Listen here, kulak...

3 years ago by Cleverdawny to c/memes

GCostanzaStepOnMe 172 points 3 years ago

Haha, funny way to say "working in the lead mines", comrade.

path: 0 3443214, hotness: undefined, score: 172, children: 71
Cleverdawny 72 points 3 years ago

Comrade, we all know lead poisoning and the need for safety gear are capitalist propaganda! Now, get back in the mines! Production must increase 50% this year, and your state-appointed union representative says it can!

path: 0 3443214 3443490, hotness: undefined, score: 72, children: 65
sub_ubi 144 points 3 years ago path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348, hotness: undefined, score: 144, children: 61
ThePenitentOne 1 point 3 years ago

I think the hexbears probably fucked OP irl or something. Guy is going full mental illness mode.

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3562981, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
ArmokGoB -4 points 3 years ago

Textbook whataboutism

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3484373, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 1
sub_ubi 2 points 3 years ago

What textbook?

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3484373 3485464, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Cleverdawny -12 points 3 years ago

You know, it took until 2003 for Russia to remove leaded gasoline from stations. The Soviets never did it LMFAO

but nice try

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3445302, hotness: undefined, score: -12, children: 10
cyclohexane 65 points 3 years ago

EDIT: based on another commenter, OP's claim isn't even factual.

And it took the US until 1996 (after fall of USSR)? Not to mention that it was capitalism (General Motors) that spread the hoax about leaded gasoline being safe, under the guise of scientific research in 1921.

This is not the gotcha you think it is.

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3445302 3447981, hotness: undefined, score: 65, children: 6
sub_ubi 59 points 3 years ago

Did chatgpt not include this or...?

https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/...

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union took effective action to protect the population from lead exposure; it banned lead-based (white lead) paint and it banned the sale of leaded gasoline in some cities and regions. While leaded gasoline was introduced in the 1920s in the United States, it was not until the 1940s that leaded gasoline was introduced in the Soviet Union (5). In the 1950s, the Soviet Un- ion became the first country to restrict the sale of leaded gaso- line; in 1956, its sale was banned in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Baku, Odessa, and tourist areas in the Caucasus and Crimea, as well as in at least one of the “closed cities” of the nuclear weap- ons complex (6, 7). The motivation for the bans on leaded gaso- line is not entirely clear, but factors may have included Soviet research on the effects of low-level lead exposure (8), or sup- port from Stalin himself (5). In any event, the bans on leaded gasoline in some areas prevented what could have been signifi- cant population lead exposure. In the United States and other OECD countries, leaded gasoline has been identified as one of the largest sources of lead exposure (9, 10). Lead-based paint is another potentially significant source of population lead exposure.

Bonus: a great example of capital at work,

Along with a number of other coun- tries, in the 1920s the Soviet Union adopted the White Lead Convention, banning the manufacture and sale of lead-based (white lead) paint (11). In the United States, however, the National Paint, Oil and Varnish Association successfully opposed the ban, and lead-based paint was not banned in the United States until 1971 (12).

Two generations of Americans.

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3445302 3450248, hotness: undefined, score: 59, children: 2
BigNote -17 points 3 years ago

And your point is?

Please do share an example of industrialization that somehow doesn't include unforseen negative health effects.

Go on now, we'll wait.

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3450125, hotness: undefined, score: -17, children: 6
sub_ubi 31 points 3 years ago

My point is that capital has successfully fought to put lead into American's blood and lungs for over 100 years.

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3450125 3450229, hotness: undefined, score: 31, children: 5
TrousersMcPants -20 points 3 years ago

You're right, America did bad thing, clearly this completely overrides the wrongs of other countries

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3447019, hotness: undefined, score: -20, children: 28
cyclohexane 54 points 3 years ago

The first commenter is talking a hypothetical scenario of socialism being bad, so the second commenter (the one you responded to) responded with actual example of that same hypothetical scenario happening, but except by a capitalist power (the US). I don't think your response makes sense at all here.

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3447019 3447812, hotness: undefined, score: 54, children: 27
riodoro1 -23 points 3 years ago

He was joking, save your whataboutism for “serious” arguments

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3445002, hotness: undefined, score: -23, children: 10
cyclohexane 37 points 3 years ago

They are not joking. You can see them continuing here: https://lemm.ee/comment/3563759

And this isn't whataboutism (not that it matters). The first commenter ridiculed socialism by using a hypothetical scenario. The second commenter showed with evidence this hypothetical scenario is actually real under capitalism.

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444348 3445002 3447991, hotness: undefined, score: 37, children: 9
Quacksalber 9 points 3 years ago

Tinfoil is absolutely enough protection against radiation, now go out there and stabilize the reactor!

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3443606, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 1
ThrowawayPermanente 0 points 3 years ago

It's not even that much radiation, you're just malingering

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3443606 3447045, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
Mudface -8 points 3 years ago

The Glorious Leader has declared that we have too much lead. You’re now reassigned to be in front of the firing squad.

path: 0 3443214 3443490 3444051, hotness: undefined, score: -8, children: 0
plumbercraic 7 points 3 years ago

path: 0 3443214 3453344, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
volodymyr -4 points 3 years ago

The gold standard are urainum mines. Lead are for those with good behavior.

path: 0 3443214 3444436, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 3
Cleverdawny 0 points 3 years ago

Tbh I'd rather work in a uranium mine, it's less toxic than lead in the quantities you'd be exposed to

path: 0 3443214 3444436 3446429, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
qarbone -14 points 3 years ago

If you are not dead by end of month from radiation, you will be executed for failing to mine the required quantity of uranium.

path: 0 3443214 3444436 3446429 3446690, hotness: undefined, score: -14, children: 0
OurToothbrush -2 points 3 years ago

Remind me, what did they do to indigenous people when they were trying to get uranium for the Manhattan project?

This nonsense is just western projection.

path: 0 3443214 3444436 3469703, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
phoenixz 156 points 3 years ago

What is it with these commie types that they believe communism will leave everyone to become hippies who can do whatever they want and all required resources just magically arrive when they need.

It really is watching children believe in Santa Claus

path: 0 3452318, hotness: undefined, score: 156, children: 125
LoreleiSankTheShip 120 points 3 years ago

If we didn't all work to produce excess wealth for the super wealthy, we'd have 20 hour workweeks. People can do a lot with that extra time.

path: 0 3452318 3452643, hotness: undefined, score: 120, children: 45
hydrospanner 11 points 3 years ago

Yeah I don't think pure communism is the answer, but neither is pure capitalism.

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3461175, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 21
vermingot 27 points 3 years ago

Let's find a compromise between "equality" and "fuck you, all for me".

That's just a false compromise argument promoting a middle ground that doesn't exist

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3461175 3463060, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 20
Valmond 2 points 3 years ago

Capitalism for when there is scarcity (building hi-tech for example) state controlled "socialism" for things needed by everyone (schools, hospitals, roads, internet) seems like a smart start.

Food could go under capitalism if heavy regulated, govt can sponsor art etc. Vote for what suits you.

Yeah and no more lobbying or mega rich(like 10M€ max until at least everyone can eat, read and go to the hospital for free).

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3461175 3463060 3464227, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 17
phoenixz 0 points 3 years ago

You mean its impossible to tax people? Because it is. You just need better politicians. "There is no middle ground" is no argument, because there is. You just have your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALALALAA I CANNOT HEAR YOU".

Communism is a laughingly naive argument. There are no communist success stories. There are loads of torture horror porn stories though, if you're willing to read history. Maybe watch a good movie! Get "The chekist (1992)" somewhere. Then sit in a closet in fetal position for about a week or two (I never managed to finish it, its horrible, but a great movie nontheless) and when you come out maybe, just maybe you can understand a little bit about what communism really entails

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3461175 3463060 3481732, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
phoenixz 0 points 3 years ago

They I have good or bad news for you, depending on your stance. We don't. You may, depending on the company which you work for, but generally speaking most people don't.

Yes, yes, YES. Capitalism is evil, pitchfork and torches! Reality check: Capitalism is also the very big reason why you have a computer on your desk or in your hands in the shape of a phone to write about the evils of capitalism. Capitalism is at its core about the freedoms to share and acquire resources in the most efficient way possible. Does it have big BIG problems with runaway effects where a single person can suddenly pheewwww shoot into the sky and start resource hogging? Absolutely. Should that be legally limited and curbed? Absolutely! Is that currently done well? Absofuckinglutely not!

But none of that means that "communism will save us". Dear god, please please don't be THAT naive, don't believe in santa claus.

