See the entire conversation

my favorite trend is capitalists trying to describe socialism but just describing capitalism again “you don’t get the full value of your wages, it’s given to people who didn’t work for it” “there’s no individual choice, you’re just forced to work for a powerful elite group”
991 replies and sub-replies as of Sep 03 2019

i have no idea who @JimSterling is, but he retweeted this and i’ve simultaneously gotten a lot of clout and a LOT of dumbasses in my replies. so thank you jim!! but also...why jim? 🥺
EPIC GAMER MOMENT
Clearly I am meant to stop Twitter and start gaming now.
Aw! @JimSterling is one of my favourite video game youtubers. He’s a nice lad who says trans rights.
Not to quarrel, but he's profession is video game journalist.
...yet, he is also a YouTuber.
And podcasts, comedian etc.
...why are you quarrelling? You quite clearly said not to quarrel, but did it anyway?
Wasn't trying too, was just trying to add to the discription of who he is. I often find YouTuber vague as that can mean anything. Sorry if that seemed agressive.
(Possibly sensitive)
follow my soundcloud!! 🤪
(Possibly sensitive)
He's the Number 1 Kissboi. And also an awesome content creator on the abomination called youtube.
You should thank God for him.
I recognize him most as a reviewer for Destructoid. Wonder if he still reviews for them.
Nah, strictly independent. Doesn't want to be part of a company that can be swayed by business contacts. Some impressions but his most popular content regards game industry bullshit/harmful practices. This tweet is extremely on brand for him.
No he has been independent for some time now. He does still do some reviews, but it is more of a side thing now. He now most just does videos on the game industry itself. Here's one of his more recent videos:
The 'AAA' Industry Can't Be Trusted To Regulate Its Gambling Problem (The Jimquisition)
http://www.patreon.com/jimquisition http://www.thejimquisition.com https://www.thejimporium.com The game industry is currently making a performance of tackli...
youtube.com
No no no you dont just thank jim... you thank GOD for jim mother fucking sterling son!
The dumbass are GamerGating, redpilled, despicables. My advice is to block and move on. Thank God for Jim Sterling!
jim's show is really good
Jim Sterling is a bit of an SJW (I mean this as a compliment, some don't) who dares to say "controversial" things like saying that video games are inherently political, or that you shouldn't harass people because they're women working in video games. so dumbasses tend to hate him
He's been vaguely adjacent to people who were vaguely adjacent to GG in the past and also occupies a very typically... toxic youtube space, so his audience has some contingent of Hardcore Gamer TM stank who accidentally subscribed to him before they realized he's not one of them.
I remember him faintly back when gaming was what I mostly used YouTube for. Checked him out more after Casey and SuperBunnyHop made me aware of the push to unionize game devs and he was on board with that as well. I had no idea how left-leaning he was until then. It's refreshing.
NO you've nearly overtaken me in clout!! I can't compete with your discourse all I have is being horny for the boys AND the girls in Doctor Stone 😭😭😭
I liked the tweet when it had 9 likes lol
(Possibly sensitive)
mmmmm delicious boots 🤤
Decision of no choice.
They also think that they can convince you if they just use the word bourgeoisie
But then they use it wrong
I <3 when the Ayn Rand cultists say your first hour of work goes to the state. What they leave out is the next six hours go to your boss.
Gee, if only they compensated you for your time. Perhaps using some unit of currency...
If only that compensation weren't a tiny fraction of the actual wealth your labour produced.
Gee, I guess they shouldn't be rewarded for taking on the risk of starting a company, running it, keeping it afloat, maintaining good relations and keeping the business profitable enough to hire others
i love this logic, because none of y’all capitalists are willing to admit that these risks and businesses wouldn’t be capable without copious amounts of labor. you couldn’t run an industrial company without bodies
not to mention that this is mostly propaganda, considering a majority of bourgeois enterprises are just kept in the family or were started by people with immense wealth. but nah, let’s pretend it’s all poor entrepreneurs with success stories
I do love that you ironically used bourgeois. Should the government strip them of their wealth and redistribute it? Would a band of homeless people be morally right to rob you of all you have to spread the wealth among themselves?
So by that logic you agree with reparations for slavery and stealing native land.
Gonna have to explain that gold medal worthy leap in logic
You can't put together your scenario of a group of homeless people forcing a group to surrender property with Native Americans? You need flashcards, or…
Mmmmaybe because the reasons they're in the situation they're in differ wildly? And that forcing people to hand over wealth seems kinda fascist.
They don't differ wildly. A group takes another group's property, or in the case of slavery, their bodies themselves.
And you believe that might makes right? Can I now enslave some homeless and make my human chariot a reality at last?
So, since you don't think might makes right, you agree that there was an ethical wrong in taking native land?
For the most part, yes. Especially what came after. But they don't suddenly get money for being related to those that suffered because no-one living participated in it
So the land morally belongs to the descendants of those that stole it?
Given that they've lived there for centuries and its probably traded hands countless times. We originated in Central Africa. Getting somewhere first is hardly much of a claim
You still haven't given any case to anyone having property rights, just kind of a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You have yet to provide a reason not to have it. People tend to respect their own things better than others
Why on earth would I provide a reason against property rights?
This entire thread consists of my slowly explaining property rights to you.
The entire capitalist system is based on the ideology that "might makes right". Look up the concept of "acquisition of property through conquest" in any 1L real property textbook. The capitalist don't even try to hide that that is the basis of their system and their power.
I dunno, I don't mind that some of my wages is taken to pay for the disabled, the ill or to keep a roof over some people's heads while they look for a job of their own. I might need those facilities myself one day.
Not against some social safety nets. Problem is the government taking everything and deciding what to do with all your wages. Cause governments are always so reliable and frugal
Oh indeed. Full bore state ownership is a mess too. You kind of need to have them similarly powerful so that they need and regulate each other. Else one gets too powerful and basically owns the other.
it is not immoral to steal bread on pain of starvation. bonus points if you steal from bourgeoisie wage thieves.
"Necessity" is generally a valid defense in both civil and criminal actions in most jurisdictions.
why would i not use bourgeois when it literally refers to an actual social class lmao? sorry that i use language related to the topic and ideology? and nah, i just don’t think people should be allowed to get that wealthy, ever. and under a socialist system they wouldn’t
Because everyone would be left eating their pets and fleeing en masse to capitalist countries
i should have a capitalist bingo, where i check off everytime someone says some stupid, uneducated thing about socialism like “buT veNeZueLA” or “yoU’Ll sTarVe” instead of actually arguing against the ideology or system at all
You may have frightened the Ayn Rand cultist by using vocabulary they are unfamiliar with.
If I had mercilessly exploited that "band of homeless people['s]" labor and kept the profits to myself, then yes, they (i.e. the laborers) should be able to "strip… wealth and redistribute it". In every other respect, your analogy falls flat. Maybe you should stop 👢👅?
The only risk they face is having to get a real job like the all people they hired
Their greatest fear is that would have to actually work like we do.
In a just society those mercilessly exploiting others for profit would face the "risk" of the guillotine.
Compensated for your time. A myriad of companies, from oil to fast food, subcontract or give part-time jobs so that they don't have to give you ANY sort of extra benefits beyond your wage, which is smaller than the usual. They use loopholes to exploit people and reduce costs.
And its often pretty shitty of them to do. Problem being simple supply and demand. Its pretty goddamn easy to replace a minimum wage worker
It really is. Weird how people will accept immoral treatment to obtain the ability to EAT. It's almost as if the companies knew that no one can do anything to them if they're immoral as long as they're big enough. This is a fundamental problem of capitalism. CEOs are psychopaths.
Let's say you have this sustainable system for a century. Wouldn't it just take one asshole to then misuse that power and destroy everything? Like every dictator ever?
Then we both agree that neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism are useful. That we need an in-between. Welcome to Social Democracy.
Depends on how far you lean to either direction. I fear the dangers of a nanny state
You have a hostage state right now. The US literally couldn't punish Wall Street in 2008 because they're too big. It would've destroyed the economy even more. Your government needs to hold their ground in front of CEOs. It's not policing, it's being free.
That sounds like an argument for a system that punished people for being sociopaths, rather than rewarding them.
No wage worker is fully compensated for their time. The difference between their production and what they're paid is profit. The degree to which that differential exists is called the rate of exploitation, or, to use the bourgeois economist jargon, the rate of profit.
All right wing critiques are projection etc
Republican presidential candidates: we should just stop having federal student loans for majors we don't need. Only support STEM majors. Me: so have the state decide what jobs people have? Republicans: yeah. Me: so communism? Republicans:... no, I'd never support communism..
*whispers* The state telling you what do isn't what most communists think communism should be
(shh, just enjoy the joke)
But first - you forfeit full value of goods you produce at application to the person, who takes risks and owns means of:-production; -distribution; -marketing; -transportation; -storage etc. Don't like it - make your own products and sell them. You can. Capitalism! 1/2
If you don't like your job - you can leave. No one will shoot you or beat you or take your belongings from you upon leaving. Gulags do not offer the same courtesy. Alsh, the most recent case of socialism is North Korea. Would you like THAT to be the case in US too? 2/2
nice own! very ideologically sound! are we gonna talk about venezuela next?
If you want to, I was there - very poor country. My coworkers were there - ended up robbed, beaten half-dead for an IPhone and groceries. Because IPhone is worth its weight in gold there. Should that be the case for VERY oil-rich country?
And Soviet Russia had free healthcare, education, mostly free electricity and such. It also had deficits, under-the-counter selling, massive connection-based society and really - everyone were quite happy.
oh okay, i’ll just go get some of those means of production that have already been centralized by the bourgeois, who do everything to keep power/private property in their hands. if you don’t want to read marx, maybe read some adam smith? ;)
You can take risks and win big under capitalism. You can have an everyday job and do fine, too. Yes, bourgeois exist, because they won big time, got a lot of money and invested it well, and richer get richer. ...there are also failing, bankrupt companies, you wont see them.
cool, i love that you really countered what i said with some concrete argument and theory rather than just spouting some more idealist capitalist talking points and propaganda.
Don't get me wrong, in heavily monopolized cases capitalism is slavery in disguise - like in big gaming companies, where employees are sucked dry and thrown out with hellish work hours. That IS evil, fucked up and should be eradicated. Still, capitalism provides a choice. 1/2
Government should regulate those relations, like a judge. ...when it starts to tell you, what to do - that is socialism and things are fucked. Soviet Union did a lot of cool things! Space launches, animals, men, women in space, GIANT progress was created by -yes. - socialism!
can you give me a definition of socialism?
Dictionary definition matters not - i'll say, how I see socialism. To me, socialism is "people live for the sake of state. " Democracy is inverse - "state exists for the sake of people. "
ah, so how you, and ONLY you, see socialism is how it is. that’s cool, who knew you were so powerful. so you don’t actually know what socialism is at all, because you haven’t bothered to read any marx or socialist theory. i can tell you haven’t read any capitalist theory either.
I'll say right away - I am interested in this conversation. Tell you my point of view and hear yours. Happens too little, sadly. Thanks, venus.
Socialism: People's rights are the most important thing for society at large to ensure. Capitalism: Corporations' rights are the most important thing for society at large to ensure. Socialism is all about democracy, but democracy where money isn't greater than/equal to votes.
If you mean "corporation" as "means of production owned by individuals" - pretty much so.
corporation os means of production owned by CEOs you’re thinking of CO-OP which is a business is owned by its workers
right now the US practices corporate socialism which is when big businesses fail, they get money from the government (2008 stimulus packages) lots of people would like to switch to democratic socialism, which is where we vote on things AND have great social welfare programs
(the DSA website can tell you more, it is 5am here and i just woke up)
DSA site? Give me a link, i'm interested.
it’s... use google, buddy. “democratic socialism of america”
Oh, thanks. That is an answer, too.
...where does job market comes from? Small businesses aren't bailed out too? Also, big corporations are not a bunch of rich people. There are also thousands upon thousands of people working there, too. Should they be jobless, too? Socialism should help them, right?
no job market, everyone gets paid the same, then CEOs can realize how shitty it is to try and live on $15/hour
...and no one will want to be a CEO, which is a high-paid job, but also high in responsibility. You need a person, who will make decisions, and be responsible for mistakes. Every single mistake. Also, CEO is a hired worker, too. Can be fired and replaced, like a janitor.
excellent. we’ll raise the wages for everyone. CEO is also eliminated because now the company is controlled by the workers of the company, so the responsibility is shared among more people.
And decision-making, too. And suddenly workers also need to make decisions about marketing, sales, raw material purchase, taxes... I won't say, that there are no flaws in capitalism. But it works in most countries around the globe. Socialism works a bit in Sweden, Germany... and?
Also, everyone gets paid the same, no matter the level of work input and responsibility, and their work impact? That is best described, as: "Sounds good. Doesn't work."
No, I am more concerned about "equal pay" thing. So one pay for everyone, no matter the contribution? That depends on people either doing minimal work, or people giving their best for the sake of company's success. With no incentive to do so.
Nope. Certainly not so. In different fields - work of a plumber isn't equal to the work of a farmer, which isn't equal to the work of a teacher. Different skills, different education. In the same field? Accountant on a factory is not the same as a machine operator.
Well, no. Whole thing of socialism - workers own the production, they get wealthy through their part in ownership. Capitalism puts it into the hand of individual/s. They can pay people to do work, while they make decisions.
where are all the banks and financial institutions that failed during the crash of 2009? Oh yeah the hardworking tax payer bailed them out and they gave executives huge bonuses under true capitalism those businesses would’ve died forever. Live by free market die by free market
That is right, no bailouts should be possible. Although, those are "safety nets" that a lot of people want for individuals, but not for ones, that created a company, created job opportunities and are trying to keep an economy going.
