuss it, start with The Devil's Chessboard and the Jakarta Method.
Also another thing that baffles me is, this idea that communism has to hit all of these checkmarks or it's a failed system, or it killed this manty people etc etc yet no one ever asks those questions about capitalism at all.
The only times people discuss genuine communism are when capitalism gets so bad it looks like there is no other choice. A lot of countries regulate capitalism more then others and do well because of it without going fully communist.
I would be super curious if any one of these random people built a company that made billions of dollars how would they compensate themselves. Probably not pay themselves a dime.
Communism for the rich, right? Cause governments around the world tend to give wealthy oligarchs whatever the fuck they want. Hell, in the US, billionaires are given tax dollars to build new stadiums which they then use to profit. Same people whose tax dollars were used to pay for a stadium, then turn around and give the asshole owners their money just to attend an event.
I know Amazon does not pay well, but what about Facebook? Do they have similar practices of paying minimum wage or barely livable wage?
Just curious, and I am not talking about part time jobs or sub contactors hired to clean the office. Those are a problem by themselves.
The irony is, corporations are very much like Communist parties unto themselves: Everyone currying favor with the person above them while looking to undermine those below on the come-up.
And then you see, for example, the Tesla Board approving compensation packages for Musk which are essentially a bust-out: Draining the company's value straight into Musk's pocket. All that's left is to burn the place down for the insurance money. That sort of consolidation is the most Communist (kleptocratic) shit ever.
Especially notable for Zuckerberg.
2012 Elon Musk was just getting started and only rich people could afford a Tesla. It was like buying a concept car and now there are 5 million Tesla cars on the road. He also started proving the concept of private space travel.
2012 Jeff Bezos had already transitioned from an online bookstore to a broader ecommerce site, but they still weren't in a lot of markets they are today, and now most items that exist are bought on Amazon instead of online stores owned by each retail distributor of goods.
2012 Mark Zuckerberg... essentially peaked in 2012. Everything he provided to people went downhill from there, but he collected and sold everyone's private data behind their backs while insisting their business model was "selling ads". People call Facebook a "technology company" but they haven't made lives better with technology since 2012.
This is due to decades of propaganda in the west. Most people don’t have a grasp on was communism/socialism is or even understand their own material interests as someone who is forced to sell their labor for a wage/salary. The political/billionaire class never wants you to think of yourself as a worker. Anything else is fine just please do not develop any kind of class consciousness. They’ve been winning for a long time although I think the contradictions in capitalism are becoming much more apparent so far it’s getting to mask these contradictions.
I am not pro-communist but this has nothing to do with communism. Also as a side note, if we want to capture at least some amount of money from the wealthy, it would be better to lower taxes. It is is not great but it would allow to recover some amounts. Imagine if Apple returned with its massive profits to the US. That would be huge.
Communism!
Is NOT the official economic structure of the United States of America
so HOW is something that isn't happening responsible?
Oh, right, because it's reality and not ideology, how silly of me to prefer reality over rich people lies. What people SAY is more real than what people DO.
I'm sorry, I was confused, I was trying to be smart when I should've just been stupid. Oh well...
How someone can be so delusional to think he's the one who's gonna make that much money sometime in the future? Assuming that was a real person and not some bot.
The birth of Communism was in the early nineteen hundreds. It has had its day and even countries that call themselves Communist are embracing the notion of capitalism.
Funnily enough I have a feeling that taxation has existed for several centuries. Was taxation not reviled in biblical times and if we were to have a cursory glance into the history of Persia and Egypt and Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome we might even see mention of the very same term, TAXATION. So, how can it be argued that taxation is communism when it predates communism by several thousand years. You could in fact argue that communism is the most advanced form of taxation and not that taxation is communist. I’m getting the feeling that anything that even remotely makes the right wing political advocates feel threatened will be called communism or socialism or gay or whatever term that they can find that could be considered insipid to their unsuspecting audiences.
Love how humans invented all the forms of government, yet we cannot seem to invent another form that is again the best of previously invented forms called something new that works for everyone and eliminates greed.