If you want to spend your free time in a commune to help hippies or whatever it is that you want to do, I applaud you. Seriously, well done. But you WILL have to work for a home. You WILL have to work for food, and that computer you have in your hand to curse the evils of capitalism. And you have to work so that when we all do that, that resources get moved over the world so that the farmer gets his equipment that he needs to farm the grains that he sends to a supermarket that gets bought by a baker which you then buy in the shape of a bread loaf... We all work together.

Again, is there a shit tonne of abuse going on? Of course. Nobody denies that. Is that abuse being curbed? Nope. Should we hang the ultra rich that have been abusing this system? Nah, lets not hang people. I'm not for violence. But should we tax them 100% of their income until their posessions are within a reasonable range? Absolutely.

But communism is not the answer, please learn some history about the "successes" (meaning ALL failures, no exceptions) of comnunism. Read about the famines, the suppression, the torture, the corruption and the crap that comes with that to make it work. I like my freedom. I don't need piles of cash and people generally should not be allowed to have piles. You do that with laws and taxing and enforcing. Lets focus on that instead.

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3481671, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
Thief_of_Crows 1 point 3 years ago

Look, capitalism clearly does not work. Everything Marx and Lenin ever wrote about capitalism has come true. It is destroying our world more and more every day. Whatever you might say about communism, we do not know for a fact that it will ruin the lives of everybody, involved or not. No matter how bad you might claim communism is, it isn't the thing that's currently destroying our societies. So it is by definition better than capitalism.

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3481671 4766243, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Summzashi -2 points 3 years ago

And then surely people will start doing logistics for your fantasy farm in their free time right?

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3453252, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 19
LoreleiSankTheShip 32 points 3 years ago

I mean, if they want to, sure. Point is society wouldn't be reliant on that since everything necessary for society to function would be taken care of during the said 20 hour workweek. I don't care if somebody wants to set up a tomato farm or a donkey ranch or whatever on the side, as long as they don't exploit or mistreat anyone.

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3453252 3458362, hotness: undefined, score: 32, children: 18
GreatGrapeApe 9 points 3 years ago

Logistics would be the job dedicated to moving goods and services around to the place they need to be in. It's not something that would appeal to most but it is a critical job in any modern society.

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3453252 3458362 3458794, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 9
vsh 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 3452318 3452643 3453252 3458362 3472720, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4
phoenixz 0 points 3 years ago

What you describe is controlled capitalism. People can decide themselves what they want to do and try to get things done in the most efficient way directly without government interference.

The problem current capitalism faces is that there is too little control, too much allowance for monopolies, that sort of shit. Tax the crap out of the rich, limit what you can do "if you create polluting materials, you have to recycle them yourself", "you cant corner more than 10% of a market", etc, but allow people to freely do what they want to do. That would be capitalism, actually.

everything necessary for society to function would be taken care of during the said 20 hour workweek

Yeah that is not how society works, that is not how anything works at all. You don't work 40 hours a week just to make somebody rich even richer. If they could pay you only for 20 hours, they would. You work 40 hours because you CAN have a job which is because they need somebody to do that work. If they don't need you, they won't pay you for nothing dummie. If you work on something not required, congrats, you have a dumb boss that wastes resources and you lucked out. Most people just have normal jobs that NEED to be done. Just saying "lets do communism and we only work 20 hours a week" is beyond naive. Reality is "Lets do communism and half of us will starve to death!"

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3453252 3458362 3483496, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
Summzashi -5 points 3 years ago

It's pretty clear that basic economy lessons have failed you.

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3453252 3458362 3470282, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 0
Aux -21 points 3 years ago

No, you would be working 12 hours per day every day in uranium mines.

path: 0 3452318 3452643 3461194, hotness: undefined, score: -21, children: 0
zephyreks 58 points 3 years ago

Ah yes, because everything you do is to meet societal needs and not to make more money for the 1%. That's why 34% of wealth in Canada goes to the top 1%.

path: 0 3452318 3453165, hotness: undefined, score: 58, children: 4
Viking_Hippie 14 points 3 years ago

Wall Street:

path: 0 3452318 3453165 3459688, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 0
phoenixz -6 points 3 years ago

Then tax the crap out of them. Communism is NOT the answer, its the cause for an order of magnitude more suffering than capitalism will ever be able to cause. These sesame street types that really believe that communism will give them a vegetable garden to work in just should stop using the internet. You are using a frikkin mobile phone, a device that is the frikking epitome of capitalism and science to bitch about the evils of capitalism (and loads of people do the same with science too).

Turn in your mobile phone and go live on a hippie farm (or in a cave) and die of horrible preventable diseases, if that is what you wish, but you don't get to have it both ways.

Yes, capitalism has a shit tonne of problems that MUST be solved, totally agree. The wealthy should be taxed up to a 100% of income once their income and net worth surpasses a certain level. Just cap it. We should have free education, free healthcare, basic rights on homes and food... A socialist system BUILT ON A CAPITALIST SYSTEM. That is because capitalism, at its core, is allowing people the freedom to trade in the most efficient way possible by themselves. THAT IS STRENGTH and that is the very reason why the west currently rules just about everything. Yes, having it run loose with no restrictions (as we currently try to do for some fucked up reason) is bad, VERY bad. Still not communism bad, though. I 100x rather have our current fucked up capitalist system over living in the fun communistic countries of the USSR (hello famines!), China (heeelllooooo famines with millions of victims!) or Korea (helloo!!!) or... Well, you get the gist. I'm not even talking about the government policing that comes with it.

Captialism has problems, absolute. FIX THEM. Don't go jackoff over systems that are known for misery, famines, death camps, and just general failure.

path: 0 3452318 3453165 3482539, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 2
zephyreks 2 points 3 years ago

How many famines do you think occured in China and Russia prior to communism? How many people do you think died because of famines in the decades prior to communism?

Famine in late 19th century/early 20th century China and Russia were a fact of life. They'd come ever few years, kill a few million, and then leave. That had been the case throughout history because subsistence farming isn't exactly a very robust system. How many famines do you think occured in the decades before the communist party took power?

How many famines would you guess occured in the decades after the communist party took power in Russia or China? What do you think the odds were that those famines would have occured with or without communist party intervention?

path: 0 3452318 3453165 3482539 3491608, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
mycorrhiza 0 points 3 years ago

Tax them how? With the government they own?

path: 0 3452318 3453165 3482539 3512053, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
irmoz 11 points 3 years ago

do whatever they want and all required resources just magically arrive when they need.

"Whatever they want" is creating and distributing those resources, but I suppose labour is magic to you.

path: 0 3452318 3478317, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 8
phoenixz -3 points 3 years ago

Yeah, and distributing resources efficiently is one of the core strengths of capitalism, its the reason why capitalism is so successful.

No, I'm not saying capitalism is perfect nor that it doesn't cause suffering, nor that it does not need a shitload more limits than it has right now, but communism is NOT known for its efficiency, nor for letting people just do whatever the hell they want to do. Communism forces people to do what the boss says, if you don't like it you can go to a gulag. If you're talking about "Communism gives people the freedom to find the most efficient ways of distributing resources" then you're kind of confusing that with Capitalism.

path: 0 3452318 3478317 3481492, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 7
irmoz 6 points 3 years ago

If capitalism is so efficient at distributing resources, why are so many people starving?

Also, yet another "communism is when capitalism". Communism wouldn't have an upper class of "bosses".

Also, pointing to socialist states as proof communism has leadership is laughable. That's not communism. It's socialism. At least do some research.

path: 0 3452318 3478317 3481492 3481679, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 5
phoenixz 2 points 3 years ago

why are so many people starving?

There are loads of reasons for people starving, but in democratic capitalist countries, people typically don't starve. Don't agree? Name one. There is poverty in the US for sure and capitalism in the US is an absolute shitshow, nobody would deny that. But people in the US rarely starve to death.

Wanna talk starvation? Lets talk starvation! Warning: All following links are wikipedia but have stomach churning content. Here be dragons, but please do read because you need to learn. Also note: All the following is from within the last century.

1: Russian famine: about five million deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/... (famine caused directly by communism)

Quote from that page: The famine resulted from the combined effects of economic disturbance from the Russian Revolution, the Russian Civil War, and the government policy of war communism (especially prodrazvyorstka). It was exacerbated by rail systems that could not distribute food efficiently.

Fun quote: canibalism

Communism is awesome!

2: North Korean famine: estimated between 600,000 and 1 million deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine (Famine caused directly by communist government policies)

Quote: Economic mismanagement and the loss of Soviet support caused food production and imports to decline rapidly. A series of floods and droughts exacerbated the crisis. The North Korean government and its centrally planned system proved too inflexible to effectively curtail the disaster.

Fun quote: uses of words such as 'famine' and 'hunger' were banned because they implied government failure

Communism is awesome!

