this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
12 points (83.3% liked)

Memes

44087 readers
1474 users here now

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.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

Why is this shit always communist vs capitalist, like we've only got 2 answers avaliable. You fuckers never set foot in a communist country and worship this shit

Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens? Don't really think showing a picture of some buildings is enough to prove that they actually solved any issues. They may have solved those issues for some who were lucky enough to get an apartment, but don't be a hexbear and pretend they housed everyone.

And no, I don't want a response with a link about hurr duer capitalism bad, yeah I know, but I live in capitalism so I already know that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

It's simple... If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We're fighting culture wars so we won't fight class wars, my friend.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

... capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn't part of the culture war.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No the 1% definitely exists in communism.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

How can a stateless, classless, moneyless society have a 1%?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

...do you think Russia is still Socialist? The Russian oligarchs are Billionaire Capitalists.

The USSR collapsed in the 90s, buddy.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The 1% are the Capitalist and they are trying to defeat the Communists and surpress/continue to exploit the Prolitariat with every tool at their vast disposal. The folks in the comments defending Capitalism are all members of the Prolitariat brainwashed into thinking they are down on their luck Millionaires.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Look... It's all tribalism, in the end. We can argue semantics, but doing so it's exactly their point. It keeps us busy with pedantry, while they continue to enjoy their wealth from on high. I am not educated enough to debate the pros and cons of each group, but I am intelligent enough to smell an attempt to distract me from the point. To know there's some sleight of hand fuckery happening right in front of my face.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If you want to fight a class war, you're a communist

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It's certainly not right wing.

If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you're communist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back?

That sounds like a free market to me. When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.

When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market. The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is not "one or the another" situation, communism is the next qualitative stage in development of society. It solves the primary contradiction that we experience in capitalism, that is socialized production being privatized by individuals, aka capitalists.

You can't just declare communism by signing a document, because it is a process of development in which small quantitative changes in production (socialism) lead to a qualitative change (communism), thus to achieve the communism stage you have to achieve a certain level of development.

This is why China is considered a communist country by marxists-leninist even though qualitatively it is a capitalist country. They are actively working to develop communism, this can be clearly seen throughout their rhetoric (i.e. "The Governance of China") and their material results.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The problem with China being that it's authoritarian, not that it's capitalist or communist. There's no choice other than the Communist Party, so when the party is wildly corrupt, you have no recourse at all short of revolution. And we all know what China does to counter-revolutionaries.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And that is a problem to whom? Every single state is authoritarian, the question is whose interests are they protecting.

China is clearly a dictatorship of the proletariat and they use authority to protect the interests of the proletariat. Yes, sometimes their policy is wrong and does harm but ultimately they work to improve their policies, governing is a learning experience after all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's a problem because people don't feel like stakeholders when they don't have a say and can't participate in their system of governance. This in turn means that they aren't incentivized to willingly participate and have to be forced or indoctrinated, both of which are violations of human rights.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you think people there don't participate in elections? The party has literally 100 million members, people in China are politically involved.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

When was their last general election?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And how many parties were they allowed to make selections from? Were there any candidates that weren't pre-approved by the leading party?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

One party where a basic platform is defined and differences are expressed vibrantly on top of that is better than two parties that brand themselves as different but only offer a couple of aesthetic differences and concessions to keep people mad at the opposing party and not the underlying structure

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

...You're really saying that one party where you have no functional choice is better than a multi-party system, just because you think that Republicans and Dems are too alike, while ignoriing the plethora of other parties that not only actually exist in the US, but hold office at local and state level?

Shouldn't expect any more from a tankie though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens?

Bruh, centuries of capitalist exploitation of its citizens and treating them like a disposable commodity would like to have a word on the whole 'citizens killed by their own country' topic.

How many thousands or millions of citizens die yearly because they can't afford to live in this fucked up system?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

So whataboutism really is the only argument for communism lmao

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

"I'm presented with a single argument that refutes this claim, better setup a strawman that this is the only argument available"

Lmao, at least try to sound intelligent

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I’m still confused and alarmed that the only alternative brought up is communism, not socialism. So far as I know, the core difference is transfer of power - one is peaceful, one is violent.

So in communism, your home might be six feet underground because “It is necessary to achieve the revolution, comrade.” Absolutely zero chance of a leader that wants the best for their people, apparently.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

You’re also taking a snapshot of the most regulated industry in the US. Building high rises is illegal in huge swaths of urban areas. Before we say the free market isn’t providing an answer cab we actually try it? I’m talking removing exclusionary zoning, speeding up the permit process and reducing the power of local action committees, and reforming the broken heritage process that’s used by rich people to keep their areas from densifying.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's incorrect.

Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.

Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR's Marxism-Leninism or China's Dengism and Maoism.

Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn't change.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Which political ideology is Responsible for capitalizing random Words?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Real socialism leads to communism. I want to call what I am advocating for as cultural marxism, but unfortunately that term has antisemitic connotations, while also perfectly encapsulating the gradual shift in the publics perception of Marxist ideology I am advocating for with memes such as this. I am not advocating for a violent revolution, but I wont deny the fact that when the powers that be make a peaceful revolution impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Right. Communism vs capitalism is just more centralization. There are plenty of decentralized options to balance things as too much centralization, no matter the political system leads to corruption.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What do you figure is centralized about capitalism?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

All the increasingly large corporations that are constantly buying their competition and making it hard for anyone else to compete.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like there's a middle ground that's the best of both worlds.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Except there isn't. we tried that then the capitalists bought the weaker willed politicians and used them to undermine any regulation. Capitalism is a cancer and must be excised as such.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I don't disagree that Capitalism doesn't work in its purest form, but we've hardly had a success with communism in its purest form either.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens

Most of these articles cite the Black Book of Communism, which goes to absurd lengths to inflate the death toll of Communism, for example counting all the millions of nazi and soviet soldiers killed on the eastern front as victims of communism, counting the entire death toll of the Vietnam war, and even counting declining birth rates as deaths due to communism.

Noam Chomsky used the same methodology to argue that, according to Black Book logic, capitalism in India alone, from 1947–1979, could be blamed for more deaths than communism worldwide from 1917–1979.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Remind me, how many capitalist countries have killed millions of their own citizens?

Germany, pre-communist China, Japan, Armenia, pre-USSR Russia, Pakistan...

Edit: if apparently this isn't the point, why so passionately call out the communist killcount?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

See, this is what the fuck I'm talking about.

You're so dense. I'm not advocating or simping got capitalism here. That's what I'm trying to communicate, but you're too fucking dense to even see that when I lay it out.

Both are bad. Just because I say these turds who worship an imaginary and propagandized version of communism are dorks doesn't mean I'm arguing in favor of capitalism. For fucks sake learn to read

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

You are 100% correct in your assertion, my anti Mario sex toy friend, and I love your passion. I worry that the minute you call someone's intelligence into question, they'll take a defensive posture and stop thinking critically. Critical thinking is what we need more than anything else in this world right now. That's what's in short supply. It's why the news is constantly being flooded with new things, and why there are so few media outlets that don't have a slant. If I can get you outraged at team blue, or team red, or team US, or team THEM, your anger overrides your reason and you stop thinking about who benefits from the distraction provided by us arguing over whatever this new bullshit thing is we're arguing over. Hopefully that last statement makes sense.