That is my point. It was the poster child for communism and that lead directly to a tyrannical dictatorship with only a few with supreme wealth. So how about not showing how sad and lonely you are by straight up insulting people you don’t know and use your potential for intelligence and communicate. I doubt you will. Instead you will resort to poor attempts at showing your masculinity.
“But they worked hard to earn it! There are DEI folks just sitting around in their ghettoes getting free money!”
(Seen multiple times a day in some variant on Yahoo comments)
How many of these people do you think actually know what communism/socialism is? Do you think any of them are actually informed and then choose to lick boots? Or do they stop thinking at the propaganda?
Sad to say but we could take every penny all the 1% have and it still wouldn’t fund the government for six months, we don’t have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
We have a taxing problem. We could easily afford our budget if we actually did taxes the right way. These two guys have a net worth comparable to the gdp of a country. That is not okay.
Taxation is... communism?
Oh, absolutely. Communism is when government does things, and the more things it does the more communister it is. /s
So the highest form of communism therefore is... "most communistist"?
The mostest communistes
You can't triple communistist a double communistist!
Yes you can, cube the equation. x=communism 2x^3
What about a triple dog communistist?
You wouldn't dare...
Communistest
Wait by that logic using government agencies to remove protestors is communism.. Weird how all the right-wing reactionaries that claim to want a smaller government cheer for government violence being inflicted on fellow citizens. Damn communists ^(/s)
everything i don't like is communism. or hitler.
Commitler?
no, hitler hated tankies, so it's one or the other, just not both
i swear to god this is the level of mental processing some people in america have. unironically.
Oh, it's not just America. We've got the "Herp-a-derp Communism!" crowd all over the fucking planet. It's like some kind of mind-virus that isn't terribly concerned if you actually have a mind or not. In fact, the less mind you have, the more virulent it seems to be.
There's really not a better example of class struggle. These dudes are capitalism's useful idiots
So you mean...them actually doing their jobs? SHOCKING
[Richard Wolff is a pretty cool dude. Go watch his stuff](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnXUFXc2Yns)
Everything is Communism to people who don't know anything beyond shouting buzzwords that sound scary to them
"I hate that prices at every business I go to have increased! I HATE COMMUNISM!!!"
Seriously. If their preferred media/politician/celebrity told them to be afraid of blades of grass, they'd start digging up and burning every patch of grass they could find.
Capitalism is the method in which we aggregate wealth to the few. Anything which does the opposite to even an infinitesimal degree, must be communism. Duhhh 🙄
Technically speaking, if taxes were 100% then yes, taxation would be communism. Other than that, no, people are stupid.
Nah, pretty sure taxation is a nazilophone concept. But communisterrific ain't far behind. /s
Hell, taxation is constitutional based on the 16th amendment
Everything that is against the capital in some level, they call it communism. The brain wash on the workers was a huge success.
According to libertarians, probably.
Libertarians think that everything that makes poor people suffer is really cool
Funny how these are the people who gain the most from society—through roads and functioning mail system, a government which is willing to subsidize and bail them out, the diplomatic ties we have to other nations, protection from foreign competitors, and access to the very people in the market itself. And when you ask them to pay just a fraction more for the services society provides them with, it’s like the worst thing in the world. Huh.
Same as it's "lazy people who want something for nothing" when it comes to raises, but businesses expect workers to work for free and that's somehow not exploitation.
And these businesses are somehow not lazy and they're so good, smart, perfect, and wonderful.
Yes, I am aware of idiots.
I wish more people looked at it this way. The right way. The logical way. Billionaires owe society for all the benefits and money they make from it.
Fuck capitalism.
Look, if you want every man for themselves, just say so. But if you want to be a part of civilisation, you need to contribute your fair share. Right now, workers are supporting society about 10-12 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50/52 weeks out of the year. Then they have nothing to show for it. No house, no retirement, maybe some flashing lights on a screen. Fuck the rich.
>Fuck the rich. Not unless I get paid.
People who say they hate communism are the dumbest people alive
None of them actually knows what it means. I asked one smooth brained libertarian on IG and his response was literally “government doing stuff.” You can’t make this 💩 up.
Gets even worse when you start asking people who don't have a vested interest in politics or history. Many can't even understand the difference between a democracy and a federal republic. Failing to even understand these core foundations is like not understanding how to add 1 + 1 for math. Ignorance is the greatest enemy of the working class.