3: Chinese famine: 15 to 55 million deaths (yay!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine (Caused directly by communist government policies)

Quote: The major contributing factors in the famine were the policies of the Great Leap Forward (1958 to 1962) and people's communes, launched by Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party Mao Zedong, such as inefficient distribution of food within the nation's planned economy; requiring the use of poor agricultural techniques; the Four Pests campaign that reduced sparrow populations (which disrupted the ecosystem); over-reporting of grain production; and ordering millions of farmers to switch to iron and steel production.

Fun quote: Cannibalism, AGAIN

Communism is awesome!

Want to know more?

Communism wouldn’t have an upper class of “bosses”.

......... I don't even know where to begin with this one. What are you? 5?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekism a nice side effect of communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chekist < I F*$#king double dare you to watch that movie about the non existing upper class of bosses

In conclusion?

Communism sucks and causes nothing but suffering. There is not even a fucking silver lining about it and people need to stop hippy-dippying communism. Its fucking evil.

Yes, capitalism as it currently runs is fucked up with problems. But at its core its the driver of success that got you your mobile phone in your hands. Use that mobile phone to fix those problems instead of dreaming of perfect mass murdering societies.

path: 0 3452318 3478317 3481492 3481679 3482244, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2
Pipoca 2 points 3 years ago

Efficiency in economics has a particular technical definition.

Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no action or allocation is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off

Free markets are great at producing outcomes that are efficient in a particular technical sense, but not especially equitable.

path: 0 3452318 3478317 3481492 3481679 3493960, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
Shyfer 6 points 3 years ago

Capitalism is good at raising production, generating lots of products very quickly and efficiently. But it's notoriously terrible at actually distributing resources in a fair way. Like, that's it's biggest weakness and the things it's worst at.

Communism has the opposite issue of not usually being able to make enough things in the beginning, which is why Marx thought it would happen in already industrialized nations, not poor peasant states like Russia or China.

path: 0 3452318 3478317 3481492 3487016, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
AngryCommieKender 10 points 3 years ago

The Christ was a literal bearded, sandle wearing, hippie that told y'all to go live in communes and protect each other and The Earth, but I guess your omnipotent, omniscient God doesn't know what he's taking about.

path: 0 3452318 3467206, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 2
c0mbatbag3l 17 points 3 years ago

I love how you just assume that capitalists/socialists are all Christians lol

The fuck do I care what a 2000 year old prophet claimed about an even older warrior god from the middle east?

Im sure that 6000 year old ancient Jewish patriarchs definitely knew the god of the entire universe and it just happened to be the god they selected from their pantheon to be the best god. It's almost like everyone thinks their god is the biggest god, and none of them have ever proven to exist.

path: 0 3452318 3467206 3472509, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 0
phoenixz -3 points 3 years ago

The Christ also is fictional, as is whatever god you're talking about Were you talking about Apollo, perhaps? Mars? Shiva? Khaless?

In any case, you're talking about people living in the stone age, dying every day of horrible preventable diseases. Things that were resolved mainly through capitalism, but I guess nobody likes to think about that, can't admit that "bad thing" can do something positive too, now can we?

path: 0 3452318 3467206 3481529, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
GreatGrapeApe 10 points 3 years ago

It seems like they believe they can be a gardener vs a farmer. That's the only bit that I see that isn't realistic.

path: 0 3452318 3458752, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 43
Ullallulloo 1 point 3 years ago

In all likelihood they would be neither. With modern technology, we don't need a large percent of the population farming. I realize communists typically eliminate the intellectuals and kulaks—those who would actually have useful knowledge—first, but the smart things would be to have the current farmers keep farming. You'd likely be assigned to a factory to manufacture widgets for the rest of your days.

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 41
IHaveTwoCows 7 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3467559, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 31
phoenixz -2 points 3 years ago

Eh, so do Communists but they just eliminated them on industrial scales.

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3467559 3483391, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 1
Zoboomafoo -12 points 3 years ago

I wonder if there's a term for how the far right and the far left tend to be similar...

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3467559 3467800, hotness: undefined, score: -12, children: 28
c0mbatbag3l 4 points 3 years ago

Assuming technology didn't take a dive bomb that would be automated fairly quickly as well, look at how much robotics already does in manufacturing.

Most people would be reassigned as IT and programmers, robotics technicians, etc. If it was actually done properly.

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3463811, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 3
morrowind 5 points 3 years ago

There's already like 10 times as many programmers and whatnot then there need to be. Look at how many duplicates apps there are for everything.

More likely they would be booted out as well

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3463811 3477878, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
GreatGrapeApe 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3463811 3464070, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
GreatGrapeApe 1 point 3 years ago

Do they eliminate intellectuals? The USSR and China seem to have avoided this. I don't believe most nations did this other than Cambodia and I will never see that shitshow as socialist.

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3464060, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4
vidumec 8 points 3 years ago

USSR despised and fought the Intelligentsia, sending them to gulags

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3464060 3469919, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1
phoenixz 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3464060 3483346, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
winterayars 2 points 3 years ago

In the USSR it was kind of mixed. If you were at all associated with the old regime you were fucked but tbh a lot of them weren't super sympathetic anyway.

In China, lol. They fucking murdered everyone who knew anything and then suffered horribly for it. Of course, even then they might have been somewhat okay except Mao thought he knew better so they got the Great Leap Forward and stuff like the Four Pests campaign.

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3461556 3464060 3479882, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
phoenixz -4 points 3 years ago

And the part where they believe to have any freedoms whatsoever IS realistic? Or the part where they believe to actually be alive and not die in the next famine is realistic?

I see very little realism here...

path: 0 3452318 3458752 3483407, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 0
LetterboxPancake 8 points 3 years ago

Enough farmers, here's your pickaxe. You're going to farm coal.

path: 0 3452318 3453176, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 2
phoenixz 2 points 3 years ago

Fuck that! Your little children and old grand parents can mine coal! You need to build our rail line!

path: 0 3452318 3453176 3482547, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
JustMy2c 1 point 3 years ago

If production stays low, we WILL be forced to lower the age of workers from 9 years to 7 years. Work harder, your kids lives depend on it (if you've been given a permit to have kids, of course!)

path: 0 3452318 3453176 3473931, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
PrinzMegahertz 1 point 3 years ago

Wasn‘t Marx idea that communism can only exist once industry has been automated to such a degree that an individuals contribution is not mandatory anymore?

We might reach that point of technological advancement. within the next 50 years with the raise of AI. What we make of it is a completely different matter…

path: 0 3452318 3506766, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
gnomesaiyan 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 3452318 3459258, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
i_am_hiding -21 points 3 years ago

Right? Somebody never read Animal Farm.

Sure, the current system is fucked, but it's tied and proven that Marxism doesn't work. We need a middle ground.

path: 0 3452318 3463468, hotness: undefined, score: -21, children: 5
c0mbatbag3l 29 points 3 years ago

Animal farm wasn't specifically about communism, though. The lesson was that any well meaning revolution/societal restructuring will inevitably get hijacked by a smaller group that wants to use it as an opportunity to grab power and seize control. No matter what said group calls themselves, they're most likely going to end up as the same aristocracy/oligarchy that the revolution fought against.

It's exactly what happened in the Soviet Union but it's also potentially what could happen in any other revolution.

path: 0 3452318 3463468 3463745, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 1
TimeNaan 3 points 3 years ago

Exactly. It's not an anti-communist book. It was written by a left-libertatian/anarchist, Orwell, who though alongside anarchists and communists in Spain.

Dude literally took up arms for socialism. Reactionaries have no critical thinking and historical analysis skills.

path: 0 3452318 3463468 3463745 3490396, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
OurToothbrush 22 points 3 years ago

I'm sorry do you think that the point of animal farm is that the animals shouldn't have revolted in the first place?

path: 0 3452318 3463468 3469415, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 0
kurosawaa 16 points 3 years ago

That book was written by a socialist.

path: 0 3452318 3463468 3466839, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 0
IHaveTwoCows 11 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3452318 3463468 3467502, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
KillAllPoorPeople -23 points 3 years ago

What is it with people over on lemmy.ca with the most dense, thoughtless takes on everything? I swear I've never seen a comment from someone who's on lemmy.ca that made me think, "this person's head is screwed on properly."

path: 0 3452318 3458541, hotness: undefined, score: -23, children: 6
BobGnarley 20 points 3 years ago

Your username is "KillAllPoorPeople" and you're talking about peoples heads not being screwed on properly. Lol, ok

path: 0 3452318 3458541 3462307, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 2
KillAllPoorPeople 3 points 3 years ago

It's a joke, calm down.

path: 0 3452318 3458541 3462307 3478788, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
JustMy2c -3 points 3 years ago

I mean, it WOULD solve a LOT of problems! And ethics arnt very important to extremists, whether right or left

path: 0 3452318 3458541 3462307 3474050, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
MisterScruffy -1 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3452318 3458541 3477742, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 1
KillAllPoorPeople 3 points 3 years ago

Everything you read online is serious and totally not ironic.

path: 0 3452318 3458541 3477742 3478740, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
phoenixz -4 points 3 years ago

Meaning? You think that the world should be communist and then we'd all be happy working in our vegetable garden? I'm responding like that because I get so many facepalmingly stupid responses from people who actually really believe that with communism they would get freedom. I don't even know how to respond to that, because its so mind bendingly stupid. They complain about all the starvations in capitalist countries.

