The rich use their money to make and separate classes using information/propaganda/public relations/marketing/slogans or whatever your favourite word is for communication to the masses.
…but Corporate Socialism is widely accepted and successful in the USA. The Americans will not top the 1st class European countries, because the vast majority are slaving away at work and simply too tired and stressed out to protest or vote out the asswipes supporting the current system.
That and most of us didn’t pay attention to school.
The amount of people who are completely ignorant about socialism and communism in this thread is evidence that the first sentence of this tweet is true, and that it was super effective.
in the OG Matrix: Cypher isn’t evil because he betrays everyone and gets some people killed, which is undoubtedly an evil act. No, Cypher is inherently evil because he not only doesn’t care, but he actively chooses ignorance. He CHOOSES to go back to sleep. This is the avg American. They chose ignorance because they WANT to be mesmerized and lied to, Americans enjoy and celebrate it. IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
The opinions shared about socialism in this thread prove you right, unfortunately.
The US used to be a world leader in anti-fascism. There’s even those old-timey films explaining how letting it in would ruin the American way.
https://youtu.be/42X_eAOU4DU “Don’t Be a Sucker”
The US used to be a world leader in anti-fascism.
anti-fascism or anti competing fascism?
Isn’t manifested destiny already fascism?
Eeeh… It was only anti-fascism as in “anti-others” (who happened to be fascists in a way they differentiated from). The US has been real fucking bad from the very start and there hasn’t been a single moment where that stopped. I can’t see a single period where it isn’t the modern day meaning of fascist. Yeah, the civil war was won by the better part but it wasn’t a “good vs evil” black and white thing, because nothing is like that in reality. Faschism is deeply ingrained in the US and has always been so, especially when it comes to politicians, military, police force etc.
They even called out Alexander Hamilton for being a proto-fascist.
Then that one Wall Street fuckwad wrote a book about him filled with lies and eventually turned it into a play.
If you want a hero in the founding fathers, look up Aaron Burr
And T-Paine while you’re at it!
Because the American Way™ competed with fascism about many of the same things. It is not the brag you think it is.
“Parasitic pedophile class” is a lot of words to just say “conservatives”.
The 1%
Conservatives are the footsoldiers of the 1% and are in complete agreement with them on pretty much every topic. Conservatives see themselves as temporarily embarassed billionaires.
Conservatives are the reason for our wealth inequality. If not for conservatives, the normal people would be able to regulate the hoarding of wealth and the behavior of the 1%. Conservatives are the sole reason laws do not apply to the wealthy.
Both of the Cold War empires spent decades lying about what socialism was, and that process continues to this day. No wonder people are confused.
Yes.
The fire department is socialist. People like the fire department.
Ah yes, the famous socialist, Comrade Ben Franklin.
Yes, exactly that.
What an absolute joke.
Socialism is not “when the government does stuff.” Governments are tools that can be used to advance any sort of ideology or agenda. Socialism is a specific ideology (or set of ideologies), which Ben Franklin did not and could not have subscribed to on account of the ideology had not yet even been developed.
When a member of the capitalist class lobbies the government to introduce regulations designed to prevent small business from competing with his monopoly, that is not making the system “more socialist” because the government is doing “more stuff.” It is making the system more capitalist. A system that is controlled by and works for the benefit of the capitalist class is a capitalist system, regardless of the degree to which the government does things.
If anything, the more correct term would be “statist” but that’s also an absurd term, because again, governments are tools. Whoever holds power in a system will use that tool to advance their own interests, and if the tool does not exist, then it will be created. This ridiculous idea that socialism is simply an ideology based around supporting the government doing things, any government doing any things, is complete nonsense. There is not any ideology that says that, it isn’t something anyone believes. The difference between socialism and capitalism is not the degree to which the state is being used but who is using the state and to what purposes.
Capitalist states do not have fire departments because they are “partially socialist” but because capitalists don’t like having their buildings burn down any more than anyone else does.
Socialism is not “when the government does stuff.”
Of course not, only an idiot who is trying to undermine someone’s argument would claim that. Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned, such as when a fire truck is owned by a city.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we’re talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, “I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view.” Is that “collective ownership” because the land is now held by the state? Is that “socialism?”