Also, sorry, I did not study theories extensively. But I do live on former USSR territory, and have some experience with socialism myself and plenty - from my family, who experienced socialism throughout. I have slightly more practical knowledge. Also, I studied Marx a bit.
And let me explain - on practice, how you define "public" in "public ownership"? Family? Village? City? County? On practice, it will mean whole country. Who rules it? Elected officials. Government. Regime in North Korea, Bolsheviks in USSR - THEY owned all. You would use it.
uhhhh no it’s just ownership of the means of production by the workers.
Then questions: can workers sell it? Will they be held responsible for damage of their machinery? If yes - by whom? Can they choose where to sell their goods? Where do the payroll comes from?
Hello? Please, don't abandon such an interesting conversation :c
Your own imaginary definitions don't matter, Anton
Does it? I never said, that it is what socialism is, but what I see in socialism. Wish to dispute it - I'll gladly listen.
"How you see socialism" doesn't matter. You're making up imaginary definitions.
Um, if you have problems with specific points - lets discuss them. But calling it all wrong doesn't go anywhere. Perhaps, you could tell me more - and I might tell more from my own experiences, as my culture is still rife with influence of communism and socialism.
You were asked to define socialism and refused. There is no community under the influence of communism, since there hasn't ever been a communist nation
...not even USSR? Well, word "communism" here was thrown around quite a bit. And I defined, how I see socialism, what I believe it is. Or should I copy-paste a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, that I don't believe in?
Nope. Just because you throw the word around doesn't mean you're accurately describing society. Just like how the right like to call everything they hate, "socialism." How you see something doesn't matter.
Why won't you give me an definition? Also, read more of the tweets. There were some points for and against socialism. Also, a question - where socialism worked well?
Sure! Socialism is worker owned means of production. Communism is a moneyless, propertyless, classless, society based on socialism.
Now for questions unanswered. Since it was worker-owned, can workers sell those means? Will they be held responsible for damage of their machinery? If yes - by whom? Can they choose where to sell their goods? Where do the payroll comes from?
Are you talking about socialism or communism? In socialism, yes they collectively can sell. Why would they damage machines? The payroll comes from money earned by the worker owned co-op.
About socialism.
Then I answered all your questions, as worker co-ops have for centuries.
They do work, by choice. But when forced - sometimes aggressively. - they work not to the benefit of workers.
Yep, that's why capitalism doesn't work.
Well, it works - if flawed heavily, in some countries. - almost everywhere. Whole world works under capitalism, actually. Because employers can fuck you over doesn't mean that you cannot find another place for work, with better negotiated wages and conditions.
Not at all. It's not working in the slightest. "Better" is just asking for a nicer slave master
Nicer slave master, that is bound by laws and regulations and monitored by state? Or wish for good government, which, if corrupt, will fuck you over without any way to defend yourself. That's like comparing slave masters to god, which is one and cares little about individual.
The state is a slave master too. Not God. You don't understand socialism clearly
Oh, they pretty much are. They can and will enforce their laws by force, if necessary and needed. They can commit lesser evil for greater good - well being of the state. If that isn't a physical god - what is?
Again youre not talking about socialism
Well, socialism cannot be established without government approval. I am talking about that. And if they do - God help if it relies on state.
Nope, it doesn't need government approval.
Socialism. Doesn't. Mean. Big. Government. Get that through your head.
Well, if workers want their union and government doesn't allow it - good luck, then.
Again, not socialism
Capitalism doesn't work and never has worked
Horrible numbers, yes. Where are those casualties come from, though? Is it in US? Capitalist country, is there malaria epidemic? If it is from Ethiopia - Ethiopia is it's own country, with government, economy and issues. That is disingenuous to consider it a capitalism problem.
Worldwide. Its not disingenuous at all. What happens in one nation is the fault of everyone in the world.
Well, any country benefits from its own land, people, economy. But it is also must take care for itself. If it cannot - then it must come with agreement with stronger country. Like Japan's need for the US Army, in need of military support. We must help each other, yes.
Well, if a country cannot deal with it's own issues - it is a problem of the country, not everyone. People elect officials, they represent them and use resources to keep it running. Yes, we should help, if we can. No, we are not responsible for their misfortune.
Nope, its the problem of the world. Yes everyone is responsible
Capitalism always forces people to work, usually aggressively, and never to the benefit of workers.
...no, it doesn't. It REQUIRES consent from both parties. But you must negotiate to the highest point - if you don't like conditions, you should find other place and leave. No one can force you to work for them. I do not say, that life cannot be hard and you are forced to work.
Nope it doesn't. "A different place" means you're still in a capitalist economy. The slave master just changes. Yes everyone is forced to work in Capitalism
So, there are no good jobs, no good conditions, no good places? Huge claim, and requires substantial evidence. You can get good job, great one, even! But you must bring something to the table to get it. Merit brings you advantages under capitalism.
Yep. Currently under capitalism there are none unless you're stealing from others to make it happen. No you really can't, no matter what. Merit is meaningless in capitalism
Well, if you get a position of CEO of the company, due to your 20+ years of experience, entrepreneurial qualities, personality and expertise - that is an example of meritocracy.
No it's not. It's an example of aristocracy, because if they made it that far, they shouldn't be CEO. Entrepreneurship is not a good quality. If the lowest minimum wage person was CEO, that would be meritocracy.
Oops, sent too soon. Workers are still governed by the state, its laws and regulations. And since that was an answer - what hinders you from buying building, machinery, materials, produce and sell goods under capitalism?
Everything does. You need to be advantaged in the system to advance in capitalism. The rich determine what I can buy and produce. You have to be rich in order to do it.
But there is no rule that "only rich" can do that. You can find a sponsor, take a loan with bail. There are possibilities. But if the state gives you means of production - I doubt, that it is full ownership. More of a "right to use. " 1/2
2/2 If you can convince an investor - that is an advantage already. But in capitalism you can get those possibilities, although not for nothing. How can you get your own production facility under socialism?
That means you need the rich. Those possibilities are only possible if you're rich or know the rich. They command you and own you. How? Easy. Just cut out the owner.
Well, if you substitute rich man with the government - what really changes in that transaction? It makes it worse. Rich man might go to court to get money out of you, you might defend yourself. Try to do that to GOVERNMENT, which owns judicial system. In some cases, Gulag.
Don't replace them with the government. Replace them with nothing. Youre arguing between state Capitalism and private Capitalism.
Then why would a government allow free workers in the country? Your propositions sound more like "create our own state". Which is hard. Would you pay taxes? Comply to regulations of the country? To their laws? To their trade regulations?
What government. You keep being such a statist. Nope, no state at all.
You must establish your business somewhere. And, since pretty much all land is owned by countries, and open oceans are heavily regulated - chances are that you are in a country. With laws. Policies. Regulations. What about them?
Land belongs to nobody, abolish borders and abolish nations.
"A sponsor" aka the rich. A loan, which is only available if the rich decide to give it to you. Not the state. The workers.
Well, it will create new opportunities, new job opportunities, and give a rich man some revenue in process. I don't say that they would do it from the kindness of their heart. But that is how you enlarge your wealth. Sitting on money just makes you poorer, from inflation.
Which just proves my point. The rich get rich because they steal from others.
No, they lend you their money, get it back with interest. After that, actually, what impact do they have? If you get going and pay all your debts - the money is your own, and rich evil man won't steal it. He also risks those money, because you can fail and go bankrupt.
It's not their money. And not its not your money if you have employees. Again, it's not his money
Well, they earned it with the company, that they founded, for example. Also, if I own a company, take all the risks, build it up - that IS my money, even if I am hired people to do certain tasks. If they don't like it - they may leave. What risk do employee take on?
No they didn't. Founding means you should be at the bottom. You took bo risks, didn't build it up, and it isn't your money. Your employees risk death
I have read the tweets. Socialism has worked well in many workplaces, communes, organizations, and cities across the globe. Black Panthers were successful socialists, so are the Rojava, worker co-ops, and many active activist organizations.
On small-scale - sure, workers and communities should have such choice and it should work, especially worker unions, but on country-scale it tends to struggle quite severely.
Then where it worked well, on that large scale?
It's never been allowed to get large scale
They want nation-state scale, which have always been invaded or crushed by capitalists, usually Americans.
that's not viable in a capitalist economy, same way a feudal state wouldn't persist.
It offers more choice, and that is always valued. But in positive example, finding job in USSR was very easy, and many necessities were provided by state, although you might need to work almost half a globe away. That was a huge plus and was contributed to the socialism.
No it doesn't. Socialism always offers more choice. The USSR wasn't socialist, but state capitalist.
Wouldn't call it that, though, due to heavy state-owning of industries. Although it did wonders for growth, it wasn't a viable long-term strategy, as history shown. Also, what choice does socialism offer, that capitalism doesn't?
The state owning industry is not socialism. Socialism means you can do anything you want to do.
Please, define "anything." There should be limits. And still - why not do that under capitalism?
No there shouldn't be limits on what job you have. It's impossible under capitalism
The question arises: "Why?" In small-scale cases might not arise problems, that you can find on larger scale. Socialism can work, in SOME cases. I would say, that capitalism works better, though.
Like what problems? The rich don't want socialism to work because that means they lose power and all their money. Capitalism has never worked
No one want to work under socialism, because you cannot become successful. Can I say "everyone should be paid equally to their abilities" as socialistic idea?
Define success. If success means being Jeff Bezos, then that's not a good definition of success. I'd rather die than be rich. Success is not measured in dollars earned or power gained. Nope. That's not socialist.
If hard work isn't rewarded and doesn't put you forward of everybody else - what is the point of hard work? And you could help people, if you become rich. Monetary gain isn't all - but it can help greatly with things.
Nope again you keep failing so hard
Can you explain, where I failed?
Every time you reply to keep lying, misrepresenting, or advocating for evil things
Also I define success as "being above competitors in some field."
Thats not success. Youre a slaver.
Do you believe in equal outcome?
Especially when it comes to basic human rights
Financial wealth is a terrible motivator, and thats backed up by science.
Money is a mean to an end. If you wish ONLY for money - well, your life sucks. Money should be wished for something.
It certainly should be. If you wish for money, to buy a house - well, earn it and do it! If you wish to fill up your pillow with money...why? Filling is cheaper.
Not how it works, again.
Definitions matter
the USSR was never a communist nation, it was just run by the communist party. it's debatable as to whether or not it was even a socialist nation (which is the lower stages of communism) or if it was just something with socialist characteristics on the way to being socialist.
Well, would you argue, that communist party tried and failed to implement communism? It was certainly a socialist union of 15 countries with parliament republic form of government, for the later period.
I would say they couldn't even implement socialism because they were still stuck on state controlled capitalism when Lenin let the power get to his head and Stalin torpedoed them into a red-brown alliance. It wasn't a socialist union either.
Well, yes. Trying to implement such a thing quickly and forcefully was a disaster. You are talking about 20x-30x years?
Not at all. It wasn't a disaster unless you were a Tsarist
I would argue, that it was disaster all-around. Weren't there quite some shooting executions later?
So? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Nope, just saying that Tzarist benefitted for little time.
Hahahaha, yo 😂
As I repeat - everyone can get a dictionary definition and copy it here, without believing into it. Also, socialist fella blocked me? :C It is a "win", but there is no happiness. I wanted to discuss more...
Socialism does not instantly mean authoritarianism. All the socialists I know are of the democratic sort. Most socialists aren't tankies that want the return of Stalin.
...it also left millions of dead people in Ukraine, Russia, Middle East. From hunger. Because grain export was essential for getting loans. Millions died in gulags for not so mainstream views. Toe the line - or lose your toes. That was also a socialism.
Out of curiosity. Sorry to butt in here. Do you play the lottery? Because you probably shouldn't be making arguments for capitalism that sound like someone trying to win the lottery.
I won't say, that it is a lottery - but a risk is everpresent in capitalism. You can make a pizzeria, or a haircut saloon, and with some skill in economics and marketing do well. BUT to win big you must find and establish something new. Facebook was such a thing, Google too.
Also, butt in as much as you like - freedom of speech still present, as this "open platform" side of Twitter. New perspectives are always welcomed.
Yeah it's just. I dunno I'm more a fan of government takes care of needs, capitalism takes care of wants. That way you can play with capitalism Adam Smith style and not be paycheck to paycheck one accident away from homelessness
That would be quite nice. Although free healthcare is hell - at least in my country you still have to pay for supplies, medicine and in pockets of poor, underpaid doctors. And queues are hellish. ...and quality is worse, commercial ones are better.
Basically, big case of "Sounds good, doesn't work. " At least, as intended.
I'm pretty sure it works better than $10,000 of debt and possibly losing your job if you end up with a traumatic brain injury.
As I said earlier - heavily monopolized industries suuuuuuck. Also, insurance sustains needed medical facilities, because too expensive. Hospitals sustain expensive and mandatory insurance companies, because healthcare is too expensive. More free market would help, a bit.
But free market without safety nets leads to monopolies. You can't choose the best insurance or best job if you're struggling to live.
Government must regulate it, and free market provides more choice - and more competition. And competition is always if customer's favor. Also, what kind of safety nets do you mean?
Also, YOU pay for extensive welfare programs and government financing current healthcare. By taxes. No wonder Bernie is popular - you either renovate old house bit by bit or burn it to the ground and build a new one. Sandres is not the first type.
I pay no taxes outside of certain purchases. I'm too poor. I have and will need to continue struggling to survive. I'd rather see a problem fixed than wishful thinking. And if too many people get fucked by the system at hand we've got bigger issues than a presidential candidate.