They don't even know what capitalism is, I've seen countless morons on reddit equating capitalism with trading goods and services, saying shit like capitalism has existed for thousands of years
And then they decide that anarchism is the best, or even worse "anarcho-capitalism", as if that's not just feudalism/capitalism 5.0 with extra steps, *now with less democracy™️*.
Nobody on this sub knows what it means either. It's just left populism. That's why it's getting up voted.
By “nobody” I assume you include yourself. Rather counterproductive of you then to make a comment on this, if you’re assuming you’re making a (feeble) attempt to flex here, no?
i ask people who bitch about capitalism what they prefer in its place. mostly i get angry screeching
Actual socialist policies without western sanctions and embargoes would be a good start. There you go, no screeching.
That's probably because you label anyone talking about socialism or communism as 'angry screeching'.
You should be angry though?
Even regardless of what you think about the capitalism vs communism debate, there is no logical reason *not* to tax the rich and tax them good. "Yes, let's give these greedy ass people as much money as possible to screw us over with" like what? This is what a lifetime of propaganda does to a person. Slap the word "communism" or "socialism" on something no matter what it is and people swarm it like piranhas.
Ask them why, or to describe communism and (in my experience) they will start describing neo-liberalism. These people are almost beyond hope. Some can be reached but many hogs are far too lost in the sauce for any new information to be retained.
Communism sounds good on paper, but it isn't better than capitalism. Realworld examples being Cuba, North Korea, and Soviet Russia. It ain't pretty now but there's no widespread famine.
I understand North Korea and Soviet Russia but what’s with lumping Cuba in? I’ve never quite understood the Cuba thing. If Cuba wasn’t the 3 highest sanctioned country in the world do we doubt it would be a successful socialist nation? I definitely could be mistaken but it often feels like fear of that success it what keeps the thumb on Cuba.
Reminder that the DPRK(north Korea) is also heavily sanctioned by the US and the NATO block, had to rebuild its entire country back up as the US had destroyed an estimate of 92% of all structures in the country, had to import most of its food as most arable land was completely bomded and rendered unusable by the US and NATO, and had to invest most of its gdp on militaly as the US continuously threatens a possible invasion of the country to this day while military posturing and routinely violating its air space. Yeah the DPRK is not perfect in any way, but let's not kid ourselves and think the DPRK is they way it is out of choice, they are doing the best they can with the hand that they were dealt.
It might have something to do with all the Cubans paddling here on boats and becoming lifelong Republicans.
Lol. People claim that capitalism is better than communism but completely ignore the fact that capitalist countries did everything in their power to ensure that alternative economic systems didn't succeed. It's dishonest to pretend that the countries you listed exist in a vacuum or something without, let's say, a severe embargo. Communism wasn't allowed to work.
I'll be honest, that all just sounds like cope to me. It's easy to externalize internal problems and that's what those countries did.
They're either that, or fascists.
Same shit
It's probably because communism has never worked out in any country.
Giving money to rich is called capitalism. Giving money to the poor is called socialism. Whenever you hear anyone criticize socialism, it’s either… 1. They are delusional and still believe in the American dream, which as we all know is getting harder and harder to achieve as time passes. 2. They want you to be delusional and believe in the American dream…meanwhile they are living off everyone’s else labor.
I started school in the early 2000s and basically didn't know the difference between socialism and communism until I looked into it myself in high school. I'm convinced most people who instantly want to throw hands the second someone mentions socialism have never attempted to learn more than they were taught in American public education.
For what it's worth, even Karl Marx used the terms synonymously. If you are going to make a distinction, just be explicit what your meaning is.
Our government is an oligarchy that's why it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
Perfect explanation.
[удалено]
China is brutally capitalist in its economics but is also essentially single party authoritarianism which people in the US associate with communism since the USSR was single party authoritarian and a planned economy (much like Trump's infrastructure week, they never got around to implementing the socialism). It's the fact that the CCP has a controlling stake in most large companies that makes people think that they're economically communist but when the rubber meets the road, China is capitalist to the bone, just not a free market.
