European here.
This seems to mainly only be an issue in the US. Socialism = Communism = Enemy
If at all anything, the opposite seems to be the case here. We're looking at the US as a "this is how bad it will get if we let go" example
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45132 readers
3258 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah y'all really don't want to end up like us. We're not the land of the free. The streets are most definitely not paved with gold. We're just a giant ponzi scheme.
Paved with gold? Lucky they're paved at all this time of year.
In addition: government programs that help everyone = helping black people = no.
I think this is the fundamental reason why the US never went to public/universal anything, be it healthcare, education, whatever.
Yep. We should have told the colonies of Georgia and Carolina to fuck off, and we'll get around to conquering them, after we kicked The King out of the other 11 colonies.
If one person had voted differently during The Continental Congress, we would have started abolishing slavery
Hey, that meme looks familiar...
Not from “the west” from “the rich”. There are rich people in every type of economy that use their money to gain more power. One of the many ways that is done is with propaganda to convince those with less that the rich in power are not the problem.
Just look at the oligarchs in Russia.
Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics. Beaurocracy becomes a new kind of power currency, which is why much of the Politburo in the USSR was corrupt, though its worth noting that their disparity levels were lower than currently in the Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation's "Oligarchs" are a spooky word for Capitalists that dodges the fact that they are Capitalists that took advantage of the collapse of the USSR to gain massive outsized power and wealth. The Russian Federation is Capitalist, not Socialist.
Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics.
You say not every economic system, but then you say less disparity, less impact.
Less disparity means there is still disparity. Less impact means there is still impact.
Because like I said, as long as there are human beings who want more power, there will be a struggle in any economic systems to prevent disparity.
That is because it isn’t the economic system that deregulates or undermines protections.
It is those who seek more power who deregulate and undermine protections.
And those people exist in all types of economic systems.
Even capitalist America had a point in history where disparity was low and the middle class and lower class thrived.
That is no longer the case because of those who removed regulations and changed the laws to suite themselves. And again, those people exist in every type of economy.
I did not say you could not eliminate the influence of money on politics, did I? You did. I countered it, and now you're implying that it's impossible to completely get rid of.
You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.
You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.
How? Without stating how this is accomplished, you’re response is only really saying,
‘you can account for bad actors and power-seekers by living in a perfect world where bad people don’t exist’
If there were an economic system that achieved that it would be a utopia. I don’t know of any utopias on earth.
Equal ownership of the Means of Production. Socialism.
There are still hierarchies in socialist economies. Thats why there is still disparity in socialist economies.
Do you have an example of one of these socialist societies where everyone has equal power?
What hierarchy? Statist hierarchy? That's why the goal of Socialism is Communism, and nobody has reached Communism yet. Do you think we live at the end of history?
Goals are nice. But we are talking about how to achieve an economic system that actually achieves this. Not just sets goals to.
You are claiming Communism and Socialism can do it but when I ask for an example you say they just haven’t done it yet.
If they have existed for centuries but haven’t achieved their goals yet what makes you think they can?
I think it can be achieved because it's based in logical progression of real systems. If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France, with a similar lack of logical foundation, I don't think your argument holds any water. It's more like a strainer than a bowl.
If it just needs to be “based in logical progression of real systems” to achieve the goal, then why has it not succeeded yet after centuries of existence?
If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France
My argument that disparity is caused by people pursuing power and not economic systems?
Please explain how your example of France proves my argument wrong.
Because history occurs over time, not instantly.
Here's perhaps the funniest use of your own terrible argument: you believe that humans cannot land on Mars, because it hasn't happened yet, at least if you're at all logically consistent. You also believe the iPhone 20 will never exist, of course.
See why your argument that "if this is what happens over time, why hasn't it happened now?" is horrible? You make no actual analysis, in fact, you run from analysis.
Please make an actual point.
Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it is guaranteed to happen in the future.
I didn’t think that I needed to explain that to you. I was wrong. Sorry.
I am not saying things can’t happen if they haven’t happened yet.
I am saying if Socialism and Communism have existed for centuries and that whole time they have had disparity. What reason is there to believe that disparity cannot exist in socialist or communist economies?
I didn't say it was guaranteed, I just said it's possible.
Communism has not existed for centuries, except in concept. It has never been achieved.
Do you even know what we are talking about?
Yes, I am talking about why you think Communism is the solution to inequality but it just hasn’t achieved it yet after centuries of existing.
Then you moved the goalpost to claim that communism has never been achieved.
So let’s talk about that now.
Why do you think Communism has never been achieved but at the same time think it is capable of solving inequality?
I didn't move the goalpost, Communism as a concept is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society that can be achieved after Socialism has built the groundwork for it. It hasn't been achieved yet, because there have been no developed Socialist states yet, and Communism is a global, international system. It takes a long time to get there, it isn't just something that poofs into existence.
So Communism is:
concept
classless
moneyless
stateless
achieved by Socialist states
takes a long time
never been achieved before
I wonder why it hasn’t been achieved before.
It's a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. It's hard to build, but it's possible to build towards, and will take time and development to get there.
Godspeed.
leftist_meme.png
Nice post history lol
By "socialism", are we talking:
A. Worker-controlled economic system, or
B. What American liberals think is socialism, which is just a capitalist system with welfare.
OP is definitely in camp B..
Why? OP clearly states "worker controlled systems," it's not difficult to see what they're talking about.
Neolibs are very easy to spot, comrade.