That's true. But electing president with views, favourable to you, helps in the long run. As well as other elected officials - they are in charge of things around here, after all.
Yeah but minimum wage was created to stop a revolution in the 30s. Since then the market has become more and more free. When people get desperate enough they tend do get fascists like Trump in power or revolt. We are headed back downwards and Bernie might stop that.
Might, yes. Although, like socialism, some ideas are good, yet hard to implement. California implemented 15d/h min wage not too long ago, right? And it failed, because they forgot to double the amount of employee budget of businesses. Sad affair...
No I mean the idea of minimum wage during the great depression stopped people from getting as fucked over 'cause they were getting ready to revolt. It's a bandaid fix. Making sure people can live should be a number 1 priority. Having fun with wealth should be number 2.
Kind of the same deal right now, with flooded low-wage market, education cost-inefficient for high-wage market, and technical jobs? What's that?
Trickle down economics has been the policy of so many politicians and it doesn't work. The government doesn't have fuck all money if the rich keep paying less. What would fix that. Higher taxes for the rich and better safety nets so people can more easily make decent choices.
Well, taxes ARE fucked, because US tax law is a giant 4-dimensional labyrinth on fire, that you traverse blindfolded. ...unless you spend money on lawyers and accountants, then you have a huge beacon in front. That is sad, not gonna lie.
Thus changes need to be made. Trump is going to move shit to a greater nightmare. Biden and Harris are going to do the same policy that's been failing us for generations. So I prefer the options that aren't dumpster fires and less likely to get me killed.
I wouldn't say, that Trump will make things worse. In some cases, he raised an income of low-wage workers and is trying to pick up the economy. But there is such a pushback against everything he does, that the whole thing moves backward, in some places. Like California.
I have a problem with him making migrant detention centers hold people indefinitely. I have a problem with him making citizenship more difficult. I have a problem with him doing nothing as I.C.E. arrested 5,000+ American Hispanic US citizens.
If they are in the country illegally - they should not be there. And I might say - citizenship is more difficult, because country is FLOODED with illegal immigrants. It is sad, that they have a bad deal - but since when US should take care for everyone?
Legally U.S. born citizens were arrested. This isn't a joke. And legally being able to keep people indefinitely in camps where they don't have proper supplies is a major fucking problem. If the I.C.E. is willing to "accidentally" arrest legal citizens and put them into a camp. 😟
What do you mean by "legal"? If their kids are born on the US soil - they get citizenship, yes. But do their parents get the same? If citizens are locked there - that is fishy. They should be able to check their status in minutes.
Holy shit, that is sad. When you are in line for years, just to show them citizenship certificate and get out 10 minutes later...
That is harder, yes. Under other crime offenses... Wait, if I am arrested, where are my kids put, if I am an US citizen?
You know I don't know. And these children don't know where their parents are often times. What crime is worth torturing innocent children?
I would argue, that parents are to blame, for making a choice for immigrating illegally, I would argue about limited US budget and huge expenses. But YES, illegal immigrants should be treated HUMANELY, while they are on the US soil - like any other foreign citizen.
That. Is. Fucked. I would not say, that it is a product of human malice. More like "we don't know, how to interpret our own laws and what to do with them" and it should be figured out faster. Child prisons is a messed up thing.
Everything can be interpreted as not a product of malice. The problem is this is an abhorrence. We should not be committing these atrocities. I can't support a president who is making laws to remove 'undesirables'. Make laws which further punish existing. I can't do it.
He enforces a law. US should not absolve one crime, and prosecute others. Illegal immigration, no matter the reason, is illegal. In other countries, too. When did he call them "undesirables"? Show a clip, if you can, please.
Making new laws to further ruin people's lives is not enforcement it's creation. When someone creates laws to make it easier and easier to get certain people out of the country that's what it's doing.
Opinion | Trump's family separation policy never really ended. This is why.
At least 700 more families have been separated since the administration said it was ending its inhumane policy.
nbcnews.com
Right now it is socially acceptable to take in EVERYONE, which is not a healthy position.
You know what's less healthy an organization who detains first and asks questions later and camps to hold people our government doesn't want in the country. 'Cause that sounds a fuckload like 1935 Nazi Germany and I want to move away from that not towards it.
I love when people argue that capitalism is all about "hard work" being all anyone needs to succeed and become rich, But then mention as an after-thought that the richest ppl are at that level because of dumb luck and inherited wealth.
No one would argue, that added starting capital doesn't help. It certainly does. But do you believe, that there are no way for you to get into upper-medium class? It is possible with smart choices. Top 10 percent - top 1 percent takes a lot of risks, dedication and time.
If only hard work were what it took many artists, who work incredibly hard, would not be struggling. Even those with patreon's and who create products for sale out of their work are not likely to be in the 10% This is because their hard work is undervalued in a capitalist society
I disagree. Widespread sale and distribution is a VERY hard thing, for everyone. And yes, for artists it is harder, since it is hard to sell art. Not impossible, thought. New groups are created, new galleries opened. Don't be pessimistic - it is still possible.
Less and less so and most of the money for "luxuries" becomes concentrated into fewer and few sets of hands. There are less and less contemporary rags to riches stories and those are mainly due to social media exposure or meeting the right person to advocate for you.
And aside from that I don't want to remain optimistic about lucking out or having my hard work Finally pay off so that I can be better off than 90% of the other humans on this planet. I want everyone to be able to have the clarity that financial stability brings. EVERYONE.
You don't "win" by magic--you "win" by convincing other rich people to invest in your company. The upper class is gatekept by the rest of the upper class
Smart choices can and will create more money. Not just living according to your budget - by investing, buying stocks, investing into long-term goals and properties (good education, real estate etc). You can't create a company without money, sadly. Can you under socialism?
One told me that Leninism leads to people struggling for food and sleeping on concrete floors and i wss genuinely wondering how they didn't see the irony in that statement
but of course hunger and homelessness aren’t the fault of capitalism at all, just the fault of lazy people.
The worst take I've ever heard from a capitalist is "if you're born into poverty, you can just lift yourself out of it"
Oh I see you're poor. Why don't you just become rich? Right Wing Proverb
andrew carnegie brutally exploited the working class in the name of capitalist progress, all while destroying competition that capitalists supposedly adore and rave about and developing monopolies that did nothing but hurt consumers. so i don't know what point you're making lol
I genuinely thought the reply was ironic oh god
i did too until they started liking all the pro capitalism replies lmao
Capitalists will use literally the worst people to try justify their ideology but then try paint all communist leaders as terrible people lol
Say what you will about Carnegie, the man was incredibly charitable.
And so was Joseph Stalin mate
Not my point, it was a basic example of a poor man becoming rich by invigorating an industry. As for exploiting his workers, it was either work in a factory with a guaranteed pay or work on a farm.
"ummmm my system is actually superior because of a token example of a poor person getting rich, all while keeping hundreds of thousands of other workers really poor, exploiting them, and preventing them from ever coming close to reaching the same level of wealth he did"
So what's your solution to helping the poor? Since you know, employment doesn't likely seem to be your answer.
why would employment not be my answer when socialism is literally the idea of organizing society around democratically owned means or production. oh wait, i'm sure you just think socialism means welfare and free shit.
So basically you want everything to be regulated by a central power, likely the government?
no, i literally just said democratically owned means of production. or do you not know even the basic terms of socialist ideology?
I want you to elaborate on what you mean by democratically owned means of production. I'm not as familiar to Socialism as I am Marxism which is the belief in abolishing class system.
if you knew anything about marxism you'd be able to define a democratically owned means of production.
Alright, disregard my question. I guess to put it in Layman's terms, you're talking about the workers owning the means of production?
Ever hear of worker cooperatives?
I don't think he actually started poor
Widespread food and housing insecurity in the US only exist because the GOP is Marxist russians, if we elected the Democrats we'd bring about fully automated luxury communism tommorow Sarcasm
Dang wtf i love Bernie now /s
Except you have the freedom to work for your full worth if you negotiate for it. Except you do have the choice to work for who you want. Socialism negotiates for you, even if it’s not to your advantage. Socialism differs in that it actually forces you to work for the elite.
can you give me a definition of socialism?
A government that decides what to do with everybody’s fruits of productivity. One that uses many government programs beyond the means of economic public good. Please, knit pick my definition.
there’s no knitpicking to be done, that’s just not the definition of socialism. socialism entails worker owned means of production, meaning the workers democratically decide what to do with the fruits of their labor. there aren’t government programs, it’s mutual aid.
😂 what happens when you don’t pay taxes in a socialist country? Doesn’t seem so voluntary to me.
i'd rather pay taxes to pay for schools, hospitals, roads, benefits, and other useful things than pay rent or excess labour value to buy some rich parasite a fourth yacht.
You’re hilarious.
If democracy validates all legislation, nobody in the US should complain about their system because it was decided with a vote.
that’s literally not the same as democratically owned means of production, but go off
But we don't have a democracy, we have a Republic with strong oligarchic influence on all elections, policies, and so on at every level. Govt policies match the top 1%'s wishes 90% of the time, and the bottom 99%'s wishes 10% of the time. Democracy has never existed in America.
*Kropotkin intensifies*
Thats centralism, not socialism. We dont neer to knit pick your definition because its fully wrong.
No employer would accept a contract where a worker gets paid 100% of the surplus value they generate, so, no, it is literally impossible to negotiate to work for your full worth.
exactly lmao employers need to make a profit, that’s an inherent part of capitalism for workers to never receive the full amount that their labor produces. these guys are so funny
Is there something wrong with that?
you literally started your comment with “you can just negotiate for your full worth!” which is a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. which means this conversation is pointless, you don’t understand capitalism, much less socialism.
You hyperbolized my meaning of full worth. This conversation is absolutely worthless if you’re arguing with a straw man instead of me. I wouldn’t doubt every debate you have ends in your dismissal based on a point of view that’s only in your imagination.
How is "100% of surplus value generated" in any way a hyperbolic version of "full worth?"
Why the hell would an employer do that? That would defeat the purpose of having a business at all?
Correct, which is why it's literally impossible to negotiate for a wage that reflects your "full worth."
Profit it literally wage theft
😂😂😂😂😂 you can only pay people if you profit idiot
Think about what a company has to pay in expenses. What expense can a company limit while to making a product or providing a service?
Whatever they damn well please, if they cut costs too low there are consequences.
You really aren't getting the point. The only expense they can cut is WAGES. Look up what is meant by wage theft
What happens when you cut wages below people’s worth? You lose productive labor.
Really because 75% of working people in America already are ONE MISSED PAYCHECK FROM HOMELESSNESS. Wages have GONE DOWN vs inflation since 1980.
And a slow computer used to cost $2,000. Your point?
Yet productivity has never been higher in American history.
It shows in our wealth, rich and poor. A “living wage” here is being able to comfortably rent a 2 bedroom residence independently. Anything below is “poverty” Our lowest 1% aren’t starving to death. They are living better than the bottom 50+% of any actual socialist country.
The only expense? Is marketing not a lucrative expense?
How would any businesses grow, or exist at all if there was no return investment or capital to expand?
Nobody works for their full worth under capitalism, and there are no fair negotiations. Nobody can work for whoever they want under capitalism. Socialism doesn't force anything on workers There are no elite under socialism, and capitalism makes you work for the elite
Work isn't really voluntary in capitalism, that's the thing- you either work or you starve. You are always pitted against people who have massive advantages because they're guaranteed large private property holdings as that's the only thing sacrosanct in capitalist society.
Some other good ones are: "Only the people on top have the freedom to travel abroad." "The military executes people who they percieve as a threat." ""When their economies collapse, the poor are left to starve so that the higher ups are saved."
I feel like posts like these can only be interpreted by people with anime/furry avatars lmao...
sorry i’m cute and you’re not 😘
> hides behind anime avatar nah fam, nah...
I like that people still think that "hurr anime avatur" is a clever, biting critique and gives them some sort of imaginary highground. In reality it just broadcasts their own lack of anything to contribute.
Nah fam, you have an unhealthy interest that normal people don't posses....
You liked and retweeted your own lameass Kmart bargain-bin comeback. I think that says a lot more than anyone's avatar ever could.
Yeah it means you got rekt son.
Come on, bruh, that's the cheapest troll in history. You can do better than that.
I hate that it's been flooding my notifications.
Delete your Twitter after some objective self reflection.
I actually look like my avi, and I know exactly what @socialistegirl means. (If you care about reality at all.)
100% chance you lack the same social skills tho.
Are you seriously suggesting that only the people on top have the freedom to travel abroad right now? Anyone with a good job can do that.
Looks like you answered yourself
It’s not only the people on top lmao
You have been given all the tools and access to the knowledge to understand the flaw of your logic. All that's left is wish you good luck.
The curse of the USSR conflating state capitalism with communism, and America accepting their framing to gain a political advantage themselves.
Criticize capitalism without piling on actually existing socialism challenge
The marxist theory of value is wrong, we know it 100 years ago
the theory of labor value came from adam smith, a capitalist, but okay i guess
I agree, they were wrong
How much cost a Da vinci picture compared to a private jet ?
you literally have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re comparing those things.
The answer is that the value of the stuffs is subjective, it doesnt depend of the hours of labor con it (socialist must be studying economy)
an original painting isn't the type of object considered under LTOV. marx considers industrial commodities and how their value is determined under capitalism. therefore, there's no social production of them, so they don't really fit. price doesn't inherently equal value either.
Ok it doesnt matter i change the painting by a classic car vs a modern like a chevy (read marginal utility theory) and by the way i aint a neoliberal im keynesian
Lmao, never heard of use value vs exchange value?