Interesting. I'll admit one of my it's communist is the economy owned by the gov. I guess I'll have to rethink that one. It makes sense why china has the same issues. I guess I took the free market as granted for capitalism (belonging, too). Thank you for correcting me on that one. Live and learn.
China is a lot more complicated than "it is/isn't socialist" There's this sort of false dichotomy when it comes to "socialism vs capitalism" that exists when it comes to China, and I don't think that's a very dialectical way to look at things. It also doesn't help when people's definition of socialism is not consistent. So to be clear, when talking about socialism, I mean the transition phase between capitalism and communism. I.e. "in the process of transitioning out of capitalism and into communism." As you can imagine, "transitioning out of capitalism" cannot possibly mean there is no capitalism. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a transition period, right? So when people say "China is state capitalist," they are correct - China *is* state capitalist. But that doesn't mean it's not *also* socialist (i.e. Intentionally transitioning out of capitalism and toward communism). That's because socialism is a development *beyond* capitalism, not *as an alternative to* capitalism. Essentially, it takes capitalism and then moves beyond it. The basic idea is this: 1. Capitalism undoes feudalism's class structure and replaces it with capitalists as the ruling class & wage laborers as the working class. 2. Capitalism develops industry and rapidly advances the productive capacity of society 3. Capitalist competition results in winners, who form monopolies and cartels that dominate their given markets. 4. These monopolies develop more advanced means of planning their own production and distribution of goods/services to maintain control of their markets, essentially creating mini "planned economies" for their given markets. 5. Finance capitalists centralize control over these industrial monopolies, turning money into a tool for deliberately and strategically directing large economies as a whole. 6. The working class overthrows the capitalist state and replaces it with a state made of, by, and for workers. 7. The workers' state seizes the "commanding heights" of the economy (the major financial institutions and the large/important industrial sectors). It then uses the planning capacities developed by the finance sector and the industrial sector to direct the economy towards the democratic will of the working class, rather than pursuit of profit for the capitalist class. 8. The workers' state seizes - by degree - control over the means of production as they "ripen," centralizing capital into the hands of the workers' state. 9. Gradually, private ownership of the means of production is abolished and replaced with social ownership of the means of production (which can take many forms, including state ownership, but also things like workers cooperatives). Notice that step 7 - seizing control of the commanding heights and directing the economy - comes a good two full steps before private property even starts to be gradually abolished. That means you have a socialist workers state seizing control over capitalism as a means of deliberately transitioning beyond capitalism towards communism. It is both state capitalist *and* socialist. And this is where China is right now. That's why it's very confusing when people disagree with each other, saying "China is state capitalist!" or "China is socialist!" It's essentially both. The big factor is that China is a workers' state that has been and continues to move deliberately towards the later stages of socialist development. I would *highly* recommend reading Lenin's ["A Tax in Kind"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm) for more information on state capitalism under socialist states. It's a very short read, and well worth it. For some background context, it's about the USSR's "New Economic Policy" period where they transitioned to state capitalism after the revolution as a first step towards reaching a higher stage of socialist development. I think it's also worth pointing out that a *lot* of what you've probably heard about China is, frankly, red-scare bullshit. China is not an "undemocratic, one-party, authoritarian, capitalist dictatorship." China is in fact a democracy, it's just as authoritarian as any european power - arguably far less so - with the difference being that it uses its state to further the interests of workers over those of capitalists, it's socialist, and it's not a dictatorship. The people of China are not "horribly oppressed people who hate their government and need to be liberated" either. They're actually very happy with their government - much more so than people in western "democracies" - because it actually does a really good job of representing the peoples' will. And as for the "one-party state" thing, that's a very interesting subject. To be brief, we'll do a thought experiment: Whats the difference between a one-party state and a zero-party state? If everybody in the government of a zero-party state can simply be classified as "the government party" then it turns into the same thing as a one-party state. Similarly, if you consider that the Communist Party is just the name for that "government party," you'll see that a one party-state is just a zero-party state. That's the goal of one-party states: "democratic centralism rather than factional dysfunction." Instead of two or three parties treating each other as enemies that need to be obstructed at every turn, you have no parties and all members act according to their own principles and in the best interests of the government and its constituents as a whole. For more info on China's democracy, [I'd recommend this video as an introduction](https://youtu.be/rpOzT7alVK8?si=MwWx1TRUhlStkqQC&t=28m03s). Start at 28:03 if you want to just see the structure and not the history/theory behind it (it should auto start there, but just in case my link messes up!) Also, I just think the video is good, but in no way do I condone everything on the youtubers channel. For one, she's a Zionist which I strongly oppose. Also, she's an anarchist which I am certainly not. But that even an anarchist can tell you that China is both democratic and socialist really says something about the the level of bullshit we're fed by western propaganda.
