"Erm akshurally they just need to lift themselves by their bootstraps, workers are so lazy and entitled" ☝️🤓
Workers start a worker owned cooperative that undercuts the old boss.
"NOT LIKE THAT!"
dusting off my old copy of La Terra Trema
Have you seen how expensive bootstraps are these days?
They can’t because their boots are too caked in horse shit!
Take it further. After you're arrested and put in prison, you get leased out to the farm to work
Felt a bit heavy handed in writing, but once I got to the asshole "sell a cow and buy a bull" I laughed because I've actually seen that idiotic meme before. Gets a pass from me!
As a meme? I remember this being taught in middle school social studies.
For more details on how animal husbandry led to the notion of lending money with interest, see David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years"
I exclusively drink bull milk
That's what my Dom calls it, too
Feudalism
Year One
Your lord owns two hundred cows. You're required to milk them sun-up to sun-down 2-3 days a week. The lord gets the milk. You're not paid for your labour. You don't own any land of your own, in fact, you don't own anything. You're allowed to live on your lord's property, and not allowed to leave it. You're considered to be "tied to the land". On the days when you're not required to milk the cows you're allowed to work a small plot of land which you can use to feed yourself. Your lord gets a cut of anything you grow for yourself too. If your lord's eldest daughter gets married, you're required to pay your lord a customary fee. Since you don't own anything, you'll likely have to contribute some of your harvest which you were planning to use to feed yourself and your family. If your own daughter marries someone from outside the estate, you're required to pay the lord a fine. If your lord chooses, you can be sold to another lord, and then you'll move to their land and milk their cows instead.
Year Two
See Year One.
Year Two Hundred
See Year One.
If I call this socialism I'll probably get yelled at by a nerd
Year 1:
A farmer owns two cows. You offer your services to milk them. You are now co-owners of cow-milkers incorporated. You each milk one cow. This gives you more than enough milk for yourself, and you sell the rest of the milk to pay for maintenance of the cow and are still left with a little cash left over to purchase what you want. Much of your left over cash goes to a community fund.
Year 2:
Your cow business is going well. You and the farmer agree that you could probably handle more cows. You opt to purchase a bull. This is a large purchase so you petition the community to allow you to dip into its funds and purchase a bull. You do so and soon you have five or six cows, still enough for you and the farmer to handle but honestly, it's a pretty full day's work. You employ a third person for the business. They become a co-owner and are afforded an equal share of the revenue. This share of profits is still larger for all three of you, you can even reduce the price of milk, in a similar manner the beer producers are reducing the price of their products because the community agrees for them to buy a bigger still and the vegetable sellers are reducing the price of their products because they were afforded larger fields. Now you're selling stuff for cheaper but so is everyone else so it feels like you've got even more spending power to buy luxuries on top of the public good you support!
Year 3:
Here's the kicker: you and the other two people think you can keep expanding. You dip into the communal fund to purchase new automatic cow milkers that were developed by the egghead academics that were funded by part of that community fund you keep contributing to. The same community fund that's stopped you from being severely sick at multiple points in your life and has been used to provide housing for everyone in your village.
And suddenly.
You're making more milk than you ever dreamed of! Sure you've got to clean the machines once a day, but you're milking a hundred cows! And maybe you add, hell, five new people onto the company! That just gives you more free time, you can sell the milk for dirt cheap and still make more money than you ever were. Sure, you've got to divide the work up now. Shipping 100 cows worth of milk a day to the market ain't easy but you're going gangbusters.
Not to mention! The vegetable farmer and the beer producer automated their own stock, so they're selling beer for carrots for milk for pennies on the dollar they cost last year, and they're only getting richer! Those egghead's keep inventing new gizmos and the world has its basic needs met while everyone is able to work less and less. Not only are the basics dirt cheap but the luxuries are too.
Do you not see how we are currently slipping towards feudalism? No one owns anything anymore, we pay half our money to land-lords, the rest to stay alive
Everything old is new again!
More than one thing can be bad.
Wtf did I read?
Exactly.
Chinese Pornography.
cf. Waiting for the Revolutionary Vanguard to usher in Utopia or for Jesus or the Mahdi to come back and establish the Millennium.
At least with liberalism, someone is milking the cows in the meantime.
Cowpitalism. No? I tried
i too am a luddite
Socialism
You're a student in a big beautiful city. After graduation, you became a doctor. Now you are sent to a village far away from home to live and work there. And you can't say "no" because the state knows better where you should live.