My favorite from recent memory is "Socialism doesn't consider mathematics or human nature. It is PARASITIC, it requires a profitable, capitalistic core to SUCK on."
Calling socialism parasitic. Well, who also did that in the past? Hitler, nah Always good semantics at these "arguments"
Dear god, the irony. And also the edge did goddamn Ayn Rand write that one?
Christian Ayn Rand
You could have just said that you have no fucking clue what socialism means.
Socialism has horrible hospitals because nobody wants to work for free. We don't want to pay you a living wage so just work for free.
well considering no government or state has abolished money, i don’t know which hospitals you could possibly be referring to
Oh no, that is the arguments against socialism I always hear, then the same people fight against any wage increase.
omg my bad, i’m just on guard with all the people commenting dumb things today.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. 🙄
The government takes actual dollars from you. The “full value” you claim employers do not give you IS NOT MEASURABLE. Besides, management is work.
it is literally measurable based on the profit a capitalist makes
Also when they’re anti-state but not anti-capitalist, as if capitalists are automatically 100% good and the fREe mArkEt will fix everything
These are amazing bc if you go back only a little over a hundred years ago you have the exact picture of what happens when they get what they claim to want. And it's brutal.
the gig economy, or, as it used to be called before about 1920, the economy
The magic invisible hand in the sky fixes everything if you worship it right.
Ironically the invisible hand was supposed to protect workers but here we are.
Some of the fringe-ier libertarians believe they've solved the problem of the state: instead of cops or military, they want to have competing mercenary companies. I must admit, I can't see a downside.
I especially love the ones who are okay with over-the-counter meth and kiddie porn, because the meth heads were unproductive and will die off, and there's not that much demand for kiddie porn. Human life and dignity have only as much sanctity as your worth in gold.
I think that's the joke. These people are just capitalists who don't want to be controlled by the state.
Under capitalism there are multiple elite groups competing with each other, so you can at least play them against each other. Besides, have you never heard of small businesses.
"Play them against each other"?? If you're in the working class you are working to make your boss richer in any situation
You can look for a better job. You might never get rich, but you can end up better than you started. And you are working for your own pay; what you do for your boss is just your end of the exchange.
Why do you even say stuff like that when everyone knows it's bunk?
"You can look for a better job". Because it's just that easy, right?
No fucking shit; if you didn't work directly/indirectly make your boss richer then it's more than likely your company is failing. Regardless what he was saying is you as a member of the free market have the ability to look for the company that provides the best benefits
You mean those small businesses that inevitably are bought out and engulfed by mega businesses like Amazon, Google, or Disney?
Shhhh they want to conveniently ignore that part
You need to get out more. Besides, the relentless expansion of mega-corporations is caused by government regulation, which makes it harder for small businesses to compete.
Yea you got that wrong. It’s the deregulation that makes it easier. These mega mergers shot up ten-fold when Bush sacked anti-trust laws.
It may make mega mergers easier, but regulations also increase the costs of operation to something small businesses can’t handle but big ones can.
Our economy was more regulated in the 60s lmao!
Every single Small Business in my home town, went out of business, because some rich asshole bought up all the strip malls, and hiked up the rent on those locations to the point no one could afford to operate there. I don't see how less regulations could have stopped that.
Since when do plumbers and electricians work for mega-corporations.
Yeah I have a great example of this. One of my favorite stores, Hastings, was a general merch store that had a bunch of cool imported Japanese shit. *MYSTERIOUSLY* as Amazon starts rising in popularity, the store dies, because it couldn't compete and lost all it's business.
Small businesses are fucking great. Don't get me wrong whatsoever. But Amazon is so absurdly powerful that it's incredibly hard to even get your foot in the door when it comes to competition. It's almost unfair.
truly small businesses generally offer worse pay and worse benefits for the same work. the socialist criticism has little to do with the size of the institution, you're scratching at a kind of brandeisian liberalism.
Fun fact: employment is a transaction, there is no inherent right to pay or benefits AT ALL.
this has little relation to anything anyone's said and if it's an attempt at an argument is just begging the question
Besides, REALLY small businesses sometimes don’t have employees AT ALL.
Have you heard of Amazon killing small business by selling at a loss? How is any small business to compete? They can’t Capitalism is rigged so only the ones on top win.
What we have is a mixed economy, not a true free market. It’s GOVERNMENT REGULATION that keeps small businesses from competing, not natural market forces.
Well they weren't talking about a "true free market", they were talking about capitalism, i.e. the thing that actually materially exists outside of libertarians' wet dreams.
It’s also government regulation that prevents corporations from taking short cuts that put consumers at risk. Before regulation Candy was literally dyed with lead paint leading to lead poisoning
But that was bad business because you lose customers if they die of lead poisoning. It would’ve corrected on its own eventually.
Nope they only change when sued and needless death happens
Anti-Regulation = pro murder
Somewhere once I saw a recreation of a class or something about regulations, with started with a speech that begin with "Regulations are written in blood."
Exactly because corporations will never self regulate and can only be forced to regulate once their reckless greed causes death.
How could they have known that locking everyone in would cause mass deaths in the case of fire, until it happened? static01.nyt.com/images/2011/03…
Someday I'm going to figure out how to actually show a picture from somewhere else without saving it to my computer, but not today. cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/tri…
Exactly the triangle waistcoat Fire never should have happened but the corporations didn’t care
Apparently the death of several hundred teenage girls was a small price to pay.
So if a company creates a product with negative health effects that are sufficiently long-term (like, ones that only really have an impact over a long period of time), they can keep going for years and make a tidy profit before they have to stop?
You jest, but there are plenty of people that will tell you this with a straight face.
I WAS saying it with a straight face.
Capitalism aint fuckin pokemon bro, off it
Except thats not what happens and those elites band together to fuck rest of the %99
😂 😆 😝 😂 😆 😝
Which elite groups are you playing against each other and what effect has that had
You didn't need to do 'em like this...
Probably getting Walmart to price-match Amazon.
Have you never heard of Oligopoly?
No. Big corporations made them disappear. Have you heard of Amazon?
Oh you mean those things that largely keep vanishing as mega corporations gain more and more power both capitalistic and politically. The small guy isn’t even a line item on their list of acquisitions. That includes your wageslave ass.
That’s because what we have is a mixed economy, not a real free market.
That honestly just sounds like a capitalist version of the standard "but that wasn't REAL socialism" excuse.
I love too pit Shell against Exxon Mobil and watch the duel over my minimum wage job washing their toilets
COUGH COUGH en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-comp… It's so laughably easy for a few big corporations to dominate a private market it's not even a joke.
You say that you can play multiple elite groups against each other, ignoring the fact that they actually play you like a fiddle
OK but Socialists CANNOT redesign Society. Socialists are just dependant on the individuals labor, and all the tools they bring to the table are Deconstuctivism & Collectivism. Your ideas are based on a believe in a Paradise that cannot exist because it goes against Human Nature.
"Humans are evil, so we might as well remain Capitalist"
What a stupid take brah ngl
Why are capitalists all nihilists that think all men have souls as black as theirs?
because capitalism removes the intrinsic vaule from things therefore capitaists look in terms of how much capital it can generate.
if it goes against Human Nature that just sounds like You're a Horrible Person, you don't have to project on literally everyone lol
What really gets me about this is the somewhat random capitalisation of Big Ideas and the Irrefutable Concepts that the Very Smart And Truth Speaking Person behind the tweet is supposedly saying.
Capitalism is a collective system. It's just that the collectives are called "corporations". And corporations absolutely force people to go against their own natures.
Tbh that's why even though I'm not an Anarchist I usually try to argue against libertarians or An-Caps by pointing out how their most fundamental principles imply leftists anarchism without them realizing.
I get endless shadenfreude from when ancaps show up to real anarchist meetings.
You are evil, I like you 😈
(visited greece in february, chatted to someone in the local scene who tried to track down the story at the time but couldn't find anyone who'd heard anything like it)
Too bad, but I've heard of other ones getting kicked out and such. I've never actually met an ancap outside the internet, but man, I just don't wanna.
"Under socialism the government would have the power to stop businesses from making higher quality, affordable, and/or life-saving products whenever they want to protect the profit/continued existence of their favored industries"
Uh-huh. That's where sub-prime loans and mortgage-backed securities came from.
this one made me cackle
I live in a country that had a socialist economy until 1992. We had just $6 million in foreign reserves that would have only lasted for 2 weeks worth of imports. Now we have $430.501 billion since June 2019. You Americans are really living up to ignorant stereotype.
Anyone got any resources on socialism versus state capitalism?
state capitalism is what many refer to the USSR’s attempt at socialism, so i recommend reading up a bit on USSR history, lenin, and then their critics, like rosa luxeburg and bordiga
Thank you!! I thought I was alone here
I call it The Thiel Shuffle
Lotta folks up in here don't know the meaning of socialism. They've conflated it with totalitarianism and full state communism,.which can be totalitarian.
What is Socialism?
Workers owning the means of production.
How will you achieve that in policy?
Theres many different ways obviously. One policy would be mandating companies to become coops and then continue from there
Mandating how?
like making private ownership of a company illegal and having a transition period to cooperatively owned ones
Under your system, my friend starts her own small business. I choose to work for her for a wage. What happens to us under your system?
She would stop to be the owner and all workers of said company would have democratic/equal control. People could even still be managers, just not with absolute power, but rather as somebody kept in check by the democratic workforce.
She would be stopped how? (BTW, my sincere thanks for answering these questions. The DSA website has zero information on actual policy proposals.)
(These are all personal opinions btw) there is a law in Germany for example to disown people and they would be given compensation, but obviously I’m not advocating this for large companies, for small business owners I think it can be reasonable(debt etc)
So the idea would be to disown the boss and then make the company property of all employees, including the boss. Obviously there would need to be new laws to regulate these types of companies as well etc
I hope you understand that I have to cut down any ideas I want to express to an incredibly short message that can’t possibly convey the intricacies of a proposal like this, it’s much more a rough outline than a policy proposal
Do you have book or article recommendations that accurately outline these policies in action (or theory)?
geo.coop/node/637 Theres this article I just found about a single example of a transition to a coop If I recall correctly rutger Bergman also touched on it in the book 'utopia for realists' it’s mainly on UBI though Good book nonetheless
I also found this book which I haven’t read yet but it looks really interesting
Exactly exactly exactly.
every sufficiently large capitalist company comes to resemble a small communist country
Under socialism it is illegal to quit your job This is completely different from a contract
You could create your own business, you aren't forced to work under someone. No one is pressurise u to even work under someone. Leave and start your own thing.
Lmfao yes everybody has equal and distributed access to capital as well as the connections and insight to start a business much less maintain operations in the black. 80% of restaurants that aren't chains fail within 4 years for a reason.
It's impossible to create a world where everyone has equal and distributed access to capital, it's unstable and unsustainable. Because it depends how a person works, how much skill he has, Intelligence, management and how he spends...
you can't have a skilled worker and drug addict to end up with the same amount of credits with which they started after a prolonged period of time, even if you give the addict one more money. This difference will always exist. Hence an "Elite" class will always exist
In this hypothetical of yours wouldn't the "drug addict" a person suffering from addiction, be forced to work for somebody else and accept their terms and wages because of their inability to create their own business as you proposed? It seems like what you're really saying is 1/2
classism is inherrently just and that people of lower social caste are placed their by fault of their own rather than fault of problems with the econ system they operate under and that elite have no duty to those working under them suffering from conds that prevent empowerment.
What I explained doesn't come under classism. A person who works more and better while having skills like currency management and skills will live a better life with more money and facilities. It's human tendency. Think of you studying more harder than a bully of yours...
Then of course you'll get a better job than him and you'll have a better economic situation than him and he might have to work under you bcoz you worked harder than him. Because even after working harder than him if you both ended getting same job why would you even work so hard?
You deserve better than that person, you too could be playing games and wasting time doing no hardwork as he was, but you wanted to be better and achieve something in life. Classism on the other hand is a completely different thing..
What if the bully was born into a rich family and is still better off than the hard worker no matter what due to inheritance and connections?
This is something which sadly cannot be eradicated, whether it's a socialist or capitalist govt. If a man saved money all his life & gave that money to his son, the son will have more money to begin with even if he is good for nothing, always. You can't stop that from happening
You can't snatch away a man's savings because his bad son will become rich without doing anything, no such rule can or should exist. If such rule arrives It'll stop people from working hard in the first place.
>will stop people from working hard That's it. That's exactly the lie the embedded in our culture that the ultra wealthy have always been willing pay any price and commit any crime to maintain.
I. Sure you can; the man keeps the money for his life, but his son must start from square one, like everybody else. That's the only way the system you propound (the fairy-tale version of capitalism, rather than the real) can function somewhat as advertised.
II. Of course, even for this to work, you would have to implement a number of "socialist" policies, to make sure that, while people are preparing for life, they all have an equal shot; even then, it's quite callous to suppose that those who don't succeed...
III. ...are somehow deficient in work ethic, or somehow less-moral than those who do. I find those who espouse such positions as yours have yet to truly struggle, and to see capitalism, at least as we have it, for what it really is... (Fin.)
Classism includes birthrights, claiming only the child of a King or high official can become a king/official despite having or not having the ability to do that. While a peasant's child can only become a peasant even if he is million times more able and better than king's child..
You couldn't even make it one sentence into your scenario without mentioning parts of the class system
you do know that there's extensive socialism programs for getting small businesses off the ground, right as in, literal government grants and low-interest loans for small businesses and professionals looking to get started it's easier to start a small business under socialism
Even the US has a lot of these programs btw - but they're not anywhere near as extensive as other governments. Hell, in my profession, you can get paid by the Canadian government to be a full time self employed animator making animated shorts with grant money and gov support.