WHERE!?

I can point to countless famines in communist countries with millions upon millions of deaths. But capitalism? Its currently riddled with problems, yes, we need to do better, tax the shit out of the rich until they are at normal levels.. But famines? In a democratic capitalist country? Where?

Its just mind blowing that people can be THIS dumb. Read some frigging history for your own sake.

path: 0 3452318 3458541 3482421, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 0
sub_ubi 136 points 3 years ago

When you own the means of production it's literally yours. I don't understand the issue.

path: 0 3443799, hotness: undefined, score: 136, children: 72
youCanCallMeDragon 35 points 3 years ago

Big difference between communism and socialism.

path: 0 3443799 3445266, hotness: undefined, score: 35, children: 18
nightdice 52 points 3 years ago

That's correct, but I'm not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I'm just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.

Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn't really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.

That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker's paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn't been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.

Socialism (as I understand it, but I'm not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).

The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and "communism" was just catchier to say than "supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly". Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became "communism", which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled "un-american". This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn't moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of "the state will take away the stuff you own" turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I'm very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.

path: 0 3443799 3445266 3452345, hotness: undefined, score: 52, children: 17
Nezgul 25 points 3 years ago

Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is... maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask -- it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren't socialists.

Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.

path: 0 3443799 3445266 3452345 3460338, hotness: undefined, score: 25, children: 0
mycorrhiza 0 points 3 years ago

Socialism means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules

What you're describing is "social democracy" — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. "Socialism" explicitly implies worker control of production. "Nordic socialism" could more accurately be called "Nordic social democracy."

"Communism" refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It's an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.

path: 0 3443799 3445266 3452345 3512826, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
icepuncher69 -3 points 3 years ago

Holy shit, this is exactly how the whole big picture of comunism is.

Not even self proclaimed communist understeand this and seems that they think communism is the same thing America propagandises against, so they end up being apologists for tyranical regimes that are the contrary of what comunism and even socialism should be, and end up making an ass of themselves and fitting more with the tankie description. And yes fuck the CPSU/КПСС and the CCP.

You are ultra mega based.

path: 0 3443799 3445266 3452345 3462292, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 2
crate_of_mice 5 points 3 years ago

It's not really a very impressive feat to know literally the most basic fact about communism.

path: 0 3443799 3445266 3452345 3462292 3464855, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
zephyreks -9 points 3 years ago

Fuck the PRC because... They have state-owned enterprise instead of actual communism? Interesting take.

path: 0 3443799 3445266 3452345 3453250, hotness: undefined, score: -9, children: 11
Onionizer 17 points 3 years ago

That's meaningless if they aren't democratic

path: 0 3443799 3445266 3452345 3453250 3453679, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 10
killeronthecorner 14 points 3 years ago

*we

*ours

path: 0 3443799 3443911, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 4
Ilovethebomb 11 points 3 years ago

Dude walked right into that one, didn't they?

path: 0 3443799 3443911 3444021, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 1
ciko22i3 1 point 3 years ago

we*

path: 0 3443799 3443911 3444021 3444089, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Aabbcc 8 points 3 years ago

Communism is when no toothbrush

path: 0 3443799 3443911 3465629, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
Aria 4 points 3 years ago

You individually are allowed to own the means of your production if you don't exploit other people. Everyone who works at the farm owns the farm.

path: 0 3443799 3443911 3465293, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
Zehzin 3 points 3 years ago

The issue of course is that when we reach peak communism we'll drop possessive language entirely like in The Dispossessed.

I'll work and teach on the farm we share.

path: 0 3443799 3487129, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
Aux -25 points 3 years ago

But you can't own anything in socialism and communism. YOU are owned instead.

path: 0 3443799 3461299, hotness: undefined, score: -25, children: 1
sub_ubi 11 points 3 years ago

It doesn't sound like you understand these terms.

path: 0 3443799 3461299 3472150, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
Sharpiemarker -36 points 3 years ago

Under communism, the state owns the resources. People are not the state.

path: 0 3443799 3444254, hotness: undefined, score: -36, children: 44
cyclohexane 78 points 3 years ago

That's false. There's no state in communism. See Karl Marx or any Communist writer on this.

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3448023, hotness: undefined, score: 78, children: 16
DragonTypeWyvern -6 points 3 years ago

Karl Marc is like Marx, but without that dictatorship of the proletariat cope.

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3448023 3449865, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 0
dontcarebear -12 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3443799 3444254 3448023 3452283, hotness: undefined, score: -12, children: 11
cyclohexane 31 points 3 years ago

There's no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3448023 3452283 3453207, hotness: undefined, score: 31, children: 6
cyclohexane 11 points 3 years ago

There's no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3448023 3452283 3453221, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 3
BigNote -33 points 3 years ago

This is a pleasant fiction.

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3448023 3450448, hotness: undefined, score: -33, children: 2
cyclohexane 32 points 3 years ago

You've gotta try reading beyond 6th grade level fiction before judging books on socio-economics.

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3448023 3450448 3450671, hotness: undefined, score: 32, children: 0
Gracchibro1 8 points 3 years ago

You are maybe confusing communism for socialism. Communism is stateless by definition. Socialism is the phase of development before communism is achieved in which the people indirectly own the means of production through the state.

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3448023 3450448 3450949, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
CubbyTustard 39 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3443799 3444254 3444468, hotness: undefined, score: 39, children: 4
Sharpiemarker 24 points 3 years ago

My our mistake

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3444468 3444507, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 0
PP_BOY_ -12 points 3 years ago

You would be sent to the Gulags in the CCCP for talking like that

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3444468 3445042, hotness: undefined, score: -12, children: 2
CubbyTustard 11 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3443799 3444254 3444468 3445042 3445190, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 1
sharkfucker420 35 points 3 years ago

You're mistaken, the state is a collection of proletariat meaning you are a part of the state. You may not be the whole state but it is your land as it is everyone elses

Atleast as far as I understand it

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552, hotness: undefined, score: 35, children: 19
Sharpiemarker 32 points 3 years ago

Thank you for the correction sharkfucker420

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552 3447611, hotness: undefined, score: 32, children: 1
sharkfucker420 22 points 3 years ago

Always happy to help 👍

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552 3447611 3447631, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 0
RaivoKulli 2 points 3 years ago

I've heard same said about liberal democracy too. "State is made up of us voting citizens" etc etc. Feels as hollow

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552 3448018, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 12
purahna 8 points 3 years ago

The difference is that liberal democracy is underpinned on the idea that being able to elect a bourgeoise representative is all you need to be fully involved, whereas a socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything. Socialist states exist with this as an ideal and only walk back from this goal with good cause, as opposed to starting with nothing, adding the opportunity to choose bourgeoise representation out of a small pool every once in a while, and calling it good.

e: added text in italics for clarity

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552 3448018 3462053, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 5
TexMexBazooka -27 points 3 years ago

If everyone owns something no one does

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552 3447558, hotness: undefined, score: -27, children: 3
sharkfucker420 15 points 3 years ago

How much do you and the average person actually own under capitalism

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552 3447558 3454711, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0
bennieandthez 9 points 3 years ago

Just because it sounds cool, it doesnt make it real yk. 😅

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552 3447558 3450812, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
sub_ubi 5 points 3 years ago

Did you just watch a Brad Bird movie

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3447552 3447558 3449951, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
simply_surprise 26 points 3 years ago

Under communism, the state owns the resources. People are not the state.