You're a successful plant director, and you are sent to build a big collective farm. You are OK with moving far away because the state needs you there. After some time, you're told NKVD is searching for you. You say: "It's a nonsense, I did nothing wrong, it's a mistake." Later, you are executed because an anonymous letter against you is enough.
You're a little girl in a village. The state took away all food, so there's nothing to eat. Parents send you to the field after harvesting to search for ears of wheat. Adults are executed if they are caught with three ears of wheat, but children are safe, so you regurly go to the field. But it's not enough, and your parents dig rotten potato, grind it to make potato flour, and bake rotten potato bread. It tastes so awful that you refuse to eat it. Parents try to force you to eat that bread, but you tell them that if they keep trying to force you, you're not going to the field anymore.
You're a communist. You know that people disappear at night. But you believe it's ok because you are told they are bad people hurting the state and society. They are not just people. They are pests.
Literally none of these are an implication of socialism.
Some of these, like taking away all food, are explicitly anti-socialist. Just because states that acted under the name of a socialist government did many of these things, that doesn't mean that they have anything to do with socialism. That's like acting as if the current Chinese government were actually socialist instead of being a capitalist oligarchy, or like the Soviet Union under Stalin was anything but a hyper-authoritarian quasi-fascist military regime.
Socialism is expressed in socialist policies in states in Europe too and while it certain somewhat increases the tax burden on society, it alleviates the grueling effects of wage slavery and lack of access to food, as well as in especially well developed cases, allowing for greater personal expression than can be true otherwise in capitalist settings.
Claiming that having to move only happens under authoritarian regimes, completely besides the point of whether or not that is relevant to socialism in general, is in complete disregard to the constant forces exhibited by uncontrolled capitalism, forcing people to move, eat whatever cheap crap they can get and, believe it or not, experiencing how loved ones and acquaintances disappear, not due to the government taking them, but due to the for-profit society grinding them down into addiction, depression and death.
Note that in no way I wish to support any military regime or other undemocratic government. But socialism is the policy of putting the government to work to support society, by having everyone partaking in society assist in supporting those that need it. What you listed is not representative of that ideal and only serves to show the degeneracy of the governments that did so in the name of socialism.
Socialism is expressed in socialist policies in states in Europe too and while it certain somewhat increases the tax burden on society, it alleviates the grueling effects of wage slavery and lack of access to food, as well as in especially well developed cases, allowing for greater personal expression than can be true otherwise in capitalist settings.
I never understood the beef people have with taxes. How can an uncertain individual money supply be better and less anxiety inducing that knowing that you give most of your earnings away but are guaranteed certain essential things for a good quality of life?
Except of course that the tax burden falls disproportionately on the working class still, but that's another issue. In itself, taxes are amazing. Tax me hard big daddy.
I think the problem just comes from dissatisfaction with the government. If I lived in the US, I'd have my own gripes with paying taxes to be honest. Where I live I'm still not 100% satisfied with it, but not because I don't want to pay them, but because I feel like they could be used better.
The difference to me being that I feel like it's something that can be reasonably fixed here whereas people struggle with believing the same in the US. Then again, there's people who don't want to pay taxes even here, so I guess there's just a general phenomenon going on.
Part of it seems to also just be a lack of social cohesion. People feel so incredibly negative to the thought of their money going to someone they don't know personally because they don't imagine them as people to be empathetic for. I've got the advantage, if you want to call it that, to have lived in poverty, to have had health emergencies and to have required government assistance to help me achieve my goals. I've seen first hand why these systems are critical. It makes it a lot easier to feel like these taxes are going somewhere good.
Come on, socialism is an economic system where society owns means of production. That's what happened in USSR. The problem is, society cannot function without structure. There should be some representatives like secretaries. And those people have more power than others, even more, they can have near absolute power. And those people aren't the best. As a result, bad people own all society, and there's nothing to do with it. Under capitalism, if an employer is bad, workers can just quit and find another job. Under socialism, if the employer is bad, there is nothing to do because there is only one employer: the state. Capitalism is not bad, people who have lots of money are bad. But imagine exactly same people gain absolute power. That's what was in the USSR. Greedy people, who wrote anonymous letters accusing others, benefited from it. They received confiscated flats and furniture. People of power lived better than others, they had better flats, better food, better goods. They were "elite". All of them were actually higher class. And they stated they were caring for society. All their deeds were for good, they said.