Under socialism, we should make it illegal to tell barefaced lies bout what socialism is.
That is the joke.
Oh, so who is going to work to provide everything that we're all entitled to? I figure I'll just sit at home and reap the benefits then.
Maybe it's a linguistic issue but isn't job a capitalist construct. Socialist economy is more about work and labor rather than jobs. You would work based on your community's needs and your own free will rather then what someone else have assigned you to do.
Capitalism isn't the concept of having a job. Capitalism is the stock market. Capitalism is about CAPITAL. It's about the idea that people can buy bits of a company. Or shit maybe actually google it and find out from I dunno scholarly sources who actually know?
Never said it was, but while we're at it, how shit get's produced is the core idea of an economic system. Work and appropriation in modern capitalism happens through jobs and wages, so yeah, capitalism is actually the concept of profiting through other people's jobs
"capitalism is actually the concept of profiting through other people's jobs" Pretty perfect quote there.
Economic systems are not static systems that remain the same. 😂 You are still talking about 1950 . That dissolved in 1986. Capitalism in the US changed from the consumer not paying corporations to consumers being taxed to provide already rich CEO's with welfare checks in 1976
Under capitalism you can't quit your job bc it's very likely you'll end up in extreme poverty or even homeless
With that dumber than a box of rocks statement, you have made yourself utterly unserious on any political matters. This is an adults forum.
Under Democratic socialism you are allowed to quit your job. The adjective Democratic is important. If someone is advocating undemocratic socialism, that is a different scheme altogether.
That you think most workers have a contract is adorable
Me trying to figure out if at-will counts
Like, not only is this just wrong unless we only use the USSR as a frame of reference, but if you look past your semantics, 80% of workers have zero choice when it comes to jobs, and even if they did somehow find the security to quit, the same corps run all the shops.
Creeping realization that this might be sarcasm lol
yep bc they are describing ussr socialism that wasn't socialism at all.
When I see socialism discussed on Twitter it's always a lottery. Will they argue that USSR, China etc are not really socialist? Will they argue that those countries *were* socialist were actually great? It seems to be about 70/30.
It is hard for them to understand socialism. How can we make it easier? "People help eachother so that no one falls below a threshold and can remain productive, making it easier for others to handle risk and avoid a snowball of mistakes"
I think memes in general shut down rational and productive discussion, but they can help people calm down and feel good about their current opinions. They can also simplify problems and make the gist easier to understand and spread. Like everything, they are a double edged sword
We should teach people to use memes effectively, and to understand their effects.
We should also study the memes of our ideological rivals, and use them to prove our point, and show the hypocrisy. Carefully though, because we don't want them to feel attacked, become miserable, and double down. We have to find the right amount of agitation for good change.
Sorry. I only put it there to show how confused some people's thinking is on what socialism is or is not.
That was actually a good use of a meme, I think. It did the hypocrisy thing, and used the right meme to make people calm down. It's not always that easy, and the hard things are the most useful. I'm grateful if you could study and spread the technique I mentioned.
ah see they tuned out as soon as you finished the fourth word. people helping others? nah. people have to fend for themselves, because getting help = leaching MY HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS that I want spent on a wall and breaks for oil and gas companies instead
You don't really believe that they don't want to help some people from time to time, like neighbors, local community, coworkers, or friends?
sure. they’ll help “the goods,” sometimes. they’ll also spread hateful stories about people/coworkers/neighbors within the community, how so-and-so is committing welfare fraud, how so-and-so is totally faking a disability, etc and so forth.
but I mean, come on. look at their representatives, who they voted for, who claim abuse of the safety net is rampant and thus the safety net needs to have draconian vetting processes and a severe reduction in funding.
I live in a hardcore conservative town, in a hardcore conservative county, in a hardcore conservative state. this is a lived experience for me. my county voted against medicaid expansion even though a third of our population is past retirement age and our hospital is losing docs.
in fact, only a few counties out of ~90 voted for it. only one low-population county that consists mostly of rural/small towns (like mine) had more people vote for it than against it. they might help neighbors with fixing a vehicle or donating to a medical fund, but
they’ll ardently oppose help being given to people they don’t personally know and like, because they believe those people are not worthy, are gaming the system, and of course they have the fears of migrants and refugees despite living in areas where none exist.
that’s why a lot of people around here support the wall despite being three states from Mexico, and supported the raids in a couple of our northern towns. that’s why they support our billionaire governor, even when he breaks promises they want.
hell, our own rep in the state leg—who identified as libertarian—lost this last election to a MILLIONAIRE because he found a spot to the right of her and told everyone he’s just a humble farmer to boot.
that rep has done nothing about the issues these folks claim to care about, other than voting against protections for LGBTQ people.
so yeah, I do believe they don’t care about helping others, because I’ve lived it and seen it.
I sympathize with your situation. I've received similar treatment. But not every county or every conservative is like that. Some, a select few of them, can change, given that we use kind and convincing words. If we reach some critical mass, a few others might come along.
brutal honesty: I don’t care to try and convert them. they have access to the entirety of human knowledge at their fingertips, and I’d rather recruit people who haven’t been conditioned already, and fire up the base, than worry about them shooting themselves in the foot.
and yeah, some can change. here, we’ve got the corn growers association making a big public statement about how trump’s tariffs and policies are hurting farmers. but that’s the thing: they only cared when it affected their pocketbook. they were fine with everything else.
the ones who aren’t like that, or the ones who want to change or have reached a breaking point for what they can stomach, well, they can come over whenever they want. they’ve got the leadership of the dem party and several presidential candidates all saying they’re welcome here.
but I don’t feel it’s the job of the people suffering to try and convert people who haven’t made the jump themselves. I’m not going to plead to ben sasse for help when he’s made it clear he only gives a fuck about book deals and airtime.
Interesting. Many conservatives share that attitude. I guess it makes sense based on your situation and opportunities. But the funny thing is that we can use their own self-interest to trick them into supporting our policies. We just have to find the right words and framing.
Comrade, how do we solve the economic calculation problem?
It's the same thing, but way worse, believe me. I'm in hell.
Well well if it isn't admiral yang
Ill trade places in a heartbeat
It's sorta like they can't imagine a society without capitalism
" It's more easy for people to imagine the fall of society than the fall of capitalism" -Someone I forgot the name
That's because we all can picture someone who is still gonna make a buck off the collapse of society.
Ohhh, that’s how the writers for all those Resident Evil sequels thought it made sense for the whole world to be a desolate wasteland, but there’s still a corporation operating a black market bioweapon business
I imagine it’ll be quite a profitable time
Not sure if its his quote but it’s the heading on the first page of Capitalist Realism by mark fisher
Zizek said something like that ...
Well, because it is the simpler and more common theory. Most people also use Galileo's theory of gravity, despite Einstein being more accurate. Simple capitalism just doesn't work everywhere and people should learn it's limits.
Most idiotic comment ever...why it showed up in my feed I'll never know
Im so sick of people arguing about this shit on the tl
okay? then block me or the commies or something lol
Ah yes let me just block 90% of twitter
ok no worries i’ll do it for you comrade 🥰🥰
I just wish 90% of twitter was socialist
It's almost like reality has a leftist bias....
You want socialism, go to China.
You want democracy, go to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
That’s not “real” socialism, they’ll say. Funny how most die-hard loudmouthed socialists come from Western states with developed capitalist economies.
can you define socialism for me?
Socialism: an ideology proffering the idea that the means of production belongs to the people i.e. society at-large, and not a handful of entrenched elites. Wealth is created for social welfare, not for wealth's own sake. In theory, it sounds good. In practice, it's a pipe dream.
How exactly does a Chinese worker own their means of production tho?
"It's a nice idea, but in practice people are selfish so it won't work in practice"
People are selfish - that's why I give the best years of my life to my job that I don't even care about.
The whole reason the modern nation state works is because people desperately want to be a part of something bigger than themselves.
I would read a book on this thesis.
I found the Hobbes reader. Seriously? Do you honestly believe that people are inherently anti-social cretins that will gladly stomp on each other for lolz, or have you just fallen victim the social psychopathy of the neoliberal era?
I do think it's worth discussing why previous overt attempts at socialism have failed.
I can think of a bunch of reasons. None of them are "people are inherently evil, greedy, violent assholes."
edit: I do realize I read Mr. Norwegian Name wrong. He was quoting a common argument and I didn't see the quotes. Still, this "criticism" pisses me off. How little faith in their fellow man must people that think like that have?
I think that's fair. The real answer is not that far from it, though. Historical attempts at socialism have resulted in the centralisation of power in a self-perpetuating cycle. It's fair to ask how that might be prevented in the future.
Ehm, no I don't? :) But I think people care for themselves and their own interests first which is why I believe a liberal economy will turn into capitalism (which means exploitation of the many by the few).
This is exactly why capitalism causes the mess it does... Because it relies on individuals making personal sacrifices to help others (via charity) Rather than everyone just automatically chipping in to help and provision for those in need (via tax).
"I don't want to see my tax dollars going to pay for a bunch of lazy ingrates who don't know the meaning of hard work!" 🤔
I think we can all agree that socialism is treating the capitalists like workers. That’s what’s terrible about it to them, and terrific about it to us.
“If I’m not special and able to use capital to demean other human beings to build up my sense of self, what even is the point of working?”
To be fair the transition towards socialism will likely include wages and powerful elites. Can you point me towards realistic plans on other ways to move towards socialism? Everything else seems to depend on people suddenly becoming better people in the future.
i would just suggest reading some marxist thinkers if you’re curious about it. most transition stages give the power to the working class, and basically eliminate the idea of money at all.
In a Utopian society money would obviously be not needed. (Star Trek lets say) But money (Capitalism) lets people fairly trade the value of their labor at an agreed upon transfer rate. Its not evil in and of itself. Its the abuse of the transaction that leads to problems.
That’s the thing, people don’t have any choice on how much their labour is worth
Well of course not. Our system is broke. But it doesnt have to be.
So those kind of problems can be solved by regulation and rules preventing exploitation. Elimination or curtailing profit in certain industries etc. Basically without requiring full on socialism. At least thats my belief.
So basically northern Europe on steroids. Am Dutch guy living in Sweden, can confirm.
There will be always an state that's is basically the elite. Thinking logically giving them the power is the exact same shit with 1 diff. U work for the government and not for an human being
The closest thing you're going to find here is the writings of mutualists. They're not well-supported by authoritarian communists, but they have done a lot more homework on how to practically transition to socialism without interrupting the critical components of society.
It's kinda like when socialists try to describe capitalism. Maybe we can all just have our own areas to live in.
karl marx rarely ever draws his own conclusions about capitalism. he was an exceptionally well researched writer and took political economists word on how capitalism worked, esp adam smith. so socialists and capitalists describe the same system, capitalists just pretend it’s good
Which is irrelevant to what we both said. But don't worry you won't have to be challenged to have coherent thoughts anymore.
Which socialism are you talking about? The key point of this conversation is that the Soviet revolution only produced one for a very short time, and what ultimately appeared was an authoritarian state capitalism.
they blocked me so i’ll never know their ground breaking argument against socialism 😭😭😭
Imagine trying to debate people and then blocking them like wow lmao
Seems pretty normal for a Reactionary to me. There are only so many ways you can restate or reframe, "I am afraid of change and I refuse to give up what little dominion I think I have."
May I ask how old are you?
In what crazy world of capitalism do you live in where you're forced to work at something you don't want to work at? That's called communism.
My world, where I work a boring office job instead of staying home and writing like I want? And no, don’t say I’m “free to quit,” I’d be homeless in a month.
You're 100% free to quit. Your life right now is a manifestation of your decisions. Where you are financially is nobody else's doing but your own.
I'd love to be a relief pitcher in the major leagues. Life isn't about getting what you want just because you want it.
You JUST tweeted "In what crazy world of capitalism do you live in where you're forced to work at something you don't want to work at? That's called communism." And NOW you're saying it is RIGHT and NORMAL to not be able to work at whatever job you want. WHICH IS IT.
Huh? I didn't say it was right or normal? What I said meant not everyone gets what they want, and for a number of reasons, but everyone gets to choose which career they can pursue. Nobody is forcing you to do the office job you're doing, but just because you want to do something
else, doesnt mean you should be paid what you think you deserve for said preferred job so that you could just quit what you're doing. Lots of people wanna be president, too. Doesn't mean they "should" be able to do the job on a whim. How is this difficult?
I cannot just quit at what I am doing, you complete child, because I am over 50, I would need money to live on while trying to find someone willing to hire me, I can't do that, that's not "freedom", you try being unemployed with no resources some day.
White men like you are babies who never grew up, you're coddled from the cradle to the grave, everyone is willing to give you a second, third, and a millionth chance, you've never known true hardship, the world is made for YOU.
This is why you can sit around bullshitting about sports all day, you don't have to shift for yourself, you don't have to be creative, everyone will think every drop out of your mouth is solid gold because you have a penis.
You don't want to hear this, you don't want to believe it, you want to call it "lies", you want to say "women have it easy" you want to say "you can make if it you try you're just not trying."
And the best thing of all is you have a CANADIAN FLAG on your handle so you're CANADIAN so you have GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE that you TAKE FOR GRANTED. But you have the AUDACITY to tell me it's "my decisions in life" that keep me down. Buddy, it's people like you who do it.
I've never met you and have had zero interaction with you outside of this conversation. I guarantee you I have had absolutely no effect on your life. It's shocking to me that a grown woman could sincerely blame a complete stranger for their financial situation. My goodness...