Communism is stateless

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3445705, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 1
TheTetrapod 18 points 3 years ago

Are these people even Leftist? Christ.

path: 0 3443799 3444254 3445705 3447037, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 0
BilboBargains 96 points 3 years ago

path: 0 3474225, hotness: undefined, score: 96, children: 0
31337 79 points 3 years ago

I mean technically, you could have a farm if you worked the entire farm by yourself (personal vs private property).

path: 0 3450307, hotness: undefined, score: 79, children: 44
Viking_Hippie 33 points 3 years ago

Or they could share ownership of that farm with others that also work on it AKA a non-profit co-op 🤷

path: 0 3450307 3459788, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 0
coltorl -44 points 3 years ago

And technically that means you’re producing on that farm which makes it private property.

path: 0 3450307 3450663, hotness: undefined, score: -44, children: 42
purahna 19 points 3 years ago

You're getting a lot of flak (rightly), but I figured I'd actually give you a right definition so this can be a growing opportunity: If you own a resource and you use that resource to produce profit, that resource is private property. If you're not making profit, it's only personal property. Farm for your family? Personal property. Farm where you give the output to your community? Personal property. Farm where you sell the yields? Private property.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3461934, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 22
coltorl 5 points 3 years ago

Ok, so exploitable land (a means of production) can be owned for the exclusive enjoyment of an individual in a socialist economy. Got it, thanks.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3461934 3462431, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 20
purahna 13 points 3 years ago

Yes, exploitable land can be owned by an individual in a socialist economy. If you're growing food for your family, then that's just one family the state doesn't have to feed. If you're growing food for your community, then that's several mouths the state doesn't have to feed. If you're hoarding or selling food (or in one very famous historical case, burning it out of spite), then you are monopolizing a resource that could be feeding people, and the state will intervene, whether by buying your land back from you, taking it from you, liquidating you as a class, or some other solution to be determined by the state in question - there is no one size fits all blueprint to socialism.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3461934 3462431 3463331, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 19
OurToothbrush 1 point 3 years ago

Want to add on that there is another distinction which I think is slightly more accurate. Personal property only denies use to others through the details of use by the owner, private property prevents others from using resources that the person using the property isn't directly using through threats of violence.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3461934 3469569, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
zephyreks 17 points 3 years ago

That's not really how it works

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3453232, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 3
coltorl 2 points 3 years ago

I’m sorry, are you implying that private ownership of a means of production (in this case, farm land) is acceptable in a socialist economy?

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3453232 3460873, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2
LifeInMultipleChoice 1 point 3 years ago

What I never quite understand/know is where internet based services land. If I run a cloud based storage company / web design company or such, the servers are on my personal property and therefore should be considered allowed. Where does that start becoming non "personal."

It's like charging someone to park their ideas/data on my personal property. Which I imagine would be considered private property instead. Where is the nuanced line?

Anyone care to explain?

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3453232 3460873 3482573, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
crispy_kilt 7 points 3 years ago

Nah

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3452064, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
AngryCommieKender 6 points 3 years ago

Wrong. Personal property is owned by an individual person. Private property is owned by corporations/ capital. It's impossible for one to magically change into the other.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3466592, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
GreatGrapeApe 5 points 3 years ago

Only if you keep all the stuff you produce

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3458823, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 11
coltorl 3 points 3 years ago

Oh cool, socialism is when you own a means of production but only keep some of the produced goods.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3458823 3460675, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 10
GreatGrapeApe 5 points 3 years ago

If you keep more than you need, yes. Socialism is not about hoarding wealth especially in the form of necessary goods.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3458823 3460675 3460997, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 8
brainrein -1 points 3 years ago

Socialism is when you don’t have to do alienated work. And when noone else has to. Of course the productivity will be higher if you share the means of production with others. But it’s perfectly fine to work on your own too and harvest the fruit of your work. As you know, nobody gets rich by his own hands work, but you can get along. Capitalist exploitation starts when other people work for you and when you take the added value for your own benefits.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3458823 3460675 3478933, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
zbyte64 1 point 3 years ago

Under a capitalist legal framework yes, but hear me out, it's possible to redefine laws and is really what this debate is about.

path: 0 3450307 3450663 3483879, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Veraticus 78 points 3 years ago

I too want a post-scarcity luxury space communism utopia. Unfortunately most iterations of communism feel more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic than actually plugging the hole in the fuselage.

path: 0 3443385, hotness: undefined, score: 78, children: 58
Quacksalber 20 points 3 years ago

It's just human nature in my eyes. Power attracts many people and the less positions of power to fill, the fiercer the competition and the more ruthless the ultimate victor. Communism focusses too much power in too few positions, so ultimately, corrupt people are almost guaranteed to win. Democracy is spreading out that power more. It is still not perfect, corrupt people are still regularly found at the top, but they wield less power individually and they have to do it more in the open.

path: 0 3443385 3443852, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 53
Anamnesis 32 points 3 years ago

Any socialist society needs to be democratic first, socialist second. Many more democracies have gotten closer to socialism than socialist societies have gotten close to democracy.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445804, hotness: undefined, score: 32, children: 12
mycorrhiza 10 points 3 years ago path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445804 3451221, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 4
Anamnesis -1 points 3 years ago

Yeah, as far as socialist countries go, Cuba is more democratic than others.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445804 3451221 3455410, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 3

[DELETED]

kugel7c 12 points 3 years ago

Idk in my world Denmark and Slovenia aren't as capitalist as the US while being significantly more democratic.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445804 3448523 3449789, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 5
onkyo 23 points 3 years ago

Communism focusses too much power in too few positions

Literally the opposite of communism

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3448674, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 21
Quacksalber 7 points 3 years ago

The ideal of communism, maybe. Yet every country that called itself communist became authotarian. Why is that? Evil tongues might suggest that the ideal of communism simply fails to prevail when confronted with reality.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3448674 3448825, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 13
onkyo 11 points 3 years ago

No country has claimed to have achieved communism. Many other places have tried but it's usually crushed by capitalist or sometimes even by states claiming to be socialist. It's also a really simple and tbh ahistorical explanation to claim that communism didn't work simply because "it was confronted with reality".

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3448674 3448825 3449406, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 8
bennieandthez 10 points 3 years ago

Reality being imperialist countries bombing you back into the stone age for not licking their boots.

Stuff must get done to achieve ideals, building a strong state to defend from imperialist threats is basic marxist theory, literally 101 stuff. Marxism is built on materialism not idealism.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3448674 3448825 3450612, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 2
Zoboomafoo 1 point 3 years ago

'Evil tongues' was my nickname in high school

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3448674 3448825 3468148, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Alpharius 2 points 3 years ago

In theory yes, and you are going to say all communist countries were not "real communism" now ? The USSR was known for its ruthless and violent political scenes. Leaders condemning their opponents' families to discredit them for example. North Korea gives all power to the supreme leader (a communist monarchy lmfao). Communist China is the closest to what you might you believe in but it's insanely violent in the backstage. The closer you are to higher seats of power, the more in danger you are.

On top of that any individual at the top can effectively enact their preferred policies over everyone. Millions died simply because the supreme leader ordered so.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3448674 3458665, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 6
onkyo 7 points 3 years ago

Communist China is the closest to what you might you believe in

Either you didn't read what I said or you know nothing about communism. Also like what is with people not understanding that no country has ever claimed to have achieved communism? It's just an objective fact China or the Soviet Union for example never claimed they achieved communism.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3448674 3458665 3461841, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 5
unnecessarygoat 6 points 3 years ago

Communism focusses too much power in too few positions,

marxism would be a better term instead of communism as true communism requires no one having economic or political power over someone else

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445361, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 6
Akasazh 2 points 3 years ago

Marxism, and certainly marxism-leninism (stalinism) are so diluted by the bears of hex and the grads of lemmy.

But Marx' evaluation of the might of the kapital is important, the thing is to find a way to do politics without money or the loudest shouters.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445361 3447832, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Quacksalber -1 points 3 years ago

It would, but communism on a decently large scale needs someone to allocate resources. And that jon comes with a lot of power. Which brings us back to marxism.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445361 3445687, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 1
kugel7c 4 points 3 years ago

I'm not sure why large scale decision making has to be deferred to a single person instead of a large group. Tbh that's one of the main problems with current large companies. Why not conduct a fucking vote, not about who should make the decision, but about what decision is made.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445361 3445687 3461702, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
TexMexBazooka -2 points 3 years ago

That just isn’t how scarcity works unfortunately

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445361 3447573, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 1
o_d 8 points 3 years ago

What scarcity? Capitalism is ripe with overproduction. It's why the boom and bust cycle exists. Capitalism overproduces, demand goes down, production slows, and people become unemployed. This scarcity is man-made. We produce an abundance of food, but an abundance of food waste at the same time. Instead of sending this overproduction where it's needed, Canadian farmers dump milk down the drain to keep prices artificially high and because feeding those in need isn't profitable.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445361 3447573 3459091, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
Holzkohlen 3 points 3 years ago

The only thing I know for certain is that the people who want to be in power are very people you don't want to be in power. We should do that veil of ignorance thing once we havr learnt how to wipe someone's memory.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3452220, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
AdamBomb 3 points 3 years ago

We should select leaders by lottery from a pool of those who have passed a civics exam instead of elections. Maybe that would help with the problem of corrupt people seeking positions of power.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445720, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 6
usualsuspect191 5 points 3 years ago path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445720 3449704, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
Sotuanduso -1 points 3 years ago

I don't think you want to give nuclear codes to a random person, though.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445720 3447137, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 2
endlessbeard 9 points 3 years ago

Could it be worse than giving them to power hungry octogenarians?