I believe regulated capitalism and democracy are the best for imperfect humans. If people were ideal, any system would work flawlessly. But people are flawed, and any system giving absolute power leads to a state where bad people rule others.
You can't accept life without being owned.
Wrong. I'm no owned.
...and you're delusioned.
What happened in the Soviet Union is more complex than that. I want to emphasize that I don't support the majority of actions of the Soviet government and virtually none of the Stalin government in particular, but it is important to understand how society got where they were.
First and foremost, it is wrong to think that absolute power in a few people is absolutely necessary in this system to work. The reason that the Soviet Union fell into an authoritarian dictatorship is a result of their attempt at rectifying the old system. A strong believe specifically in Marxist-Leninism is that the only way society can move onto true and free socialism is if first, the bourgeoisie is completely and utterly removed from existence. They believe that if anyone still has a semblance of capital based superiority, that capitalism will always have a ground on which it will rise again, no matter how good their society might become. This lead to the believe that, "for now", society needs to be led with an iron fist by idealists who know what's good for it. This obviously fails once anyone with the will to abuse this system gets into a position of such power. There was no plan to get rid of them, no clear mechanism that would enforce their path towards the dissolution of this authoritarian state as was promised and finally no way out of it.
Socialism doesn't need to mean that an authoritarian government owns everything forever. If that were the case, you'd effectively be no better than under capitalism, as all that has happened is that an elite above the worker class has taken control and the worker class is forced to accept it's role in their plan. Even in the Soviet Union, one of the most famous planned economies in history, it was meant to be a temporary state just to set up a stable system and then transfer it into local worker ownership.
What has been shown to work well is at the very least the concept of a cooperative ownership where the workers own companies collectively and benefit from the profits together. While they aren't incredibly widespread, they exist even in countries like the US. Most of them are found in the agricultural sector, but you even have examples of more widespread application of the concept in companies like Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain.
The specifics of where these should ultimately go would completely blow up this conversation and there are better people you can talk about it with than me (just don't try it on hexbear), but the point, in short, is that no, Socialism doesn't imply any of those points you mentioned, but yes, attempts and supposed attempts to instate it have ended in system supporting these things. That doesn't mean that they are intrinsic to Socialism though. There are many factors that play into why it has historically failed and it serves to note that a major part that has made the development of a socialist society near-impossible, even in a good willed system, is the extreme pushback this has received from countries that were capitalist and where the elite was afraid of losing their advantage.
Fear of not being a totally-not-a-slave-slave will kill everyone. Everyone.
The whole "more cows and computerized milking raised prices of milk" reeks of anti-industrial Luddite garbage.
You should read about who the luddites actually were. They were not opposed to technology, but to poor wages, low quality goods, and workers being replaced. Capitalists destroyed their reputation with propoganda.
Because "farm Inc" has a massive horde of wealth, they can stamp out competition by either buying them out, cutting them out, or driving them out of business with prices a small farmer can't handle. After that, they get to set and raise prices at will with the now smaller pool of big name "farm Inc".
This literally happens every time a market is poorly regulated and businesses allowed to grow too big. It's the natural end state of capitalism.
End state? That'a just stage two. The end state is when we all are sworn to our individual masters on penalty of death/disemploymeant, or when we've had enough and do something different
Be careful where you step on this issue.
Pretty sure tankies are banned in the rules here.
Whats your opinion on NATO?
Not all leftists are tankies.
This is a pretty standard take on the failures of capitalism.
Calling all leftists tankies is a pretty standard shit lib take
It seems like a sizable portion of .world users have a thing for making up issues and claiming tankies are the cause of these imaginary issues, then getting together for a circle jerk about how great they are for recognizing these tankie problems.
They're just like the American MAGA idiots - stupid people loudly getting upset about things.
I think most world users, like myself, just got to world because it was the biggest/most known and Lemmy was new for us and that's about it.
Most Liberals (and by extension .world users) get pissed at leftists because deep down they would rather see Trump win (hell they would rather see the US become fully Fascist) then watch the the US stop oppressing the global south. Thats why I think its accurate to call them Blue Maga and Facsism Lite™, because despite how much they insist on it they are not left wing. They despise left wing ideology/policy and share nothing in common with leftist other then pretending to like a small portion of the same things. I think this quote summaries it very well
"Those who have bent their knees before liberalism, who have substituted liberalism for socialism, are prepared to reduce Marxism to a simple theory of the class struggle."