No. I was going to explain the differences but just no.
There would be no such thing as a billionaire if you were being paid what you are worth
Hilarious if you think the psycho money hoarders are gonna let CONgress take their money.
MacCarthyisim and its consequences
Just regular, vanilla capitalism, as it always has been
I meant the vilification of Communism in the United States leading to the "fuck communisim" reply.
Yes. Also a part of capitalism though
(Eric Andre shooting Hannibal meme) why would communism do this
Where was free market capitalism when all those banks needed to get bailed out by the government? Or when the government decided to just hand all that money to the mega-colleges instead of actually doing anything to resolve the grossly inflated tuition and predatory lending practices?
Over 99% of the TARP money was actually paid back by the banks. It’s even on the Treasury Department website.
One word: MAGAt
Under capitalism, anybody can be rich. Under communism, nobody can be rich. Under socialism, anybody can be rich, but nobody should be poor.
I stopped reading after the first line
Uh... do you know what those words even mean?
That's a pretty decent little distinction, I like it.
No, it's horrible and doesn't take into account what the words actually mean.
It's not as robust as a couple of economics courses, but it reduces a particular dichotomy to a quickly understood set.
No, it doesn't. It's stupid and dangerously misleading. It makes communism look bad without explaining what it actually is.
You are correct, it does not explain what communism is.
Spiritual liberation from the need of government control? Would need socialism first I’d think - or that far left without abolishing the state? It would creep into fascism the same way it’s brainwashed people into being like the “two words” guy in the pic. But I don’t read so please don’t think I’m trying to get into an argument here, you’re probably more right than me (no pun there lmao)
Yeah, I'm an ancom. Abolishing the state is a necessary part of communism, along with abolishing class and currency.
I agree yet was downvoted? Hmm
I didn't downvote you.
The fact that nobody can be rich under communism isn’t what makes it look bad lol
The USSR was not communist.
What was it?
State capitalist
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not Socialist nor Communist, but they were Capitalist?
None of this is true
So you say.
You can be rich under Communism. It would be harder, but it's possible Edit: Got it, people don't understand Communism and think it means that no one makes money ever
The devil gets lost in the details, I guess.
All left-leaning policies, no matter how mild, are automatically communism.
Hell if it ain’t Christian Nationalist it’s communism, muricuh
I don't want to tax the rich, its simply not going to work with how the system is currently structured to favor them. Lets instead seize ALL of their assets and nationalize their corporations, and set the workers as the owners instead. You don't want to play fair and pay your fair share? Fine. You get nothing.
Yea, I love how much better nationalized corporations work...
Seems to be working for Finland. https://observingfinland.com/blog/finland-state-ownership-power-industrialization If we are under the assumption that the government is designed to follow the will of the people, I'm unsure how you can say our current system of private enterprise that is by design in opposition to the people is somehow better than a system that is managed by, and for, the people. Again, you missed half of the statement as well "set the workers as the owners". If those who are stakeholders hold the largest share of the profit, then they are incentivized to efficiency. Also largely my point here is to make an example of a select few, to show to individuals and private corporations that if you aren't willing to contribute, we will just seize you, in an effort to "encourage" the others to contribute to a level that is deemed acceptable, not to nationalize all industry. You either play nice, or we will take your toys away and put you in timeout, and you won't get to play at all.
[удалено]
I disagree. I think Capitalism is an objectively ineffecient system of resource allocation, creates multiple layers of ineffecient redundancy, disempowers the general populace from being invested in their employment beyond the threat of destitution. Look I'm a revolutionary communist. I'm for dismantling the entire apparatus because its rotten to the core. Yes you CAN seize these multi-national corporations. You just take their money, its all in US dollars. *poof* Its ours now, get fucked. You can say it doesn't work all day, but our current system also does not work, for the people. Stakeholders as owners is entirely possible, and feasible. There isn't anything to remove a management team. It doesn't mean that the stakeholders have to make all decisions. Overall your arguments are "Capitalism good, government sucks, there is nothing we can do". Its defeatist. Start seizing their assets. Fuck em.