Ok now you're just making vast assumptions based on your political leanings. I hope you find a way to start taking responsibility in your life instead of looking around getting sour at people who don't share your hardships. I'm not responding to this sort of foolishness.
You're right, I've had a privileged life with good parents, good education and a healthy surrounding. What does that have to do with your career choice? And how does that make me a child when you're the one blaming other people for your own decisions? The world owes you nothing.
You just said that it was communism to be forced to work a job you don't want to work at. I don't want to work at my 9-5 boring job but I am forced to because I have to eat, pay rent, and need the health insurance. How is that any different from what you said?
Nobody forced you to goto school to become a writer? If you can't make a living on the education you volunteered to pursue thus having to take a job you dont particularly enjoy, then whose fault is that? Nobody stopped you from becoming a banker or doctor or lawyer?
LOL you can't even read a tweet. Go jump in Lake Superior, preferably when it's below zero.
My government can force unemployed people to work in whatever job they want them to and if they decline, they get cuts to their unemployment benefits. So you can either do the work or starve to death. That's possible under capitalism.
I'm unfamiliar with Germany's practices so I'm hesitant to rebuttal, but in a free-market society we can each choose our path via education, trade, internship, etc., getting "stuck" & resorting to whatever work is available isn't oppression, it's a culmination of one's decisions.
So, if your school is good or underfunded is your decision? If you grow up in a good neighbourhood is your decision? If your parents survive your childhood and will be able to support you through a university education is your decision?
Of course your parents' decisions will ultimately effect your life. There are many factors contributing to what you start off with, the same way you can't choose your parents or your DNA, but there are many, many people born into poverty who work hard, make good decisions, and
ultimately overcome their inherited hardships and become rich. This can't happen in any economy known to society outside of a free-market economy and democratic society.
In Germany, if you get into a grammar school is actually dependent on how much your parents earn, not on how smart you are (the only source I found in English: uni-mainz.de/presse/12759_E…). People who think we live in a meritocracy are either blind to their priviledge or lying.
That's not how communism works. Also imagine working a job you hate. What do you do? Quit? And then? Is there another job for your specific skillset that pays at least as good? And if there is no new job, there no money and soon no food and shelter and stuff. So yeah, force.
Everyone in a free-market democratic society, everyone has the freedom to choose what kind of education, and subsequent skill-sets, they wish to pursue. If someone chooses a path with limited job opportunities or limited pay/growth, who is at fault? Certainly not the rich...
That's not how society works, dude. Not in the slightest.
No? We're not free to choose our own education and career paths?
Exactly. Opportunities are limited by wealth, class, skin colour, contacts, adress, family structure, health and luck. Things a person has only small or no control over. Some people can still make it, of course. But not all. Capitalism needs class differences.
It would be disingenuous of me to claim that those factors aren't negative contributors in some circumstances, and no system, including capitalism, is perfect. However, that would be the fault of an individual, not capitalism. Discrimination on such grounds is indeed illegal.
Oh sweet summer child
That's not an argument.
For health, family structure, luck, or other factors effecting an advantage, those are uncontrollable under any system. My genes will never allow me to be an NBA star. It might not be "fair", but such is life. We must strive for equal opportunity, not equality of outcome.
even funnier when capitalism is described as the system that leads to innovation when all it really does is encourage "entrepreneurs" to create products, regardless of their use or application towards progress in a field, but always to make money off of a consumer.
Just a coincidence the west has made countless innovations whilst both every socialist state fell behind.
hmmmmmmmmm are innovations attributed to their countries of origin or the minds that create them sounds like you're conflating nationalistic pride with capitalism? which. I don't think you meant to do but it's rather telling
"SOCIALISM DOESN'T PROMOTE INNOVATION!" *happily ignores the US spent years competing against the USSR in a tech based war* "CAPITALISM MEANS INNOVATION!" *happily ignores that capitalism wasn't around for most of the human history and we still made lots of stuff back then*
You mean the USSR that lost the weapons race, the space race, the Cold War and had to split Europe in two just to keep its states from splitting away? Happily ignores that capitalism’s rise started in the industrial revolution and that every successful state has been capitalist.
Maybe because these "successful" states benefit from the poverty and exploration of the so-called third world countries to make their own states richer And my argument was about innovation, not about stability - saying that socialism is opposed to innovation is always a lie
Is that why the peasant USSR won the space race
And the animals looked from pig to man and man to pig....
and especially "it's a slippery slope to fascism"
Okay so socialism and capitalism are both terrible.
Yeah I think so too. Capitalism has just proven itself the more functional system in the past, though you do have to be wary of it's faults as well.
"faults?" Exploitation isn't a bug in capitalism, it's a feature. It's what keeps it going. You can't have the fabulously rich without also having the devastatingly poor.
Yeah man, I hate it too when the people on top take money from those on the bottom and then that money is never seen again. Even worse is when they design overcomplicated systems under the guise of helping poor people, but then actually only making it worse for them.
I mean, people often can't even afford food or living because of it, and it's caused the deaths of millions of people during the last century. It's really sad to see how people can't seem to learn their lesson and continue to support such a disfunctional and immoral system.
Critiques of socialism vary; the word has varied meanings. Regulated capitalism, mid-20th century style, is best on a utilitarian scale. No one is forced; be your own boss if you want, work for company y instead of company x, strong collective bargaining for workers, etc.
I saw this joke in @MADmagazine years ago, in a Dave Berg “Lighter Side” strip- “What’s the difference between communism and capitalism? Under communism, man exploits man. Under capitalism, it’s the other way around.”
Remember when the US government pulled the most communist move of this century when they bailed out banks that had spectacularly failed the free market game?
Shh, but that's welfare for the Uber rich and we don't talk about that because capitalism or whatever
* the most Capitalist move of this century
Americans and their problem with different -isms.
Though it's funny how any small justified criticism of capitalism is enough for you to be attacked as if what you said was heresy. And I'm the crazy one apparently.
Many Americans does not have a clue about different -isms. Some even think that Europe is socialist. That is really hilarious.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Everytime I come into one of these threads, I'm always learning some new made up scare tactic from conservatives who don't have a clue about socialism and assume no one else does either, but will continue to say literally anything to defend the harmful status quo anyway.
I mean, good job generalizing people’s criticisms of Socialism while at the same time misrepresenting those people. Socialism brings higher taxes, worse healthcare (while being free), less ability to progress and less reason to do so, and a number of other things.
"Less ability to progress" by giving everyone a good education so literally all of them can? Also, capitalism actually makes healthcare a lot worse as it makes it a private industry made for the soul purpose of profit
Is Capitalism Destroying Healthcare?
Check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim "Capitalism, not Corporatism" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luB9VUsXRs8 Sources: https://...
youtube.com
Also, the tweet wasn't about all criticism of socialism anyways, it was about people trying to criticize socialism with things that are attributed much more to capitalism lol
The issue with healthcare currently is government. We’d be better off opening up an entire capitalist industry without a government funded one. Would provide new corporations to get business and force competition between them to drive prices down. The government has a monopoly.
Also, the issue with “everyone gets it” is the fact everyone gets it. That means there’s way more competition and a less likelihood of 99% of people of succeeding in their field. Too many people in jobs means there aren’t enough jobs to be filled. Meaning there’s unemployment.
Worded this wildly incorrectly so let me clarify. Both the 99% thing I mentioned, which is an exaggeration of course, and the job thing are true. Everyone having that option will mean an influx of people getting into fields without he ability to employ said people.
What? There's literally no unemployment under socialism lol, even just briefly observing places like the USSR you'd notice that. When there's work to be done, there's workers who'll do it. No employment is necessary. Capitalism can be attributed to unemployment way more.
That’s simply wrong. It’s impossible to employ every single one of the 344 m. people in the US. It’s a utopian mindset. Also, by large, the wages will drop in value due to taxation. And “free” things are part of that. Doctors also get paid jack shit under socialism.
There’s a reason many doctors from places such as Cuba who run on a Leninist-Marxist model leave to other places. It doesn’t work. Simple as that.
“socialism is taxes and free healthcare 😠😠😠” big brain genius has logged the fuck on!!! (spoiler alert: that’s not socialism)
It’s quite literally a massive part when talking about socialism. Are you implying there would be no free healthcare and taxes under some sort of utopian system you’ve bred up in your mind?
Please give me the definition of socialism that this is true for?
"High taxes to pay for healthcare" lol Socialists want a stateless society, nevermind taxes.
Infustructure. Simple as that. Many places in the Midwest don’t have access to very good hospitals because the population and return for hospitals is too low.
And if Capitalism hasn't created decent infrastructure in the Midwest but Socialism has in Cuba, doesn't that just underline the point?
Not particularly. United States has a lot of ground to cover, and even under socialism in a rural town there would still unavoidably be worse service than in bigger cities. It’s not really an economic policy’s fault, it’s just the facts of the matter.
Yup, complete communism or socialism is terrible. We need a mix of both
like a universal basic income
I meant to say, communism and capitalism LOL
Literally had this experience with my family yesterday.
I dont know why you are in my timeline and i am more of a capitalist myself( i think at least ?) But im a fan of your account now
this is really romantic, thank you, please feel free to hop in my DMs to talk about communism
Romantic? Why xD ?
Hope she sees this king
But Socialism sucks still coz It's complete bullshit, it's unstable
You think the world is stable now ?
Very much yes. Socialism bounds govt to give sustainable jobs to everyone, the only thing that "looks good in socialism" whether they're efficient or inefficient in something. It's kills enthusiasm and competence among people and businesses bcoz "you'll get job anyway" and...
Sorry, I burned Atlas Shrugged many years ago to keep warm because the oligarchy didn’t care about me.
There is very little scope for more and better personal gains. Enthu and Competence among people is the base of all innovations and facilities/services getting better. Because if they don't someone else will take away the job by providing additional stuff for less money...
but in socialism for example govt can't let one coffee shop get better than the other because other shop will lose customers. Why would anyone try to get better then? Why would I want to work my ass off to make something better when I get nothing for it. Why would I care if..
my products aren't selling because I'm gonna get paid anyway. Shops & factories open for as less time as possible, customer aren't treated well, producers least bothered if the stuff they create is good or not/ has flaws or not. Because they can't loose jobs and get paid anyway
Let's take Cuba (socialist) for ex. Private Taxi drivers earn more than govt doctors. Everyone working in govt jobs have to take private jobs to meet their needs, no private industrialization. Skill doesn't mater, shops stink and always out of stock, retailers aren't bothered.
Indigenous Innovation and machineries? Forget it, everything imported for capitalist countries. Worst Education quality and bad medical services and the entire Economy going downhill. No future, people depressed. Everyone got a job but people still starving and sad.
If you ask me, socialism is all talks no shit. It's an excuse by Lazy people who are incompetent to get jobs just because they exist and they need one, while they have leisure on the cost of the people who actually work their ass off to deliver.
You mean like an actual scientist being replaced by a racist account like yours who can only cut and paste ?
Scare tactics
Only description I need is "Finland". A country whose government collapsed because of the socialists systems they put in place that crippled their economy.
finland is fake dude what are you talking about
Also, fake person from Finland here, hello. Our fake government is still right where we left it. No collapses here.
No Finland's real it's just 20 metres higher than it pretends to be
It's so horrible in Finland right now.
Actually, they resigned after trying to change healthcare for those over 65 to spend less money. It was a government collapse as the Center party Prime Minister resigned. It wasn’t an economic collapse.
Finland’s government collapses over failed health care reform
PM Juha Sipilä resigns.
politico.eu
Damn that crippled economy, and the social democracy that's caused, uh, the best education system, the least corruption and one of the top 10 most innovative countries in the world, ahead of countries like the ... US?
99% of the inventions in last 200 years have came from the USA.
(Possibly sensitive)
99% of bot comments come from algorithms pretending to be from the usa
Lies. USA sucks at innovation. You need broad and factual education for that. No theocratuc propagandist lies. USA is very good at stealing though! Generating? Not so much.
So have 99% of the mass shootings.
It is more likely to get killed in mass shooting in Norway, France, Switzerland or even in Finland than here.
They are related.Socialism can't exist without the Capitalist's money, run out of money and Communism here I come with poverty in tow. Example Venezuela that went from being one of the richest country to the poorest in twenty years Thanks to Gov. Confiscation of the oil industry
The US government has placed massive sanctions on Venezuela. They produce oil and sell it and buy other shit they need with that money. Do you see how this might have an impact on their economy? Textbook US government propaganda that you have fallen for.
Greenwald: White House Spread False Story About Venezuela Burning Aid Trucks to Win Support for War
An investigation by The New York Times has found that several trucks carrying so-called humanitarian aid that were set ablaze during a showdown at the Colomb...
youtube.com
Nonsense, the confiscation of the the oil industry alredy started under Chavez. Venezuela was dirt poor long before the "massive sanction". Learn more.
That is absolutely false. Read something else than pro-slavery propaganda.
What Chavez's confiscation of the Venezuelan oil industry has to do with slavery.... You mean crack house full of women selling themselves for drugs... because of it. I see.👌
Good to see that you are trying to get a balanced view bases on facts and not just spouting your ill-informed bigotry on this subject. Oh wait....
Talking of an ill informed bigot.... do you have a mirror?
You're a 24x7 trollbot. Get lost.
I think you're the one spouting your ill-informed bigotry on this subject😅
I said this already. The government was selling oil and buying other stuff they needed with that money. US stomped a mudhole in the basic functions of their economy. They did similar in Chile and elsewhere. I don't see the dirt poverty. tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/gdp
Can you click "max" on that graph and show where it is historically please?