-Lenin
Hard agree. I'm not from The States but lived there for a number of years. People there who call themselves left are usually closer to center or center right and seem to engage in extreme pearl clutching when exposed to anything even vaguely left of center.
I think part of the issue is decades of propaganda and government brain washing coupled with a deep seated ignorance of actual leftist politics. They know practically nothing about progressive policies and feel no need to learn as they believe they already know all there is to know.
In my opinion Liberalism is always center right, actual centrism is ideologies like Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. Thats why personally I dont like them, im a hard leftist and I dont feel any need to find a middle ground with capitalists (I view all reformist "leftists" like that).
No Tankies are leftist, period.
That's not how subgroups work....
Tankies are right wingers with "communist" aesthetics
Tankie is not synonymous with socialist/communist.
Edit: and neither is criticizing capitalism
Yeah thats fine but federated instances are absolutely writhing with tankies who will use sentiments like this to encourage subterfuge and spread propoganda.
I feel like if you react to any left-wing posts like a you're the main role in a 50's red scare propaganda video, they've already won.
Thats the same logic people use to say wokeness empowers nazis.
No it makes sense, this post mentions the corruption of the legal system and how wage labor results in the capitalist class having all the power while producing none of the labor. How is that in any way linked with authoritarianism or military action?
The part where authoritarians claims to oppose capitalism. There are bad actors who claim the opposite of the outcome of their actions. Thats the nuance of this situation.
Still seems strange to comment here, I mean thats a valid argument but this doesn't seem like the right place.
This is literally a place that explicitly bans tankies. It's the place for sure.
No I mean specifically this post
This post is literally in a place that explicitly bans tankies. It’s the place for sure.
Yeah that doesn't mean every slightly left wing post is authoritarian, that just comes off as far too accusatory. Shocking news, actual leftists exist on this instance.
Maybe capitalism should have made sure we didn't need 2-3 jobs all at 40 hours a week just to pay rent and groceries. Buying a home? Forget it.
Are you replying to the wrong person?
No, propaganda and subterfuge are less effective against a populace who has their needs met and live comfortably. Capitalism no longer does this for anyone but the wealthy.
Okay but like I never made any statements in favor of capitalism. I just called Tankies a bunch of shitheads.
You really cannot extrapolate
Theres extrapolation and then theres you having an unrelated discussion and projecting your imaginary opponent onto me.
We're on a post about capitalism. If this is too much for you, perhaps the puddle of drool before you would be more accommodating.
I never said the post was wrong in any way, I offered valuable advice to OP and other users here.
And I was saying people have a real reason to be disenfranchised and its not all propaganda.
Shouldn't exist, but that hardly proves my political allegiances.
You pass btw
What do you think about the economy being owned by the working class? Also what about a future where the global south isn't drained of resources in the name of the capitalist class?
The economy being owned by the working class is be epitomy of democracy we should all strive for someday.
Too bad the world is instead marching towards authoritarianism.
As an Anarcho-Syndicalist you seem like a very confused leftist, have you read theory?
Lmao I'm not Anarcho-anything, pal
I never said you are I simply said I am, but yeah this just seems like a massive misunderstanding. Next time try not to make accusations on unrelated posts.
That would be:
"To an Anarcho-Syndicalist" not as. You could even further specify "like myself" after.
Also anarcho-syndicalism books are just called fiction or fantasy, not theory.
Glad I could help.
Except it actually is reality?
Anarchist collectives in Spain are the biggest example of anarcho-syndicalism existing and thriving in history, hell the CNT even exists today. I'd recommend reading the anarchist collectives by Sam Dolgoff if it's something you're curious about, it's a fantastic read.
More general anarchism exists today in the Zapatistas, and probably other groups I'm not aware of. If you extend that to just anarchist collectives then I can rattle off a list of them just in one suburb of my city.
It's important political theory, and it works. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.
Disagreeing with imperialism makes you a tankie now? What in the absolute liberal brainrot what do you mean?
Unfortunately they're too fargone. You should save your time and energy.
Are you referring to NATO as imperialism?
It exists as an extension of American imperial power, its how America wages war and influnces so many countries. Is it not outrageous to want an end to the endless cycle of forever war perpetuated by the military industrial complex and nato?
This one doesn't pass the test
Is it the liberal brainrot test? Im pretty sure you got an 100 on it
Maybe it's obvious, but I'm realising now that libs are just tankies who love the west and capitalism, hence the stupid takes on NATO we constantly see...
"Erm akshurally they just need to lift themselves by their bootstraps, workers are so lazy and entitled" ☝️🤓
Workers start a worker owned cooperative that undercuts the old boss.