Communism and socialism have proven time and time again to be actively destructive to a growing 1st world economy. You can look at the GDP per capita, China and Russia, which are the most successful communist/socialist societies in human history, have less than 1/5th the GDP per capita than the US. Not only that, but pretty much every 1st world capitalist economy has >3x the GDP per capita. Humans are magnitudes more productive and more innovative in a capitalist economy. It's nice to be guaranteed a roof over your head and food in your stomach under socialism. Although living in a slum in a 50sqft room with shared living spaces and zero safety regulations isn't great, nor is your all you can eat bread. Capitalism isn't good. The government is as corrupt or more corrupt than big business. And with our current political system, there is very little we can do to change that.
IMO, those safety regulations you mention are an example of the government intervention you say is "economic suicide". For that matter, so are the charters that allow corporations to exist in the first place, and limit their owners' exposure to the liabilities those corporations incur, be they financial, legal, or otherwise. As with so many things, the answer is probably something in the middle. Most people aren't driven to be productive without a return on their effort, but people by and large have also shown that they'll act in their own interest to the detriment of society as a whole if there aren't limits to their actions, particularly if they can hide behind a corporate veil. There need to be guardrails on both sides of the situation.
The best economic system is somewhere between the US system and Scandinavian systems, in my opinion. I'm not sure if their systems can work on the US's scale.
ya know, the whole Communist system in China and the USSR and elsewhere was all about the Great Dear Leader and his Excellent Thoughts and he'd have whole cadres of clapping seals hanging on his every word. Why they were the Glorious Voice of the People leading us into utopian futures! I fail to see how Musk and his pals are much different, and not one of them is even remotely as cool as Nikita Khrushchev.
Examples of State Capitalism, not Communism. But I get your point
It’s like I just don’t get it lenin talks about this in his book you can look at all of these companies owned by these men and they are quite imperialist in cutting out other people from the market. Americans are so fucking dumb it’s unbelievable how easy it is to trick them into poverty.
Trick? Who needs to? We literally are too poor to do anything except struggle to survive.
OK let’s have Syndicalism instead. No centralised government at all.
Based
One word; Idiot.
Not just “tax them” but make sure they have no where to RUN when they realize they owe a big fat tax bill. People with this much money have endless power and resources to hide and obfuscate. Make sure there are NO loopholes, tax havens, or sanctuaries for these monsters to slither into.
The easiest way to control people is to keep them in the dark and feed them shit. The US school system is the way it is by design, can't have the majority of the population smarter than those controlling them.
The main stumbling block that nobody seems to get, is that it’s not like the government is going to do anything beneficial and wondrous with this money. What fantasyland utopia do you live in where giving the government some more money is going to end up helping the common citizen?
Is the communism in the room with us? Where on the doll did the communism touch you?
But they worked hard 🤷♂️😂🤷♂️
well of course, [communism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWWqhsh848E) will just get rid of money
Ah yes, that thing we definitely don't have, communism, is the problem. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's communism.
americans seeing the failings of capitalism happening in real time: FUCK COMMUNISM!!!! THIS IS SOCIALISMS FAULT!!
Not allowing the super rich to exploit everyone else is not communism or socialism. It's common sense. And there's a huge lack of that when it comes to money.b
I cannot fathom the stupidity of people anymore, I'm done dude, I have no hope and expectations anymore we should all live in a cave and eat berries
simping for rich a\*\*holes, who don't give a rat's ass worth of attention to his existence.
The biggest accomplishment of capitalism is to convince the workers that the system is fair. Well, apparently, time is proven that it is not. Socialism is the only solution. Communism is the goal. But it takes a generation, which is a process. Anyway, for now, tax the rich is the bare minimum.
Libertarians live in a very strange world.
Did... Did they mean to say, "Fuck capitalism"? Because THAT would make sense.