This guy started weird stuff again. Thought you might like to see it.
The Government killed the golden goose...The Gov. replaced the workers and the leaders with government employees who did not have the foggiest idea how to run an oil company. It's true that they spent the money for other things instead on repair and other nessecities.BUMMER
That may be true but where is the sudden dive into poverty when the oil companies were nationalized? I don't see any evidence for this. You dodged the point.
One million Venezuelan left the country because the lack of food. Many went to Columbia many of them came to Miami... I talk to a few of them. One of girl we talk to was crying. It was so sad....
Quick bit of googling once again tells me you are a fabricator. No sources to back up that claim. I am looking at population measured every five years and it has continuously grown since 1950.
scratch that. Grown continuously since 1873
You are telling me to read more and the more I do the more wrong you appear. You have claimed the economy tanked when the oil companies were nationalized. In reality the money from them when private was all exported out of the country, hence the nationalization.
How can you export an oil industry??.. The oil is in the ground in Venezuela??? The people who owned and runed the oil industry "exported themselves"??? .... but they left oil behind??
Now you are just using the thought processes of a child. Being dumb on purpose. The industry was not owned by the citizens. It was owned by Americans. Just like the mines in Chile. This is why they were nationalized. This is not difficult to understand or interpret properly.
Now let's not get personal.... I'm willing to exchange ideas but not insults. I block.
OH NO! PLEASE DON'T BLOCK ME! I need your baseless assertions that get dis proven within 20 seconds of looking up the basic facts. You are an ideologue. I am a progressive capitalists. Not even a socialist. I just disagree with crony capitalism in the US stealing from the world.
Why would you nationalize something that was exported out of the country????
The WEALTH was being exported out of the country. The profits. You really are too dense to continue conversing with if that is the best interpretation your brain can come up with. The country wanted to keep the wealth of its own resources.
Chavez ruled from 1999-2013 his regime kept flirting with the idea of Socialism that might have raised the red flag for those with private ownership, some wealth migh have been moved out of the country but most if was left behind. It is hard to move land,buildings &businesses.
Stop with the insults. The wealth that was removed was nothing compair what was confiscated by the Government. A good excuse is never bad....
yes the government confiscated wealth that was being shipped over to the US while the country was in poverty. Do you think that is ok? It's reminiscent of colonialism in the African continent. Can you show me the difference between those two?
Scratch that why would any one would immigrate to a country where people are starving.
Venezuela population grew because of wars in neighboring countries and because it was a wealthy nation.... so people kept on coming into Venezuela....that was in the pass.
Then maybe you should talk to some people from Venezuela... or read an article by the New York Post Rich Lowry 2017 Aug 1st Venezuela: a nation devoured by Socialism. People are starving.... even basic goods are not available. Meanwhile Venezuela have more oil than Saud Arabia.
Thousand of moved to Columbia. US had highest number of asylum seekers from Venezuela ever. Meanwhile they have more oil than Saud Arabia..
US didn't stump anything their economy was in toilet long before the sanctions. The country entered into a deep recession in 2014 According to VOX...
You have not shown me anything. We all know they entered a deep recession a couple of years back. You said they entered severe poverty when they took control of their oil. I believe they took huge sums of money back under their control and funded their infrastructure with it.
Venezuela collapsed before any sanctions, but you wouldn't know that because that requires learning facts.
Capitalism has capital not money.
Have you been drinking?
I don't believe that any "ism" as defined can exist in a pure form. It's about balance.
"If we socialize health care, well have death panels deciding who is worth spending resources to fix!" That's insurance, and right now we pay them for the opportunity.
Capitalist health system has already decided who isn't worth to be fixed : poors.
or people with pre-existing conditions like chronic diseases, genetic diseases, etc since they are a potentially permanent cost, because they apparently don't need help
I worked for Blue Cross and unlike the Lie about govt death panels, they had a Real death panel. It was a computer program, not some old guys around a table. When I discovered it they fired me that day and escorted me out so I couldn't bring evidence.
Socialism is the old terrorisim, a boogeyman, used to scare people to push the right wing (and sometimes left wing) agenda
“Socialism”: “You work harder for your money, but your money goes to some poor, lazy fat cat who abuses the system, leeches off society instead of contributing to it, and always wants more.” Capitalism: Exactly that, but replace “poor” with “rich.”
honestly nowadays people actually don’t even bother reading theories or things about it, the usa and other capitalist governments brainwashed them so badly that they associate socialism to hunger, deaths, sorta like a capitalism but worse. that’s sad tho
Why is a debate that's foremost about how much power a democratic controlled bureaucracy should have over privately owned companies framed as capitalism vs. socialism. This is representative democracy vs. Plutocracy.
Socialism has never worked in any country. Why do you think it will work here?
can you give me a definition of socialism?
How about this, why don't you give us an example of socialist economy that failed where the government was freely elected and wasn't institutionally corrupt? And before you say Venezuela, their government was corrupt long before Hugo Chavez.
Can you tell us who EXACTLY said what you claimed was said?
Probably but not sure why it would matter. You seem to be the exact type of person she is talking about.
I get facts don't matter to many people today. However, they still matter to some of us. Person already admitted they had no names and that it's merely an interpretation of what they think someone else said.
I’ll corroborate that I’ve seen people like you post things like that. This corroboration has happened quite a bit by many people commenting. But you claim facts matter while posting trash from ted Cruz and Dana loesch. You have no intellectual high ground.
And yet, your comment is backed up with no facts. Shocker.
Ah so we have to cite specific tweets for it to be valid?
i've taken multiple philosophy courses at my college and marxism was discussed in several. do you want their names and addresses or something? not everything is on twitter my guy
Okay. So you have no names. What you have is your interpretation of what you think they said in class. Kind of what I thought.
i mean i know their names, but why would i doxx some random college republicans
When workers/citizens control the distribution of resources, rather than an elite wealthy few. If the resources are privately owned (whether or not there's a welfare state, eg, Europe, Oceana, etc), it's capitalism.
Let's see. If u make an axe and u trade it for a chicken so u can eat. Isn't it capitalism? That's the same shit we do with money and with work it's the same shit. You work for me and I give u money.If u think isn't enough money then do it by yourself having all responsibilities
Except that’s not how capitalism works
Tell me how it works then?? Do it
Naw. I’m not gonna waste that kind of time for your sealion impersonation
But the government is run by an elite few, even in socialist countries. So all you're doing is changing who has the wealth; you aren't giving any of it to non-elites.
I mean considering the tweet in which this thread has been created... Surely you'd know yourself???
Anti-socialists have their own ideas about what socialism is so it's a good idea to establish what they mean by it before proceeding.
Well why don't we take a socialists definition of socialism before proceeding... Makes more sense doesn't it?
Because Russians, Britons and Germans are less likely to come here and subvert a revolution with their enormous resources during a time of war?
Because no country in modern time has ever had bought socialism. All the ones people point at to blame, are not socialist. Russia and China are dictatorships, and Venezuela was largely capitalist, made more so when the US got involved.
Yes but dictatorship directly arises from giving governments as much power as socialism requires they have
That's only if you follow the Soviet model, which is something pretty much only Marxist-Leninists do. Modern socialists see the Soviet Union's failed authoritarian rule as capitalism enforced by the state.
Any meaningfully libertarian socialist state will distribute political power amongst small-scale unions of individuals who own the tools they use to create value (ownership of the means of production, the core tenant of socialism), rather than a centralized government.
Well, it's working right now in Chiapas and Rojava. It's not about been unable to imagine a different society, it's about been unable to see that those societies are happening right now.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN A ROAD THAT WORKS, ALWAYS JUST LAYING AROUND ON THE GROUND
And what makes you think any country has ever actually been socialist?
Except every europeon nation, canada, australia, etc
Worked just fine in Yugoslavia, which, in 1990, had a stronger economy and higher standard of living than Ireland, Portugal and Greece. So the Western MIC had to get in there and fuck that up!
Socialism isn't black or white. Socialism isn't Comunism but it isn't capitalism also. European Democratic Socialism has nothing to do with Cuba, Venezuela, China. European Democratic Socialism has been the base of equality, freedom and progress of the majority of EU countries.
Here's a list of Democratic Socialist countries: worldpopulationreview.com/countries/demo… Please explain how Germany, Sweden, Ireland, and Norway are "Not working".
because it already does. Any law protecting anyone who is not rich is socialist in nature. Things like minimum wage, healthcare, work hour restrictions, minimum age for work, worker protection, retirement, mandatory school are all things socialists fought for in the 19/20th cntry
People are dumb but people who support capitalism are at the top of the pile.
“There will be death panels making medical decisions for you.” Um hello insurance companies are already doing that.
Yes, but you have the ability to change insurance companies or fund experimental procedures independently of your insurance; just look at the case of Alfie Evans
Doc: You need to come up with $50k in order to begin treatment. Totally average person: Ha! I'll just change my insurance! First I'll phone HR at work & ask them to change the insurance they offer... Ok, well anyway, I'll just get a new job 3 states away, lots of jobs around...
Just kidding, I'll spend my $50k savings which I have because I'm a totally average person who has $50k savings, and I'll shop around for a better job & better insurance for the next time this comes up. I'll harvest it from the better-insurance-with-experimental-treatments tree.
Thats a question of the open enrollment standards and in all likelyhood, most prolonged treatments dont stem from something abrupt let alone its unlikely youll die prior to open enrollment;
Do I notify my HR department at work or my doctor or my current health insurance co when requesting that my ailment *waits for the next open enrollment period* before I shop around for better insurance? I'll swallow a note addressed to my kidneys, along with my Metformin.
I know, I know, diabetes is slow as hell, it's not going to kill me that quickly, but JFC, bringing up OPEN ENROLLMENT is a bad way to defend this weird fantasy that shopping for different health insurance is an easy or realistic option for sick working people.
Isn't it funny that I've never seen a socialist describe why socialism is actually good, only them saying why 'it's not as bad as you think' or just attacking capitalism 🤔🤔
i’m happy to talk to you about it if you want to open your mind, comrade!! 🥰
I'll happily hear what you have to say if you don't call me comrade
(I love using this gif)
hey yeah it's like bullshit happens regardless of what economic system you have great job figuring it out
My favorite trend is socialists trying to describe socialism but just describing capitalism with a welfare state instead.
Citing no examples, your argument is as compelling as a mayo sandwich
Hi nobody's trying to argue with you, be well and remember to drink water!
Actually, in capitalism, people earn what they work for. There's always individual choice, you're not being forced to. I can always recall how legal sex work shows how capitalism works better than socialism.
a key part of capitalism is never earning the full value of your labor, you negotiate for a percentage of it in exchange for working under a boss who owns the means of production.
I think that's what you call having a job. They owning the means of production meaning you, the individual won't have to pay for all of it yourself 'cause it does cost money, you get paid, and the capitalist takes care of the production to fill our shelves with goods to choose.
You literally do pay for it by not earning the full value of your labor. But what workers don't get a portion of are the benefits of owning it (the profits). They just get to keep their jobs.
Actually, it doesn't work like that. Do you realize how small profit net margins are?
If they're so small, why does the owner of my company live in a 3 million dollar house, drive a new BMW, and go on 4 day vacations every month while every one of his workers rent apartments Brennan
That's a general thing for public corporations like Wal-Mart. I don't know the company you work for. But if there is a company privately owned by someone, then yeah, he would get those nice things. Is that a problem to you? Are fortunate to get that job than anywhere else?
this is where the adage "if you still have to work a 9-to-5, you're still the proletariat" comes to mind
But I'm not part of the collective, so...
you are, you're still behold to those that control the means of production anyway, and very vulnerable to them deciding "hey, you know the inputs you need to make a living? now they cost 300% more, have fun"
I don't think that's any better to have the state take control of an entire economy. I don't vibe with the socialists that capitalism has only made the rich richer. It has in many ways made living especially for poor people much better.
In what ways that are distinct to capitalism tho? Reminder that capitalism isn't just the USA and developed Europe, Haiti is capitalist and so is Somalia. Point here is that a lot of the "negatives" people bring up about communism are already present in capitalism.
Well, no, not even close. Capitalism never killed millions of "bloodsuckers" under Lenin and more by Stalin. It didn't starve millions to death where comrade farmers didn't produce food 'cause they don't own property. 👀
That's not inherent to socialism tho. Saying that every socialist regime would be genocidal is exactly the same as comparing every right-wing political leader to Hitler or Mussolini.
Then when did socialism work?! Dissent, skepticism, and even revolution in socialism has been historically prohibited, they've all consequently killed people. I've been parsing very carefully about how far left and right politicians are.
As for Haiti and Somalia, we don't consider autocratic and anarchist countries as thriving examples of capitalism.
Capitalism has made living easier for the lower classes in the so-called first world countries - because these countries benefit of the cheap workforce from other countries. Capitalism has made rich countries riches and made poverty in other countries worse.
No, they haven't. In fact, outsourcing, or cheap labor, has most likely made better employment in those countries, because the alternative, which is working in jobs from their own countries, have worse conditions. Also, it helps spreads the technology to those countries.
Jobs for our own countries only offer worse conditions because of the presence of the big capitalists here. They are richer, so they manage to offer a bit more, and our businesses end up having no space to grow or resources to compete.
I live in one of these countries. I know how hard it is for us to stop being a provider of raw materials only when there are these big north-american and european companies here. These companies are always working to get more and more of our economy and take down our iniciatives.
My company bills $300/hr for my services. I make about 13% of that. The rest of that roughly $260 I earned goes towards various insurances, the lease, (some) equipment, and what's left over goes to... my boss. Tell me again how I got paid what I earned?