"NOT LIKE THAT!"
dusting off my old copy of La Terra Trema
Have you seen how expensive bootstraps are these days?
They can’t because their boots are too caked in horse shit!
Take it further. After you're arrested and put in prison, you get leased out to the farm to work
Felt a bit heavy handed in writing, but once I got to the asshole "sell a cow and buy a bull" I laughed because I've actually seen that idiotic meme before. Gets a pass from me!
As a meme? I remember this being taught in middle school social studies.
For more details on how animal husbandry led to the notion of lending money with interest, see David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years"
I exclusively drink bull milk
That's what my Dom calls it, too
Feudalism
Year One
Your lord owns two hundred cows. You're required to milk them sun-up to sun-down 2-3 days a week. The lord gets the milk. You're not paid for your labour. You don't own any land of your own, in fact, you don't own anything. You're allowed to live on your lord's property, and not allowed to leave it. You're considered to be "tied to the land". On the days when you're not required to milk the cows you're allowed to work a small plot of land which you can use to feed yourself. Your lord gets a cut of anything you grow for yourself too. If your lord's eldest daughter gets married, you're required to pay your lord a customary fee. Since you don't own anything, you'll likely have to contribute some of your harvest which you were planning to use to feed yourself and your family. If your own daughter marries someone from outside the estate, you're required to pay the lord a fine. If your lord chooses, you can be sold to another lord, and then you'll move to their land and milk their cows instead.
Year Two
See Year One.
Year Two Hundred
See Year One.
If I call this socialism I'll probably get yelled at by a nerd
Year 1:
A farmer owns two cows. You offer your services to milk them. You are now co-owners of cow-milkers incorporated. You each milk one cow. This gives you more than enough milk for yourself, and you sell the rest of the milk to pay for maintenance of the cow and are still left with a little cash left over to purchase what you want. Much of your left over cash goes to a community fund.
Year 2:
Your cow business is going well. You and the farmer agree that you could probably handle more cows. You opt to purchase a bull. This is a large purchase so you petition the community to allow you to dip into its funds and purchase a bull. You do so and soon you have five or six cows, still enough for you and the farmer to handle but honestly, it's a pretty full day's work. You employ a third person for the business. They become a co-owner and are afforded an equal share of the revenue. This share of profits is still larger for all three of you, you can even reduce the price of milk, in a similar manner the beer producers are reducing the price of their products because the community agrees for them to buy a bigger still and the vegetable sellers are reducing the price of their products because they were afforded larger fields. Now you're selling stuff for cheaper but so is everyone else so it feels like you've got even more spending power to buy luxuries on top of the public good you support!
Year 3:
Here's the kicker: you and the other two people think you can keep expanding. You dip into the communal fund to purchase new automatic cow milkers that were developed by the egghead academics that were funded by part of that community fund you keep contributing to. The same community fund that's stopped you from being severely sick at multiple points in your life and has been used to provide housing for everyone in your village.
And suddenly.
You're making more milk than you ever dreamed of! Sure you've got to clean the machines once a day, but you're milking a hundred cows! And maybe you add, hell, five new people onto the company! That just gives you more free time, you can sell the milk for dirt cheap and still make more money than you ever were. Sure, you've got to divide the work up now. Shipping 100 cows worth of milk a day to the market ain't easy but you're going gangbusters.
Not to mention! The vegetable farmer and the beer producer automated their own stock, so they're selling beer for carrots for milk for pennies on the dollar they cost last year, and they're only getting richer! Those egghead's keep inventing new gizmos and the world has its basic needs met while everyone is able to work less and less. Not only are the basics dirt cheap but the luxuries are too.
Do you not see how we are currently slipping towards feudalism? No one owns anything anymore, we pay half our money to land-lords, the rest to stay alive
Everything old is new again!
More than one thing can be bad.
Wtf did I read?
Exactly.
Chinese Pornography.
cf. Waiting for the Revolutionary Vanguard to usher in Utopia or for Jesus or the Mahdi to come back and establish the Millennium.
At least with liberalism, someone is milking the cows in the meantime.
Cowpitalism. No? I tried
i too am a luddite
Socialism
You're a student in a big beautiful city. After graduation, you became a doctor. Now you are sent to a village far away from home to live and work there. And you can't say "no" because the state knows better where you should live.