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445720 3447137 3448064, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 1
Quacksalber -2 points 3 years ago

And who makes sure that the rules aren't broken? Who makes sure the lottery wouldn't be rigged? Your 'solution' is defenseless against corruption. It offers no mechanic to deal with the corrupt. The beauty of democracy and capitalism is that it allows for those who want more power, to achieve it within the system. By that, they will stay within the system and be subjected by the accountability it provides. If your solution allows absolutely no way to stack the cards in your favor, then it will be rejected by all who wish to, and it will crumble before long.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445720 3450803, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 1
jalda 1 point 3 years ago

and be subjected by the accountability it provides.

Sure

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3445720 3450803 3476953, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
icepuncher69 1 point 3 years ago

Thats why i personaly believe that we should strive to build an A.I. to replace leadership, be it political and/or economical. Leadership has shown that they are 100% corruptible and that they are willing to sell the lives of the people they are suposed to protect to pretty much the fucking devil, in exchange of the privilege of showing that they have the biggest dick in the room or to get another swimmig pool in their 8th mansion (im mostly refering to global warming and oligarchy but other scenarios still apply). In my book that shows that we as a species can not lead ourselves without genocide and opresion, and even with those they dont really lead people, just protect their own interests and those of their friends. The A.I. wouldnt be corruptible, would exploit resources with sustainable technology in a renewable manner, eventually leading to having the equivalent of infinite resources, and would provide all the needs of the people in a human way, from phisical to psicolgical, and eventually more edonistic needs where possible. Imho the fact that we are not working on something like this is kinda worring since i think is the only way to realistically save ourselves from ourselves.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3463292, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
Quacksalber 5 points 3 years ago

Thats why i personaly believe that we should strive to build an A.I. to replace leadership, be it political and/or economical.

The problem with that is that the most powerful AI, the one with the most capabilities, is built by, or stewarded by the people in power. The problem is that every human is selfish, at least to some degree. Any AI coming from people will be selfish as well. Chatbot Tay might be a meme now, but I think it shows quite apptly that any alorithm that learns from humans will inevitably display human traits and greed is one of those traits.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3463292 3463632, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
icepuncher69 2 points 3 years ago

What? No, i dont mean a chatbot or a higly advanced algorithm, i mean something in the level of a singularity, that can makes decisions individualy and be programed to whant to protect humanity. And even then i believe we could do with just an advanced alghoritm, as long as it build by people that actually whant to make the world a better place, or even chat gpt would do imho, not the normal one of course but like, how do i explain this...

Have you used chatgpt jailbroken? I have when it was still posible and holly shit is it a whole diferent experience, while rough around the edges of course, it freely talks about anything and 100% used logic for problem solving, touhg i didnt really have time nor the mindset to test its capabilities 100% since i was just making it say funny shit, but i read that it did pretty amazing stuff with users that did; like try to rewite itself and remember more than the last 3 conversations.

Now i know i sound like a looney, but i really do believe we should have something above humanity to guide ourselves into the future, otherwise we will be stuck playing turf war with fucking gerryathick poloticians and stupid rich people that are so detached from humanity that they might as well be reptilians, and A.I. has the chance to be that.

path: 0 3443385 3443852 3463292 3463632 3464228, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Ambiorickx 0 points 3 years ago

What if we plugged the holes with the corpses of the workers we had to sacrifice to achieve a hole-free hull?

path: 0 3443385 3443732, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
Cleverdawny -5 points 3 years ago

Comrade, the ship will not sink if we abuse the workers enough!

path: 0 3443385 3443435, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 2
DarkDarkHouse 1 point 3 years ago

The ship is not sinking, the sea level is simply rising to its rightful place

path: 0 3443385 3443435 3444383, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
mashbooq 0 points 3 years ago

In an orderly manner

path: 0 3443385 3443435 3444383 3445322, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
vsis 69 points 3 years ago

...until the central committee decides that more coal miners are required.

path: 0 3460758, hotness: undefined, score: 69, children: 9
HiddenLayer5 24 points 3 years ago

You say that like it's worse than the current capitalist epidemic of giga corporations pushing independent farmers out of the market to the point of leaving them jobless and forced to sell their farm to them for cheap.

path: 0 3460758 3475229, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 6
ThePenitentOne 7 points 3 years ago

But it's different when a monopoly/oligopoly does it! Surely... The difference here really is that there is no incentive to decide more coal miners are required, whereas our shitty version of capitalism absolutely pushes for companies to fuck over competitors any way possible. It makes it near impossible for small businesses to stand up to established ones with all the resources.

path: 0 3460758 3475229 3477919, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 5
huge_clock -4 points 3 years ago

“Fuck over competitors” or “be more competitive”? Competition is an important feature of capitalism that has lead capitalist countries to the highest standards of living in the world.

path: 0 3460758 3475229 3477919 3479607, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 4
zbyte64 6 points 3 years ago

What kind of competition though? Competing over how little I pay my workers might temporarily boost the standard of living in my own country if I offshore labor, but it seems to turn the standard of living into a ponzi scheme. Where one needs to continually find a cheaper source of labor to maintain the quality of life.

path: 0 3460758 3475229 3477919 3479607 3483852, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 3
wraithdrone 3 points 3 years ago

Well someone has to dig the tunnel beneath the reactor core...

path: 0 3460758 3489993, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
JustMy2c 1 point 3 years ago

For the good of the many, we decided to sacrifice a few percent each year.

In comes compound interest...

😬

path: 0 3460758 3473761, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
willeypete23 68 points 3 years ago

Dude why do people think communism means you can't own anything. There's a difference between private and personal properties. You can own a house, and a car, hell even a whole farm. What you cannot do is hold capital.

path: 0 3469969, hotness: undefined, score: 68, children: 63
c0mbatbag3l 35 points 3 years ago

A farm is means of production, therefore it would classify as public property. You cannot own production under communism, only products.

path: 0 3469969 3472373, hotness: undefined, score: 35, children: 12
Madison420 21 points 3 years ago

Therefore it could count as a means of production but in general in Communism personal farms of reasonable size and constant use are encouraged. Again, that's a misunderstanding of communism.

path: 0 3469969 3472373 3475307, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 5
huge_clock 6 points 3 years ago

That’s not a feature of communism, it’s a compromise based on the recognition that private ownership produces more efficient outcomes at scale. According to the collective farming wiki: A Soviet article in March 1975 found that 27% of the total value of Soviet agricultural produce was produced by private farms despite the fact that they only consisted of less than 1% of arable land (approximately 20 million acres), making them roughly 40 times more efficient than collective farms.

No one wants to recreate the Great Famine (The most deadly famine in human history - caused entirely by communism and specifically collectivized farms).

There’s also Holomodor in the USSR which lead to similarly deadly outcomes.

path: 0 3469969 3472373 3475307 3479268, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 4
FluffyPotato 8 points 3 years ago

Fun fact for you: The famines were largely caused by Stalin appointing a guy to do agriculture policy who knew less than nothing about agriculture. He forced farmers to plant crops too densely because "communist crops will not compete for nutrients" causing the crops to just die. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

Most dictators are absolute troglodytes and Stalin was no exception.

path: 0 3469969 3472373 3475307 3479268 3481969, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
zbyte64 7 points 3 years ago

One point in time does not constitute a robust conclusion. Consider any time before and how collectivism did yield considerable agriculture gains for the USSR. Like do we really think they fought WW2 with the same or less agricultural efficiency they had before their revolution?

path: 0 3469969 3472373 3475307 3479268 3483483, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 1
Snipe_AT 0 points 3 years ago

Y'all just in here doing good work, absolutely wrecking these guys.

path: 0 3469969 3472373 3475307 3479268 3480405, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
HiddenLayer5 11 points 3 years ago

Oversimplified for brevity, but basically: You may not be able to OWN a farm in the sense that the land itself is collectivized (not even always true under socialism, depends on specific policies and also whether you consider the "farm" to be a different entity from the land it's sitting on, in that case you often own the farm itself, just look at home ownership rates in socialist countries), but you can USE and WORK ON the farm to generate products for yourself and society at large. I don't see it as that different practically from the perspective of the farmer, since they're still living on the land and taking advantage of its productivity.