Are you saying you should be earning that $300/hr?😐
1.) No. If you'd actually read my tweet, you'd see I accept the fact that a portion of that goes to paying for things like the lease, insurance, and admin wages. 2.) My original tweet was refuting your idea that "the individual won't have to pay for all of it".
(cont) My point is that I DO pay for part of it. We all do! Because we work for a company that bills us out to other companies at 6-7x our hourly wages. 3.) So, I give up a significant portion of that $300 I earn for the company to pay for things like the lease/insurance/etc.
(cont) But under this system, I don't have partial ownership of those things even though my earned labor went to pay for a portion of them. My boss is considered by you and most everyone else to be the one who "owns" those things.
4.) Since my boss "owns" those things, he's the one who gets to benefit from the value they provide through the application of labor by his employees. When the company posts that project profitability is up 9% this year, who gets a raise? He does.
5.) The entire point is, we attribute "ownership" of the means to the capitalist in this situation, when the workers are the ones who should own it. Just because our boss took $260 from each of us and then paid $250 of it to cover costs doesn't mean he covered the costs--we did!
Here's the only tip I'll give you: if you don't like the job, go somewhere else. I wouldn't bother to think this is all a reason to radically change the governance of our economy cause you don't like how the business of your company you work for is conducted.
This is how every business under capitalism is run, ding dong. You think this is inescapable?
Also, when did I say I don't like my job? My job is great. But that doesn't mean my employer isn't keeping a significant portion of what I earn for the company for himself
But you're suggesting your employer is blood-sucking on your money. But the reality is we all agreed to a paid salary the moment we were hired. None of that money you agreed for is sequestered or funneled to your company or boss, until it is by income taxes.
Ah yes I forgot that capitalism is totally voluntary and that if I just choose not to work for someone who will reap the benefits of my labor that I will be just fine
I forgot the consensual agreement that I will make 1/8 of what my labor earns for the company and the company will use the other 7/8 without any input from me. How anybody believes this myth that employment under capitalism is not coerced is beyond me
PART THREE: COERCION Following on from Part Two: Shit Jobs, its now the logical question to ask... ... well... ...why do we work shit jobs? The answer? ✨✨Mass Structural Coercion✨✨
None of that is true. That's not what coercion is. You even just said you have a great job. And even if we get shitty jobs, we can create better choices for ourselves, thanks to capitalism, than not having a job.
Why are libertarians so anti-worker? I don't get it
You clearly got that backwards.
You're the one who thinks we should just be thankful to have jobs rather than empowering workers to own their jobs.
That's just a fantasy, dude. Even within socialism, it's not a feasible way of decent living for everyone. You'd best own your own business, and create more jobs for people, and figure out what you think is a fair way to do that business yourself.
Ah yes, since I don't like exploitation under capitalism I should become a capitalist and exploit others instead! What a fantastic defense of a broken system
No, dude. Instead you are giving more people an option to make a decent living, your own moral way. That's not exploitation. If it's broken, then why do we have so many options to have for our dining wants and needs from the groceries in such abundance, even for your children?
9 million people die of starvation worldwide every year. How much access I personally have to food means nothing in that context
You really don't have to bring up starvation into this at all. That is clearly dismissive of the problem itself. Both technology and science in a globalist society has given us so much that we can alleviate hunger.
"Capitalism sucks" "If it sucks why do you have so much food" "Actually a lot of people don't have food" "Please don't talk about that"
You have this misbegotten idea that since the system happens to be working ok for me that I shouldn't be upset at all the ways in which it fails others. "You have a good job & access to food, what's wrong?" Well if you don't see what sucks about that POV, I can't help you.
It doesn't clearly suck. It hasn't failed in areas you think they have. And you haven't offered a solution to the 9 million out of 7 billion starving in the world. So, yes, please, DO talk about that. What's the best way to help those people?
Shit you got me since I personally haven't figured out how to solve world hunger I guess we have to stick with capitalism You've gone so far afield of our original discussion at this point that the goalposts are in the water
(The answer is to get rid of capitalism)
To starve more. Since the famines in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and other terrible political regimes in the 20th century, starvation has gone down while the population has gone up. One of the major factors for famine has been political acts, including getting rid of capitalism.
Unless one needs life-saving medication. Then yes you’re forced to work a shitty job just to have that insurance to hopefully pay for your medication, if they don’t fuck with your wages in the meantime.
Now, how will that person live under a socialist society where he/she will more likely have to wait for far longer for that life-saving medication to come through? People living in those countries would be forced to get medicine elsewhere.
I wish people would stop this argument. It is useless. Capitalism and "socialism" are both tools. We need to decide on what kind of society we want and use the appropriate tool to solve each problem. Sometimes it will be capitalism, others socialism or a mix.
“Layer upon layer of inefficient bureaucracy”
You more or less directly quoted the political science professor I'm stuck with this semester. Monday and Wednesday afternoons are a real "joy" right now...
i took a political science class where they defined socialism as basically welfare capitalism and communism as the government owning the means of production.
socialism is the workers seizing the means of production. that is the true basics of socialism. that's really the first thing that happens in the transition to socialism. idk who told you "welfare capitalism" but they sound dumb as shit.
i mean *i* know that. but a basic intro american politics class clearly serves the purpose of spreading american politics
yeah i was an international relations & contemporary politics major and this is the kind of crap ppl would say bc american propaganda we love the CIA
So that professor has no fucking clue what they're talking about and should be reported and fired 👀
That's... Not a refutation..
okay, when did i claim it was? this tweet is calling out hypocrisy, not writing a "refutation" of the capitalist system. sorry for using my 280 characters instead of writing you a book. why don't you go read karl marx if you want one lol
Not exactly hypocrisy. The first point is complaining about employers (who own and run th business) making more money than the ppl they hire. The second complains about the restriction of the job market while ignoring the fact that Capitalism gives ppl more choice than any...
...other system.
it points out that extracting surplus value from a workers labor is an inherent feature in capitalism, yet its ignored by capitalists. and it points out that the bourgeois centralize the means of production and hoard profit, yet capitalists argue socialism only benefits elites.
i’m not “complaining” about anything. i am pointing out the hypocrisy within arguments against socialism, when they more accurately define capitalism as it functions.
Can you tell us who EXACTLY said what you claimed was said?
In both cases, it is true. Whatever happened to Georgism? Seems to be making a twitter comeback at least.
Just glanced at the Wikipedia article for that. Colour me intrigued. Will have to read more on it when I have the time.
Old Soviet workers' joke: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.
Capitalism > socialism
silence liberal
You've earned a follow from me socialistegirl, don't start bringing some bullshit now.
i cannot be censored!!!
Wealthy > poor
Capitalism is a death cult.
It reminds me of how I read 1984 at school and I kept thinking it could apply to democracy just as well as socialism.
I guess that’s why Western Europeans risked everything to climb the Berlin Wall and the iron curtain in order to escape to the communist utopia of Eastern Europe and the USSR.
dang i guess i'm a capitalist now :(
Yes, its given to People who didn't earn it..& uses it to Oppress the workers
no, it's given to the workers instead of the capitalists who hoard the means of production and social wealth.
In a (co-op) business yes
in socialism, yes.
Psst, co-ops are socialism.
"No U" is not an argument. Under capitalism, you can either: A. agree to work for someone who then gives you payment that you agreed upon, or B. Work for yourself and sell the fruits of your labor.
Of course, the reason why choice B is so difficult is because the state enforces regulations that cripple entrepreneurs and grant massive corporations subsidies. Also, the state uses violence to enforce legislation.
Another good one: "under Socialism, your life is controlled by planners" As opposed to their completely free lives today, naturally.
“The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Um
I still don’t totally understand what the differences in socialism and communism. I always feel like we tried communism before at least in the Soviet union, and look how that ended up.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was, as its name implies, a socialist country, not a comunist one Anyway we've tried capitalism(liberalism indeed) in loads of countries and we still give it a try, we have tried socialism in a few and it failed so no more chances, huh?
Omg, you’re right. 👏😂
I was literally just saying this to someone a couple of days ago.
The American form of capitalism isnt true capitalism, it's capitalism with socialist qualities.
It's the worst of capitalism next to the british one. Luxury for the riches and almost nothing for the poor.
I'm not really for socialism, but I do think that there is merit in at least some parts of it. But yeah capitalism sucks hugely.
Consistent ongoing growth is a load of cobblers, it’s like trying to get blood out of a stone. Cutbacks, reduced hours, redundancies all in the name of growth. It’s flawed.
Absolutely!! Blind leading the blind. No offence to anyone intended. Telling these ppl the same thing over & over, too make them believe it's true, is near impossible to impossible; too undo. Deprogramming is an art, I swear. I'd love some training in that regard, frustrating.
Someone literally said to me on this godforsaken site that liberals want a world of "communist socialism" where "only the elites have rights"
My favourite thing is them talking about communism and them replacing the word communism with socialism
Maybe someone can remember which it was. A long time ago, there was a worker co-op that paid every member the same. They had lots of ceo candidates who would not take the job, but they could guilt trip someone into doing it. No need for people who want power in socialism.
no need for power if there is nothing to fix
Literally anytime the right insults someone or something they’re just projecting their own sins outward
I "like" how US people falsely equate socialism and communism. "Red scare" still ingrained in many people after all those years. S and C are different, y'know.
Shh don’t even start with the A or the AS or they may collapse in real time. Also do not dare to mention Marxism and Leninism beingntwo different things
Most countries have a managed economic system not capitalism. What the politicians call capitalism is closer to corporate welfare.
Those things describe ALL societies is the thing. It's just a question of which specific people are appropriating the value of your labor and dictating the terms of your life and what buzzwords they use to justify it.
Wow this blew up. Jim's good people.
I love how well socialism has worked on Cuba and Venezuela
“You have to do what the government says or they kill you”
OK, let me try: Traditional definition: Capitalism: means of production are privately owned Socialism: means of production owned by the state These days: Socialism seems to include capitalism with: a welfare state, small companies, government regulations, or labor unions
Your traditional definition of socialism is wrong. It's not "owned by the state", it's "socially or publicly owned". Marx viewed ownership by the state as a temporary step toward ownership being in the hands of the workers.
How can a society function based on a system which doesn't recognise the sovereignty of the individual (Marxism), and which tries to abolish the hierarchies which humans (and vast swathes of the animal kingdom, proving it's not a social construct) are naturally inclined to ?
If you like socialism, move to a socialist country- problem solved.
So we shouldn't change anything then
"You can't have house."
Sorry but i bought my car, im nit letting a stranger drive it
There are a lot of temporarily embarrassed millionaires in here.
Have you seen any of his videos yet? They are quite a good critique on the failures of capitalism(within the videogame industry)
There will be no pure socialism. The best you're gonna get is the nordic model, which is still capitalism. How I feel.
Socialism doesn't work because everyones like oh yeah i get more stuff until they have to give up stuff they already have.
Sometimes I feel like American conservatives maintain control by not educating anyone on socialism beyond the level you would use to explain to a 3 year old why they can't have a treat.
Its not socialism its the transition to socialism. It's not that it politically doesn't work. It socially doesn't work
People need to learn the difference between some social Democratic policies to even out the playing field and full on communism. One is good and works all over the civilized world, the other works great in tiny villages and is disaster for Nations
my favorite trend is socialism trying to describe capitalism but just describing socialism again “the government only helps out the elites and leaves the poor to the whims of those who have power” “everybody gets screwed by unfair wages and healthcare is extremely expensive”
USA’s predatory oligopoly problems can be solved by tax reform that close loopholes, tax reform to make costs not shifted on consumers, reforming the welfare system to be based around a negative income tax for the poor, and removing subsidies on companies dying to the free market
That'd explain the uptick at the store of people asking about the Socialist Monopoly, a 'parody' of socialism which is just a more dickweed version of Monopoly.
What if the safety net is the problem?!!
There's no empirical evidence, every truly democratic society has had socialist policies, and every caste based society has burned. We are a financially caste based society, the illusion is that you can fundamentally change your caste. You can't easily.
Well considering they can’t figure that out here are the definition.
"Hey guys this system we have is turning out to be really harmful to the planet and to people, maybe we could discuss another wa-" "DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN SOVIET RUSSIA FUCKING COMMUNIST RYEEEH" Every single time I try to discuss it. It's all so black and white, no nuances
These kinda apply to both
not if you actually understand socialist theory and not just the way it’s described by boomers on facebook 😊
Actually on second thought its probably closer to communism than socialism but idk I don't know much about either.
No... that's socialism. You just don't understand the difference.
I don't think capitalism means what you think it means.
Also if they think that's what socialism is then... Oh dear!
To me (a big part of) socialism is basically a land of co-operatives! Imagine if it was the law that all companies had to pay Everyone the same and any left over profit went back into the company? Corporations would die a death which I think is a one big corruption in capitalism.
I’ve seen the ”Real Existing Socialism” in East Germany. I even had relatives there, they told me enough to understand what a shit-show it is. And please no "That wasn't REAL Socialism!". History has proven, every time you try to get ”REAL” Socialism it ends in the same shit-show
Thinking about how capitalism really has us doing things for other people that most likely doesn’t serve us in anyway and have us calling it “freedom”
Maybe it's because Socialism and Capitalism are very similar?
Neither of those are true. What is this defeatist attitude people have where they think their salary isn’t in their control at all. You’re there for the money you agreed to be paid. You have a choice. You’re forced to give a share to the state
It's not that Captalism can't work... It's that Capitalism with tje ability to sway the government can't work. The government should be protecting us from big business not protecting bug business from us.
What I like about socialism is that people will finally be beaten into working