You're a successful plant director, and you are sent to build a big collective farm. You are OK with moving far away because the state needs you there. After some time, you're told NKVD is searching for you. You say: "It's a nonsense, I did nothing wrong, it's a mistake." Later, you are executed because an anonymous letter against you is enough.
You're a little girl in a village. The state took away all food, so there's nothing to eat. Parents send you to the field after harvesting to search for ears of wheat. Adults are executed if they are caught with three ears of wheat, but children are safe, so you regurly go to the field. But it's not enough, and your parents dig rotten potato, grind it to make potato flour, and bake rotten potato bread. It tastes so awful that you refuse to eat it. Parents try to force you to eat that bread, but you tell them that if they keep trying to force you, you're not going to the field anymore.
You're a communist. You know that people disappear at night. But you believe it's ok because you are told they are bad people hurting the state and society. They are not just people. They are pests.
Literally none of these are an implication of socialism.
Some of these, like taking away all food, are explicitly anti-socialist. Just because states that acted under the name of a socialist government did many of these things, that doesn't mean that they have anything to do with socialism. That's like acting as if the current Chinese government were actually socialist instead of being a capitalist oligarchy, or like the Soviet Union under Stalin was anything but a hyper-authoritarian quasi-fascist military regime.
Socialism is expressed in socialist policies in states in Europe too and while it certain somewhat increases the tax burden on society, it alleviates the grueling effects of wage slavery and lack of access to food, as well as in especially well developed cases, allowing for greater personal expression than can be true otherwise in capitalist settings.
Claiming that having to move only happens under authoritarian regimes, completely besides the point of whether or not that is relevant to socialism in general, is in complete disregard to the constant forces exhibited by uncontrolled capitalism, forcing people to move, eat whatever cheap crap they can get and, believe it or not, experiencing how loved ones and acquaintances disappear, not due to the government taking them, but due to the for-profit society grinding them down into addiction, depression and death.
Note that in no way I wish to support any military regime or other undemocratic government. But socialism is the policy of putting the government to work to support society, by having everyone partaking in society assist in supporting those that need it. What you listed is not representative of that ideal and only serves to show the degeneracy of the governments that did so in the name of socialism.
I never understood the beef people have with taxes. How can an uncertain individual money supply be better and less anxiety inducing that knowing that you give most of your earnings away but are guaranteed certain essential things for a good quality of life?
Except of course that the tax burden falls disproportionately on the working class still, but that's another issue. In itself, taxes are amazing. Tax me hard big daddy.
I think the problem just comes from dissatisfaction with the government. If I lived in the US, I'd have my own gripes with paying taxes to be honest. Where I live I'm still not 100% satisfied with it, but not because I don't want to pay them, but because I feel like they could be used better.
The difference to me being that I feel like it's something that can be reasonably fixed here whereas people struggle with believing the same in the US. Then again, there's people who don't want to pay taxes even here, so I guess there's just a general phenomenon going on.
Part of it seems to also just be a lack of social cohesion. People feel so incredibly negative to the thought of their money going to someone they don't know personally because they don't imagine them as people to be empathetic for. I've got the advantage, if you want to call it that, to have lived in poverty, to have had health emergencies and to have required government assistance to help me achieve my goals. I've seen first hand why these systems are critical. It makes it a lot easier to feel like these taxes are going somewhere good.
Come on, socialism is an economic system where society owns means of production. That's what happened in USSR. The problem is, society cannot function without structure. There should be some representatives like secretaries. And those people have more power than others, even more, they can have near absolute power. And those people aren't the best. As a result, bad people own all society, and there's nothing to do with it. Under capitalism, if an employer is bad, workers can just quit and find another job. Under socialism, if the employer is bad, there is nothing to do because there is only one employer: the state. Capitalism is not bad, people who have lots of money are bad. But imagine exactly same people gain absolute power. That's what was in the USSR. Greedy people, who wrote anonymous letters accusing others, benefited from it. They received confiscated flats and furniture. People of power lived better than others, they had better flats, better food, better goods. They were "elite". All of them were actually higher class. And they stated they were caring for society. All their deeds were for good, they said.
I believe regulated capitalism and democracy are the best for imperfect humans. If people were ideal, any system would work flawlessly. But people are flawed, and any system giving absolute power leads to a state where bad people rule others.
You can't accept life without being owned.
Wrong. I'm no owned.
...and you're delusioned.
What happened in the Soviet Union is more complex than that. I want to emphasize that I don't support the majority of actions of the Soviet government and virtually none of the Stalin government in particular, but it is important to understand how society got where they were.