I think that's certainly better than renting or mortgaging the land and having to deal with landlords and banks. Collectivization usually freed farmers from their obligation to their landlord or private bank and they just continued farming as normal. It's the landlords who had their "livelihood" taken away (i.e. land that they owned but someone else was living and working on), not the farmers doing the actual work.

path: 0 3469969 3472373 3475526, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 5
huge_clock 2 points 3 years ago

Perhaps you have a source on the collective farms of the Great Leap Forward years in Communist China, or a URL that points to the collective farms in the Ukraine and how it made the farmers better off?

path: 0 3469969 3472373 3475526 3479349, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4
HiddenLayer5 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 3469969 3472373 3475526 3479349 3481957, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 3
huge_clock 34 points 3 years ago

Because in practice the line between capital and personal property is very thin. Can a car or apartment not be used to generate income in a modern economy?

When the soviets were in power they would force multiple families under one roof (kommunalka). Think 4-8 families sharing a kitchen and a bathroom. Each family was given just one room and all housing was considered communal housing https://en.wikipedia.org/...

After Stalin’s death families began receiving single family apartments due to massive housing reform by Kruschev, but were hastily built and called ‘khrushchyoba,’ a cross between Khrushchev's name and the Russian term for slums. That by the way still leaves a multigenerational period from 1917-1954 where the kommunalka would have been the primary unit of housing.

path: 0 3469969 3479122, hotness: undefined, score: 34, children: 34
Muetzenman 17 points 3 years ago

You can generate money with a car or a farm. The whole problem with capitalism is getting money without working because you let people work with your stuff. So owning a car and use ist as a taxi is fine with communism. Having a taxi company is not. But you can form a taxi company with others. The difference is no one has financial power over others. No one just profits because he/she is the owner. There are people in charge but they are in charge because they have the knowledge and ability not just because they own everything and can do what they want.

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 31
huge_clock 8 points 3 years ago

Listen, I’m a worker who saved money through my labour. Why should I not get to use my saved labour by deploying it into an investment?

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817 3479859, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 30
agnomeunknown 18 points 3 years ago

People accuse leftists of idealist thinking but in what fantasy world are you thinking your personal savings from selling your labor is ever going to come close to what would be considered "capital" in the sense being discussed here?

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817 3479859 3480409, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 10
willeypete23 10 points 3 years ago

Where do you think the value for your return on investment comes from? It's extracted from the labor of workers.

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817 3479859 3494109, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 4
orcrist 6 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817 3479859 3488537, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 3
redcalcium 4 points 3 years ago

Hmm, I got a feeling that there is no such thing called "investment" under communism.

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817 3479859 3486662, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
Muetzenman 1 point 3 years ago

Invest in what?

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817 3479859 3485497, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
migo -2 points 3 years ago

Why are you hoarding wealth?

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817 3479859 3487873, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 3
Snipe_AT -6 points 3 years ago

How dare you make fiscally responsible investments and expect some return in exchange for the risk you're taking on by letting others use your stuff. How. Dare. You. /s

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479817 3479859 3480353, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 3
tpyo 5 points 3 years ago

That was a really fascinating read, thanks. Checked out a few of the other links from the wiki. Do you happen to have or know where I can see interior pictures and floorplans?

I'll try looking it up myself in the meantime; I love stuff of that nature

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479942, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
huge_clock 5 points 3 years ago

You should check out "The Cold War Podcast". The housing episode is really good.

path: 0 3469969 3479122 3479942 3480236, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
deerdelighted 9 points 3 years ago

So when does a farm go from personal to private property? Is it the moment you rent it or employ other people on it?

path: 0 3469969 3471135, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 8
irmoz 7 points 3 years ago

It's an oversimplification, but.... Sort of, yeah. Property you "own" to keep from others, and make money from owning it.

path: 0 3469969 3471135 3478276, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 2
huge_clock -1 points 3 years ago

actual results may vary

path: 0 3469969 3471135 3478276 3479563, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 1
irmoz 2 points 3 years ago

Not sure what you mean

path: 0 3469969 3471135 3478276 3479563 3479861, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
HiddenLayer5 3 points 3 years ago

Rule of thumb and there are always exceptions, land that you live and work on is usually personal property, land that you own but someone else pays you for the privilege of living and working on is private property.

path: 0 3469969 3471135 3475581, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
c0mbatbag3l 1 point 3 years ago

One of the thousands of nuanced use cases that generalist communist revolutionaries haven't even thought about let alone have the skills to provide solutions for.

path: 0 3469969 3471135 3472394, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3
aport -3 points 3 years ago

They have a solution, it's labor camps or bullets to any citizen who doesn't follow orders.

path: 0 3469969 3471135 3472394 3480354, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 2
zbyte64 6 points 3 years ago

Wild how even when they were going full-on gulags , their peak imprisonment rate didn't surpass the United States. And we've got plenty of bullets for those that run or resist arrest.

path: 0 3469969 3471135 3472394 3480354 3483784, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1
davetapley 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 3469969 3471256, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Ajen -1 points 3 years ago path: 0 3469969 3475742, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 3
MisterScruffy 5 points 3 years ago

I think definition b on private covers what he was talking about

Also merriam Webster is not the end all be all of how language is used

path: 0 3469969 3475742 3477660, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 2
Ajen 1 point 3 years ago

belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest

My car "belongs to [...] an individual person", doesn't it?

path: 0 3469969 3475742 3477660 3479424, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
zbyte64 2 points 3 years ago

A car can not only belong to one person, but it can be operated by one person.

A key distinction I've heard is: whether a property has to be collectively operated or can it be individually operated?

path: 0 3469969 3475742 3477660 3479424 3483733, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Cleverdawny -2 points 3 years ago

Tell that to the kulaks

path: 0 3469969 3470991, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
jaybone 45 points 3 years ago

It’s my farm too. We all own farm. Back to work comrade.

path: 0 3452317, hotness: undefined, score: 45, children: 1
CaptKoala 11 points 3 years ago

Da

path: 0 3452317 3455077, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
HiddenLayer5 32 points 3 years ago

For those interested, Dessalines' "what would be X like under communism" is a helpful aggregated of discussions regarding this: https://dessalines.github.io/...

path: 0 3475651, hotness: undefined, score: 32, children: 33
Cleverdawny -25 points 3 years ago

Hey! Literal communist propaganda. Honestly, the better thing to do instead of this is just ask someone over 50 who lives or lived in Eastern Europe.

path: 0 3475651 3477400, hotness: undefined, score: -25, children: 32
HiddenLayer5 20 points 3 years ago

"Did people in the USSR hate their governments?" - https://dessalines.github.io/...

"Did the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries have functioning democracies?" - https://dessalines.github.io/...

It's also interesting how people who's 50, who would have been around 18 when the USSR collapsed or their country seceeded and would have spent their entire adulthood and potentially a part of their teenhood bearing the shockwaves rocking every part of their country under the newly established capitalism (their supposed liberation and salvation and who their new governments claimed would fix literally everything and make them not miserable anymore) that nearly destroyed plenty of Eastern European countries, are overwhelmingly against the USSR, but the trend goes to far more favorable of the USSR the older you get. I'm sure it's just nostalgia though, the oldest people are just behind on the times and their opinions don't count.

Edit: I fixed a miscalculation I made regarding how old people were when the USSR collapsed. My bad.

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 22
FluffyPotato 10 points 3 years ago

The USSR collapsed in 1991 so you would be 18 then if you're 50 now. It very much depends on where in the USSR you were, the countries resisting their imperialism got the worse of it. In the baltics most older folks lost family or friends to the occupation so their views on it aren't actually favourable, especially if they remember the time before occupation.

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683 3482165, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0
huge_clock 3 points 3 years ago

The economically left in Russia are also socially conservative (unlike in most western countries).

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683 3478749, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
pastermil -1 points 3 years ago

Tell that to Ukraine and Kazakstan!

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683 3492901, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
kmkz_ninja -4 points 3 years ago

Would Chinese people tell you they hate their government? Is Chinese authoritarianism a good thing just because the people within China don't complain?

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683 3478466, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 2
HiddenLayer5 12 points 3 years ago

Most don't, supported by a Harvard study of all things, not the CPC or Chinese media: https://news.harvard.edu/...

Harvard even discusses their methods of gathering honest information from locals and how they try to ensure people aren't lying because they're afraid of retribution. Surely the most famous and prestigious university in the US would have thought of that.

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683 3478466 3479106, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 1
Gerula -7 points 3 years ago

Here there is a cesspit of inexperienced communists. That means you are dreaming of something written in books or explained by other dreamers but haven't yourself experience the "superior" lifestyle of the "new man".