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just “socialism is when the government does stuff” with extra steps.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there’s a fire.
Socialism is not when the city owns stuff either…
socialism is when the principal mode of production is owned by the workers.
Socialism is not when the city owns stuff either…
No, but it includes the fire department which is when the city owns fire trucks and pays firefighters to fight fires.
I don’t! They only show up to my house when there’s a fire! They bring bad juju, and fire!
oooh look it’s the truth
commies look look - this is why you are hated and your recent terrorist supporting populist/authoritarian fantasies are just making it worse!
The Zionist is mad
What
All major media outlets are fascist mouthpieces
Sweet
americans can’t rebel.
that money has also been used to make them weak, subservient and pacified.
Best they can do is vote harder and whine“Means of building collective power”. That’s the right thing to communicate, My take is we need a new word that’s not socialism, communism etc because those words have lost concrete meaning, similar to globalism and neoliberalism no one knows what they mean anymore because they’ve been targeted, abused, redefined and vilified.
People have knee-jerk reactions to those words.
I think basically stop denonising unions. I’ve been hesitant to join mine, as I don’t want to be seen as a trouble maker. Funnily I’ve already received my ‘last promotion’ at 56. I could shit on the marble floor and not get sacked (because vital skills). However, simply displaying solidarity with my younger colleagues would be deemed ‘offensive’. Two more years and nearing retirement, I think I’ll let rip
Yeah… most people in my country don’t have a union available, and there are no prospects for creating one in the near future. I don’t mean any offense myself, but just having access to a union and not joining it is… an interesting choice from my perspective.
A cooperative economy, co-ops in general, is the answer in my opinion. Anarchists and communists are mostly on board, if only seeing them as stepping stones towards larger goals. Being a form of socialism, socialists are on board. While being stateless and still relying on markets they may be able to sway conservatives. Their economic proof of success already might convince liberals. And who doesn’t want democracy in their workplace?
I tried that in a group of people the other day. I got a resounding “Nah, I’m good”
What do you do when everyone is happy to die? Because right now my plan is “try my damned best to make sure these dipshits don’t take me down with them”
Whenever I see posts about “rebelling” and “standing up” I just think…are you assuming that the vast majority of people in this country ARE NOT okay with their lives? I mean, that’s the only way a true “rebellion” will ever occur. And despite what liberals and the Left say, most Americans are content with their lives.
I bugged out 20 years ago and that community you refer to took alll they could from me and kicked me to the curb.
Im gonna need appologies and damages compensated before i believe in society again.
Im not holding my breath.
americans hate it cause they want to hate it.
There are millions upon millions of americans and millions of them are armed. If they wanted a socialost state they could have had easily have gotten one by nkw…but they STILL havent done that…
So clearly they dont want it.
“Nothing is substantial until it is substantiated”
Everybody’s hooked on communism.
But what about anarchism?
The two are not mutually exclusive
Idealistic and naive, in my view. Anarchists have never explained how we get from here to the global classless, stateless, moneyless society that both communists and anarchists wish to achieve, given the context of capitalist power and reaction — at least no explanation that makes sense to me.
I would be happy to be proven wrong though, as I truly believe that both groups want the same outcome.
That’s fair
A top priority for me is the people who do stuff benefit from that stuff, instead of some removed jerks.
Along side health care, food, shelter, an environment that’s sustainable for human life.
I’m not familiar with anarchism’s solutions to these things.
Anarchism is an assured destruction of the Social Contract. People, without guidance, are more horrible.
Decades of anthropological evidence say otherwise. Read Graeber’s works on the subject. They are incredibly enlightening.
You know anarchism doesn’t just mean ‘anything goes’, right?
“No rulers” doesn’t mean “no rules.”
But it does mean nobody to enforce the rules, which means no rules.
No it doesn’t, name one anarchist society where this was an issue in the real world.
https://anarwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
point to them here
And the largest one in that list is…? And the longest lasting is…? Just because you can balance a knife on its tip doesn’t mean that that’s a stable configuration, and if anarchism is not stable, why bother talking about it?