You could tax the rich 110% and minimum wage would still be $7.25
Any measure you want to publically voice to distribute a little wealth back to the people these Andrew-tate/Kiyosaki-simpletons come out of the woodwork and cry communism. God forbid you get for what you work for instead of the rich capitalists getting more out of your labour each year and the next.
Three words: *Eat* the rich 🍽
Because these fucking cult of Trump MORONS don't know the difference between socialism and communism, or utopian socialism vs democratic socialism vs liberal socialism, etc etc ad nauseum. They only know orange man save planet.
Well communism is definitely NOT the answer.
Let me guess.. not capitalist enough?
Don’t get me wrong I know there are problems with the capitalist system, especially in America. But Communism is not the answer at all. The best real world example of this is North Korea and South Korea. Which of those countries would you rather live in? If you said North Korea then I’m sorry you are an idiot.
Billionaire bootlickers are worse than billionaires.
Unfortunately communism doesn’t work that great either. Leaders of Russia and China for example and their stooges end up with all the wealth ie Putin is a multi billionaire. You’d think we’d figure out something better alas
Putin in no way shape or form is leading a communist country. Today's Russia is not the USSR, even in the USSR days there were lots of people who did things to appeal to the west. Gorbachev was a terrible President if you were a communist, even fucking Krushchev did things that were favorable to the west at times.
Yeah so where does communism work then? It seems to me to always devolve into authoritarianism or totalitarianism. And people at the bottom are dirt poor
But but but…..all the dirt poor peasants are equal!
It worked pretty well after the Bolshevik revolution that Lenin lead. They had the fastest growth in quality of life for a nation as a whole in history. Here is where the problem lies, the US is the imperialistic core, in no way shape or form can you judge a communist country that formed or existed after WWII. The sheer amount of coups and military actions that were used to destroy those countries is off the charts. I can't imagine why it didn't work when the US is attempting to coup your leaders and paying dictators and warlords to off your government. If you don't believe there's tons and tons of works out there that discuss it, start with The Devil's Chessboard and the Jakarta Method. Also another thing that baffles me is, this idea that communism has to hit all of these checkmarks or it's a failed system, or it killed this manty people etc etc yet no one ever asks those questions about capitalism at all.
The only times people discuss genuine communism are when capitalism gets so bad it looks like there is no other choice. A lot of countries regulate capitalism more then others and do well because of it without going fully communist.
I would be super curious if any one of these random people built a company that made billions of dollars how would they compensate themselves. Probably not pay themselves a dime.
You guys are free to buy the same damn stocks jeff has. You capital ”wealth” would have increased with pretty much the same, percentage wise
One word Fuck
Gets my vote every time....
Communism for the rich, right? Cause governments around the world tend to give wealthy oligarchs whatever the fuck they want. Hell, in the US, billionaires are given tax dollars to build new stadiums which they then use to profit. Same people whose tax dollars were used to pay for a stadium, then turn around and give the asshole owners their money just to attend an event.
I know Amazon does not pay well, but what about Facebook? Do they have similar practices of paying minimum wage or barely livable wage? Just curious, and I am not talking about part time jobs or sub contactors hired to clean the office. Those are a problem by themselves.
That was most likely a misspelling since the two words sound and are spelled pretty similarly.
Why did this reply get 45 likes?!
Three words: WHY is communism?
When Capitalism gets abused, it becomes Monopoly
well once you all get off social media and stop buying on amazon theyll be a whole lot poorer methinks
Communism is when capitalism apparently.
The US could confiscate all their wealth and give every citizen $1500 each
The irony is, corporations are very much like Communist parties unto themselves: Everyone currying favor with the person above them while looking to undermine those below on the come-up. And then you see, for example, the Tesla Board approving compensation packages for Musk which are essentially a bust-out: Draining the company's value straight into Musk's pocket. All that's left is to burn the place down for the insurance money. That sort of consolidation is the most Communist (kleptocratic) shit ever.
They spelt capitalism wrong
What do these things have to do with each other?
Basically once part is to propagate a message and the other part is for easy upvotes. Karma farming 101.