First and foremost, it is wrong to think that absolute power in a few people is absolutely necessary in this system to work. The reason that the Soviet Union fell into an authoritarian dictatorship is a result of their attempt at rectifying the old system. A strong believe specifically in Marxist-Leninism is that the only way society can move onto true and free socialism is if first, the bourgeoisie is completely and utterly removed from existence. They believe that if anyone still has a semblance of capital based superiority, that capitalism will always have a ground on which it will rise again, no matter how good their society might become. This lead to the believe that, "for now", society needs to be led with an iron fist by idealists who know what's good for it. This obviously fails once anyone with the will to abuse this system gets into a position of such power. There was no plan to get rid of them, no clear mechanism that would enforce their path towards the dissolution of this authoritarian state as was promised and finally no way out of it.
Socialism doesn't need to mean that an authoritarian government owns everything forever. If that were the case, you'd effectively be no better than under capitalism, as all that has happened is that an elite above the worker class has taken control and the worker class is forced to accept it's role in their plan. Even in the Soviet Union, one of the most famous planned economies in history, it was meant to be a temporary state just to set up a stable system and then transfer it into local worker ownership.
What has been shown to work well is at the very least the concept of a cooperative ownership where the workers own companies collectively and benefit from the profits together. While they aren't incredibly widespread, they exist even in countries like the US. Most of them are found in the agricultural sector, but you even have examples of more widespread application of the concept in companies like Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain.
The specifics of where these should ultimately go would completely blow up this conversation and there are better people you can talk about it with than me (just don't try it on hexbear), but the point, in short, is that no, Socialism doesn't imply any of those points you mentioned, but yes, attempts and supposed attempts to instate it have ended in system supporting these things. That doesn't mean that they are intrinsic to Socialism though. There are many factors that play into why it has historically failed and it serves to note that a major part that has made the development of a socialist society near-impossible, even in a good willed system, is the extreme pushback this has received from countries that were capitalist and where the elite was afraid of losing their advantage.
Fear of not being a totally-not-a-slave-slave will kill everyone. Everyone.
The whole "more cows and computerized milking raised prices of milk" reeks of anti-industrial Luddite garbage.
You should read about who the luddites actually were. They were not opposed to technology, but to poor wages, low quality goods, and workers being replaced. Capitalists destroyed their reputation with propoganda.
What actually raises the price of milk is the farmer uses his profits to buy up other local dairy farms consolidating their position in the market. They then sign exclusivity deals with both grocers and further milk processors (who are also consolidating) to prevent competing in the market, driving their competitors to either sell for cheap or go out of business. https://theconversation.com/americas-dairy-farms-are-disappearing-down-95-since-the-1970s-milk-price-rules-are-one-reason-why-237439#:~:text=Across%20the%20country%2C%20the%20dairy,per%20farm%20%E2%80%93%20has%20been%20rising.
Because "farm Inc" has a massive horde of wealth, they can stamp out competition by either buying them out, cutting them out, or driving them out of business with prices a small farmer can't handle. After that, they get to set and raise prices at will with the now smaller pool of big name "farm Inc".
This literally happens every time a market is poorly regulated and businesses allowed to grow too big. It's the natural end state of capitalism.
End state? That'a just stage two. The end state is when we all are sworn to our individual masters on penalty of death/disemploymeant, or when we've had enough and do something different
Be careful where you step on this issue.
Pretty sure tankies are banned in the rules here.
Whats your opinion on NATO?
Not all leftists are tankies. This is a pretty standard take on the failures of capitalism.
Calling all leftists tankies is a pretty standard shit lib take
It seems like a sizable portion of .world users have a thing for making up issues and claiming tankies are the cause of these imaginary issues, then getting together for a circle jerk about how great they are for recognizing these tankie problems.
They're just like the American MAGA idiots - stupid people loudly getting upset about things.
I think most world users, like myself, just got to world because it was the biggest/most known and Lemmy was new for us and that's about it.
Most Liberals (and by extension .world users) get pissed at leftists because deep down they would rather see Trump win (hell they would rather see the US become fully Fascist) then watch the the US stop oppressing the global south. Thats why I think its accurate to call them Blue Maga and Facsism Lite™, because despite how much they insist on it they are not left wing. They despise left wing ideology/policy and share nothing in common with leftist other then pretending to like a small portion of the same things. I think this quote summaries it very well
Hard agree. I'm not from The States but lived there for a number of years. People there who call themselves left are usually closer to center or center right and seem to engage in extreme pearl clutching when exposed to anything even vaguely left of center.