Lol read a book, my god
Perhaps you should do more than just read a book and look at the real world?
No it doesn’t.
Yes it does.
Oh wow. How very convincing. I guess you got me.
My argument was just as high quality as yours.
Anarchy only helps those privileged enough to have the means to defend what they have with violence.
Anarchy means the sick, disabled, poor, minorities, etc are thrown to the wolves, and expected to defend themselves with less capability and resources than the majority.
Sure, you might argue family units or communities might band together and take care of each other, but they probably need some rules to make that equitable since not everyone will agree, and- oops we made government again.
Sips fox news brand coolaid
That’s not how anarchism works.
That’s the thing, anarchism doesn’t work.
Just like communism and socialism doesn’t work?
Because capitalism is a violent, agressive system that keep sabotaging them for profit.
Capitalism is the reason why everything is shit and why the masses can’t have any form of real democratic power.
Socialism definitely can work, just look at China or Cuba.
Of course!
Something that works is something that can’t be “sabotaged” by a better system.
Capitalism works, but 100% capitalism doesn’t. Socialism works, but not 100% socialism. If you can imagine less than 100% anarchism, then that works too – basically people having a certain amount of autonomy, but not 100% autonomy.
Balance is key. People can’t be 100% under the thumb of the government or life isn’t worth living. But, people also can’t be 100% free to do anything they want without considering other people because that leads to chaos and death. You can’t have absolutely everything being privately owned for someone’s profit, because that’s just awful, but you also can’t have no private ownership of the means of production either. A successful system is a mix.
Capitalism isn’t the reason why everything is shit. That’s the kind of argument a 6 year old would make. Everything was shit long before Capitalism came around. When feudalism / manorialism was the dominant economic system, people weren’t allowed to leave the land where they were born because legally they were tied to the land and owed their labour to their landlord until they died. No capitalism there, but things were awful shitty.
The problem is extreme power inequality and wealth inequality. The theorists who promoted capitalism liked it because they thought that it would lead to less wealth and power inequality than feudalism. They thought that as long as the government enforced laws to ensure there was fair competition, there wouldn’t be a ruling class of capital owners who would hold all the power. Anybody could start their own business and compete against existing businesses. If they had a better idea, or a better product, or a more efficient process, they’d be rewarded with more sales, and that would displace the existing business. But, of course, the wealthy and powerful managed to corrupt the system so that those laws were not being enforced and the wealthy and powerful were able to eliminate competition and effectively become feudal lords again.
I’ve been reading all of your arguments in this thread and you seem to be a very confident person who doesn’t know anything.
Tell me why a society where all businesses were legally required to have democratic institutions that make them run by the worker will be “under the thumb of the government” or “not worth living”
Something that works is something that can’t be “sabotaged” by a better system.
I stopped reading here.
Calling capitalism a “better system” is a fucking joke. The system can’t work without exploiting people, authoritarianism, and exploiting every resource until there’s nothing left but a burnt empty husk of a planet.
I stopped reading here.
I stopped reading here. If you’re not going to actually engage with what I wrote, then why should I bother?
I have visited wikipedia. So you mean the anarchy that is “without hierarchy or authority” but not complete chaos?
I guess I’m unclear how you manage that without it devolving into chaos though. Like corporations constantly prove that if we don’t have a law against it they’d just sell humans. I dunno how you manage to make an equitable society without some kind of rules and enforcement of said rules, when there will always be bad actors.
It’s a more complex concept than I assumed, but I struggle to conceptualize what that kind of system actually looks like.
Yes. Sort of.
To be honest, I think even I need more education on the topic. But I think it’s more like societies form organically. People pick roles and contribute to society as needed instead of doing a job just because you need to pay the rent.
And it doesn’t mean there’s an absence of rules or laws. And commerce would still function but there would be a specific need for it. And it wouldn’t be just for profit. So that removed a lot of incentive to do bad things.
But it is kind of how humans work. Have you met humans?
Then, with that logic, none of the social systems work whether it’s capitalism, communism, anarchism, socialism, etc.