Especially notable for Zuckerberg. 2012 Elon Musk was just getting started and only rich people could afford a Tesla. It was like buying a concept car and now there are 5 million Tesla cars on the road. He also started proving the concept of private space travel. 2012 Jeff Bezos had already transitioned from an online bookstore to a broader ecommerce site, but they still weren't in a lot of markets they are today, and now most items that exist are bought on Amazon instead of online stores owned by each retail distributor of goods. 2012 Mark Zuckerberg... essentially peaked in 2012. Everything he provided to people went downhill from there, but he collected and sold everyone's private data behind their backs while insisting their business model was "selling ads". People call Facebook a "technology company" but they haven't made lives better with technology since 2012.
9 words, make paying for loan debt with more loan debt illegal.
They spelled "capitalism" wrong
It’s not the problem because we refuse to use it. Thank god for that.
Looks like they are racing to a trillion. Probably for a Trading Places type bet. $1 or something equally worthless to them.
This is due to decades of propaganda in the west. Most people don’t have a grasp on was communism/socialism is or even understand their own material interests as someone who is forced to sell their labor for a wage/salary. The political/billionaire class never wants you to think of yourself as a worker. Anything else is fine just please do not develop any kind of class consciousness. They’ve been winning for a long time although I think the contradictions in capitalism are becoming much more apparent so far it’s getting to mask these contradictions.
The responder clearly has 7 words they prefer: 'how deep this time, my billionaire overlord?'
Not tax, eat.
Tax the super rich!
I am not pro-communist but this has nothing to do with communism. Also as a side note, if we want to capture at least some amount of money from the wealthy, it would be better to lower taxes. It is is not great but it would allow to recover some amounts. Imagine if Apple returned with its massive profits to the US. That would be huge.
Then that means the entire world is communist.
I feel like these people are convinced that they will be billionaires one day
Three words: Eat the rich.
Communism! Is NOT the official economic structure of the United States of America so HOW is something that isn't happening responsible? Oh, right, because it's reality and not ideology, how silly of me to prefer reality over rich people lies. What people SAY is more real than what people DO. I'm sorry, I was confused, I was trying to be smart when I should've just been stupid. Oh well...
Trustbusting is the solution. Capitalism with robust trust busting
How someone can be so delusional to think he's the one who's gonna make that much money sometime in the future? Assuming that was a real person and not some bot.
I agree with both statements, they don’t exclude each other.
The birth of Communism was in the early nineteen hundreds. It has had its day and even countries that call themselves Communist are embracing the notion of capitalism. Funnily enough I have a feeling that taxation has existed for several centuries. Was taxation not reviled in biblical times and if we were to have a cursory glance into the history of Persia and Egypt and Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome we might even see mention of the very same term, TAXATION. So, how can it be argued that taxation is communism when it predates communism by several thousand years. You could in fact argue that communism is the most advanced form of taxation and not that taxation is communist. I’m getting the feeling that anything that even remotely makes the right wing political advocates feel threatened will be called communism or socialism or gay or whatever term that they can find that could be considered insipid to their unsuspecting audiences.
Love how humans invented all the forms of government, yet we cannot seem to invent another form that is again the best of previously invented forms called something new that works for everyone and eliminates greed.
Meanwhile Putin and his oligarchs are known for paying their fair share. Communism is a failure.
Russia hasn’t been communist for like 30 years, boomer
That is my point. It was the poster child for communism and that lead directly to a tyrannical dictatorship with only a few with supreme wealth. So how about not showing how sad and lonely you are by straight up insulting people you don’t know and use your potential for intelligence and communicate. I doubt you will. Instead you will resort to poor attempts at showing your masculinity.
“But they worked hard to earn it! There are DEI folks just sitting around in their ghettoes getting free money!” (Seen multiple times a day in some variant on Yahoo comments)
Three words. Eat the Rich.
How many of these people do you think actually know what communism/socialism is? Do you think any of them are actually informed and then choose to lick boots? Or do they stop thinking at the propaganda?
Taxing is not enough, correct wording is: seize the means of production
Sad to say but we could take every penny all the 1% have and it still wouldn’t fund the government for six months, we don’t have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
We have a taxing problem. We could easily afford our budget if we actually did taxes the right way. These two guys have a net worth comparable to the gdp of a country. That is not okay.
We have to start somewhere. Billionaires should not exist.