I think part of the issue is decades of propaganda and government brain washing coupled with a deep seated ignorance of actual leftist politics. They know practically nothing about progressive policies and feel no need to learn as they believe they already know all there is to know.
In my opinion Liberalism is always center right, actual centrism is ideologies like Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. Thats why personally I dont like them, im a hard leftist and I dont feel any need to find a middle ground with capitalists (I view all reformist "leftists" like that).
No Tankies are leftist, period.
That's not how subgroups work....
Tankies are right wingers with "communist" aesthetics
Tankie is not synonymous with socialist/communist.
Edit: and neither is criticizing capitalism
Yeah thats fine but federated instances are absolutely writhing with tankies who will use sentiments like this to encourage subterfuge and spread propoganda.
I feel like if you react to any left-wing posts like a you're the main role in a 50's red scare propaganda video, they've already won.
Thats the same logic people use to say wokeness empowers nazis.
No it makes sense, this post mentions the corruption of the legal system and how wage labor results in the capitalist class having all the power while producing none of the labor. How is that in any way linked with authoritarianism or military action?
The part where authoritarians claims to oppose capitalism. There are bad actors who claim the opposite of the outcome of their actions. Thats the nuance of this situation.
Still seems strange to comment here, I mean thats a valid argument but this doesn't seem like the right place.
This is literally a place that explicitly bans tankies. It's the place for sure.
No I mean specifically this post
This post is literally in a place that explicitly bans tankies. It’s the place for sure.
Yeah that doesn't mean every slightly left wing post is authoritarian, that just comes off as far too accusatory. Shocking news, actual leftists exist on this instance.
Maybe capitalism should have made sure we didn't need 2-3 jobs all at 40 hours a week just to pay rent and groceries. Buying a home? Forget it.
Are you replying to the wrong person?
No, propaganda and subterfuge are less effective against a populace who has their needs met and live comfortably. Capitalism no longer does this for anyone but the wealthy.
Okay but like I never made any statements in favor of capitalism. I just called Tankies a bunch of shitheads.
You really cannot extrapolate
Theres extrapolation and then theres you having an unrelated discussion and projecting your imaginary opponent onto me.
We're on a post about capitalism. If this is too much for you, perhaps the puddle of drool before you would be more accommodating.
I never said the post was wrong in any way, I offered valuable advice to OP and other users here.
And I was saying people have a real reason to be disenfranchised and its not all propaganda.
Completely fine with me.
What's your opinion billionaires?
Shouldn't exist, but that hardly proves my political allegiances.
You pass btw
What do you think about the economy being owned by the working class? Also what about a future where the global south isn't drained of resources in the name of the capitalist class?
The economy being owned by the working class is be epitomy of democracy we should all strive for someday.
Too bad the world is instead marching towards authoritarianism.
As an Anarcho-Syndicalist you seem like a very confused leftist, have you read theory?
Lmao I'm not Anarcho-anything, pal
I never said you are I simply said I am, but yeah this just seems like a massive misunderstanding. Next time try not to make accusations on unrelated posts.
That would be:
"To an Anarcho-Syndicalist" not as. You could even further specify "like myself" after.
Also anarcho-syndicalism books are just called fiction or fantasy, not theory.
Glad I could help.
Except it actually is reality?
Anarchist collectives in Spain are the biggest example of anarcho-syndicalism existing and thriving in history, hell the CNT even exists today. I'd recommend reading the anarchist collectives by Sam Dolgoff if it's something you're curious about, it's a fantastic read.
More general anarchism exists today in the Zapatistas, and probably other groups I'm not aware of. If you extend that to just anarchist collectives then I can rattle off a list of them just in one suburb of my city.
It's important political theory, and it works. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.
Disagreeing with imperialism makes you a tankie now? What in the absolute liberal brainrot what do you mean?
Unfortunately they're too fargone. You should save your time and energy.
Are you referring to NATO as imperialism?
It exists as an extension of American imperial power, its how America wages war and influnces so many countries. Is it not outrageous to want an end to the endless cycle of forever war perpetuated by the military industrial complex and nato?
This one doesn't pass the test
Is it the liberal brainrot test? Im pretty sure you got an 100 on it
Maybe it's obvious, but I'm realising now that libs are just tankies who love the west and capitalism, hence the stupid takes on NATO we constantly see...
Is this a verification can test?