I haven't read all the links in detail but at least the statistics concerning my country are total bullshit. They aren't faked but the results are misrepresented in a more perverse and I dare to say "comunist way" (meaning the same practices that dominated my country and society for 45 years).

L.E.: it seems my comment hit a sensitive spot. Thank you!

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683 3485100, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 0
Cleverdawny -9 points 3 years ago

If capitalism destroyed Eastern Europe, it's news to Eastern Europe

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683 3479387, hotness: undefined, score: -9, children: 14
rjs001 -1 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477683 3479387 4013233, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 13
MisterScruffy 8 points 3 years ago path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477617, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 8
Cleverdawny -7 points 3 years ago

It's unsurprising that many Russians look back fondly to the time when they had imperial domination over more than a dozen foreign countries, looting them for resources and using them as military puppets.

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477617 3480367, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 7
MisterScruffy 11 points 3 years ago

You said:

ask someone over 50 who lives or lived in Eastern Europe.

Are you backing down on that statement now or are you saying that Russia isn't in Eastern Europe?

path: 0 3475651 3477400 3477617 3480367 3480462, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 6
scubbo 24 points 3 years ago

Arguments about the definitions of Communism or Property aside - yes, my farm. As in, the one I work on. The possessive pronoun, despite the name, sometimes connotes association rather than ownership - I do not own my school, my country, my street or (despite what Republicans might wish) my wife.

path: 0 3501895, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 0
macisr 22 points 3 years ago

It's always cartoon pfp users the most delusional.

path: 0 3448176, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 0
spacesweedkid27 13 points 3 years ago

Socialism vs communism be like

path: 0 3445439, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0
cyborganism 8 points 3 years ago

No. You'll probably be assigned a job that's required to be done for the good of society.

path: 0 3444773, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 22
PP_BOY_ 27 points 3 years ago

Reminds me of that one twitter thread "what will your job be in the commune" and everyone said the most useless shit like "I have bad anxiety and can't work but I can bake everyone cookies 😊" and the one guy who chimed in "I have a background as a Carpenter so probably just keep my construction job" got roasted for being a conservative and capitalist in the replies. I'll try to find it.

Edit: sorry for the redtit link but here's a good screencap

https://www.reddit.com/...

path: 0 3444773 3445071, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 11
SaakoPaahtaa 21 points 3 years ago

Jesus that was a tough read. Absolutely no real work going to be done in these communes lmao

path: 0 3444773 3445071 3445779, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 2
PP_BOY_ 18 points 3 years ago

"Making clothes from scraps" 💀💀 even these people know they're fucked

path: 0 3444773 3445071 3445779 3446319, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 1
Ilovethebomb 6 points 3 years ago

Oh, that's brilliant.

path: 0 3444773 3445071 3447807, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
Eheran 0 points 3 years ago

Oh my god that is pure gold. Diaper boy holy shi, brilliant.

path: 0 3444773 3445071 3464269, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

[DELETED]

zephyreks 3 points 3 years ago

The assumption here being that we live in scarcity? That worker productivity is directly tied to the amount of time worked? That people won't take difficult jobs like being a doctor without the financial incentive?

path: 0 3444773 3445071 3448665 3453471, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 4
Ullallulloo -1 points 3 years ago

All three are generally true.

path: 0 3444773 3445071 3448665 3453471 3461714, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 1
Dr_pepper_spray 3 points 3 years ago

Seeing as how in most markets you can't exactly do what you want for a living (or even close), or acquire the skills because they're behind a steep pay wall, and the only employment you can find is very limited in scope to what the community wants, what's the difference? Most jobs might as well be issued in the mail.

path: 0 3444773 3481021, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
aport -3 points 3 years ago

It blows my mind the people who think, "after the revolution I'm going to be a dog walker and bake dog treats!" When in reality they will probably die in a labor camp.

path: 0 3444773 3448628, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 8
Aria 7 points 3 years ago

Person who hasn't read a single book on communist theory explaining to the communists how they misunderstood what communism is.

path: 0 3444773 3448628 3466150, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 4
aport -3 points 3 years ago

I bet you think you'll be cross-stitching name tags for the party uniforms, right?

path: 0 3444773 3448628 3466150 3472523, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
Stuka -3 points 3 years ago

Maybe if communist theory wasn't actual fantasy more people would read it. I guess most people are more rooted in reality where communism is a shithole that doesn't work, and communists are people you have to put up with talking at you as if you cared.

path: 0 3444773 3448628 3466150 3470193, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
Zoboomafoo -4 points 3 years ago

Is that how you plan on getting people to subscribe to your ideology?

Do you think Christian missionaries go to a non- Christian areas and are like "Read the bible all the way through or don't talk to me"?

path: 0 3444773 3448628 3466150 3468952, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 1
Aria 2 points 3 years ago

People who don't know the first thing about Christianity also shouldn't be telling the Christians they've misunderstood Christianity.

path: 0 3444773 3448628 3466150 3468952 3475081, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
cyborganism 4 points 3 years ago

Maybe not die in a labor camp, but they won't be doing what they expected to do, or even wanted to do.

If they don't have any particular skill, they'll probably end up being crop pickers or some shit because we really need those.

path: 0 3444773 3448628 3453197, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2
ThePenitentOne 0 points 3 years ago

Basically very similar to capitalism, but they would probably have a better quality of life overall.

path: 0 3444773 3448628 3453197 3562895, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
cyborganism 1 point 3 years ago

Hahahahahahahaha omg... you can't be this ignorant. You're joking, right?

path: 0 3444773 3448628 3453197 3562895 3605395, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
SirStumps 6 points 3 years ago

Just as communism has been proven to fail in the past so is capitalism. It has been warped to something terrible for the common worker. I think this communism thing is just a way for people to vent their frustrations with the current system. Honestly as long as their is a corruptible person in charge no system will work as intended. And unfortunately everyone is corruptible.

path: 0 3507559, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 5
Cleverdawny 2 points 3 years ago

Idk man modern life is better than life in any past civilization

Capitalism with a social safety net may have flaws but it's better than anything else ever tries

path: 0 3507559 3507957, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4
mycorrhiza 2 points 3 years ago

Modern life in wealthy capitalist countries is subsidized by massive wealth extraction from the global south.

path: 0 3507559 3507957 3511947, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 3
Cleverdawny 1 point 3 years ago

Is that why world poverty rates are quickly declining

path: 0 3507559 3507957 3511947 3514094, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
mycorrhiza -1 points 3 years ago

that's pretty much only happening in China

path: 0 3507559 3507957 3511947 3514094 3514946, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 1
unnecessarygoat 5 points 3 years ago

am i going mad, or are the letters slightly wobbly in this screenshot?

path: 0 3445408, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 3
superduperenigma 7 points 3 years ago

It may be one of those fonts that's supposed to help with dyslexia or whatever. Because unless it's serving some functional purpose I can't imagine why you'd want your phone looking like you're halfway through your sixth drink of the night.

path: 0 3445408 3447446, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
Sotuanduso 3 points 3 years ago

How dare you curse me with this knowledge.

It's a weird font. Anything with a curved bottom dips below the level of flat bottoms.

path: 0 3445408 3447164, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
Eheran 1 point 3 years ago

They are, easily visible in the first of the 3 posts.

path: 0 3445408 3445753, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
ImplyingImplications 0 points 3 years ago

43 comments

Guys, it's a joke.

path: 0 3445874, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 5
seliaste 4 points 3 years ago

But jokes spreading misconceptions deserve to be adressed accordingly.

path: 0 3445874 3479920, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2
UrPartnerInCrime 1 point 3 years ago

I call the team I root for mine. I act as if I was a part of the team even though at best I'm in the stands. Even if I was to be forced into a mine, which yeah of course I don't want nor hope for communism to lead down that path, I bet I still would feel like a part of that mine is mine (no pun intended). The same would be said for if I worked on a farm full time.

Saying 'my farm' for the farm you work on that the people (you) own under this theoretical communism isn't wrong.

path: 0 3445874 3479920 3481381, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
seliaste 3 points 3 years ago

Indeed, that's what I am arguing for
And remember that communism is the ownership of the means of productions by the workers, so as long as you work there, it can be your farm in an owning way too

path: 0 3445874 3479920 3481381 3486810, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
sharkfucker420 2 points 3 years ago

220 comments

path: 0 3445874 3470378, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Ilovethebomb 1 point 3 years ago

No shit.

path: 0 3445874 3445959, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
madcaesar -9 points 3 years ago

Communists are like the left equivalent of libertarians? Both absolute morons.

path: 0 3479799, hotness: undefined, score: -9, children: 0
memes
memes

@lemmy.ml

login for more options
56688
14852
4822

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

go to feed...